Railroad Forums 

  • Marketed but never sold EMD types

  • Discussion of Electro-Motive locomotive products and technology, past and present. Official web site can be found here: http://www.emdiesels.com/.
Discussion of Electro-Motive locomotive products and technology, past and present. Official web site can be found here: http://www.emdiesels.com/.

Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM

 #307926  by ExEMDLOCOTester
 
The 4 motor truck was under the long hood and if I remember correctly, the short hood truck was an SD truck missing a traction motor. I do remember recableing the rear truck additional TM to a deleted front truck motor, I think # 2 was deleted and rerouted to #3 position and #3 was moved to the long hood 4 motor truck. This was done so the unit would properly sequence through transition. I wish I had saved the prints....

 #337240  by ExEMDLOCOTester
 
ExEMDLOCOTester wrote:The 4 motor truck was under the long hood and if I remember correctly, the short hood truck was an SD truck missing a traction motor. I do remember recableing the rear truck additional TM to a deleted front truck motor, I think # 2 was deleted and rerouted to #3 position and #3 was moved to the long hood 4 motor truck. This was done so the unit would properly sequence through transition. I wish I had saved the prints....
Found a good pic of the unit:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bn6599a.jpg

AND write up:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/train_ ... tml#bn6599

All from:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel66.html

 #344741  by PCook
 
I think my favorite EMD product that was developed but not sold commercially was the Sterling Free Piston Engine, they built a total of one, and the thing looked like a spaceship from a Star Wars movie.

 #345780  by ExEMDLOCOTester
 
PCook wrote:I think my favorite EMD product that was developed but not sold commercially was the Sterling Free Piston Engine, they built a total of one, and the thing looked like a spaceship from a Star Wars movie.
Did they build it in the Engineering building or at the Engineering Annex in the Main building?

 #345788  by pablo
 
And where were the BL-20's? Who got those?

Dave Becker

 #345794  by MEC407
 
I believe they are now owned by GATX Rail Locomotive Leasing (formerly Locomotive Leasing Partners), but I'm not sure where they're currently located.

 #345808  by ExEMDLOCOTester
 
MEC407 wrote:I believe they are now owned by GATX Rail Locomotive Leasing (formerly Locomotive Leasing Partners), but I'm not sure where they're currently located.
This?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_BL20-2

 #345939  by ExEMDLOCOTester
 
Interesting:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_BL20-2
"Although the GP9 frame, trucks, traction motors, fans, and prime mover were rebuilt and reused, the locomotive received an all-new cab and carbody, basically that of a standard second-generation GP. Still, the unit had an unmistakable appearance, due to the absence of inertial air intakes behind the cab and the use of a squared-off dynamic brake assembly similar to that of a GP60."

Looking at the pics posted by U-Haul the inertial filters are on the left side of the unit only. Wikipedia writes: "due to the absence of inertial air intakes behind the cab". Anyone else see that?
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... x?id=17307
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=595620

 #483800  by bogieman
 
Phil Hom wrote:This was EMD's first testing of s steerable truck. A pair of three motor flexicoil truck was modified by removing one set of wheels from each truck and connecting them together. BN took part of the test under field condition (real world testing).

Only one unit was ever tested.
I was the engineer who was in charge of testing this truck in 1984. I posted the following in March, 2007 at Trainorders.com in answer to a question:

"-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone help me out with some information about
> Burlington Northern SDP45 #6599 after it was
> rebuilt with a B-B rear radial truck?

There seems to be a misconception in the railfan community that the HT-BB four axle articulated truck is a radial truck. It is just two rigid two axle trucks connected by a span bolster for vertical load transfer, a low mounted traction linkage to minimize weight shift, and a patented interlink between the two 2-axle trucks that improves the leading axles angles of attack to the rail. It can't be called a radial truck because all axles can never be geometrically radial to a curve.

It was developed ahead of the HTCR series of trucks in 1983-84 at EMD. BN's CMO, Thompson (not sure that was his name) was interested in the project because of the potential for high tractive effort. It actually began when EMD was bidding on South African 11E electric locos in conjunction with ASEA. With 8 axles on 3'-6" gauge track, it was a solution to use EMD design traction motors instead of 6 much larger ASEA motors. In the end, the ASEA motors were used in a GSI zero weight shift truck. Scheffel of SAR, a radial truck designer himself, was not a fan of the HT-BB truck since it was not a true radial truck and dismissed it from consideration.

The BN donated the 6599 for the conversion which was done in EMD's high bay in LaGrange, as loco production was way down at the time. The test trucks were made from two SD Flexicoil trucks where the single motor end was cut off, leaving a wheelbase of 81.5" on each sub truck. I don't recall the spacing between axles 5 and 6 but it was quite small, about 54-56" if I had to guess. Transoms were added made from plate and a cross link added. Holes were cut in the side frames between axles for the shafts that the traction linkage bellcranks pivot about. The bellcrank pivot bearing was a standard Class F journal bearing. A solid bolster was cast at Rockwell (Atchison) as a one-off using a simple pine pattern. Regular SD Flexicoil secondary and primary coils were used. The traction linkage was only about 10" above the rail and had spherical bearings at each end to allow movement but the lower the better for weight shift. Side posts were welded into the underframe after the underframe was lengthened about 4 feet, using the end of a trade-in loco. The center bearing stayed in the original location. A smaller fuel tank without water tank was added to make room for the truck extra length. I think that came from a trade-in unit as well but I don't recall the size. The center axle of the leading SD truck had it's traction motor removed for use in the HT-BB truck and cabling was modified to suit. Air duct openings also had to be reworked to match the motor locations.

The truck was tested in September, 1984 at Stampede Pass in Washington state over a two week period. EMD's instrumented wheels were applied at the BN Interbay shop the week prior to the testing. EMDs test car, I think it was the ET840, was connected and EMD braking units were used. Stampede Pass was closed to traffic at that time but reopened especially for this test. Downed trees had to be removed from the line to make it passible. The consist tied up each night at a yard in Auburn.

Testing showed wheel lateral loads better than the SD and less than expected from a single two axle truck. The unit road well with all that suspension travel of the Flexcoil springs. The truck just never found an application to justify the expense to develop it for production as well as the added cost of motors and wheels, not to mention a new alternator to handle 8 motors in parallel. "

This locomotive was simply modified to test the truck and no intention of producing a 7 axle loco ever existed - if used in production there would have been two HT-BB trucks. But the truck was a little too late - the HTCR radial truck development was in progress and AC traction was seriously under study, as well as a larger DC motor for North American use. Five years earlier, it might have had supporters in the right places within EMD.

Dave
 #595735  by v8interceptor
 
I've come across a few mentions (although only on web forums, not anything official) of a "GP2000" which would have been a GP15 type unit but with an 8 cylinder 710 powerplant. This was apparently before the BL20-2 demonstrators were built. Interesting because EMD is essentially building a similiar locomotive right now in the "GP22" prototypes.
 #607067  by Engineer Spike
 
I like the info on the modified BN SD40-2. I think that this technology will come out some day. For now, I think that it will stay in the closet. The railroads tried bigger but fewer units per train, with the AC6000 and SD90MAC. It was proven that the technology is there, but the units are not reliable enough yet. Some day everything will catch up. It has in the past. 4 unit FT sets traded in on 3 unit GP35 sets are an example.
Eventually we will reach the physical limits of what a 6 axle unit can deliver. The best wheel slip systems can't exceed the laws of physics. When this happens we might see a BB-BB wheel arrangement.
 #607084  by scharnhorst
 
Engineer Spike wrote:I like the info on the modified BN SD40-2. I think that this technology will come out some day. For now, I think that it will stay in the closet. The railroads tried bigger but fewer units per train, with the AC6000 and SD90MAC. It was proven that the technology is there, but the units are not reliable enough yet. Some day everything will catch up. It has in the past. 4 unit FT sets traded in on 3 unit GP35 sets are an example.
Eventually we will reach the physical limits of what a 6 axle unit can deliver. The best wheel slip systems can't exceed the laws of physics. When this happens we might see a BB-BB wheel arrangement.
The BB-BB wheel arrangement had been seen on the DD35, DD40AX, U50B, and the C855. Today's 6 axle units are almost close to the H.P. that these monsters once held over there life spans. I would bet that some day a 6 axle unit would have 7,000 or even 8,000 h.p. someday only time will tell if such things would happen maybe by then all newer units with such high Horse Power will have cabs on both ends? reducing the need of turning locos around or even pairing them up.
 #608466  by v8interceptor
 
scharnhorst wrote:
Engineer Spike wrote:I like the info on the modified BN SD40-2. I think that this technology will come out some day. For now, I think that it will stay in the closet. The railroads tried bigger but fewer units per train, with the AC6000 and SD90MAC. It was proven that the technology is there, but the units are not reliable enough yet. Some day everything will catch up. It has in the past. 4 unit FT sets traded in on 3 unit GP35 sets are an example.
Eventually we will reach the physical limits of what a 6 axle unit can deliver. The best wheel slip systems can't exceed the laws of physics. When this happens we might see a BB-BB wheel arrangement.
The BB-BB wheel arrangement had been seen on the DD35, DD40AX, U50B, and the C855. Today's 6 axle units are almost close to the H.P. that these monsters once held over there life spans. I would bet that some day a 6 axle unit would have 7,000 or even 8,000 h.p. someday only time will tell if such things would happen maybe by then all newer units with such high Horse Power will have cabs on both ends? reducing the need of turning locos around or even pairing them up.

I remember reading a quote from an unnamed EMD rep. around the time the first SD90MAC was produced that the company was projecting the need for 7,500 HP per unit within a few years. This was over 10 years ago and obv. the development path on the 6,000 HP engines didn't go as planned.GE did have an static test prototype of an 18 cylinder HDL and were talking about locomotive applications for it (it produced 7,000 BHP which would have been around 6,700 HP in a locomotive).
The problem with 7 or 8 thousand HP in a 6 axle unit is that it really would only be suitable for high speed freight/intermodal trains i.e at lower operating speeds such as coal/grain service the prime mover would not reach the upper output levels and would not be very efficient. The RR preference for units in the 4300-4400 HP range has a lot to do with versatility..
As far as