Steam & Excursion > EMD FT's - what's the big deal?

Lol - OK, we know the success of the EMD FT's with over 500
built and thousands of later variations of F units produced
between 1939 and 1960, but...

Why /how is it that the F units became more notable then
the earlier "E" units that preceded them?

The EMC EA was it Electo-Motive Corporation or Electro-Motive
Engineering Corporation?) was built two years prior to the FT
and had more horsepower (F designated "Fourteen Hundred HP",
1,350 rounded up while "E" designated "Eighteen Hundred HP).

So - why does not all the glory go to the EMC EA instead
of the EMC (EMD) FT? And why was it not the E unit that
was the real success - the engine to become most prevalent
with it's early lead and greater power?

/Mitch

---

I love the early, simple look of the FT demonstrators.

Frame-5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love the early, simple look of the FT
> demonstrators.


Gotta love (LOVE) the EMC E1A:

http://www.american-rails.com/images/ATSF_E1.jpg

Hard to believe this design evolved into what we
have running around today...

/Mitch

Look at how many more FTs were sold than Es.

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The EMC EA was it Electo-Motive Corporation or
> Electro-Motive
> Engineering Corporation?) was built two years
> prior to the FT
> and had more horsepower

Yes but, the "E" units had TWO 12-567 engine at 900HP each, thus giving Eighteen hundred HP. Also, it was Electro-Motive Corporation, after General Motors bought out the original Electro-Motive Engineering Company (founded in Cleveland, OH in 1922). The Electro-Motive Corporation was a wholly owned subsidiary of GM, until it became a full Division of GM, thus becoming EMD (I think that was late 1940 or early 1941).

(F designated "Fourteen
> Hundred HP",
> 1,350 rounded up

Not correct! The "F" in the model designation was indeed for Freight. However the "T" stood for Twenty Seven Hundred HP, since the "front section and the rear section" was draw-bar connected together, and neither could opera ate without the other. Also note that the term "A unit and B unit" had not yet been developed within the EMC Engineering Department in 1938, when the "FT Concept" was being developed.
while "E" designated "Eighteen
> Hundred HP).
>
> So - why does not all the glory go to the EMC EA
> instead
> of the EMC (EMD) FT? And why was it not the E
> unit that
> was the real success - the engine to become most
> prevalent
> with it's early lead and greater power?


The general thinking of railroad managers in the 1930s was, the diesel electric concept was fine and dandy for "just hauling passengers", but ONLY steam power was fully capable of handling the nations freight! Thus, when the FT demonstrator actually PROVED to railroad managers that the diesel electric concept could indeed handle freight, and out-perform most steam locomotives in the process (remember the sales slogan of 'Doing TWICE the work at HALF the cost'), and THAT is why the "F" series gets MUCH more notoriety and respect, than those "fast passenger 'E' units".
>
> /Mitch

The FT was the diesel that proved that diesels could take on and BEAT big steam power on freight. The E units were quite small in number at that time and more of a curiosity than anything. It's kind of like the RS1/RS2 VS the GP7. The ALCOs came first with the road switcher design, but the GP7 is the model that changed the world. It doesn't matter if the Vikings beat Columbus to the New World. NOBODY in the rest of the world KNEW there was a New World until Columbus. Ultimately, that's what really matters.

Actually, the FT does deserve get credit. It was quoted by one notable author as the "Diesel that did it". Prior to that, diesels were reserved for passenger service and switching. Once they were accepted as road freight diesels, the steam engine was doomed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/14 16:58 by wabash2800.

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The EMC EA was it Electo-Motive Corporation or Electro-Motive
> Engineering Corporation?) was built two years prior to the FT
> and had more horsepower (F designated "Fourteen Hundred HP",
> 1,350 rounded up while "E" designated "Eighteen Hundred HP).
>
> So - why does not all the glory go to the EMC EA instead
> of the EMC (EMD) FT? And why was it not the E unit that
> was the real success - the engine to become most prevalent
> with it's early lead and greater power?

The E units that came before the FT, with one exception, were one-offs designed for a single railroad.

EA / EBs sold: 12 (6 drawbar-connected A-B pairs), to one railroad (B&O).

E1s sold: 11 (a mix of drawbar-connected pairs and single units), to one railroad (AT&SF).

E2s sold: 6 (2 drawbar-connected A-B-B sets), for one jointly operated train (C&NW / UP / SP).

E3s sold: 19, to eight railroads, all of which bought only one or two, except for C&NW, which bought two pairs.

E4s sold: 19, to one railroad (SAL).

E5s sold: 16 (most classified as A-B pairs), to one railroad (CB&Q and subsidiaries).

Total: 83.

Second is that, as shown above, these A-A, A-B, and A-B-B sets were presented (to the BLE, in particular) as a single locomotive of 3,600 or 5,400 HP, not discrete units of 1,800 HP. (It was only after the 'how many crews does this thing get?' argument between the railroads and unions were resolved that discrete, coupler-on-both-ends diesels became common.)

The FT wasn't marketed as a 1,350 HP locomotive - it was initially marketed as one 5,400 HP locomotive, controlled by one crew, consisting of 2 As and 2 Bs connected by drawbar, capable of replacing a wide variety of steam locomotive types. Later on, some railroads wanted couplers instead of drawbars, and some wanted different configurations (I believe Southern ordered A-B-B FTs with passenger gearing for the CNO&TP, but it might have been A-B).

FTs sold: over 1,000, to 20+ railroads, produced throughout WWII. Many more would have been sold if the War Production Board had permitted.

The E6, which debuted with the FT, only sold 91 units before production ceased because of WWII, with many railroads owning only 1 or 2 (only 4 railroads owned more than 6).

The E7 wouldn't come along until 1945.

The FT gets the credit because it deserves the credit.

(Slant-nose Es are better looking, though.)

Jack - you are saying the F unit was actually the more powerful unit in that
it had only one engine at 1,350 HP vs two at 1,800 combined. Makes sense,
though one wonders - why didn't EMC /EMD simply put two "F" unit engines into
the preexisting E-unit and continue the development of the E series?

I suppose the situation is similar as to why the GG1 and not the models before -
the New Haven's EP3, or PRR's P5A and the R1. Yet - the E's survived and remained
in production till 1964.

Why did the "F" come to be when there was the E units?

As for what the "F" designated - I read both "Fourteen hundred" and "Freight".
But then how do you explain what the "E" stood for other then "Eighteen hundred
horsepower" for the E units and note the "E" designation was created just prior
to the "F" unit introduction.

Add that the F's were often used in passenger service.

/Mitch



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/14 12:36 by Mgoldman.

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why not put two "F" unit engines in an E-unit body?

The 900 HP prime movers in early Es were 12-cylinder, the 1,350 HP prime mover was 16 cylinders.

http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php

A single locomotive containing two 16-cylinder engines rather than two 12-cylinder engines would have been too long and too heavy for one frame. So the freight locomotive was built in two carbodies. It had only one set of batteries, and the physical connection between the two "sections" was a drawbar and not a pair of AAR type E couplers. Absent the front section, the rear section wasn't going anywhere except in tow. It had no hostler controls or anything else of the sort.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actally, the FT does deserve get credit. It was
> quoted by one notable author as the "Diesel that
> did it". Prior to that, diesels were reserved for
> passenger service and switching. Once they were
> accepted as road freight diesels, the steam engine
> was doomed.


That is without question the number one reason for
the F-unit's notoriety. A mass-produced locomotive
that could be joined together in multiple units to
provide required horsepower under the control of one
crew.

Damn if my membership within this group here on TO's ain't worth every single
penny! Thanks guys!

...though, I am still wondering about the "F" and "E" designations.

/Mitch

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lots to digest and I'll re-read the responses but
> I'm thinking still, at
> first glance, why didn't EMC /EMD simply push the
> E units?

Push them to WHAT? The "E" type rode on special trucks specifically designed for high speed passenger service, thus the A-1-A wheel arrangement with only 36 inch diameter wheels. The "E" types were built for SPEED, and NOT tractive effort on freight trains.

Again, being
> first and more powerful, why the switch to the F?

As I stated above, the "F" type, with its newly designed Blomberg, 2-axle truck and 40 inch diameter wheels, meant a potentially higher capacity traction motor (think higher CURRENT for starting tractive effort), and was developed specifically for freight, with a maximum speed of 65MPH. Sure, some railroads order "F" type units later on with passenger gearing, but the "F" type 2-axle truck NEVER road as well as the "E" type A-1-A truck a speeds over 75MPH.

> Why were there not follow
> up orders for E units running in AB sets or ABBA
> sets? They were longer,
> of course, was that an issue?
>
> As for what the "F" designated - I read both
> "Fourteen hundred"

THAT would be incorrect! Again, as I stated above, the "F" was for Freight while the "T" was for Twenty seven hundred HP.

and "Freight".

THAT would be correct!

> But then how do you explain what the "E" stood for
> other then "Eighteen hundred
> horsepower" for the E units and note the "E"
> designation was created just prior
> to the "F" unit introduction.

Sure is hard to understand your reasoning here. Go back a bit and think about the little switcher unit, i.e. the "SC". The "S" stood for Six hundred HP, while the "C" stood for Cast underframe. Later switching units became the SW; "S" standing for Six hundred HP, and "W" standing for Welded under frame. The "E" did indeed stand for Eighteen hundred HP. Believe me, have seen the internal paperwork in the Engineering Department Library, as well has the original order files & drawings, all of which has probably long since been trashed.

> Add that the F's were often used in passenger
> service.

With markedly different gear ratios.

> Back to why the F vs the E, I suppose the
> situation is similar as to why the
> GG1 and not the models before - the New Haven's
> EP3, or PRR's P5A and the R1.
> Yet - the E's survived and remained in production
> till 1964.
>
> /Mitch

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damn if my membership within this group here on
> TO's ain't worth every single
> penny! Thanks guys!
>
> ...though, I am still wondering about the "F"
> and "E" designations.
>
> /Mitch


Why are you "still wondering"? Don't you believe the answers I previously gave you?

Is this a photo of a unit that currently exists somewhere?
If so, where???
Thanks in advance...



Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lol - OK, we know the success of the EMD FT's with
> over 500
> built and thousands of later variations of F units
> produced
> between 1939 and 1960, but...
>
> Why /how is it that the F units became more
> notable then
> the earlier "E" units that preceded them?
>
> The EMC EA was it Electo-Motive Corporation or
> Electro-Motive
> Engineering Corporation?) was built two years
> prior to the FT
> and had more horsepower (F designated "Fourteen
> Hundred HP",
> 1,350 rounded up while "E" designated "Eighteen
> Hundred HP).
>
> So - why does not all the glory go to the EMC EA
> instead
> of the EMC (EMD) FT? And why was it not the E
> unit that
> was the real success - the engine to become most
> prevalent
> with it's early lead and greater power?
>
> /Mitch

RNP47 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this a photo of a unit that currently exists
> somewhere?
> If so, where???
> Thanks in advance...
>
>
It and a B unit reside at the St. Louis Museum of Transport. I believe this A-B set are half of the original demostrators. It was at the Spencer, NC gathering of streamliners this past summer, where I assume the photo was taken. A second FT A-B set, former NP, may still exist somewhere in Mexico, after working on the F.C. Sonora Baja California.

RNP47 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this a photo of a unit that currently exists
> somewhere?
> If so, where???
> Thanks in advance...
>
>
>
> Mgoldman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lol - OK, we know the success of the EMD FT's
> with
> > over 500
> > built and thousands of later variations of F
> units
> > produced
> > between 1939 and 1960, but...
> >
> > Why /how is it that the F units became more
> > notable then
> > the earlier "E" units that preceded them?
> >
> > The EMC EA was it Electo-Motive Corporation or
> > Electro-Motive
> > Engineering Corporation?) was built two years
> > prior to the FT
> > and had more horsepower (F designated "Fourteen
> > Hundred HP",
> > 1,350 rounded up while "E" designated "Eighteen
> > Hundred HP).
> >
> > So - why does not all the glory go to the EMC
> EA
> > instead
> > of the EMC (EMD) FT? And why was it not the E
> > unit that
> > was the real success - the engine to become
> most
> > prevalent
> > with it's early lead and greater power?
> >
> > /Mitch

The original FT Demonstrator 103 exists at the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis. They now have a "B" unit to match but it is not the original demonstrator I believe
http://transportmuseumassociation.org/index.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/14 13:20 by Spoony81.

Mgoldman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lots to digest and I'll re-read the responses
> but
> > I'm thinking still, at
> > first glance, why didn't EMC /EMD simply push
> the
> > E units?


Hey, even in steam days there were far fewer "passenger"
locomotives than freight hogs.

Now, compare E unit sales to DL109 and PA and
C-liner sales and ask yourself who pushed what.
The passenger loco market was a fraction of the
freight and switcher market. Looks like EMD
"pushed" the E model to the salable limit.

> Again, being first and more powerful, why the
> switch to the F?

"More powerful" marginally, and only in terms of
horsepower. in terms of starting and continuous
tractive effort, the F had it hands down. Plus,
compare the cost of, say, 100 FT's to the number
of E's it would take to be able to start and haul
equivalent tonnage and see what you get.

> > Why were there not follow
> > up orders for E units running in AB sets or
> ABBA sets? They were longer,
> > of course, was that an issue?

I'd say the market demand for passenger units had
been satisfied by then and the railroads didn't
want any more of them. If they had, you can bet
more would have been built. Plus the higher first
cost factor and higher maintenance costs. E's had
2 of almost everything.

> > Back to why the F vs the E, I suppose the
> > situation is similar as to why the
> > GG1 and not the models before - the New Haven's
> > EP3, or PRR's P5A and the R1.

The GG1 came after those, and was markedly improved
over those, as well.

> > Yet - the E's survived and remained in
> production
> > till 1964.

Big woo. A whopping total of 4 E's were built in 1964;
IIRC, 3 for UP and 1 for IC, both of which were, at the
time, passenger unit die-hards.

The market was screaming that the day of the E had long
since passed since it wasn't useful for anything else.

By that time, the handwriting had been on the wall for
a long time for passenger-only locos, which is why so
many boiler-equipped Fs, GPs and SDs were built. Compare
the number of E units sold 1960-1964 (not traded-in wrecks
or rebuilds) to the number of, say, SDP35s. And before
that, how many boiler-equipped GP7s, GP9s, SD7s and SD9s
went into service? These could be used on passenger,
freight, or in the yard. Not so with Es and PAs.

Ever try to switch with an E or a PA? or take one down
a light branch line on a local?

masterphots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It and a B unit reside at the St. Louis Museum of
> Transport. I believe this A-B set are half of the
> original demostrators. It was at the Spencer, NC
> gathering of streamliners this past summer, where
> I assume the photo was taken. A second FT A-B
> set, former NP, may still exist somewhere in
> Mexico, after working on the F.C. Sonora Baja
> California.


There are also a couple of Southern Railway B units bodies still around, which were converted to steam generator cars at some point.

RNP47 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this a photo of a unit that currently exists
> somewhere?
> If so, where???
> Thanks in advance...

Yes, that photo posted at the top of this thread is actually the ONLY surviving units from the ORIGINAL EMC FT demonstrator set, essentially an A-B-B-A, which toured the U.S. railroads from late 1939 through late 1940, roughly. When first constructed, the road number was 1030 & 1031, for the respective A units (the first set of original builder photos reflect those road numbers). Prior to departing EMC's McCook, IL factory, the road numbers were changed to 103A & 103B, for the respective "A" units, while the "B" units carried no road numbers, since they were drawbar connected to their respective "A" units.

The complete demonstrator set was subsequently sold to Southern Railway, and the Southern eventually donated one of the "A" units to the Museum Of Transportation in Saint Louis, MO. In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the FT demo, EMD held a huge open house at the McCook facility, and the featured "star of the show" was the 103A, which was towed from Saint Louis to McCook, cosmetically restored/repainted back to its original "GM Locomotives" demonstrator colors of Pullman Green and Dulux Gold strips & lettering.

The repainted 103A was eventually returned to its owners, the Museum in Saint Louis, after appearing at the 1999 California State Railroad Museum's "Railfair '99". The 103A was also borrowed for the big "Streamliners" gathering in Spencer, NC and is probably still there. The photo posted above was taken at the Historic Spencer Shops complex, prior to the big Streamliners event.