What if V....Locomotive Builder F-M

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

What if…FM did not exit the locomotive buisness? Would the O-P engine on FM become a 2nd choice to EMD’s. If Illinois Central DID actually order the 50-60 H-24-66’s that they were intending to buy, but got scared off, would that have kept FM in the locomotive Buisness? FM’s had low downtime, and great performance, but they turned quickly into an oddball, but if FM did persist, would we see a HW-44-66AC? How about a Tier 2 prodect from FM? How would a 2006 era FM locomotive look today?

Just another “What if” from the K-Line

“What if…” (c)2006 Jim Tiroch

2

That OP engine has it’s pluses and minuses, but in the end, I think the minuses would have won out. Having no heads, valves or valve train is a pretty big plus, but having that top crank…oh boy. Any time you lose a liner or piston, you have to unbolt all the upper conrods and pull that crank. In the normal day to day operation of the FM locomotives, they did have a tendency to score liners. In the normal day to day operation of locomotives, having to replace an individual power assembly (nominally a head, liner, piston assembly) here and there is a pretty normal occurance. It’s pretty quick and easy to do on a GE, EMD or ALCo engine. Not so on the FM. In the later days of FM locomotive operation, rather than even bother to do the work, the Mech Depts would just let the defect ride for a while. It was not an uncommon occurance to get fire out the stack. The PRR guys in Chicago used to call the FM switchers “blow torches” for this reason.

To stay in the market, FM would have eventually had to add a turbo and maybe play the bore and stroke game like EMD did in order to get up to 4500 HP or so. Maybe the 10 cylinder could have reached 5000 HP? I wonder.

Can an FM engine even be made Tier 2 compliant? Ultimately, the 4 cycles with push the two cycles out of the locomotive engine market for fuel efficiency reasons.

But, in the end, that top crank was just to big an issue for the RR maintenance environment.

3

Weren’t the FM OP engines already supercharged? I thought I read somewhere that the horsepower yield of the top crankshaft was roughly equivalent to the horsepower required to turn the supercharger.

4

I thought they were somewhat symetrical top to bottom. Wouldn’t the horsepower yield be about the same for both top and bottom crankshafts?

5

The auxiliaries generally drew off the top crankshaft and I believe that it was approximately an 85/15 split on horsepower into the main generator. FM’s were two-cycle engines and already had a Roots blower but were not supercharged.

The OP is a good example of an engine preforming well in (sub)marine and stationary service but not so satisfactory as a railroad engine.

6

FM’s did not stand up well in railroad service where they were continually being accelerated and decelerated…they seemed to throw more oil out the stack than they could have contained in the crankcase.

7

Opposed Piston Engines in Locomotives had Several Drawbacks.

The Two Horizontal Exhaust Manifolds, One on Each Side of Diesel Engine Block, were WATER-Cooled, adding a HUGE LOAD to Locomotive Cooling System just Cooling EXHAUST!!

As Snubbers ( Mufflers ) GLOWED RED on Long Hard Pulls this indicates the amount of HEAT in Manifolds Upstream from Snubbers.

As a Result, and because of Water Leaks caused by Vibration, Coupling Impacts, Cyclic Hot/Cold Operating Conditions and their Uneven Heating/Cooling, these Locomotives were always getting ‘Hot Engine’ Alarms and, then, Shutting Down, putting extra Load on Remaining Locomotives in Consist.

Oil Leaks and High Oil Consumption account Worn Cylinders and Piston Rings were another OP Locomotive Problem. Oil from Exhaust and Leaks Blanketed Rights of Way wherever these Units were Used.

When Cold, OPs would SMOKE on Starting Out and this alone would Preclude their Survival in the Pollution-Conscious World of Today.

F-M Locomotives were amongst the Best Haullers, along with Baldwins, so they were usually used in the Heaviest Service.

Heavy Service = Heavy Wear, so they were ALWAYS in the Shops. Looked Bad on Performance Reports, 5 Hours at Run 8 at 12-15 MPH does NOT Add many Miles to Monthly Mileage Reports. But, in the Same Service, the 567s would Slip to a Stop.

F-Ms, Maligned, Cursed, and, other than by Rail Fans, not Missed at ALL!

8

Nice photos! There were railroads that could do well with FMs, like Akron, Canton & Youngstown, Nickel Plate, Pittsburgh&West Virginia,SP and Virginian. Then there were the likes of New Haven, New York Central, Pennsylvania, Union Pacific and Wabash that never had a clue as to how to maintain their FMs. Theirs lasted until their first (or second) overhaul. NYC and Wabash re-powered their FMs, NYC with EMD 567s, Wabash pulled a real (censored) by re-powering their train masters with Alco 251s! BUT I’d bet they’d have been a spectacle on the road. N&W scrapped 'em before the 60’s were over! Pure FMs from AC&Y, P&WV and Virginian outlasted them. The Akron,Princeton and Rook shops knew FMs. So did Roanoke, after some fits and starts.

9

Not from what I recall reading Murph. (wish I could remember the source where I read it) but several factors come into play.

For one, the cylinder banks breath differently. I think they do it by having the pistons (upper vs lower) reach top dead center slightly out of synch, so that the exhaust port on one end is opened slightly before the other, assuring that the exhaust is completely scavanged between strokes, meaning that power stroke for that end is robbed slightly.

For another, I think you have a cam actuated fuel delivery mechanism that runs off the top crankshaft, the blower, etc, resulting in the yield off the top shaft being considerably below the bottom.

10

OK thanks, I often get the 2 confused. I guess the distinction is because the fuel is pumped directly into the cylinder, and not mixed at the intake?

11

Looking beyond the OP engine, that FM thought was an advantage, that turned out to be a disadvantage…It seems to me, that FM was somewhat progressive in their planning and marketing. Their Consolidated line of locomotives was intended to offer a wide range of options, all based on the same parts. The Trainmaster was ahead of it’s time as well. One wonders why FM didn’t partner up with GE? They must have had some relationship with GE. Their Erie-built locomotives were built by GE.

12

LOL sounds like a “what if? (chapter 7)” question in the making… [?]

13

In fact, the Russians and Chinese built probably as many Fairbanks Morse locomotives as EMD built with the 567 and 645 engines. The Chinese only built blower locomotives until about 1975, but the Russians built turbocharged FMs until 1990 or so, when the disruption of the political changes reduced demand enough that later engine designs could meet traffic requirements. I think the maximum power was only 3000 HP from a turbocharged twelve cylinder.

The Russians ran the turbocharger in series with the blower, as did GM Detroit with their 71, 92 and 149 engines. This missed out on the big advantage of the EMD turbocharger that “breaks away” from the mechanical drive at higher power and gives considerable fuel consumption advantages. So the fuel consumption of the Russian locomotives never improved from that of the blower engines.

But there were (and still are) tens of thousands of them running as four unit sets on major freight services on non electrified lines in Russia.

M636C

14

Even if FM had lasted a few more years, they likely wouldn’t have survived. Too many problems and too high maintenance costs. Most loco builders, even Alco, eventually went out. The ones around now,aside from GE and GM, seem to be of a specialized nature. It’s a different world now.

15

I think that to some degree, time plays tricks with objectivity.

I think that it’s fairly common for us to look back upon legacy, and (not always deservedly) assign to it an air of legitimacy.

In companies you hear folks say “we’ve always done it this way”, or “if its not broke, don’t fix it”…and the sort.

I think that FM built some interesting locomotives, but think they have been given much of their credit (locomotivewise) post humously. A nostalgic look back into the past, savoring the good times, with the benefit of having enough time pass to detach from the bad times, can be very misleading.

Personal fondness can distort the looking glass.

Wouldn’t it be just as legit to look upon FM as a wartime contractor (a business that while it existed prior to the war, the demands of wartime were in effect a once in a lifetime windfall for their growth) who, upon seeing the end of war sought a peacetime market for their product, and blew it? They put an engine that worked well on water, onto steel rails, and it was deemed more trouble than it was worth…it failed. The market said “thanks but no thanks”.

They developed their “Consolidated” line, just as the demand was shifting from covered wagons to hood style units…ooops!! failed again.

I think it’s easy to look back on memories 50 years old, see just the fond side, and ponder “what might have been” , but it’s not always very realistic. FM failed in that area for a re

16

Just a second…

Fairbanks Morse is still operating and you can buy your Alco spares and new 251 engines from them and a new Opposed Piston engine if you want one!

They stopped building locomotives in 1963, after Baldwin and Lima closed but before Alco closed.

The OP engine was still in use during the mid and late 1970s on Southern Pacific.

It is still in fairly widespread use in Russia, so it can’t have been fatally flawed, and although the Russians and the Chinese didn’t pay FM licence fees, the 38D8-1/8 is up there as one of the most successful diesel locomotive engines of all time along with the EMD 567 and 645. If we could get reliable production figures, it would almost certainly exceed the 645, and would run the combined 567 and 645 a close second. One of my Russian books mentions one factory celebrating their 25000th locomotive on the anniversary of Lenin’s birth in the 1970s. More than one factory built the FM engined locomotives and they kept building them until 1990!

The Chinese engine was known as the 10L207E, 10 = ten cylinders, L = inline, 207 = cylinder bore in mm (207mm = 8-1/8") and E = two stroke cycle.

So the engine was a technical success in locomotives, but it was a commercial failure in the US market (only). If more had been built in the USA and an overrunning clutch incorporated in the turbocharger as EMD developed, we might have Tier II OP engines running today. But now it is a thing of the past, just as the GE 7FDL16 and the EMD 567 and 645 engines are. All of these will die out if environmental regulations become retrospective in the future.

M636C

17

I’ve always wondered why the ALCO/GE situation turned out like it did. They had been partners, of some degree for quite a while. It would have made more sense, if GE had said “I don’t like where this thing is headed. What say you let me drive?”. By the time GE decided to break away, ALCO was already on the downward slide, and they new it.

18

That I can answer, in the magazine they have mentioned again and again that the Alco reputation had been soured by the bad experiences everyone had with that one engine of Alco’s

Too lazy to look it up, but think it was called the “244”? so bad it was replaced with (think it was called) the “251” which had most of the problems solved, but not before a stigma had clouded over Alco’s head.

GE was trying to shrug any risks of “guilty by association”

Some claim that it was GE’s intent to break away from Alco all along, that their partnership was merely one of convenience, allowing GE to pick up the needed experience, before hanging their own shingle.

I tend to suspect that was more of an evolved desire

19

Good points. Still, it would seem that it would have been easier to market an RS-something-or-other with a GE diesel engine, than to start brand new, wouldn’t you think?

20

GE had always been in the market independently as well as in partnership with Alco. They had their own lines of industrial locomotives, the twin engine switchers including the “44 ton” locomotives. The 44 ton restriction only applied to railroad operation, and the other units were often heavier but generally similar, and used Caterpillar or Cummins engines, much as current railroad switchers now. There was a single engine line largely of 70 ton locomotives that used the Cooper Bessemer FWL-6T engine, which was just an in line version of what became the FDL. The vee-type FVBL-12 was sold in export units in competition with Alco right from the late 1940s. In Argentina, a group of shovelnose units were supplied with FVBL-12 engines, but a later batch