GP-35"s

[jr]

In addition to the transition issues, I have wondered whether another part of the problem with the GP35 could have been that the 567 block had reached (or possibly surpassed) its practical limit. The same basic 16 cylinder block was good for 1350 hp in 1939, but with various "minor" upgrades (or maybe not-so-minor, depending on your point of view), had nearly doubled its output by 1963. Was 2500 hp too much to ask of sixteen 567 power assemblies?

Put another way: Didn't most GP35 rebuilds after the Dash-2 era include 645 power assemblies, rather than the 567s? Perhaps that could be an indicator that the railroads found the 567D3A block to be lacking in some respects (hope I got that prime mover model number right).

JR

[RickRackstop]

The 16D4, an industrial engine was rated at 2000 KW or 2680 HP @ 900 rpm for driving a synchronous generator. The usual reason for using 645 power assemblies is that they only had to stock one kind of PA. On the D4's, by using 645 PA's they use the 645's with the laser hardened liners and piston with induction hardened ring lands so that they would probably last forever.

[Pneudyne]

It does seem plausible that 2500 hp was just above the safe upper level for the D-block, although then one may wonder why did not EMD move to the E-block earlier than it did. Whilst the E-block appears to have been developed mostly for the 645 engine, as I understand it, it was also used for late 567 production.

Another thought is that the multiple transition steps imposed a greater frequency of shock loading on the engine, and that this might have been deleterious, particularly when the block was at or even above its sane power limit. Basically the multiple steps were required to utilize many times over the (finite) constant power range of the main generator curve. Each time the top of the curve was reached, another field shunting step would kick in. This would increase main generator current, producing I think what would be a momentary overload spike until the load control system could back-off main generator excitation and run it down to the lower end of the curve. It is not so much that this happened – it did anyway for simpler transition systems – but that it was repeated at a relatively high frequency that might have been problematical, if say, the resultant engine condition deterioration through fatigue, etc., was proportional to the event count.


Cheers,

[Allen Hazen]

Re: "Whilst the E-block appears to have been developed mostly for the 645 engine, as I understand it, it was also used for late 567 production."
I think I have seen references to a "567E" engine. What I don't know is whether EMD used the E-block on 567 engines before the (beginning of 1966) commercial introduction of the 645 engine. AFTER that, I think (recollection of things said on this forum long ago being one of my grounds) I believe EMD standardized on the E block, so that if any customer (export? or just someone wanting a replacement engine for an old locomotive?) asked for a 567 engine, EMD would give them one based on the newer block.

645 engined prototypes, rated at 3000 hp, were out testing in 1965 (the original "SD40X" and "GP40X" units). I don't know (and, unless EMD's archives have been deposited at a museum or university library, there may be no way of finding out) whether they had the new block or were equipped with something like a "645D" engine… and they may not all have been the same, since they were released at intervals. (These units were subsequently sold to railroads for revenue service: if some or all of them had a preliminary version of the engine, EMD might well have re-engined them before sale.) If the design of the 645E engine was essentially complete by the time these test units were built, EMD ***could*** have started usingE blocks on 567 engines in 1965. But this is all speculative.

[Pneudyne]

My recollection that the final tranche (34) of the EMD G12 model that came to New Zealand, which entered service in the second half of 1967, had 12-567C engines were described as being fitted with 645 blocks.

Marre (“Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 years”) does include a 567E engine in the EMD list, attached.

Cheers,

Marre p.11.gif

[SSW9389]

The first 16-645E fielded was in SD40 demonstrator #434 (serial 29025) built in July 1964. Another four SD40 demonstrators (serials 29873-29876) were built in February 1965 and the final four were built in April 1965 (serials 30499-30502). The GP40 demonstrator #433 (serial 29877) followed in May 1965. The SD45 demonstrators #4351-4353 (serials 31693-31695) were built in December 1965 and January 1966. Production locomotives using the 645 engine started with EMD's order #7851 for New York Central GP40s #3036-3049 in November 1965.

Very late model SW1200s built between January and May 1966 used the 12-645E block with 567 engine components. These units were delivered to Cotton Belt, Missouri Pacific, Texas & Pacific and Houston Belt and Terminal. The first SW1000 and SW1500 were built in June 1966.

According to this Don Strack page 645E blocks were used in this group of export locomotives traditionally associated with 567 engines: http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emd-notes.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ed in Kentucky

Re: "Whilst the E-block appears to have been developed mostly for the 645 engine, as I understand it, it was also used for late 567 production."
I think I have seen references to a "567E" engine. What I don't know is whether EMD used the E-block on 567 engines before the (beginning of 1966) commercial introduction of the 645 engine. AFTER that, I think (recollection of things said on this forum long ago being one of my grounds) I believe EMD standardized on the E block, so that if any customer (export? or just someone wanting a replacement engine for an old locomotive?) asked for a 567 engine, EMD would give them one based on the newer block.

645 engined prototypes, rated at 3000 hp, were out testing in 1965 (the original "SD40X" and "GP40X" units). I don't know (and, unless EMD's archives have been deposited at a museum or university library, there may be no way of finding out) whether they had the new block or were equipped with something like a "645D" engine… and they may not all have been the same, since they were released at intervals. (These units were subsequently sold to railroads for revenue service: if some or all of them had a preliminary version of the engine, EMD might well have re-engined them before sale.) If the design of the 645E engine was essentially complete by the time these test units were built, EMD ***could*** have started usingE blocks on 567 engines in 1965. But this is all speculative.

[obsessed railfan]

It also appears most EMD export locomotives in 1966/1967 were built with the 567E in the 645 block. Most late G12s built in 1966 and 1967 are listed as having the 12-567E, as well as the 8-567E used in the GA8. And interestingly, EMD lists the first G22s built in 1967 for South Korea as having the 12-567E. Whether fact or error, I find that very interesting since at the time the G22 was the new 12 cylinder export model to debut the 645E.

[Pneudyne]

It is not impossible that one or two errors would creep into OEM lists that covered several decades of production.

That attached excerpts from the EMD 1986 January Export Locomotive Product Reference Data Catalogue pertain to Korean National railways, and at face value, there do appear to be some errors, highlighted.

EMD Product Reference Data Export 1986 January p.34 KNR.gif

EMD Product Reference Data Export 1986 January p.35 KNR.gif

EMD Product Reference Data Export 1986 January p.36 KNR.gif

The Utah Rails item to which Ed in Kentucky referred includes the following comment: “No 645 replacement was available for 6-567C and 12-567A crankcases.”

That seems slightly odd insofar as the 6-567C is concerned, as EMD did build at least one batch of the 6-645E engine. These were for the final 25 of the Victorian Railways (Australia) Y class switchers, Clyde-GM G6B model, which were referred to in the thread “GE 237 Traction Motor Information”, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=163693" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Returning to the main theme, was the DD35 known suffer from the same problems as the GP35?


Cheers,

[v8interceptor]

I have a vague recollection that at one time the Santa Fe had a rebuilding program for GP-35 which included replacement of the DC generator with a traction alternator: I assume EMD AR-10. Is this true? Would EMD have been happy selling alternators to install in existing units? … It does seem like an obvious (though perhaps expensive) way of solving many of the electrical problems with the as-built GP-35.

Are you possibly thinking of Burlington Northern's re-manufacturing program for GP35s and GP30s to produce GP39M/E/V/R locomotives? That program included replacing the as-built generators with AR-10 alternators. EMD rebuilt some of the units in-house (thus the "E" designation of some of them) so they didn't mind selling the alternators and other electrical equipment...

[Allen Hazen]

v8interceptor--
Thanks for the suggestion. My memory seems to be… creative? … so maybe I was confusing that program(*) with other things I read about long ago… But I THOUGHT I was remembering something different, and earlier: looking for more information, the one Alaska Railroad wreck rebuild was the best I could come up with!
---
(*)Mind you, I wouldn't mind some specific details, from somebody who KNOWS, about the BN GP39M/E/V/R program: I think I've come across contradictory statements about the technical details of these units!

[Typewriters]

In answer to Pneudyne,

The Union Pacific did refit one or two DD35 units with Genisco Transition Programmers. This is a solid state device which can be substituted for the Transition Program Switch on any EMD unit of types SD24, GP30, GP/SD35 or DD35. The device is set for the type of unit required and then operates using solid state circuitry sensing locomotive speed off an axle pickup; it opens and closes the various contactors required to obtain the needed stages of traction motor field shunt and/or transition. This is an extremely obscure piece of equipment, but we do have a sales brochure here for this device when new. There's no reason to think that the DD35 would not have had the same troubles electrically as the GP35 or SD35.

-Will Davis

[Pneudyne]

Thanks, Will.

I have found some more information on the Genisco Transition Programmer, in the form of US Patent 3,842,316, which may be found at: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3842316.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

As it happens, there was recently a Trouble Shooting Manual on eBay, now closed: http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Genisco-Railroad ... Swa39UwAgR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I have attached the block schematic from the patent, which gives a fair idea as to how it worked. The circuitry looks to have been “of its time”, early 1970s, with use of integrated circuits including opamps, multivibrators, Schmitt triggers, comparators, etc, and with digital as well as analogue sections. The transition relays were switched directly by power semiconductors, but interestingly these were isolated from the control electronics by reed relays.

US3842316 p.03.gif

One possibility mentioned in the text of the patent is the use of transition in order to extend downwards the range of dynamic braking, which was a different approach to the customary extended range dynamic braking in which load resistance for each motor was reduced in several downward steps. I don’t know if this facility was ever actually used, but some DC electric locomotives with regenerative braking used up to three different traction motor groupings, although switching between them was usually done manually and off-line.

As might be expected, the benefits of the Genisco unit were stated to be precision timing of the transition points, not subject to the variations of electro-mechanical units nor their inevitable deterioration in a locomotive environment, and overall greater reliability.

Some additional comment in the DD35, including mention of the Genisco unit, may be found at: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... 11,1056040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.


Cheers,

[v8interceptor]

v8interceptor--

---
(*)Mind you, I wouldn't mind some specific details, from somebody who KNOWS, about the BN GP39M/E/V/R program: I think I've come across contradictory statements about the technical details of these units!

My source is Diesel Era Magazine; Volume 19,Number 4, July/August 2008, "Burlington Northern GP39E, GP39M, and GP39V rebuilds"..
Extensive article with plenty of detail: the units were re-manufactured with 645 power assemblies, Dash 2 electrical systems, and AR-10 alternators.

[Allen Hazen]

V8interceptor--
Many thanks! … "Diesel Era" counts as part of the "railfan press," which we don't count as entirely reliable. But some of "DE"'s articles have struck me as better than average for the railfan press: written by people who seem to have done their homework!
So, again, many thanks.

[Wayside]

GP and SD35s were definitely road failure prone. Most of those failures were transition/electrical in nature, as I recall. The 40 series alternator/rectifier equipment solved most of those problems. Conrail rebuilt a single GP35 (I've forgotten the road numbers involved) as an ersatz GP38 but decided not to expand the program for some reason. Maybe it was easier and less costly to just get new GP38s instead.