The Russian railroad system seems to prefer cab units, but there is also an Alco inspired road switcher design in use. I am not sure how they justify them. In any case, this seems to be something new. Apparently they run these locomotives long hood forward, and leave the short hood high. Or perhaps they are just omnidirectional. But in the parade thread video, one is seen entering the viewing stage long hood forward. There is something about this Russian locomotive design that whispers “1958 Packard.”
This locomotive uses the slanted “export style” cab roof, but interestingly, the cab sides also taper inward from an elevation matching the top of the handrail. The cab doors and their windows also taper to match the cab shape.
Note that the guardrails system has an extra horizontal member midway from the walkway to the handrail. I notice that the front roof ladders are blocked from use. Perhaps that is a safety measure for running in electrified territory. There appears to be a decal under that ladder rungs warning of that hazard.
I wonder what appears to be cctv cameras are for? There is one at the top of the short hood looking down and one on the long hood just behind the ( or is it in front) cab looking along the hood.
Those trucks looks way too complex. I would like to see an explanation of what all those springs and rods are there for, what do they do? Looks like a maintaince nightmare, to me anyway.
Dvuhdizelny shunting locomotive TEM14. Energy-efficient locomotive designed for shunting, shunting-export, hump of the stations and the backbone of the light on the railways of 1520 mm in temperate climates.
Project partner - Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.
The prototype was created July 4, 2011. Serial production since 2012.
This link opens an advertising brochure (PDF) which has a page about this locomotive:
The LION wonders about the trucks. Those will not be cameras but rather lights for working between the units. There is a narrow platform there, or so it appears to me.
GOOD LORD HAVE MERCY!!! Somebody must have broken about 468 ugly sticks on that beast. Compared to that thing, a 1958 Packard looked like Marilyn Monroe . . . naked. The old style U.S. military trucks (“deuce-and-a-halfs”) look like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders compared to the thing. HOWEVER - - - I would like to be the spring salesman servicing that account; even with a small commission on each spring sold, if a respectable number of those monsters were made, one could retire rich.
The only reason I can think of for four wheel trucks is to spread out the locomotive’s weight on lines with light rail, very smart if they’re looking to export the unit to third-world countries, or run it themselves on their own older branch line.
Ugly? Oh yeah, but remember the Russians T-34 tank was pretty ugly as well, and it kicked some serious butt on the Eastern Front during World War Two. Don’t underestimate the Russians, they don’t get it right all the time, no one does, but most of the time they know exactly what they’re doing and have good reasons for same.
Road switchers are supposed to have that burly, no-nonsense look of functionality; completely opposite the innocent, wimpy look of passenger engines. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aesthetically, you would have to admit that our modern safety cabs are nothing to write home about.
No, I think the TEM14 is way out front on this. But the critics will have to grow into accepting them. It’s like that with anything that is truly revolutionary.
I agree, those are likely CCTV cameras - nowhere near robust enough for a typical light for railway service, but consistent with wimpy digital world design; likely an add-on to improve the visibility-safety aspects of the blind ends to help sell it in other countries which place a priority on such matters.
It’s 4 axles per truck, not 4 wheels. Does anyone know what the total unit weight is, and the resulting per-axle load with these 8 axles ? One could then figure out the likely equivalent for 4 and 6 axles.
It is about 180 tons, and 2400 hp. When I mentioned four wheel trucks, I was referring to a pair of four wheel trucks with a span bolster, intending to mean that arrangement under each end of the locomotive; or 4 four-wheel trucks total. I can’t tell by looking at them how the truck frames are configured.
I would not conclude that picking the D-D wheel arrangement amounts to copying the EMD and GE units with that wheel arrangement. In fact, looking at the Russian locomotive, I don’t think it looks like they copied anything. Quite the contrary indeed.
According to the Specs is is an A0 A0 + A0 A0 or some nomenclature similar to that. One motor per pair if I read that correctly, probably the inboard wheels with the outboard wheels of each truck being for weight bearing and tracking.
The CCTV cameras are activated when the horn is sounded, they are for grade crossing videos, we have the same cameras on our MK1500Ds, mounted on the cab roof, one facing each direction.
Note the cameras on the fireman/conductors side on the roof.
Ours turn on when the bell or horn is sounded, record for 10 seconds, (longer if the horn is sounded again during that ten seconds) and record to a small thumb drive…you can plug it into your laptop and play.
Nice, but the cameras on the Russian units were aimed down at the coupler. That is why the LION thought that they were lights. Whatever they by, they are not on the manufacturer’s specs but were added later. It may be so the engineer can see what is happening with the couplers. This is why the LION thought that they were lights. Aftermarket lights would also be of the Home Depot variety.
You are correct in thinking they are aftermarket…the “builders photo” shows them absent, but the other two photos show them mounted…not being familiar with Russian crew consists or work rules, the rear camera may be aimed down so the engineer can watch as he couples up…the gathering range on those couplers is not as wide as the American Janney coupler.
Most of these are aftermarket; the builders have no idea what computer operating system the carrier will use, or where they want the cameras mounted.
Both GE and EMD do offer forward facing cameras mounted in the cab front window, which downloads to the event recorder, but they don’t offer the coverage these type do.
We had a pair of locomotives being exported to Russia on flats down here a few months ago, I got a up close look at those couplers, the gathering range is small.
And the coupler is a solid piece, no movable knuckle, the pin is a Tee shaped part that fits into the outside face of the opposing coupler, you can see it in the second photo on the rear coupler…
Basically, the two knuckles slide past each other and interlock, and the pins slide into the side of the knuckles, locking them in place, for the modelers out there, they work almost like the N scale factory couplers.
Lifting the cut leaver extracts the pins from the sides of the couplers, allowing them to separate.
I have seen a you tube vid showing these couplers in action, and it looks like it was shot from a camera mounted just like the rear one shown here, I will see if I can find it for you.
I think you are right that the locomotive has a total of four traction motors. The builder calls the wheel arrangement 20 + 20 – 20 + 20. I think we would call it A1 + A1 – A1 + A1. However, I wonder if that actually truly indicates which axles are powered. Their designation may actually be referring to what would technically be called 20 + 02 – 20 + 02, or 02 + 20 – 02 + 20 (depending on what axles are powered).
In any case, it is not D-D wheel arrangement.
I interpret the stated wheel arrangement to mean each end of the locomotive is supported by two 4-wheel trucks with one axle of each truck powered and the other an idler axle to carry and distribute part of the weight.
The large prominent beam appearing on the side of this double truck complex is the side beam of a span bolster. I assume that both side beams are connected together with cross pieces, but those are hidden from view. The entire span bolster pivots horizontally on the bolster pivot boss of the locomotive main frame. Then each of the two 4-wheel trucks have truck bolsters that pivot horizontally on the pivot bosses of the span bolster.
It seems to me that this is going one step beyond the A1A-A1A wheel arrangement and adding one additional idler axle per truck. But this takes it beyond the curve-negotiating ability of a rigid 4-axle
While we are given the wheel arrangement of this locomotive, I can only speculate on the truck and suspension details. Perhaps someone here can dig up the technical explanation in photos, drawings, and English text.
My guess is that this truck and suspension system is totally unique and unprecedented in any other railroad practice in the world.
It appears that the objective is to create a “light-footed” locomotive for track built with relatively light rail. This locomotive is nominally 5-foot-gage, so I wonder how light of rail they use on tracks of that gage. Their axle loading is already less than U.S. standards. This TEM14 locomotive weighs 11.25 tons per wheel. How light can rail be and still handle that weight?
Looking at the Brochure, the TEM14 uses 2 engines. Might this be the first genset type locomotive built for the Russian market? The sales information refers to a fuel savings of 20%
I think the dapperness stems from more than just the paint job, although I do prefer that mostly black color scheme to their common red and gray. But aside from colors, to my eye, this Russian TEM14 locomotive has a decidedly “Steam Punk” style to it.
Earlier, I speculated that this locomotive had a tall hood to accommodate a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine. The Russian railroads seem to have relied for a long time on the ubiquitous 2TE10M road locomotives as seen here:
The 2TE10M locomotives do use a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine, or at least a pattern of it. The FM OP engine was always described as making a drumming sound. Baldwin diesel locomotives made a burbling sound.
However, the jaunty TEM14 that is the subject of this thread apparently does not use the FM opposed piston engine. As mentioned above by carnej1, the spec sheet calls out two diesel engine prime movers, presumably, each with its own generator or alternator. This locomotive is promoted for extraordinary fuel efficiency, so it would be interesting to learn the theory behind that and how it relates to the use of twin engines.
It would also be interesting to see what the engines look like a
