EMD used letters for the horsepower on its early engines:
S for 600 hp (as in SW-1, 600 hp, Welded frame)
N for 900 hp (as in NW or NC)
T for 1200 hp (as in the TA)
F for 1500 hp (as in the F3)
E for 1800 hp (as in the E1)
EMD soon abandoned that scheme(with the BL/GP/SD series), but retained the letter codes for those type engines, even though the horsepower didnt match the name (they changed the model designation scheme again with the GP18 and once more with the GP30).
Dave H.
Don,
E = Eighteen Hundred Horsepower
F = Fourteen Hundred Horsepower (really 1350Hp, but they tend to round up)
N = Nine Hundred Horsepower
S = Six Hundred Horsepower
T = Truss Frame
W = Welded Frame
C = Cast Frame
So an FT was a 1400Hp loco in a truss frame (IOW, a carbody unit). An SW-1 was a 600Hp loco with a welded frame. And so on. E doesn’t stand for EMD, FT doesn’t stand for “Freight Train”.
To all:
FL9’s were originally designed for long distance passenger trains for carrying a lot of water (which was the limiting range factor, not fuel back then). That’s why they had a 5th axle…to handle all that water weight. No one bought any. Then the NH came knocking, and EMD dusted off the FL9 plan, removed the water tanks, added 3rd rail shoes and an electrical cabinet, and presto! A Dual-mode loco is born. BTW, the second 30 FL9’s ordered in 1960 should technically be called FL18’s, but weren’t for federal loan reasons.
So if you wanna do a “What If?”, a western road FL9 could have happened (just without the 3rd rail gear and a Blomberg front truck).
Paul A. Cutler III
Weather Or No Go New Haven
[1] Check out the extensive prototype “Diesels By Bulder” photos at North East Rails…
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel.html
[2] Also consider the Kalmbach “Diesel Spotters Guides” found time to time on eBay.
The Second Diesel Spotter’s Guide takes you up to 1972 which is probably suitable for your era’s modeling purposes. The book(s) provides all the horsepower and diesel characteristics you would ever need for prototype identification.
HUH!!! You can remove your tongue from your cheek now!!!
You can remove your tongue from your cheek also!!!
HUH!!!
[quote user=“Packers1”]
[quote user=“Rotorranch”]
Actually, the F-units were introduced in 1939 with the FT.
Hi there… Your “E” is really an “F” … we also have units in Australia with a clos=eer to the classic Buldog nose ( slightly bigger loading gauge than the Europeans ) with a single motor and either 4 or 6 traction motors. F’s were catalogued by EMD in optional A1A-A1A or C-C (Co-Co as we know them) to spread the weight. Source Our GM Scrapbook by Trains magazine.
The Danish unit would have 1 567 16 cylinder Engine not two 12’s as ours do… just don’t get fooled by the trucks/bogies!
Regards from Down Under
Trevor www.xdford.digitalzones.com
Oops! You’re absolutely right! They even had F3 style chicken wire grills. I spent summers riding behind them when I was a kid, even got a cab ride, (uncle worked for the DSB), I always had a soft spot in my heart for them. When I posted I must have been distracted by the fans which are arranged “E” style, my bad. IFIRC, the trucks were A1A.
Question: Weren’t only FB units equipted with steam generators until the intruduction of the FP-9?
Actually if you look at the EMD advertisements from 1939 they were advertising the FT as either a "F"ifty four hundred horsepower locomotive or a "T"wenty seven hundred horsepower locomotive. That is either a 4 unit being the “F” or 2 unit locomotive being the “T”. GM considered 4 units to be ONE locomotive but conceded that there were times when just two units might suffice. Contemporary railroading also thought of the sets as one locomotive, thus the locomotive number plus A, B, C, or D to designate the individual unit. It wasn’t until much later that railroads discovered the advantage of breaking up the sets.
Like many of the other designations such as E, SW, NW the F was retained even though the original Fifty Four Hundred horsepower meaning was gone.
Yes, only it was the FP-7; the FP-9 came later. It’s possible some railroad somewhere found a way to jerry-rig a small steam boiler and water supply into an A unit, but generally the water and steam generator went into the B unit because it had a lot more room (no cab, no nose, etc.) than an A unit.
They recognized the value of individual units right away. The reason the engines were sold as sets was because of crew agreements. The fear was that if the engines were numbered individually the unions would require a separate engine crew on each unit. So the engines had one number and the “pieces” were sub-lettered. EMD even went so far as connecting the FTA & FTB with drawbars so they were physically one unit. When it was sorted out that an additional engine crew would not be needed the units started being individually numbered and used in mixed sets.
Dave H.
They were also sublettered A B C D so that maintenance crews knew which unit in a set to work on. Consider the work order than read “Bad traction motor in 3rd axle on unit 145” which was an ABBA set of F units. Which 3rd axle? Also the reason why B units had a designated ‘F’ or front.
The purpose of the FPs was to provide A-units with enough steam generator capacity to be used singularly on passenger trains. All A-units could be - and many were - equipped with steam generators but their capacity was so limited as to restrict them to short train or short distance operation. If you encounter a photo of a conventional A-unit lugging a substantial length passenger consist it is a sure bet that that train ain’t goin’ very far!
Adding a B-unit with its increased water capacity increased your capabilities dramatically. When you see a photo of an FP lashed to a B-unit the B-unit was, in many cases, there strictly for the tractive effort.
Just curious… would it have been more expensive to adapt a design using a specialized 3 axle truck or non conventional F unit chassis, rather than using an existing model adapted to the 3rd rail shoes, like the FP7 etc?
Model Maker,
B units were equipped with steam generators before and after the introduction of the FP7. As Poteet said, the FP7 was just a longer F7A so that a larger water capacity could be added for F7’s which might singly lead a passenger train and not rely on the B unit steam generator for passenger heat. Standard length F7A’s were in a few cases delivered with steam generators in them (which is what the Athearn “Globe” F7A shell was based on - it has steam generator details on the rear roof).
Or it is summer time! In my Rio Grande books, there are a number of photo’s of non steam generat
jk:
From what I hear,the work orders in the early diesel days would often have been “Unit 145D is actually still running.” That may have been steamish sour grapes…to some degree. }
Santa Fe had an unusual lettering scheme. Instead of A B C D, they used L (for Lead) then A B C.
Some railroads did use steam-jet air conditioning systems. I think Santa Fe might have.
Indirectly sour grapes maybe. From what I’ve read, F unit’s were given a single number by the railroads initially because they feared unions would require them to pay an engineer and man each locomotive in the consist if they were numbered individually. In the steam era, trains requiring more than one loco to power a train (especially mountains) required a crew for every locomotive by necessity and convention. Suddenly you have during the diesel era, more than one locomotive but all the trailing units can be controlled from the lead unit. This was a paradigm shift in crewing and operations. Since unions had not adapted to this new practice, an FABBA set was given one number and ABCD sub letters, to have one crew with no disputes from the unions. As time went by and that somehow was no longer a concern, the individual power units were assigned individual road numbers and in time, broken up and mixed as needs warranted.
That may have been true for the Rio Grande as well. In summer diesels were somet
Every once in a while, they have a category about drag racing on Jeopardy (I love to amaze my friends and family), since I dedicated a lot of time and energy to the sport many years ago. I can’t wait for them to have one on model railroading so I can use ALL the things I’ve learned in the Forum. You guys are great!
riogrande5761,
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. I know the NH did attempt to convert a DL-109 to a dual-mode loco, but the weight restrictions of the Park Ave. Viaduct in NYC prevented it from even being built.
EMD picked the FL9 design to convert because it had plenty of room (without the water tanks) and it met any possible weight restrictions with that 5th axel. It also didn’t need much for “new” design work, other than adding 3rd rail shoes to the rear truck, adding some DC accessories, and some extra controls.
Paul A. Cutler III
Weather Or No Go New Haven