Skip to main content

Reply to "Santa Fe FT Set Configuration"

wjstix posted:

I like to get my "facts" from "books" - old-fashioned though that may be. 

All well and good, as long as the authors of those books conducted proper & extensive research, in order to obtain correct information.

Re the FT name "F stood for Fourteen (an approximation of the 1350 h.p. of each unit) while the T indicated Twin units, as each unit of an A-B set was dependent upon the other.

This is absolutely incorrect! I began my career with EMD on June 1, 1962, and met & worked with many, MANY of the "old timers" from the early 1940s. I have also seen the actual internal Engineering Dept. paper work for the very first EMC FT demonstrator set. As I stated previously, the "F" stood for Freight, and the "T" stood for Twenty seven hundred HP. The men in Engineering were following the same pattern as the E Series (E stood for Eighteen hundred HP on the first E), while the "SC" switching model was "S" for Six hundred HP, and "C" for Cast under frame  (the second model 'SW' stood for Six hundred HP, with the "W" standing for Welded under frame)  

The cab unit had the controls while the booster carried the batteries." "Some flatland FT purchasers found that four-unit sets were too much locomotive for the trains their yards and sidings accommodated, so four-unit FTs were split up and mated with F2 cabs to create three-unit, 4050 h.p. locomotives." - "Diesel Demonstrators" by K.Erk, J.C. Smith, J.J. Scala, pg. 49-50.

That, they got correct.

"(EMD Chief Engineer Richard M.) Dilworth reckoned that a 2,700 h.p pair was the equal of a typical 2-8-2 or 2-10-2, and that the full 5,400 hp set could equal any of the largest articulated steam engines." - "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of North American Locomotives" by Brian Hollingsworth, pg.122.

Wonder if they actually consulted with Mr. Dilworth, or anybody that worked with/for him. There is no internal documentation to document such statements.

The problem there was many railroads in 1939 were running mainline freights with engines larger than a 2-8-2, but smaller than a Mallet. A good example was Boston & Maine, who relied on 2-8-4 and 4-8-2 engines. B&M soon found that a four-unit FT set was too much power for most mainline trains, and "(a)s a result, orders were placed with EMD in mid-1945 for as-soon-as-possible delivery of another 15 individual A units to convert the the 12 A-B-B-A sets into 15 A-B-A combinations with either four A-B-B-A or nine A-B sets for added flexibility." They received F2s, which like the FTs were 1350 hp, creating three-unit sets of 4150 hp. This is from "The Revolutionary Diesel, EMC's FT" by Diesel Era, pg. 57.

Again, actual conversations with men who were there, indicate that the goal for the FT demonstrator set was to compete with the 5000+ HP modern steam locomotives of the mid to late 1930s, those being the 4-8-4.

That book also notes that other railroads that found three-unit sets to be 'just right' for most mainline needs were the Santa Fe ("A Test Department study showed, however, that in Chicago-Texas service, three units per consist were entirely adequate" - pg.17), Atlantic Coast Line (photo of FT A-B set mated with an F2, pg. 24), C&NW (pg. 40), Burlington ("These F2A-FTB-FTA sets were then semi-permanently coupled into 4,050-horsepower "FT-2" locomotives..." - pg.44), Rock Island (pg 51-52, Rock Island also purchased some A-B-A FT sets using the FTSB, as did the Lackawanna (pg. 54), Great Northern (pg. 67), and M-St.L (pg.74)). Other photos showing a NYC FT A-B set with an F7 (pg. 81), NP FT A-B set with an F-9 (pg. 92) and other lead me to believe this was fairly standard procedure. 

 

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
×