First installment: EMD.
I thought I should comment on the two Commonwealth Railways proposals, which, by themselves, seem somewhat strange.
Firstly, if the locomotives did have 645E or 645E3, engines, the model numbers are wrong. The A32D should be an A42D and the AT20D should be an AT30D, since conventionally, use of a 645E engine added 10 to the number of cylinders in the model number. I can only assume that these proposals were very early in the life of the 645 engine and before the “cylinder number” convention was established.
These units were offered by Clyde to Commonwealth Railways to counter an offer from Tulloch Limited for a version of the then unbuilt Brush/Tulloch “Kestrel” prototype, which was promoted as having 4000 (brake) horsepower. Tulloch had supplied a number of light weight 1400 HP Sulzer engined locomotives for use on the 3’6" gauge Central Australia and North Australia railways. These were regarded as a success, although the design was due to Metro Cammell and not Brush, only the Sulzer engine being common.
I don’t know how serious the A32D proposal was, since two A16Cs could obviously do the same job, probably at a lower cost. The AT20D was probably larger than was needed, and the eventual purchase of AT26C units probably did the job that the Sulzer would have done, the real net power of the Sulzer 16LVA being closer to 3450HP according to some figures in Tulloch Limited’s papers.
Peter
I hadn’t seen the particular drawing of the two units shown at 1min 47sec in the video previously. This design is shown at the top of page 21 of Trains Magazine for May 1964 in a side elevation with a contemporary racing monoplane above it in the rendering, no doubt to emphasise its speed potential. However, this illustration clearly shows the words “Santa Fe” on the side below the rectangular windows. I susect that this was an earlier styling proposal for the “One Spot Twins”. On page 20, there are two proposals resembling UP M10003, but with the cab located between the engines. One of these is double ended… To the left of the design in question is something nearer the final design for ATSF 1A and 1B. Strangely, the design shown in the video was the only one with a road name, the three others all being lettered for EMC. So the strange bulbous nose design may have been actually offered to ATSF.
At 8min 49sec a drawing of an “SD30” is shown. This is not an EMD drawing and is just an enthusiast’s suggestion. Even if someone asked for a 2250 HP six axle unit, why would it look different externally from an SD24. All you would have to do is to adjust the fuel injector settings and governor for the lower power. The “hump” in the GP30 was not a result of somebody decidng that the appearance was attractive. The hump was due to the GP30 electrical cabinet being taller than that on the GP20, and once it was taller than the existing hood, GM Styling took over to try to make it look like part of the loco. Since the SD24 didn’t have this problem, a 2250 HP six axle unit wouldn’t either. This might be due to there being more space in the longer six-axle body. In fact, one of the features of the GP35 pointed out in early technical data publications was that the height of the electrical cabinet had been reduced, removing the need for the GP30 “hump”.
The illustrations described above in Trains for May 1964 also appear in the Kalmbach book &quo