Locomotives that were proposed, but never built.

In that case, the battery would probably only be useful for moving the locomotive around in a shop.

Diesel-electrics can do this too, this feature is called the “spotter circuit” or “jog mode”. It uses the battery to power a single traction motor.

Geez this thing looks incredibly heavy! Per Mr Goding the traction motors were limted to 750 HP. Why not just propose an electric version of the SD45? 4500HP in a Co-Co would that not suffice?

In 1966, you are pitching these machines against GE’s E44a. You have to have more HP and TE to be able to justify these over the known quantity.

I fished the spec out of the trash when Conrail’s Equipment Engineering was moving out of 30th St. Station circa 1980. I’m sure there were other copies that survived. A whole lot of historical stuff was carted away by RR Museum of PA.

What he told me was it was to be an airplane engine given Kettering’s interest in aviation but I don’t remember any other details.

While not really a radial, the Pancake engine used several features of radial aero engine design…

https://oldmachinepress.com/2014/08/17/general-motors-electro-motive-16-184-diesel-engine/

Peter

The problem of Navy MIL spec. oil would come up again with the high shock diesel generators. The problem was the possible use of a zinc base additive that would corrode the silver plated piston insert bearings in the piston. EMD developed a bearing that had no silver that was margenal with tirbo engines but just fine for blower engines and about $100 cheaper. Later on EMD convinced the navy to switch to the EB power assemblies with the trick rocking pin insert bering without going through the enire shock test.

The principal issue with the 338s as I understood it was not so much ZDDP as it was the different drive arrangement compared with the 184/184A. The earlier pancake used a right-angle drive at the bottom, which was not a leak problem. The 338 had a generator there, which was a big-time bad idea, additives or not.

Tell them more about the EB assemblies.

In the late 70,s, EMD was in a race with GE, Alco and anybody else to improve fuel efficiency. This resulted in several model changes requireing different model identities as follows:

  1. 645E 14.5:1 CR, 2150 hp @ 900 rpm

  2. 645EB 14.5:1CR, 2250 hp @ 900 rpm

  3. 645EC 16:1 CR, 2250 hp @ 900 rpm

  4. 645F 16:1 CR, 2500 hp @ 900 rpm

The rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 comression ratio.

That was my understanding, on the 645FB.

If I understand the concept correctly, the piston pin doesn’t actually ‘rock’, it is ground with multiple centers so it sweeps oil across the little-end bearing shell each time the rod articulates. I think it’s the antithesis of a floating wristpin in that it’s physically bolted to its connecting rod … in fact on at least some 710s those are 5/16" bolts.

Albacore and the Tang class. They were such failures, the USN cut the boats open , removed the GM engines and replaced them with FM units which required that the boats be lengthened. Since then, all US nuclear boats except the latest class have used FM engines as emergency “get you home” power if there was a problem with the reactor

After all, FM engines did have a proven history in USN submarines.

Where there is a whole ocean of cooling water, relatively constant load much of the time, and the lack of valve gear and its maintenance a positive advantage.

Remember that the 184A pancakes ran just fine. It was the combination of jacking up the specific horsepower and putting the generator at the bottom that caused most of the grief.

Being in-line engines, the FM’s were an easy fit in the engine room. My recollection from a Dec 1971 tour of a Guppy boat was there wasn’t a lot of space between the engines.

One other issue with any engine used for Naval propulsion is that the engines were usually running at the equivalent of run 4 or run 5.

Another loco proposed, not built. GE C60-8E

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1RMmCfq1PG11ef2i9

Don, that predates the ‘massively rebuilt E44’ that was GE’s swan song as a NEC electric freight engine, doesn’t it – it looks like, and I’d expect it is, an adaptation of the E60CP/H to freight service with only one cab and a hood for better ‘rear vision’ instead of a full-width carbody.

With the shorter three-axle trucks installed from the beginning, not only after ‘painful experience’… [:-^]

Out of curiosity: was this spec’d as an 80mph engine as the passenger versions came to be? Would have been highly useful on those midnight M&E trains north of Philadelphia…

Crawling around my layout are a GP3 and a SD3 (GP7 and SD7 kitbashed with F3 tall shroud fans and griils instead of fans for dynamic braking)and a low nosed FM H-36-66 (bashed H-24-66). I’ve though about H-30-44 and H-30-66’s as well.

Trains mag had this on the front cover, the Ace 3000 steam locomotive. A modern day steam locomotive.

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html

All the contempory diesel type housing and the red paint cannot conceal that it continued with zero amending the one major draw-back of the classic steam locomotives: the very limited starting tractive effort: It has again but 8 drive wheels - just as any late Berkshire had - and with it’s claimed 3000 ihp was to have even less horse power than the better of the classic engine had. Just to fill the analogy: it even has 6 idler wheels again and a 2x6 wheel tender.

If that’s so, and this is now said to be competitive - then why not re-build one of the quite clean and good looking (and proven!) L&N Berkshires, the M-1? They were being scapped way to early anyhow: just look at their tenders, there it’s clearly noted to which date they were supposed to run!

= J =