The latest “Trains” has the route of EMD 103.
The notes state that the MSTL purchased non-standard short FTB’s. What was the difference between those FTB’s and a regular FTB?
Did most road’s purchase FT’s with standard drawbars? The NP’s FTA’s and FTB’s had semi-permantly drawbars with standard drawbars between the B and C units (that is between the two boosters), as 5400A-B and 5400D-C.
Ed Burns
Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF from Minneapolis, MN
Short B units had permenant drawbars on both ends. There was no need for any coupler or draft gear, which was required on B units at the end of the consist (and was fun for EMD to create on ATSF’s FTs). This added the extra length, note the very large space between the rear truck and the end of the locomotive. Also, the length added room for hostler control.
Most were ordered in A-B sets.
Did Southern’s twenty some odd FT-B’s get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B’s (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
No discussion about the FT would be complete without mention of Preston Cook’s three-part article in the October, November, and December 1989 issues of Railfan & Railroad, which coincided with the 50th anniversary of the FT’s debut and demonstrator tour. The series earned Cook the David P. Morgan Article Award from the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. A former EMD employee himself, Cook had an enormous body of research material at his fingertips during production of that multi-part story, and it showed throughout the more than 50 pages of story, photos, diagrams, maps, and rosters. Well worth a look-see if you can get your hands on those back issues or already have them in your collection.
MC: Not sure. EMD’s solution on the ATSF FTs was not to have any draft gear on one end of the unit! The coupler shank was directly over the rear traction motor. I suspect that a like arrangement was used on the many FT sets sepparated in later years, although I cannot confirm anything; it may have been on a railroad by railroad basis.
While researching my Cotton Belt FT article I wrote Preston Cook who assured me that all the FTs retrofitted with couplers were done the same way as Santa Fe’s with the coupler shank over the rear traction motor. Cotton Belt had six drawbarred FT sets and eight singles. About 40% of all FTs never had drawbars.
DID NOT ALL REGULAR FT LOCOS HAVE SPACE FOR A BOILER AND THE SHORT ONES LACKED THIS SPACE?
Dave,
The FT cab units did not have room for a S/G in the car body. The booster units did have room. EMD addressed this issue starting with model F2.
Jim
Bruce and all:
How can I purchase a photo copy of the three issue article about FT’s?
As information on the NP’s FT’s—the cab and booster units had solid drawbars, but one end of each booster units had reqular drawbars. Example: 5400A-B and 5400DC.
John Synkowski was an NP-BN roundhouse foreman at Northtown. I would use any excuse to take the mail and meet with him. He said that the solid drawbars could be taken apart, but it was a job.
Ed Burns
P. S. you can contact me off forum at enburns@comcast.net
Dave, yes, you are correct. A standard B would fit a steam generator, a short one wouldn’t. This wasn’t the reason for the length difference. The demonstrator was designed to have rooom for one, so EMD planned for it from the beginning, and all were built with steam piping in case of future installation. Problem was, they had insufficient water capacity.
Anyone have a photo of the ATSF coupler solution?
No, I don’t, but Larry Brasher said this:
“In 1940, EMC agreed to eliminate the drawbar connection on Santa Fe FTs. The change was implemented while FT 100 was in production, and EMC subsequently offered this option to other customers. The substitution of couplers for drawbars involved a considerable design change; the later application of the “Santa Fe” type coupler and centering device pocket to Southern Railway Diesel‐electric units is shown on page 428 of the 1950‐1952 edition of the Locomotive Cyclopedia.”
Ed, when I left R&R in 1996, the Carstens warehouse had boxfuls of back issues going back more than a decade, all available for purchase. I can’t tell you whether any of that priceless material survived. I suggest contacting editor Steve Barry, or R&R’s new owners White River Productions, to inquire whether you can purchase those three back issues. If not, you might be able to sweet-talk them into scanning the pages from their collection (I’m sure Barry has his bound volumes; I still have mine) and posting them on their website as a tribute to the FT 75th anniversary.
Too bad that they didn’t release a DVD compilation. Hardly a day goes by where I don’t read something in the Trains DVD collection.
most of the b and m ft b units (maybe all eventually) had boilers but b and m passenger runs were relatively short
Not only were all Santa Fe FTs delivered with couplers at both ends, but after the first two four unit sets, units 102 to 151 (I think) were delivered as A+B-B+B sets with only one cab unit. Following this there were a batch of A units to return the sets to standard. The renumbering resulting from this was a bit confusing.
I am a little surprised that the FT drawbars didn’t have any draft gears. Most pairs of freight cars have standard draft gears each end of the drawb
At least B&M and AT&SF ran FTs in passenger service. AT&SF had a few sets in Warbonnet paint. Boiler water supply was an issue all the way through F-Unit line.
I don’t think it’s really surprising on a multiple-unit locomotive (where any slack or compliance between the units would probably be counterproductive rather than useful), and the marginal utility of draft gear only at the coupling to the train would be minimal, although care would have to be taken to ensure that no effective slack developed between the units or in the ‘rear’ coupler box.
Rio Grande’s also had FTB’s equipped with S/G’s. Not sure if they were regularly assigned to passenger service.