Nostalgia & History > Why portholes?

The early F's (and E's?) had portholes in the side of the engine compartment. As far as I can recall, these were about the ONLY types of engines that ever had windows into the engine room.

Now, they are certainly pretty, and one can probably argue (more or less justifiably) that they perhaps let a little light into the room. But as best I can tell they certainly weren't NECESSARY in the slightest. Witness Santa Fe covering up the center porthole with chicken wire or a grill, and all the engines since that have come without portholes.

Does anyone know WHY there were portholes? Was it just part of the industrial design -- they looked good so the designer put them there? Did the customer ask for them? Or some other reason?

Or is it something that has been lost to history?

You might want to add the ALCo PA to your list of porthole equipped locomotives.

Bob

Thanks. Waa thinking they had portholes too, but just couldn't remember, so I left them out.

Of course that brings up a second question: why did PA's have portholes?

You also forgot the F45s and FP45s.

If you like portholes, you'll LOVE the McKeen car at the Nevada State RR Museum. During that same period (about a hundred years ago) the Pennsylvania RR and the SP both ordered fleets of electric-suburban service cars with porthole motorman's windows. Five cars from SP and its subsidiaries are now preserved at Orange Empire, and there are a few more at Western Ry. Museum.

Arrrhh, matey, here's that nautical look:

1) PE (ex-SP/IER) combine at Orange Empire about 30 years ago (it's currently in primer paint and not running).

2) ex-PE (ex-SP/IER) box motor 1465 body in Bakersfield, April 1971 (disappeared some time in the 1970's).

---

---

BCHellman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also forgot the F45s and FP45s.


And, GP9 B's.

I think the FT's (1939) might have been the first production diesels to have portholes, though interurbans and McKeens had 'em before that. M-10000 (1934) had rectanguar windows, M-10004 had portholes. Early E units had rectangular two pane windoes, and the E7, I believe, introduced portholes to the passenger line.



-LD

lwilton Wrote:

> The early F's (and E's?) had portholes in the side
> of the engine compartment. As far as I can recall,
> these were about the ONLY types of engines that
> ever had windows into the engine room.

Engineroom windows on EMD/EMC power went back to at least the doodlebug era of the late 20's. Model 148 cars built for Santa Fe in 1929 typically had a window behind the cab door that shed light on the prime mover, and 1932-built M.190 had five windows shining in on its V12 - two on the fireman's side and three on the engineer's side.

Model 148 car: http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/55172
M.190: http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/55088

The 1934 Pioneer Zephyr doesn't appear to have had them, but UP M-10000 did, as did subsequent UP streamliners, most Burlington Zephyrs, IC's Green Diamond, and various boxcabs.

M-10000: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/upM10000b.jpg
CB&Q 9904: http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/62435
Green Diamond: http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/52484
Super Chief boxcabs: http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/58393

Portholes, eight of them, took the place of square windows on UP's turret-cab M10003-M10007 units in 1936.

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/49828

Early E's up to the E7 usually had square windows except for the E2's and a few railroads that specified portholes, and portholes became standard on the E8.

E1: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/atsf2.jpg
E2: http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/49816
E5: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_cbq9954.jpg
E6 with portholes: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/mp7100.jpg
E7: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/mkt101.jpg
E8: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/nyc4048.jpg

Preston Cook's article "The Trouble with E-units" in the October 2008 Railfan & Railroad says they were for "internal lighting as well as ornamentation." One would assume the precedent was followed for the same reasons with the FT and successive F's starting in 1939.

FT: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/sf164.jpg
F3: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/emd291.jpg
Later F3: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/sf26.jpg

One hinged porthole on some boosters served an additional purpose - so the hostler could crane his head out and try to see where he was going while moving the unit on its own using the hostling stand located inside the carbody. That's what the fifth porthole on FTB's (or "FSB's," if you prefer) was for:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2384253

Second generation cowl units had portholes in carbody doors up until the SDP40F and F40C.

F45: http://archive.trainpix.com/BN/EMDORIG/F45/6605.HTM
FP45: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_milw4.jpg
SDP40F: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_amtk502.jpg

The need to retrofit portholes with expensive safety glazing lead to their plating-over on a lot of E and F-units that survived into the late 70's and beyond.

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_amtk456.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/njt4272.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/mbta1112.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/marc7185.jpg

Simple, when you're using the side metal as a stress member a round
window works much better than a square one with corner stress points.

That...and remember, these were monocoque bodies - meaning you couldn't just open an access door where you want to get light (and for that matter, ventilation).

rehunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple, when you're using the side metal as a
> stress member a round
> window works much better than a square one with
> corner stress points.

I'm reminded of the ill-fated De Havilland Comet 1, the first commercial passenger jet aircraft, which suffered several mysterious crashes in the first years of operation. Testing revealed that the hull could suffer from metal fatigue rather quickly, in part owing to the square shape of the windows. Eventually oval-shaped windows were used, along with a change in riveting technique and additional reinforcement to prevent cracks from spreading.

A question: Why was the porthole design not used more extensively? Was it because the side metal was not used as a stress member, but simply as a skin over a structural frame?

One wonders, also, if the porthole design was also influenced by contemporary design trends. For example, I think that there is a Coca-Cola plant in Los Angeles that is designed to look like a ship, complete with portholes. There is also a structure along the lakefront in Chicago that has a similar design.

The Comets were inadequate in strength in general and I'd wager would have failed regardless of the shape of the windows. But it's true that that's where the cracking started. I believe they wanted to make the planes stronger but the original Ghost engines just weren't powerful enough.

As for windows or portholes on carbody locomotives, it's for light and also a convenient way to run cables for load testing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/12 08:39 by filmteknik.

colehour Wrote:

> A question: Why was the porthole design not used
> more extensively? Was it because the side metal
> was not used as a stress member, but simply as a
> skin over a structural frame?

Right. The skin on E and F units consists of plymetal panels attached to the load-bearing frame. Some wouldn't consider it a "true" monocoque since the skin itself is only marginally load-bearing.

> One wonders, also, if the porthole design was also
> influenced by contemporary design trends.

They didn't call it "Streamline Moderne" for nothing. The early UP streamliners were even marketed as having "sailings" rather than "departures."

http://books.google.com/books?id=C8JEdu10NDEC&lpg=PA63&ots=QCF3Fgu_RB&dq=UP%20streamliner%20sailings&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=UP%20streamliner%20sailings&f=false
http://streamlinermemories.info/?p=143

> For example, I think that there is a Coca-Cola plant
> in Los Angeles that is designed to look like a
> ship, complete with portholes.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coca_Cola_Bottling_Building,_Los_Angeles,_CA.jpg

FA's also were built with a porthole in the center engineroom door.
Simple answer to the question is to allow light in the engineroom. Having spent the last 20 years working inside F-units the light is nice to have. Without you need to walk around with a flashlight.
RWJ

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks. Waa thinking they had portholes too, but
> just couldn't remember, so I left them out.
>
> Of course that brings up a second question: why
> did PA's have portholes?

The lighting inside was not enough or where you needed it?

jLV95032 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FA's also were built with a porthole in the center
> engineroom door.
> Simple answer to the question is to allow light in
> the engineroom. Having spent the last 20 years
> working inside F-units the light is nice to have.
> Without you need to walk around with a
> flashlight.
> RWJ
>
>

>Simple, when you're using the side metal as a stress member a round window works much better than a square one with corner stress points.

They're also easier to seal because round windows don't have any lower corners which catch rain and snow.

The reason the SP used them on the red electrics (they didn't at first) is because the entire red electric system, Portland included, was based on the West Jersey and Seashore, which was a subsidiary of the PRR (as was the LI). Think of the MP-54 and all it's permutations. The steel NWP cars were essentially copies of the OA&B ones in the East Bay.

>The Comets were inadequate in strength in general and I'd wager would have failed regardless of the shape of the windows. But it's true that that's where the cracking started. I believe they wanted to make the planes stronger but the original Ghost engines just weren't powerful enough.

According to the Comet article on Wikipedia, the cracking around the windows was solved by changing to more oval shaped windows. Afterwards, the Comet was a really good and reliable airplane, but it never overcame the bad reputation from these crashes.

>The lighting inside was not enough or where you needed it?

You still needed a drop light to do any (serious) work.

What do you mean "marginally load bearing", remove the skin and see how your frame holds up!!! As for the Comet,
world's largest lawn dart.

rehunn Wrote:

> What do you mean "marginally load bearing", remove
> the skin and see how your frame holds up!!!

I don't honestly know how much rigidity the plymetal panels added to an E or F unit, but I've seen several E's and F's in photos and in person with their side panels off but all the heavy stuff in place (prime mover, generator, radiators). Admittedly they weren't out on the road subjected to buff and draft forces, but in stationary storage the trusswork seemed to be holding everything up just fine.

SP F7A 6402 at the California State RR Museum has been in this unclad condition for over 15 years. It is periodically rolled back and forth between the shop and the museum, and hasn't caved in yet:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2798795

These poor guys have been sitting open to the elements for at least two decades, and I'd say oxidation is taking a heavier toll than gravity:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,1611536
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/attachments/fullsize/672000/moribund_E_units_NS_storage_track_Roanoke_VA.jpg

Another see-through but unsagging E-unit at Elkhart, IN:
http://atsf.railfan.net/cowls/nyc4085a.jpg

I'm sure I've seen a picture of an EMD demonstrator F-unit booster with Plexiglas side panels to show off the guts, but I can't recall where I saw it just now.

Structurally more sound than square glass and easier to clean. and often referred to as sidecudders, their function is basically to admit light, not to provide a view or enhance the design.

Posted from Android

Fred Harrison
Central Point, OR
CORPpower/JSS/EORS

>I don't honestly know how much rigidity the plymetal panels

Plymetal isn't structural. The CZ and Q Budd built cars used it for the interior walls. Didn't some E units have square/rectangular windows with curved corners?

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:

> Didn't some E units have square/rectangular windows with curved corners?

Unless otherwise specified, EA, E1, E3, E4, E5, E6, and E7 locomotives had square carbody windows. See:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel99.html
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel9.html
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel87.html

One road that specified portholes on its early E's was Mopac:

http://www.trainweb.org/screamingeagle/other/a_johnson/mp7001.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/mp/mp7016ads.jpg