Looking at the progress of this discussion it appears that an article is needed about the Amtrak-EMD relationship in the 1970s and the role that Warren Fox played in those events. The actual scope is much larger than the diesel-electric market, the man's influence extends into the electric locomotive bid process as well. Told in its entirety, it would be a fascinating story, especially as it relates to the bidding of the electric locomotives and the eventual selection of the AEM-7. But looking back at the photos Jim Boyd took at an EMD Northeastern Region sales meeting in the late 1960s and realizing that only one person who was at the meeting is still alive, the time for documenting this is just about expired.

PC

Not to mention the two experimental EMD freight motors.

Phil Mulligan

Maybe it is an appropriate time to ask whether there is enough interest in the design/production/sales process for diesel-electric and electric locomotives to justify the time and effort needed to contact and interview the surviving participants and generate articles? Are there many people in the hobby interested in this? Seems like most articles on these topics just sail out there and fall off the edge of the world, and the authors seldom hear anything back from the audience.

I am asking this, in part, because there has historically been very little interest at the national organizations level. In many years of national convention notices I do not recall anyone who worked for EMD (as one example) except Jim Boyd ever having been invited to be the banquet speaker, and that instance was because he was the editor at R&R at the time, not because he was a former EMD employee.

PC

Back in 1979 I was at Baltimore Penn Station when the French locomotive candidate was in one of the low level platform station tracks. I don't remember the type, but it had three axle trucks. The folks were down on the ground looking, pointing at the locomotive trucks and using new to me swear words.

Back then, the ex PRR track conditions were not the best --- especially in Interlockings.

Even though the Swedish locomotive was derided for being so small, it obviously won the day.


Brian

Hey Preston, my coworkers are trying to get a hold of you. If you have a minute, shoot me an email at thartfor@gmail.com if you don't mind.

Weirdest one I've encountered is liquid wax going to a paper plant. It's shipped hot and stayed warm enough to remain semi-liquid. When you spotted the car, it would slosh from end to end. But it moved like a lava lamp, so the car would move one wait, wait 20 seconds, and the the slack would move the other direction. Really felt weird having them in the train.

Was working with a yard crew switching a chemical plant around Cleveland, back in the day.
We had to couple up a track of about 7 part load tank cars so that a 'fresh' car could be placed at the far end of the track and one of the cars in the cut taken out of the track. Every time a coupling or uncoupling was attempted one had to wait for the slosh to stop to see if the car had stopped at the proper spotting location on the track. What would have taken 10 minutes on a dry commodity track took almost an hour when slosh time was accounted for.

A question for PC, as it might be related.

When the Great Northern was considering turning off the electrification in the Cascade Tunnel in Washington State, was there any sort of EMD related GN interest in exploring electric models to continue operation on the line, in case the power wasn't shut off? Power was shut off in 1956. I can presume there was some correspondence regarding ventilation of diesels through the 8 mile tunnel.

In 1943 there was a GE steam turbine that ran on the GN for a few trips. It had been built for the UP in 1938. Considering the build timeframe, was EMD all in for the FT only, or was there someone keeping an eye on the innovations of the competition?

As for the original subject you started this thread with, I can honestly say it was something I had not considered. I know the GN got a lot out of it's EMD power.

Dan
VP, GNRHS

While waiting for Mr. Cook's reply:

The 1938 GE steam turbines were a development of the Steamotive system that was developed by Babcock & Wilcox and others in the mid-Thirties (in the era that PRR was actively researching oil-fired power of a number of types) in an era when 'normal' diesel engine prime movers ran at 1000hp or under and had tremendous weight for their output. Even the 201As that led to the 567, still being developed at the time the Steamotive design was being actively developed, weren't capable of matching 2500hp in a single unit.

As with the contemporary Doble and Besler designs, this used high-pressure steam (originally 1200psi, then increased to 1500psi). At that pressure, practical boilers don't tolerate silica in the feedwater, turbines neither, so the Steamotive cycle used distilled water with mandatory full condensation -- tankage on the locomotive extended the range somewhat, but effective back pressure reduction requirement meant both a heroically-dimensioned exhaust plenum and very good steam-to-air condenser operation. This as you might expect turned out to work much better in cool... including cool and rainy... climate than it did over much of UP's operating territory, and as with the proposed ACE3000, once the condenser began to blow off with inadequate cooling, the turbine efficiency dropped dramatically and the circulating water became rapidly depleted...

There were apparently mixed messages being sent from GN about the locomotives when tried as 'war emergency power' -- they ran about 12 weeks and were returned to GE, after which they were never run again. Some accounts indicate that all the issues on UP were properly addressed (I am still looking for official GN reports on this) but by that time 567-powered locomotives were (for reasons more than operational) preferable to the complexity of a Steamotive plant.

I'm not a GN specialist, but note that as late as the second half of the Forties GN was still investing in very large modern electric power for the tunnel operation (this dating just before the advent of the Virginian-style multiple-B-trucked big electrics that can be seen in the 1948 Westinghouse catalogue). It isn't difficult to see that with progressive dieselization, the cost to install and operate effective tunnel ventilation will be less than the continuing expenses and inconveniences of what is essentially a fancy electrified helper district... once you have ample reliable internal-combustion power.

(Note that one of the GN electrics found a sort of second life as part of the UP coal-turbine experiments, themselves a continuation of the Bituminous Coal Research boondoggle that John Yellott ran. You can almost see the railfan interest in using a PA and its 2000hp 244 for service power, a rebuilt Art Deco-style chassis for the main components, and a repurposed centipede tender just for the pulverized fuel supply. THAT made anything Steamotive look small... and efficient... by comparison.

It's interesting to note GN's older 1927-1928 Y-1 motors (Boxcab; 1-C+C-1) were sold to PRR for more years of service, with one used as a parts motor. They were used almost exclusively as helpers. GN was 11 kV, 25 Hz, same as PRR.

Part of GN's logic in retiring the electrification was probably the age of the hardware and motors (30 years) but it also required 2 engine changes between Spokane and Seattle. Eliminate the electrics and the diesels can run thru from Spokane (or East) and Seattle.

Phil Mulligan

When I worked at EMD, I was able to view the annual management conference summaries, and found no GN electric locomotive studies from the 1950s. There was an ongoing gas turbine study project that spanned eight years, it is summarized on Don Strack"s Utah Rails website.

PC