I received an e-mail just after 3:00 this afternoon that says the restoration of the Flying Yankee - an almost-identical counterpart of the Pioneer Zephyr - is now in new and “better” hands, and will be starting back up soon.
More details to follow; anyone with specific knowledge, please post.
Great news, I is them the best.
Now that is sort of a big deal…terrific development.
Well that sure is good to know, because until they get it running again all we’ve got in the way of a “Flying Yankee” is this and it’s brethren…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9YxXMkK5Ts
It IS kinda cool, though!
What will be the fate of the original Winton 201-a engine? Will they be attempting to restore it to operation, or replace it with a different engine?
Dude!- Where you been?
Thereupon hangs a tale. The existing 201A, very rare now even in museums, was famously and apparently very expensively restored either to full operability or very close to it. [EDIT for posterity: apparently very little actual work was done, but what there was, was expensive…] Preston Cook has said that it makes very little sense to wear out or perhaps catastrophically break an engine of that significance in ‘ordinary’ service. The issue is that the engine in Flying Yankee is an inline 8, and the later EMC/EMD 2-strokes are V-types with fork-and-blade rods, so the approach of ‘dropping a 567 in there’ won’t work, and a Cleveland or Detroit of appropriate size isn’t too good an alternative.
I have volunteered to help with designing a ‘modular’ replacement that would provide a ‘sled’ to bolt in the 201A attach locations and connect to the existing piping and wiring. This can carry an appropriately isolated diesel ‘genset’ and perhaps a smaller set (or other arrangement) for economical “HEP” or startup. Yes, there are ways to ‘fake’ the exhaust note and other prototype noises…
The 201A would then be ’stored serviceable’ as its own exhibit, and perhaps be started and run for special occasions or YouTube presentations, without running the sometimes-awful risk of it degrading or failing out on the road.
There’s precedent for what Overmod says. The McKeen Railcar restoration at the Nevada State Railroad Museum doesn’t have its original engine which disappeared decades ago. They substituted an CAT 3208 V-8 diesel engine, which is probably safer to use than the original gasolene engine anyway.
Hey, it works, which is all that matters.
Found a video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVhIRyd1Iec
If you haven’t seen this thing you’re gonna love it! It’s like something out a Jules Verne novel! The air whistle’s pretty cool too!
Overmod, wasn’t the Winton 201 engine kind of an evolutionary dead-end that died a quick death?
Keep in mind that the 201 and the 201A should probably be thought of as two separate engines, the former unsuccessful and the latter quite good.
In my opinion the 201A was a bit of a victim of its own success: the redesign into the better-rail-service-optimized 567 produced SO much better a classic result that there was no need to update the older version.
Associated with this, I think, is the rapid evolution of the kind of streamliner represented by the early Zephyrs and M-10000s, the lightweight, articulated, high-speed follow-ons from doodlebugs. To paraphrase Kratville on UP streamliners, almost everywhere these motor trains were tried, they quickly brought overcrowding and the need for first more capacity and then physically larger and wider passenger accommodations - similar to what happened progressively on the original Hiawatha to produce the need for the F7 Baltics.
Now, roughly at the same time, the need for small motor trains went away from the old GE and EMC model of a wasted engine room and shoehorned-in engineer to produce first the Motorailers and then the RDCs, with the whole powerplant and transmission arrangement entirely underfloor.
The net result of this was that use of inline 2-stroke ‘half a 567’ power was never needed, nor was sticking a switcher-size 6-567 a good alternative. The ‘minimum’ size for Zephyr ’shovelnose’ evolution came to be a 12-567 (the smallest with good running balance) and the trains adapted to match.
I haven’t calculated what spring and weight-distribution changes would be involved in fitting a 567D or later into the Flying Yankee, but it would be overkill. A logical “historical repower” engine (say, from the ‘50s, of the sort you can read about in Keilty’s works) would almost certainly require the same order of ‘surgery’ needed for the full modern repower, and would have limited hp, worse emissions, and likely less parts avai
Firelock, thanks for that Mckeen video- Awesome! Didn’t they call that the “Wind splitter” back in the day? This may be of some interest, it’s along the same lines. I rode on it this past spring and it’s totally redone down to the brocade window shades. Check out the “water bowser!” Oh those Limeys!
“Wind-splitter” was an archaic term for what we’d call streamlining nowadays, and it referrred to that sharp-pointed bow (for lack of a better term) on the railcar.
Thanks for that video, that thing’s oh-so-cool! Looks like railway preservation’s getting to be as big a sport as football across the pond.
One thing in the video kind of bummed me out, it was the graffiti on that parked train you could see through the railcar windows. Is there no getting away from it anywhere? Makes you wonder if there’s an international tagger conspiracy.
Overmod- Fake exhaust notes and engine noises! That is pretty innovative and makes good sense really and actually kind of fun. Great touch if they go for it.
Firelock and 54light15- Great videos. Thanks so much.
Jules Verne is right on with those round windows. What a beautiful machine. So happy to see it restored like that.
As for graffiti on the railcars in Britain: it kind of took me by surprise as well, but gangs throughout British cities are very prevalent.
Monkey see monkey do, I guess.
Pardon my ignorance, I’m no engineer and make no pretense of being one, but maybe some “outside the 567 box” thinking may be called for?
For example, if a 567 engine is an “almost-but-not-quite-there” solution how about an ALCO 244 or 251, or possibly a Caterpillar engine, or a Cummins or Detroit diesel?
Just asking, mind you. I realize there’s nothing wrong with thinking “outside the box,” as long as you remember the “box” is there for a reason.
You might want to read the detailed Flying Yankee thread on RyPN, which has detailed discussions from folks in the know.
The original, rather well detailed plan from the early days of restoration was to re-engine with a Caterpillar engine and a smaller one strictly for ‘electrical’ - the load for the ‘30s version being so small I hesitate to call it full HEP. The subsequent decision, which I would have supported in principle, was to restore the full “historic fabric” of engine, generator, and controls - apparently made without realizing there had been substantial water incursion through inadequately covered stacks and then freeze damage.
With respect to alternative engines: the 244 is a non-starter for a number of reasons, one being it is nearly as rare as a 201A and the other being it is a V-type with obligatory turbocharging, so even the smallest is overkill. There are inline 251s, and they should be adaptable to the GE main generator with comparatively little tinkering. But while there are aftermarket sources for many 251 parts there is also competition from other users of the engines which keeps prices up. There is also more concern with additional weight and the size of crane, etc. needed to handle the engine for installation and maintenance. There is now much more experience with using things like MTU medium-speed diesels in re-engined switching and industrial engines of comparable hp, by places some of which advertise their products and services in Trains Magazine, and these might be a useful source of reference and ‘donations in kind’ to help the restoration along.
However, the original Cat re-engining proposal was very thorough in looking at weight balance and distribution as installed, and I expect it to be resurrected and brought ‘up to date’ as the actual approach used in the operating restoration.
Thanks for that very detailed answer Overmod! At least my out-of-the-box wasn’t as out-of-the-box as I thought it might have been.
And I’ll go looking for the RyPn discussion.
Looks like in this situation there aren’t any perfect answers, just intelligent choices.
The “right answer” in my opinion is getting the train to reliable operation while preserving as much of the historic fabric any “improvements” connect to, and any removed components, so that if there were ever a desire to put the train back to full historic ‘exhibit’ status it could be done reasonably easily.
That’s different from Dave Klepper’s or my ideas about ‘hot-rodding’ a GG1 to operation using modern electric and structural components, and in a sense even the T1 replication will likely use some ‘unoriginal’ components in places like valve gear and bearings.
Note how the plan for Project 130 anticipates at least reserving the funds to restore the 3463 to full historic-fabric static restoration after the ‘record’ efforts are made.
Anyone mind if I post a few photos here taken by my dad’s brother-in-law, Stanley Mackenzie?
I guess that settles that.
[G]
Stanley was the B&M agent at Warren, New Hampshire.
[G]
Miss Flying Yankee, 1936?
[G]
I came across this thread and thought I’d share these photos. Enjoy!
Regards, Ed
Superb. Bravo.
There are several engines they could use that all have easy to get replacement parts. The ISX Cummins line Detroit Diesel 12.7 liter or the C15 Cat all are ready to get as crate motors all can be adapted to generators. Here is the best part getting one and finding parts is fairly easy for all of them and they all produce up to 500 HP from 6 clyinders.
How about the inline 567(A) 6-cylinder used on SW1 switchers and as a repower on Zephyr 9900? If I recall, that required very little plumbing rework.
I saw the 201-A when it was “almost finished” in Claremont. It looks a lot like contemporary marine engines.