• DL-109 Class?

  • Discussion relating to the NH and its subsidiaries (NYW&B, Union Freight Railroad, Connecticut Company, steamship lines, etc.). up until its 1969 inclusion into the Penn Central merger. This forum is also for the discussion of efforts to preserve former New Haven equipment, artifacts and its history. You may also wish to visit www.nhrhta.org for more information.
Discussion relating to the NH and its subsidiaries (NYW&B, Union Freight Railroad, Connecticut Company, steamship lines, etc.). up until its 1969 inclusion into the Penn Central merger. This forum is also for the discussion of efforts to preserve former New Haven equipment, artifacts and its history. You may also wish to visit www.nhrhta.org for more information.
  by SSW9389
From Randy Hammill and the New Haven Historical Society Archives:

The DL-109s classifications are a great example of the inconsistency of the New Haven.

First of all, when the majority of the DL-109s were delivered the New Haven Railroad didn't have diesel classifications

Prior to the introduction of diesel classes (DER-1, etc) there were only two classes:
6-30-45 Summary of Equipment:
0700-0709: 10
0710-0759: 50

Between then and prior to rebuilding project, there were 4 classes of DL-109's:

From the 9-30-45 Summary of Equipment, the first with diesel classifications:
DER-1: 0700-0709 (10)
DER-1a: 0710-0719 (10)
DER-1b: 0720-0729 (10)
DER-1c: 0730-0759 (30)

It's the DER-1 class that was lighter than the DER-1a/b/c classes.

Some plans I've located note the DER-1 locomotives were reclassed as DER-1a c 1947-9 (I don't have the exact date within reach), although the reclassification was done several years after the actual changes that were noted were completed.

The Summary of Equipment didn't change until 6-30-49 and they retained these classes thereafter, so it seems to be related to the rebuilding with screens, etc.:

DER-1: Not listed
DER-1a: 0700-0709 (10)
DER-1b: 0710-0749 (40)
DER-1c: 0750-0759 (10)

The 4-24-49 engine assignment book has the same classes as the 9-30-45 to 3-31-49 Summary of Equipment.

Oddly, starting with the 9-25-49 engine assignment book and through the 1953 engine assignment book they are classified differently than the Summary of Equipment as noted by Mr. Statkowski above (which I don't have...hint, hint).

So the engine assignment books list DER-1, DER-1a, and DER-1b, while at the same time the Summary of Equipment is listing DER-1a, DER-1b, and DER-1c. And it's not just that the class numbers listed are different, but they notate different locomotives in each class:

Late '49+ Engine Assignment:
DER-1: 0700-0709 (10)
DER-1a: 0710-0719 (10)
DER-1b: 0720-0759 (40)

vs. Late '49+ Summary of Equipment
DER-1a: 0700-0709 (10)
DER-1b: 0710-0749 (40)
DER-1c: 0750-0759 (10)

I don't have any engine assignment or Summaries of Equipment later than 1952 so I can't comment on any changes beyond these.

The DER-1 and DER-1a have the same general roofline, with the exception of the addition of the square winterizing hatches over the fans (I haven't found definitive overhead shots to verify all of the components). These were added to the DER-1 and original equipment on the DER-1a. The DER-1b and -1c were delivered with the simplified roofline, with the addition of globe vents on the DER-1c only, I think.

I've also found some other differences on plans between the DER-1 and -1a, such as oil capacity, and the oil or water pump if I recall.

A difference that apparently warranted modification was that the clearance from the frame to the rail was difference between the DER-1 and DER-1a. The plan shows that the DER-1 locomotives were modified c1945 but reclassified c1947-9. I can't find my notes with the exact dates, but Dave Peters has the plans in his collection. These might

Obviously these reclassifications weren't notated in all of the other paperwork.

Externally, the main difference between the DER-1b and DER-1c classes are the number of small louvres on the side, below the belt rail, and the small wings on the nose. The DER-1c also had the globe vents on the roof as delivered. I don't believe any of the other classes did, and these were later removed.

Another visual oddity to note. All of the locomotives that received the Hunter Green and Warm Orange paint scheme were entirely converted to the DER-1c external appearance (minus the globe vents). For those that were originally DER-1b (#0738) it meant the addition of the extra louvre in each group on the sides. But the DER-1 and DER-1a classes not only received the louvres and the small vents in the nose, but also the simplified roofline and lost their extra roof vents.

I haven't had much time recently, but once I started digging I found more questions than I did answers...

Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1953 | http://newbritainstation.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by Statkowski
So, even if a model maker came out with a "New Haven" DL-109 instead of a "generic" DL-109 (since the New Haven had 60 of the 79 built), they'd still be hard pressed to come out with a reasonably accurate version of a "New Haven" DL-109 since the New Haven apparently couldn't tell which was the correct version (Summary of Equipment version vs. Engine Assignment version).
  by Allen Hazen
Comment on SSW9389's post, three up. (I will quote relevant portion at bottom.)

Kirkland's Alco book says that only the 730 motor was available (as new equipment-- remotored ATSF 50,50A apparently got 726 motors with the higher gearing) with gearing for 100mph or 120mph, and that the 730 and 726 motors used different gear ratios when geared for 80mph: 71/21 for the 730motor and 64/19 for the 726.
But, of course, it is possible that even Kirkland didn't realize just how complicated the true story was! So inferences from gear ratios to motor types are not 100% certain.

A detailed chronology might help: if changes were introduced over time, one might expect a correlation. Alas, Alco's order number and builder number sequence may mask the chronological details. (Numbers from the "Extra 2200 South" article, issue 37, p. 19.)

---Southern's three B-units (two built earlier, one in 1942) and ATSF's B-unit 50A were all built on the same order number (S1833), and have builder numbers in sequence. This is a bit strange, given the length of time between the first and last of these units! Did Alco have at least a preliminary order from SR for three B-units before building the first two? … Apparently there were problems (vibration) with the Southern's first four units that led to their being sent back to Schenectady for rebuilding early in their careers. Did the problems show up immediately on the earlier ones, with delivery of the last two put on hold so they could have the needed changes made without needing a trip back to the factory?

---Southern's last A-unit (2904, built 9.1942) and GM&O's third unit (272, built 2.1943) were built on the same order number as the New Haven's SECOND lot, (710-719, built 7.1942 - 1.1943). Their builder numbers (69990 for SR 2904, 69991 for GM&O 272) come at the end of the sequence for the New Haven units. (THIS, at least, is consistent with their having been mechanically and electrically uniform with the New Haven units. They were, however, lighter in weight: perhaps the New Haven had asked for heavier options? (Like, maybe, bigger steam generators?))

---As for gear ratios. The roster in "Extra 2200 South" puts a question mark beside the entry for the last Southern units, so apparently Win Cuisinier wasn't sure WHAT they had. GM&O 272 is shown as having a 71/21 gear ratio: the ratio which, according to Kirkland, was used with the 730 motor for 80mph top speed. This ratio had been used on the two earlier units for GM&O (270,271), and it would have made sense for them to ask Alco to make their new unit uniform with the earlier ones.

So, what motors did they all have? My ***GUESS*** is that at least GM&O 272 had 730 motors: since it differed from the New Haven units built on the same order in a way that suggests a desire for uniformity, I'm guessing that they would have specified using the same motors as well.

As for the Southern's pair… Their war-time build date does suggest that they should have been built to "dual service" standards, but I think the War Production Board's restrictions weren't imposed immediately. It is possible (particularly if -- as the order number for the B-unit suggests -- Southern had already committed to buying them before Pearl Harbor) that a few straight passenger locomotives were built in late 1942 to complete pre-war orders. So: I just don't know.

Rock Island (sensibly, I'd say!) re-geared its units for 80mph top speeds, but used the 71/21 ratio. So my guess is that they did NOT replace the original 730 motors: if they had, it would have made sense to use the 64/19 ratio that the units we KNOW were delivered with 726 motors used.

(SSW9389's post that this is a reply to:
The early GM&O units built in 9/40 were geared for 80 mph and thus according to the Extra 2200 South article would have had the GE-726 traction motors. I think the Southern's war baby DL-109/DL-110 pair would have had freight gearing and GE-726 traction motors to get passed by the War Production Board. In the last column on page 20 third paragraph from the bottom of the X2200 article it states that both New Haven and GM&O had freight gearing. And you can see that Rock Island regeared and likely remotored all its DL-100s when rebuilt. Win Cuisinier had seen some of the Alco drawings when he wrote that piece. It's the only way he could have described the units in detail as he did.)