The FM power plants were know for the high power output to fuel use. Maintanance access is a different story. I know research is being done to develop a smaller version of the Oppossed piston for cars. Is that being done for locomotives? You would think yes with the power to fuel ratio on that design.
The ‘OP’ prime mover was great in constant speed applications like power plant or marine applications.
Railroad applications proved another story. Up and down engine speed and seal issues resulting in the engine eating the lube were issues. The problem of two crankshafts(one under the power plant) were maintenance issues.
I am not aware of a ‘new’ design, and FM also sells the old Alco ‘251’ powerplant.
Its Fairbanks Morse…
Named after Thaddeus Fairbanks and Charles Hosmer Morse.
Just sayin’!
The OP states that in his title to thread.
Mike.
He said Fairbanks Morris…
(note: when I say “engine” below, I mean the large noisy heavy rotating thing inside the locomotive.)
I think the biggest problem for a revival of this type of engine is that it has no valves, only ports. With ports, the openings open and close exactly the same on the upstroke and the downstroke. This is incredibly limiting, and pretty much destroys any chance of increasing fuel efficiency and cleaner burning–something that’s been in great demand lately.
Consider the “other” two-stroke railroad diesel engine: the EMD. That one has ports for exhaust, but valves for inlet. Thus the opening timing is not linked to the closing timing of those valves–you can close the inlet valve at the bottom of the stroke–not so for the F-M. And EMD engines are lingering pretty nicely.
GE engines are four stroke, with even more options for emission control and fuel efficiencly.
Ed
Other way around on EMDs, the intake is ports, the exhaust is the valves. THat’s why even the non-turbo versions still had a Roots blower, to pressurize the galleries to force air in when the ports were uncovered.
EMD briefly toyed with 4 stroke - the 265, which was rather unreliable, but they have since updated the design with the 1010 series.
–Randy
Randy,
Thanks for the correction. I assumed they were inlet valves as they would then get to run cooler–that’s a lot of very hot exhaust gas passing over the valve faces and seats!
Now that I think on the cycle, I can see that it wouldn’t work at all if it were the other way around.
Ed
Cat didnt make OP engines as far as i know
[(-D][(-D]
Got me on that one!
Ed
Opposed piston, dual crankshaft engines will not work in today’s world.
.
There are many other obsolete engine designs that are also just not going to come back, sorry.
.
There is always research continuing with these designs, and maybe a breakthrough will occur, but it would need to be big.
.
All things considered, a single crankshaft overhead valve engine is the best design.
.
This is especially true woth Tier 4/Stage 5 emissions. All combustion technology is based on conventional engine design. The additional particulate matter created by these engines would unleash havoc on catalyzed soot filters (DPFs) and require much more frequent regeneration, and therefor increasing fuel consumption.
.
I can imagine DEF consumption would be higher also.
.
-Kevin
.
The Fairbanks-Morse OP engine reminds me of the 2-stroke motorcycle engines from “back in the day”:
They also had port cylinder entry–no valves. Essentially half of the OP engine.
They’ve been long banned because of the huge amounts of polution output. Fuel efficiency wasn’t all that bad, as I recall. Maybe the 4-strokes could be improved, while the 2-strokes couldn’t.
Ed
The “Boxer” Engine is alive and well
Well, yeah. But it’s an opposed cylinder, not opposed piston. Sorta like half of an old VW engine.
Ed
Off topic.
The US Navy DER I served on, 1962 to 1963 had four of those. To reverse our direction, the engines were stopped and restarted in the opposite direction, they were direct drive to both screws. No neutral. Two engines per screw. Every so often, I remember an engine man throwing a piston over the side. Messy to work on.
On radar patrol in the North Atlantic we steamed on one screw, constantly.
Subs had those engins also.
Rich
That’s what F-M was known for, sub diesels. A typical V engine was too wide, and to make a straight engine with enough power was either impractical, making a long crankshaft, or just plain too long to fit. The opposed piston F-M engine was just about perfect - length of the equivalent V engine, width of a straight engine, and since the sub hull was round, the extra height wasn’t a problem.
–Randy
And the typical German U-boat used two in-line 6 cylinder diesels, generating 3000 HP.
Typical American subs used 4 engines, developing 5400 HP. And they were bigger, so they needed the extra. Besides the F-M, they also used GM and H-O-R diesels.
Curious how that 5400 HP is exactly the same horsepower as a four-unit set of FT’s.
The H-O-R engines were apparently pretty awful and were replaced with one of the other two.
I found this copy of a booklet featuring the F-M and GM engines:
https://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/diesel/chap3.htm
Ed
Note they mention the F-M was the 38D - this is the same diesel used in FM locomotives.
Long tiem ago, I used to help my neighbor over the summer, he owned a truckign company and also did work for his dad, who had a contractng company, mainly doing road construction. All his trucks had Cummins engines, until he bought a Freightliner with a Detroit. I remember helping him tear it down - the Detroit Diesel had the same head arrangment as the larger EMD prime movers, 2 exhaust, and mechanical injection. He was a bit confused when he pulled the valve cover. It was from knowing about EMD’s locomotives that I know what I was looking at.
–Randy