I was reading the current issue of Classic Trains about F units and saw that next issue will be the Nickle Plate and the Berkshires. That should be good.
Original Post
The F discussion was terrific. It was a good engine that was clearly helped along by some key government decisions. It's interesting (to me) to note the differences in engine design and production between the traditional steam engines builders building diesels and a car manufacturers approach.
Baldwin made diesels like steam engines... heavy and rigid. EMD, on the other hand, even made the 567's engine block out of weldments. The whole manufacturing concept was one based on mass production.
The GM diesel prime movers, whether big ones by EMD or smaller from Detroit Diesel all featured direct, unit injectors that were interchangeable. Detroit Diesel's power assemblies (pistons, rods, cylinder liners, heads, valves and injectors) were all interchangeable regardless of if it was a 2-72, 4-71, 6-71, 8-71, 12-71 or 16-71. All that changed was the block, crank, cams and blowers. The engines had very little external piping, were quick to disassemble and rebuild.
As usual, great step changes in technology rarely, if ever, come from the leaders of the previous technology. Apple was not a phone company. Microsoft didn't make typewriters, Texas Instruments didn't make vacuum tubes, and GM wasn't a train company.
