Steam & Excursion > Question: GS-4 vs 5

Just curious: Was there ever any reaction/conclusion from the SP as to the benefits of the roller bearings of the GS-5's? In other words- had there been another order of GS's would they have had them?
The GS-6 didn't, but I'm not so sure that wasn't the result of war restrictions more than anything. I think the 5's kept their Daylight colors and frontline service status a bit longer than most other GS's, so that might be a clue.
Anyone know for sure?
SR

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just curious: Was there ever any
> reaction/conclusion from the SP as to the benefits
> of the roller bearings of the GS-5's?

Probably, but trying to get the SP Mechanical Engineering Dept. to admit it would have difficult. The Mechanical Engineer that designed and patented the babbitted crown bearing and pressure feed oil lubrication system, used on all latter SP steam locomotives, was actually an SP employee. Combine that aspect with the fact that the Southern Pacific RR was NOT actually a "high speed" railroad, like say the UP, PRR, or NYC with sustained passenger train speed over 90+ MPH. Thus, there pressure feed oil lubricating design worked VERY well for their service needs. The babbitted crown bearings was known as "Sadco", which we know today as the Magnus Bearing Company, maker of babbitted traction motor support bearings for all diesel electric locomotives, having non-roller support bearings, since the early 1930s.

In other
> words- had there been another order of GS's would
> they have had them?

Probably not, since the SP Mechanical Dept. saw no "need" nor "benefit" in the more expensive axle roller bearings.

> The GS-6 didn't, but I'm not so sure that wasn't
> the result of war restrictions more than anything.

No, as there were no "restrictions" from the WPB related to axle roller bearings. Light weight rods were however "restricted".

> I think the 5's kept their Daylight colors and
> frontline service status a bit longer than most
> other GS's, so that might be a clue.

I'm not so sure of that.

> Anyone know for sure?
> SR

Thanks Jack
I guess that's pretty much what I expected, but you never know what will turn up.
By "restrictions" I meant that the Board would frown on anything the felt was maybe too extravagant. In this case that the materials involved were in greater need elsewhere- that kind of thing.
There's always been the story floating around that in approaching the War people GS now stood for General Service rather than the more flamboyant Golden State. (Not sure that's true, but it makes sense given the situation)
SR

Following Hotwater's lead-in....

Additional Considerations:

---- The rest of the SP Fleet was ALL Babbitt-bearing equipped. There were not any realizable 'cost savings' in the added expanse of a future order (necessarily a small amount of locos).
SP still would have had to keep its mechanical forces staffed-up juts to keep the rest of the fleet going.

-----The oil-lubed bearings were serving wonderfully, problem was solved.

-----SP would have probably opted to NOT use RB rods and driving elements, similar to UP's practice to eschew RB rods. If fact a 'cleanly designed' [a-la UP) plain bearing rods driving system weighed WAY less than a typical Timken all RB rods application, on comparable locos. Also, plain bearing rods more easily shift, laterally, when negotiating sharp curves and turnouts. [See N&W's practice of lightening up the RB rods on its 600s [by omitting] the 'tandem rod' set-up of the Timken design. N&W also made changes to the crankpins, counterweights, etc that further reduced the rotating weights of the RB 600's siderod assemblies. ALSO,'little' N&W had long-since adopted all-RB axles on the engines they built, from the 1930s-on. They were also able to adopt system-wide economical servicing practices, that combined with other modernizations, saved the N&W significant loco-dollars, year-over-year].

-----The coming conversion to Diesel-Electric propulsion and the modernization of the SP fleet. Officers and Directors would have had a hard time defending the increased expense of an application of such limited demonstrable benefits --- for a soon to be obsolete motive power mode. Like many 'Roads the SP's fleet had been severly used and worked during the WW2 transportation war-effort. Their steam fleet was pretty well ragged-out & in need of replacement.

----- The application of two competing RB schemes [Timken vs. SKF], suggests that there were price 'adjustments/cost modfifications' by the suppliers [ostensibly benefiting SP] in order to induce SP to place an order for 'future' RB equipped locos.

----- New RB 'application-designed' cast, One-piece steel frames would add to the costs of any future order. Using existing frame patterns, drawings, etc. would be an effective way to control costs of a hypothetical future order.

------ A young Doyle McCormack was not consulted by Portland, or the SP, to help in selecting a 'display' engine from the SP's 'dead line'. His choice might have been different.

Wes C.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ------ A young Doyle McCormack was not consulted
> by Portland, or the SP, to help in selecting a
> 'display' engine from the SP's 'dead line'. His
> choice might have been different.
>
> Wes C.


Interesting that you should bring that up, Wes. According to old sources, when the "deal was worked out" for SP to donate a locomotive to the city of Portland, OR for their Oaks Park display, the representative of the city showed up in Bakersfield, CA with all the necessary paper work. Upon meeting with the appropriate SP officials at the Bakersfield engine terminal, the local Foreman was told to"Take this gentleman out to the dead line and switch-out what ever he wants.". Upon viewing the locomotive dead line, the representative reportedly said, "How about one of those with the big wheels?", thus the Foreman told the switch crew to "Dig out the nearest 4400. and move it over to the roundhouse for shipment.". According to "dead line records" the 4449 was the "nearest out", but the locomotive DIRECTLY AHEAD of 4449 in there dead line was either 4458 or 4459! So,,,,,,,by less than 120 feet, we just might have had a GS-5.

Interesting..
Here's a thought- on the AFT tour we got on to some rather "iffy" track now and then. Would RB's have been any problem in terms of suspension flexibility? Are the 49's bearings in some way more forgiving- or are they not a factor?
SR
(Sure wish someone had grabbed a MT-4 while they were at it!)

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting..
> Here's a thought- on the AFT tour we got on to
> some rather "iffy" track now and then. Would RB's
> have been any problem in terms of suspension
> flexibility?

Yes, as there isn't as much lateral with the roller bearings and their respective housings.

Are the 49's bearings in some way
> more forgiving-

Correct. The running gear on 4449 is pretty "flexible", and I have seen her go into and through places you wouldn't believe, without derailing.

or are they not a factor?

I agree that that is a factor in her ability to negotiate tight trackage situations.

> SR
> (Sure wish someone had grabbed a MT-4 while they
> were at it!)

Boy do I agree with THAT!

Ah! Well, there you go- all things considered the 4449 suits just fine. No need to lose sleep over the lost chances of a GS-5.
SR

BoilingMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah! Well, there you go- all things considered the
> 4449 suits just fine. No need to lose sleep over
> the lost chances of a GS-5.
> SR


Well, that's easy for you to say, as you haven't had to lay on your back underneath her, working on those damned oil boxes and plain bearings. I would be more than happy to deal with slightly tighter roller bearing axles any day.

Ha!
Okay, fair enough!
SR

RE: Bakersfield dead line...

Nicely played, Jack!

Wes C.

Okay, playing Devil's Advocate here. If for some reason Doyle decided to put roller bearings on the 4449.
Are the parts available to do this?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, playing Devil's Advocate here. If for some
> reason Doyle decided to put roller bearings on the
> 4449.
> Are the parts available to do this?


Maybe, but the capability to turn the locomotive up-side-down in order to machine the frame to accept the roller bearing cannon housings does NOT exist.

Hypothetical situation...

Apparently, the SKF application to locomotive main driving axles differed in several ways from Timken's.

The only reference I've seen was an SKF adv about the application to the Alco built MILW 4-4-2, Hiawatha Locos. Speedy beasts, those screamers !!!

The SKF application used what they called 'spherical' roller bearings. As I understand it, the axle was fitted with separated roller bearing boxes-unlike Timken's two-piece housing that completely surrounds the axle, wheel-hub to wheel-hub.

The rollers, on each end of the axles [inside the hubs] consisted of two races of barrel-shaped rollers. The rollers were contained between the inner and outer races: The races were convex shaped pieces, with the rollers contained between the races -- corresponding to the common 'cup-and cone' Timken tapered roller bearings. This allows for a 'self-aligning' feature to accommodate lateral shifting of the axles --- since the inner race and the barrel-shaped rollers are free to swivel out of line with the outer race (which remains in alignment with the pedestal jaws of the frame). --as in the case of vertical differences in the track's "cross-level"---- two rails being at a different height under the same axle...

Such an application could, conceivably, easily be adapted to the 4449's existing frame.
Self-aligning bearings are currently available, off the shelf, in today's world. Probably the 'driving boxes' would have to be 'custom cast' and machined. Then there's the problem of the ruined interference, press fit of the axle-to-wheel hub 'fit'. The 'stretched driver holes' would have to be restored to their original bore diameter for proper tight fit.
Get out your checkbook --- a $$$ million dollars should do FINE. Make it out to ORHF. I'll be the engineering adviser, for a modest fee.

??? HOWEVER, what could possibly be the benefit of attempting the application? The simple sense of accomplishment, or what?
Seems to me like a solution in search of a problem.

That being said, I would strongly advocate any future 'heavy-rebuild' candidate, or new construction engine, be studied for the application of the 'self-aligning', seal equipped,
rolling-element bearings.

IMHO.

Wes C.

On the 'Cotton Belt' line the origial 800's ordered had plain bearings. If I remember the story right when the first batch built in Pine Bluff (810 to 814) were built, they were roller bearing, and the original Baldwin 800's were converted about that time. When 814 to 819 were built during the war in Pine Bluff, they were also roller bearing.

I don't know if the SSW would normally be considered a 'high speed road' but the old timers made like the 800's were pushed very hard-claims were made that they regularly hit 90 and sometimes got pushed to 100+, at least during the war....

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hypothetical situation...
>
> Apparently, the SKF application to locomotive main
> driving axles differed in several ways from
> Timken's.
>
> The only reference I've seen was an SKF adv about
> the application to the Alco built MILW 4-4-2,
> Hiawatha Locos. Speedy beasts, those screamers
> !!!
>
> The SKF application used what they called
> 'spherical' roller bearings. As I understand it,
> the axle was fitted with separated roller bearing
> boxes-unlike Timken's two-piece housing that
> completely surrounds the axle, wheel-hub to
> wheel-hub.
>
> The rollers, on each end of the axles consisted
> of two races of barrel-shaped rollers. The
> rollers were contained between the inner and outer
> races: The races were convex shaped pieces, with
> the rollers contained between the races --
> corresponding to the common 'cup-and cone' Timken
> tapered roller bearings. This allows for a
> 'self-aligning' feature to accommodate lateral
> shifting of the axles --- since the inner race and
> the barrel-shaped rollers are free to swivel out
> of line with the outer race (which remains in
> alignment with the pedestal jaws of the frame).
> --as in the case of vertical differences in the
> track's "cross-level"---- two rails being at a
> different height under the same axle...
>
> Such an application could, conceivably, easily be
> adapted to the 4449's existing frame.
> Self-aligning bearings are currently available,
> off the shelf, in today's world. Probably the
> 'driving boxes' would have to be 'custom cast' and
> machined. Then there's the problem of the ruined
> interference, press fit of the axle-to-wheel hub
> 'fit'. The 'stretched driver holes' would have to
> be restored to their original bore diameter for
> proper tight fit.
> Get out your checkbook --- a $$$ million dollars
> should do FINE. Make it out to ORHF. I'll be the
> engineering adviser, for a modest fee.
>
> ??? HOWEVER, what could possibly be the benefit of
> attempting the application? The simple sense of
> accomplishment, or what?
> Seems to me like a solution in search of a
> problem.
>
> That being said, I would strongly advocate any
> future 'heavy-rebuild' candidate, or new
> construction engine, be studied for the
> application of the 'self-aligning', seal equipped,
>
> rolling-element bearings.
>
> IMHO.
>
> Wes C.

Like I said in my post Wes. Playing Devil's Advocate.

Isn't there a GS-5 on display in St. Louis? Or are they gone with no chance of restoration?

No, it's a GS-6 (4460). There were only two GS-5's, 4458 & 59, both scrapped.
SR

I took the photo in Apr 76, I think the '60 is under a roof now.

---

This was in 2011

---

Still in the same spot 2016.