Railroad Forums 

  • U25B/U30B with nonstandard trucks

  • Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.
Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.

Moderators: MEC407, AMTK84

 #639927  by Allen Hazen
 
(Another bit of GE locomotive oddity...)

Steve McMillan's (outstandingly good!) article on the Alco C430 in "Diesel Era" vol. 5, no. 5 (September-October 1994) tells a convoluted story about how the New York Central came to order its C430 with Hi-Ad trucks. Over the four years 1964-1967, the New York Central acquired 132 GE freight locomotives: 154 if you include the P&LE's twenty-two U28B. These units all rode on "Type B"(*) trucks, which (at least in most cases) came from Alco trade-ins. Given the rate of new locomotive orders, there were stages at which the New York Central didn't have enough Alcos ready to retire to keep up with the demand!

As a result, 18 GE units were delivered with trucks from Fairbanks-Morse trade-ins:
---- U25B 2553-2560 (2553-2559 were from the NYCRR's penultimate U25B order, built in 1/65-2/65 with the "Phase III" carbody features of divided windshield and later-style handrail stanchions; 2560 was from the final, "Phase 4" order with the slope-top short hood: this order was built in 7/65-9/65, but apparently not in order, with 2560 having the highest builder's number and apparently built in 9/65)(**), and
---- U30B 2830-2839 (New York Central's first U30B, built in early 1967, with the "U28B-style" carbody).

QUESTION #1: New York Central's F-M units with two-axle trucks had Westinghouse electrical gear. I don't ***think*** GE would have wanted to use Westinghouse motors on its new locomotives (I think I remember that the W'house traction motor had six poles, so using it would have entailed non-standard cabling, and I think it had different ventilation arrangements from GE motors: using GE electrical gear on the last two 1600 hp Baldwins involved significant re-design of the locomotive), so... Would the trucks have had to be modified in order to accept GE motors?

QUESTION #2: Does the non-standard truck appear in (early-- see below) photos of these units? Obviously the C-liner truck, with its curve-bottom drop equalizer, would be immediately recognizable, but the NYCRR had nineteen (enough to supply the 18 GE units mentioned with one left over!) H20-44, which used the "Type B" truck. To make spotting even harder, although Baldwin used a 9' 10" wheelbase version of this truck, the H20-44 used a 9' 6" wheelbase version: only two inches longer than the version used on Alcos! So it might be hard to recognize the truck difference. (Looking at a bunch of photos, it seems as if the F-M truck may have slightly narrower frame and drop equalizers than the Alco version, but this could be my imagination. I suspect it is also my imagination that the trucks on NYC 2553 in the mid-1967 photo at
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc2553gea.jpg
look somehow a bit....)

Apparently the whole effort to save money by using F-M trucks was a bit of a bust because, McMillan says
"This turned out to be a nuisance in the long run, because the F-M trucks required a different wheelset from that used in the Alco double-equalized truck. Therefore, as Alco units were retired, their trucks were exchanged with the F-M trucks under the GEs. This left Alco units on F-M trucks to be traded in on the C-430s, and although components, such as contactors, were reused, the trucks were not."

QUESTION #3: Why did the F-M trucks need different wheelsets? H20-44, like first generation Alco freight power, had 6.5"/12" journals. But-- from photos-- NYCRR's H20-44 seem to have had friction bearings: would a roller-bearing journal able to fit in the same journal guides in the truck have needed a different axle dimension?
--
(*) Yes, I know that "Type B" is a railfan-invented term, but it's shorter than any accurate description I can think of...
(**) Roster information from "Rairoad Model Craftsman" for August 1987 and from
http://www.thedieselshop.us/GE_U25B.HTML
 #640016  by Super Seis
 
I queried a buddy with a large NYC book collection. He turned up the following:
  • Builders photo of H20 7104 with friction bearings
  • In service photos of 7111,7713 & 7114 with friction bearings
  • In service photos of 7110 with Fafnir ROLLER bearings
  • Builders photo 0f U28 2836 with Timken 'GG' roller bearings
  • Builders photo of U28 2820 with Timken 56000 roller bearings

??????

Q1:Cabling for a U series with GE or WEMCO motors would be the same,e.g., 4 cables sized 1925/24.
Ports in motors for ventilation would be in a different location on GE vs. WEMCO motors.

Q2: hard to tell from photos

Q3: Axles on FM trucks were different size than standard GE spec. for U-series.

SS
 #640565  by ATK
 
Super Seis wrote:Q3: Axles on FM trucks were different size than standard GE spec. for U-series.
If this is true, then I assume that the difference in the axles was diameter??? If the difference was the diameter, then GE could certainly not have used the standard 752 traction motors under these locomotives. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that GE would use anything other than 752 motors under U-series locomotives. I believe that even the C&O and SCL U-boats equipped with Blomberg trucks had 752 motors under them.
 #640844  by Allen Hazen
 
Super Seis--
I was just going by the photos on George Elwood's "Fallen Flags" railphoto site when I said the NYCRR's H20-44 had friction bearings. As 2,000 hp units, I'd think it might be over-kioll to use them as yard switchers(*), so maybe the Central decided to modify (at least some) for higher speed/longer distance service by retrofitting roller bearing journals?
(*) Though I think one of the photos showed one mated with a slug (NYCRR built a number of yard slugs in the 1940s, from its own 3rd rail electric and GE-IR 3-power locomotives): 2,000 hp and eight motors should be usable as a hump pusher!

ATK--
Guessing here: diameter of railroad axles is not constant along the length of the axle, so maybe ... Some railroads with very heavy axle loadings apparently specified oversize journals: V. Staff's "D-Day on the Western Pacific" says that WP asked for 6.875" journals (standard is 6.5") on its GP-40 and -- staff isn't explicit, but I would take his account as implying -- U30B units. So you can have a non-standard diameter at the end of the axle that goes into the journal box and still fit standard EMD or GE traction motors to it. But, certainly, I'd like to know more about just HOW the FM trucks demanded nonstandard wheelsets.
 #641010  by AVR Mark
 
Didn't all the FM (and Baldwin) Road Units that were equipped with Westinghouse traction motors have 42 inch wheels, as opposed to EMDs and GE equipped Alcos which had 40 inch wheels? The different "axle" was probably actually the "wheel - axle" assembly.

Mark
 #641172  by Allen Hazen
 
AVR Mark--
I'm embarrassed to have to admit I had never realized that! You're right, more or less contemporary sources(*) show 42" wheels for a variety of BLW and FM road and road-switching power, and the New York Central's diagram
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-dft1.gif
for the H20-44 confirms this for their units of that model (as well as saying that the "2000 hp" H20-44 had 1750 hp for traction...).
---
(*) A collection of what look like "Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia" entries -- no dates, but locomotive models included all date from 1950 or earlier -- was published as a booklet for railfans by Simmons-Boardman (publisher of the original "C&LC") in 1983 under the title "Early Diesel-Electric and Electric Locomotives." Since the entries seem to have been photo-reproduced, I'm ***tentatively*** willing to take them as documents form the 1950s or late 1940s. One odd exception to the 42" rule: the Baldwin S-12 switcher is listed as having 40" wheels, though with the same W'house electrical gear (inc. 362 motors) as the RS-12 light roadswitcher which is shown as having 42". Did the same AAR "recommended practice" for switch engines that forced Alco to phase out the Blunt truck force Baldwin to phase out 42" wheels on switchers?
 #641181  by Allen Hazen
 
Answer to my query about whether the 40" wheels on the S-12 switcherr were a response to the AAR's recommendation of standardized switch engine features in 1950: No. The NYCRR diagrams at George Elwood's "Fallen Flags" site consistently show 40" wheels for Baldwin (and FM and Lima) switchers back to the VO-660 of 1940 or 1941. They also show 40" wheels on the Baldwin (as well as the Lima) 1200hp light roadswitchers, but 42" on Baldwin and FM road power. (NB: not all NYCRR locomotive diagrams are available from "Fallen Flags," just a representative sample.)
 #641277  by Super Seis
 
Back in the day, the NYC (and the PRR) were known for buying diesels to replace steam one for one on a specific assignment. Appears that this fact accounts explains that some of the H20's were friction equipped, which the number in the series could have rollers.

A 42" wheelplate affords a large contact patch (increase adhesion), in addition to a slower motor speed vs. the 40" wheel.

SS
 #642131  by Super Seis
 
ATK wrote:
It is absolutely inconceivable to me that GE would use anything other than 752 motors under U-series locomotives. I believe that even the C&O and SCL U-boats equipped with Blomberg trucks had 752 motors under them
Agreed. No doubt, many GE's (and Alco's) were sold on the superiority of what was below the platform vs. the competition. :-)

Most of what has been written about NYC diesel locomotives has been the work of WD Edson, CM Smith and HC Crouch, all former NYC Mechanical Department employees. Perhaps this is where the implication developed that some NYC U-Series did not have 752 motors applied. A check of the official diagram book would be in order for clarification.

SS
 #642269  by Typewriters
 
A couple notes for what they're worth:

It is, and has been, my impression that the Fairbanks-Morse H20-44 units built for the NYC and its subsidiaries were all built originally with friction bearings, and that they were replaced later on with various types as the units were shopped.

I am sure that the GE units built for WP, riding on Blomberg type (EMD) trucks contained GE 752 motors as did the units built for C&O; GE developed a way (a mounting, adapter or such) to get 752 motors into the EMD trucks. I cannot say for certain anything about any other GE units riding on EMD trucks.

The diagrams in the Edson book late enough to include GE units don't include performance or mechanical details but rather are, essentially, clearance diagrams; however, the performance figures quoted in the back of the book for the various GE locomotives indicate GE motors to me since they're the standard figures for the given type of locomotive and gear ratio. I would imagine that the units did in fact have GE motors. In an interesting parallel, I recall that the former MKT Baldwin rebuilds that the C&NW bought second-hand were being equipped, slowly, with EMD traction motors in their GSC drop-equalized road trucks (original equipment trucks, that is) with adapters that C&NW developed to do such a job. It's no stretch then to imagine GE developing what's needed to put a 752 motor in a truck originally containing a Westinghouse 370 motor.

It is safe to say that with very, very few exceptions, all units of any make using Westinghouse 362 switching motors also used 40" wheels and that units using road motors (the big six-pole 370) used 42" wheels. There are exceptions of course but that's the general rule.

I'll keep an eye out for any further info along these lines.

-Will Davis
 #642691  by Allen Hazen
 
I have never doubted that GE locomotives (U series and later) have all been built with GE traction motors, including the ones built with Blomberg trucks. (I think GE offered a "U15B" -- a de-rated U18B which could have been built with components from traded-in first generation power, and there has been at least speculation that non-GE electrical components would have been accepted. But (a) I've never seen documented details and (b) no railroad ever bought such units.)

At least some variation in axle-size is compatible with the use of 752 motors: Vergil Staff's book on Western Pacific diesels reports that one of the annoyances with the last two U30B on the WP (the two rebuilt from U30/33/36B test/demonstrator units) was that GE had not installed the extra-heavy axles WP required.

As for the truck modifications involved: (a) I think the EMD traction is smaller than the 752, and it has been said in some string on this forum that Blomberg trucks used on GE locomotives got new, narrower, bolsters to make room for the bigger GE motors. (b) I've assumed that the Westinghouse 370 was bigger than the GE 752 (though, come to think of it, my only real evidence for this is the fact that Baldwin and FM used longer wheelbase versions of the "Type B" truck than Alco did: some railfan source-- possibly the "Diesel Spotter's Guide"-- said this was in order to accommodate the larger W'house motors).
 #643188  by Super Seis
 
Without the actual locomotive to inspect and the Renewal Parts Manual OR first person recall ,these types of inquiries will always be problematic.

In order to apply a 752 to an Blomberg frame, the 'adapter' may have had to be a modified motor nose suspension pack, along with possible modications to the truck frame.

SS