Re-Engining an F-Unit

Here's a hypothetical that I got to wondering about:Suppose it's the late 1960s, and you want to replace the prime mover in an F-unit, call it an F7 or an F9 for kicks. Assuming that Alco was alive and kicking, could you shoehorn in their best prime mover into an F-unit? I was reading something on the PAs that indicated EMD re-engined a few of them with EMD products, and I got to wondering a) how that turned out and b) if the reverse could have been done. Thanks for any opinions, facts, or whatever. I'm kind of interested in whether it would be economical, but more concerned as to whether it could be done.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, BlakeTyner, Jun-12-03, 08:07 PM, (1) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, rockisland, Jun-12-03, 08:55 PM, (2) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, Magick_maker, Jun-12-03, 09:31 PM, (3) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, jhilden, Jun-12-03, 10:36 PM, (4) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, cyclone1234, Jun-13-03, 01:21 PM, (5) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, ge44tonner, Jun-13-03, 01:31 PM, (6) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, Magick_maker, Jun-13-03, 02:52 PM, (7) RE: Re-Engining an F-Unit, ge44tonner, Jun-14-03, 11:24 AM, (8)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

It could probably be done. Theoretical physics tells us an elephant can hang over a cliff with it's tail tied to a daisy.....so I suppose anything is possible.The difficulty in that situation is that in the F units, the body cowl was actually an integral piece of the locomotive. It actually supported componants of the prime mover and secondary appliances. So, while you could take out the prime mover and shove another one in there you'd have to be a bit of a jigzaw artist to make everything work and still be stable.Blake Harris
Engineer/fireman, Jefferson and Cypress Bayou Railroad

Vice Dean, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

While it might well be possible to convert an F-unit to Alco power, it would not be at all practical or economical. ( If the Rock Island didn't try it at least once, there was ABSOLUTELY no reason to do it )Alco prime movers were not on par with EMD's engines as far as reliability and economy of operation were concerned. It was a practical solution to go the other way though since Alco locomotives were known to have almost bullet-proof electricals. Fitting an Alco with a reliable EMD prime mover was an economical solution that extended the lives of several Alco products over the years.ROCK

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Also, trucks are reusable. I personally know of two High hood uboats that are running on what resemble GP unit trucks.That's the funny thing about engines, most of the bits, whether prime movers, trucks, horns, or even the body and cowling itself, is pretty much intercnangable. Sure, there's SOME parts you can't move around, but chances are if you can dream it up, some railroad has tried it.A perfect example would be the GG 1/2. I have only seen one picture of this thing, but as the story goes, a GG1 derailed and was written off. PRR realised that only the front (or back since they were double ended) of the locomotive was a total loss, so they figured, hey why don't we cut it in half and see what happens?So, they did it, cut the thing in half, patched up the back end with nothing more than a plywood sheet (ok, pretty much nothing) and fashioned a rear coupler for the thing. Now, the engine wasn't used on the main, no it wasn't even safe for that (even PRR was that smart). Ultimately they used it as a switcher for a few years, moving coaches and engines around, some freight too, before scrapping it.Did it work? Well, it was around a while, but they never repeated the process.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Jun-12-03 AT 10:52 PM (EDT)

The GG1 was technically two locomotives, almost like an articulated steam loco. The Pennsy classified their electric motors the same way they did the steam locos. The most direct relation is the “L” class. The PRR had the L1 Mikado steam loco (2-8-2) and the L6 box cab electric also sharing the same wheel arrangement (There were only a few L6’s made). As a note, if the PRR ever had a Hudson class steam locomotive, it would of been classified as a “P” class. If they ever had a Northern class (4-8-4), it would of been designated a “R” This brings us back to the GG1. The GG1 had two independent ( 4-6-0) wheel arrangements, which is also the same as the “G” class steam locos (Most notable the G5). Since there were two, it was christened the “GG”, and since the railroad got it right with the first version and stuck with it, it kept the “1”, as we all know it. Since an electric is more modular then a steam loco, they are easier to split apart and tinker around. In the case of the GG1, each end contained the same parts as the other (I think the only difference was the toilet and boiler). Another good example of GG1 surgery was after the infamous accident at Washington DC Union Station. The “Federal Express” lost its breaking power, flew through the stub end track, and ended up into the main waiting area (Ala “Silverstreak”). The floor could not hold the weight of the GG1 and collapsed. I think the G fell a few floors down. Anyway, during the salvage operation, the only way to get the GG1 out of there, was to cut it into parts, and ship it back to Altoona. Were it would be put back together, and placed into service. Although many pieces of railroad motive power, let it be steam, diesel or electric, have been salvaged into pieces and put back together in the backshops, electrics are the easiest. I guess because there are less moving partsSo, the way the GG1 was constructed, it was very easy to cut in half and function properly (As a switcher) very easily. Most PRR purists considered the half GG1 you mentioned as just a "G1" As for the Rock Island, they did try anything to save a $. I love hearing the stories about how the railroad was hired to move new motive power out west for other railroads. Instead of just shipping them, they used them! Also, what other railroad is too cheap to pay the extra money for a cab, sure, lets take an E8 B unit and install it with a makeshift cab. Oh almost forgot. It was very common to see ALCO Trucks on EMDs in the late 60’s early 70’s. If there is one major component(s) that are just about completely compatible on diesels are the trucks. It was common practice when a railroad put in an order for new locos that they would trade in their old locos to make the price cheaper, and use what they could . A great example that comes to mind is the Missouri Pacific. They made a big order to EMD for a bunch of GP18’s. When they sent the order in they also sent along a bunch of ALCO FA1’s. Most of the GP18’s the Mopac received were sitting on the FA1 trucks. If you think about it, that is a lot of money in the long run. Especially when your passenger service is draining money! ---Edited for content and to fit on your screen--Joe Hildenbrand29 YEAR OLD FUTURE SOCIAL SECURITY COLLECTORNALW

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Also, what other railroad is too cheap to pay the extra money for a cab, sure, lets take an E8 B unit and install it with a makeshift cab. The CNW!
They used those things for commuter service.
They called them Cr(somthing with a C in it.. cant think of it..)Cabs after the idiot (some would say genius) who invented them.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

That cab-conversion for E8B on the CNW was called a 'Crandall' cab, as I recall. I think that Metra ended up with some of them after they assumed the former CNW commuter operations. The Rock Island actually purchased several 'B-unit with cab' versions NEW, built as a special order by EMD. I recall that they were designated 'AB6', and carried road numbers 750-751. They ended up in Chicago area commuter service, too.
I'm at my work lunch break right now, but if there's any interest later when I get home I can post some photos of these things.
Dan

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

That AB unit stayed in service until some time in the nineties from what I remember. I forget what the disposition of it was though.Technically it was a box cab, having a kind of shovel nose like found on the old box cabs that originally pulled the superchief.Little known fact, the old F units Boosters (b units) had a control stand about halfway down the engine. They could be moved around on their own power, so long as a crew man didn't mind leaning his head out the porthole to see.I've heard of one railroad supposedly cutting a window in one end of such a B unit, and using it to switch coaches in a passenger yard. I forget what RR did it though.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-03 AT 11:25 AM (EDT)

Turns out that I had some photos of the Rock Island AB-6 unit. I don't know that I would call these units a 'Box Cab'. To me, 'Box Cab' means it is designed with all the major structure in the frame, and a full-width carbody that covers the machinery but does not contribute to the strength. Instead, I would call this thing a 'Carbody' unit, with structural strength in trusses in the walls. Enjoy the pictures, turns out that I had more than a dozen if you want to see more.
Dan

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3eeb3dd3068ee511.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3eeb3df406d6ba9e.jpg

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.