I know about some home-grown locomotives and re-built locomotives (like Santa Fe’s GP-7U and Illinois Central/ Conrail GP-8 and GP-10 units). After seeing photos of these units, I’ve sort of hit a wild streak, and I would like to start building some locomotive re-builds and some home-grown railroad builds.
Does anyone have any info on locomotives that were re-built or built from the ground up by a railroad?
I would prefer diesel locomotives, but I am also interested in some steam locomtoives.
Any and all locomotives (and any info) would be appretiated.
Homegrown diesels are somewhat of a rareity, since one of the main selling points of the diesels (aside from fuel savings) is the off-the-shelf parts availability that helps to reduce repair costs. However, it seems that many railroads made their own steamers. Since one of the issues with steam locomotives was the need for custom fabrication of some repair parts and the need to perform heavy repairs on a regular basis, a railroad of any size at all would have the facilities to build their own locomotives just due to maintenance needs. I am a Frisco fan, so the 4300-4400 Mountains come to mind. Technically, they were rebuilt from the spot series 2-10-2’s, but in practice, they were virtually all new locomotives, utilizing the old steam domes so that the ICC boiler ID number was saved, thereby making the boiler a “rebuild” instead of a new boiler (reported for tax savings). Of course, N&W was one of the great builders of “homemade” locomotives! But one of my favorite homebuilt steamers was “The Freak” - North Pacific Coast #21, a forerunner to the famed SP Cab-Forwards (see http://www.ironhorse129.com/projects/engines/NPC_21/NPC_No21.htm ). On the diesel front, I do remember seeing a picture of a geared steamer that had been rebuilt with a diesel powering the old drivetrain… but I can’t seem to recall any details off the top of my head.
How about the rest of you? What’s your favorite homebuilt loco?
Canadian National built eight of these SW1200RMs by combining the hood, main generator, cooling fans and traction motor blowers from GP9s with a 12V-645C diesel engine, all on the frame of an SW1200RS. The combination of an SW with a Geep has them known to railfans as “Sweeps”.
when it comes to steam power, i think a lot depends on how you define home grown. major railroad shops like the PRR at Altoona/Juniata and the N&W at Roanoke probably came closest to being able to fabricate a complete locomotive. i am sure there were others. even so, unless they used components salvaged from existing engines, they were somewhat dependent upon outside sources for many of the parts. modern locomotive frames were often the product of companies like General Steel Casting and drivers were made by Scullin, Baldwin and others. i seriously doubt if very many, if any railroads made their own head lights, stokers, generators, air pumps, feedwater heaters, bells or whistles. as the demand for steam locomotives declined, the lack of availability of outside made components was a factor in the demise of what steam was left.
the PRR often built some of a given class while contracting out many orders for the same engine. i wonder how many of their 2-10-0’s were just assembled at Altoona with components supplied by Baldwin and how much was fabricated in their own shops.
i think it was often like automobile assembly plants. for instance, GM assembled Chevy’s at various plants but the components were not made at those locations. engines used to come from tonawanda ny, the transmissions were made at muncie in and ypsilanti mi, radiators came from lockport ny and brake components from moraine (dayton) ohio while the sheet metal came from willow run mi.
no doubt, anyone with a well equipped welding and machine shop could make an automobile from scratch without having to buy too many components but they would wind up with a $200,000 pinto.
if there is anyone left out there with first hand knowledge of steam locomotive construction practices, perhaps they can expand on this.
The PRR built from the ground up for most of their steam fleet. When they contracted out they also sent castings and parts for the builders to use. When a class of locomotives was designed they built the first run at Altoona or Juniata and if the rest were outsourced then patterns and parts that were unique was also given. There was 123 2-10-0 built in Altoona before Baldwin built the 475 that was contracted. The Baldwins differed in that a feed water heater was installed and the company built locos had none. By the time (1922) Baldwin started building them Feed water heaters were put on all locos. The only parts and assemblies not produced by company shops were parts that held patents by someone else. Stokers, Feed water heaters, Cross compound pumps, Injectors and even stay bolts were not duplicated because of patent infringement. Each part was thoroughly tested by the test department before purchase. The Pennsy test department tested everything from rail spikes to the broom used to sweep the carpeting in the office. Everything had a standard that had to be met before purchase. The test department was second to none. Even the federal government used the pennsy’s master scale to calibrate their own department of weights and measure.
I guess you have to define what you mean by “homegrown”. There are very, very, very few diesels built from the ground up by railroads. About the only ones i can think of off hand were some boxcab engines built by the Texas-Mexican railroad. Virtually all the other “home grown” diesels are rebuilds wher the railroad combines various parts and pieces of commercial locomotives of modifies commercial engines to suit their needs.
This can range from re-engining the locomotive to changing the filters or exhaust system, swapping hoods, swapping trucks, adding or removing turbochargers, building slugs, etc. The UP added turbochargers to its GP9’s and forced EMD to make GP20’s. The ATSF converted hundreds of F7’s in to GP style hood units.
With steam engines, major roads had shops that could build an engine from scratch. Many roads “kitbashed” their engines. The RDG took 4-4-4’s and made 4-4-2’s, they took 2-8-8-2’s and made 2-10-2’s, they took 2-8-0’s and converted them to 4-8-4’s. Engines with 61 1/2" drivers got 55 1/2" drivers. Conventional firebox engines were converted to Wooten firebox engines, Wooten firebox engines were converted to conventional firebox engines, end cab engines became camelbacks, camelbacks became end cab engines.
The question is, does the railroad have the shop facilities to build an engine? It would be very rare for a small railroad to build an entire locomotive from scratch. A small railroad would be more likely to “kitbash” an engine, than built one from the groun
Over time, steam engines often acquired many added parts and piping, new tenders, rebuilt cabs etc. so by the 1940’s or 50’s even a fairly “generic” looking engine (say a USRA pacific or mikado) would look very different from similar engines on other railroads. So although the engine wasn’t “home-grown” per se, it still has a very unique look to it. For example a DM&IR Mikado in the fifties looked very different from the clean-lined engine rec’d 40 years earlier.
My definition of home-grown locomotives originaly were the “Frankenstien” locomotives, that had mis-matched parts after getting donated parts from another source (i.e. re-building a locomotive after a crash) and getting something unique in the process (like Chicago and NorthWestern’s 503, an E-8B Crandall Cab re-build)
I have since revised that definition, and have expanded my narrow-mindedness on it to include other forms, not just the locomotives pieced together from 2 or 3 diesels being scavenged for parts.
Narrow gauge railroads sometimes built their own diesel locos. These were more like ‘critters’ than locos although they did the job.
The MoPac converted most of their Alco power (RS types) to use GMD engines. In their case, the top had a bulge on it to house larger components (muffler?) and had the classic EMD exhaust stacks. If you do a search on line, you will come up with some photos. This would make a distinctive locomotive.
Of course the top two of mine are Sante e units. I love the GP7u rebuilds and the CF7’s, even though at first I thought they were just these ugly little things. I would also have to say WC chop nose GP7’s, because I’m a Wisconsin boy, and CN GP9 rebuilds. CN works the area and one of their usual units is the 4028. I have to say I was a big Alco fan, but after hearing 567 prime movers so often I really started liking 1st gen EMD units.
I also do this as a hobby. I like to go to trainiax.net and use the train drawings and detail parts.
some GG-1’s were built by GE at Erie Pa and most were assembled at Juniata (Altoona) using components from various suppliers such as General Electric and Westinghouse. i think Baldwin got in on the act to some extent too. outside suppliers worked together with the PRR on the design and engineering.
PRR had the largest fleet of electric locomotives in the country so they often chose to "roll their own’ with or without outside help.
the PRR was known for building or having built for them a lot of experimental locomotives both steam and electric. sometimes only one or two of a kind.
sometimes, the railroad would do the design and engineering work and then have an outside source construct the engines. and sometimes they contracted out the design work and then built the locomotives in house.
a lot of it makes no sense to most of us but i am sure there were economic and production scheduling factors that we are not aware of. they are not my favorite railroad but they couldn’t have been too dumb and still lasted as long as they did.
Since the GTW was one of the last lines to stop using steam, by the 1980’s, they had a bunch of GP-9’s. They were pretty much outdated, especially the electric control panels, etc. Soooo, they rebuilt around 18 or 20 in their Battle Creek, Mi. shop. These included a few units for CV and CN. They were rebuilt from the frame up with new prime movers, a chop nose and safety cab, fresh electronics, no dynamic brakes, and no turbo-chargers. There are still a few of these in service, mostly used as yard switchers, although I occasionally see one consisted with CN and GTW road engines. I have a few photos, but it’s a pain to post on this forum. The GTW has a certain reputation as being penny wise (cheap?), so these GP-9-r’s saved them from buying all new GP-15’s.
.
.
.