Nowadays the DE is the technology of choice in Germany as well - if it comes to big new Diesels they’ll be Diesel-electrics due to improved control electronics.
Regards
Andreas
[/quote]
I am aware that a number of private railroads in Germany have purchased DEs, but from what I’ve heard, the DB still balks at actually placing an order on them. Their freight subsidiary, Railion, I believe, recently put in an order for new DHs with Vossloh. It just doesn’t make sense to me, considering that most of the German rail network is under caternary, that the DB persists in its preference for DH technology. I would think that a modern DE locomotive would be more compatible with their electrics as well as with their rolling stock.
Those numbers match with my memory. 6 “covered wagon” (3 to SP; 3 to DRGW), 3 to SP mfg by ALCO, and 12 “hood” units to SP from Germany. SP bought the DRGW’s 3 units for a total of 21 units.
They were built that way so that they could be road tested over the Semling grade, which somewhat simulates the Rockies and the Sierra’s. Somewhat. These engines also were originally built with vacuum brakes, the European 3-headlight standard and the link-and-buffer coupler system.
With their transfer to the US, both the SP and the DRGW required K-M to change the European systems and equipment to US standards.
I am aware that a number of private railroads in Germany have purchased DEs, but from what I’ve heard, the DB still balks at actually placing an order on them. Their freight subsidiary, Railion, I believe, recently put in an order for new DHs with Vossloh. It just doesn’t make sense to me, considering that most of the German rail network is under caternary, that the DB persists in its preference for DH technology. I would think that a modern DE locomotive would be more compatible with their electrics as well as with their rolling stock.
Lee
[/quote]
Lee, what really surprises me here is that the DB/DR has not designed a usable hybred locomotive that can operate from either an overhead or a diesel engine.
Lee, what really surprises me here is that the DB/DR has not designed a usable hybred locomotive that can operate from either an overhead or a diesel engine.
[/quote]
Eric,
I agree! I’ve often wondered about that. But the past ten years have seen tremendous progress in electrification throughout Germany, and currently, I believe that DB management feels that it might be less expensive to revamp the current diesel fleet and purchase a few new diesels now and then to replace the really old models rather than invest in developing new technology. The old, state run railways were often the catalyst in the development of new traction, but nowadays the DB just leaves R&D to the industry and buys what they offer.
Y’all haven’t got this right yet. I will try and put the facts here for all. The SP and Rio Grande each ordered three cab unit KM DH units. They were delivered at Houston on Halloween 1961. After several years test Rio Grande sold its three KMs to SP. SP ordered an additional 15 hood units from KM for delivery in 1964. Alco also built three DH643s for SP in 1964, The grande ([:D]) total of DH operating on SP was 24 units. The cab units were retired first in 1967 with the KM hood units following them into retirement the following year. The three Alcos were retired in 1973. The KM high speed Maybach engines were their downfall. It took two V-16 engines to generate 3540 horsepower, while EMDs 20 cylinder SD45 put out 3600 horsepower.
#9113 converted to Camera Car class KM600-1 renumbered to SPMW 1, then SPMW 1166 and finally to SP 8799. The Camera Car is preserved at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento.
**Originally D&RGW 4001-4003 sold to SP in 1964
Sorry about the inaccuracy, but as I said in my original posts, I was using memory and I wasn’t too sure about its accuracy. I have (had, at least) nothing printed I could go to for verification of my information. I was only off by 3 units. Get a grip.
I will not challange your information, and it has been nearly 40 years, but it seems that I remember hooping-up to the KM hood units in early 1969 after my return from my Government funded world tour.
I am surprised the NYC was not interested in the KM DH. They could have done well on piggyback-trains between the Chicago and the N.Y. area over the water lever route. IMHO, even a run-thorugh from Omaha to N.Y. would have been a reasonable idea.
This was Denver & Rio Grande Western’s delema around 1960: EMD’s don’t have enough horsepower and the ALCO’s broke down too often. The Southern Pacific joined the D&RGW in this situation. 21 K-M’s were purchased: 3 to Rio Grande while the rest went to the SP.
These 4000 hp. brute were designed to cross the plains of West Germany, not mountainous territory of the American west. Plus the SP (not including the Cotton Belt) was too big of a railroad for these locomotives. (This railroad is even too big to fit inside the new unified Germany!) They needed constant attention and maintainence. The Rio Grande complained that their trio spend more time in the shops than on the road, so they dumped them to the Southern Pacific, who, eventually scraped them all together. American railroads wanted locomotives that last a long time before major repairs are needed. K-M just didn’t understand this.
The story is told of the German maintenance tech in the rider car, exclaiming to the SP crew, “You Americans are crazy. You run the locomotive 24 hours a day without rest or service”. If true, it probably says it all. The KMs were fine locomotives. One unit could do the work of three or four EMDs. The hydrolic transmission was a maintenance intensive item, and probably not well suited to the demands of American freight railroading. ALCO built ,I believe it was three units with DH transmissions for the SP. These units were also not successfull.
In Britain the main advantage of the Western region hydraulics was their power/weight ratio, A Western class 52 was much lighter than an equivelant power Diesel electric such as the Brush class 47. The hydraulics were built on the assumption that continuous brakes would soon be fitted to all trains so their lack of weight would not be a problem, being Britain this never happened so the Hydraulics with their light weight but high speed diesel engines were at a disadvantage. Was a bit surprised by the posting saying that hydraulics loose their feet, on heavy {to us over here} stone trains from Merehead quarry the hydraulics were liked by the drivers and concidered very sure footed-all of the wheels on a bogie need to slip in order to wheelspin, not just 1 axle as on a diesel electric. One point that the diesel electric fans have not mentioned is a hydraulic can be run at full power at much lower line speeds almost indefinately, whereas an electric can only be run at full power at a much higher line speed without overheating its electrical equipment.
The NYC did test the D&RGW set on a round trip from Chicago to Albany, NY. Unfortunately it was in January and the cold weather and Lake Effect snow turned the trip into a nightmare which the KMs didn’t handle very well. Dennis Cavanaugh recounted the trip in a Trains Magazine article.
A whole different mind set is used in US railroading that makes economic use of hydrolic transmissions not practical. US wants heavy duty luggers - fill the trains to their maximum tonnage and add one car. Electrics handle this very well and diesel-electrics do rather well, also, and it is why electric transmissions hold the rail better than hydrolic transmissions. But hydrolic transmissions destroy themselves under such conditions. Diesel-electrics “loose power” (actually, it is an electrical problem) as they go faster as their torque curve drops like a rock. Electrics, because they are tied to a power station, and hydrolics, however, have much flatter torque curves, and the diesel hydrolic maintains its “power” right up to the maximum speed it can go.
The SP and DRGW were trying to use these engines on 11,000 ton trains on 2.2% grades in tunnels and snow an
Note that the statement about diesel electrics not being able to provide full power at low speeds and at starting is much less true about ac diesel electrics than those with dc traction motors. Short time and long time current ratings of ac motors are much higher than equivalent dc motors. That is why ac traction is preferred for heavy lugging and is just as good as dc in high speed work but possibly not worth the added expense in high speed work.
If EMD and GE in particular had not risen to the challange of coming up with high horsepower and still meeting USA maintenance and availability standards, possibly more development work would have been done with the German transmission system. But we have seen lots of successful diesel railcars --and some not so successful.