EMD E9 major design difference questions

PRR 5841 posted:

Hello everyone,

I seem to recall that unlike previous versions which had both V-12’s facing “Backwards”, the final iteration of this popular series had its rearmost V-12 turned around for reasons concerning better weight distribution and more steam generating capacity.  Having the “Front” of each engine facing the middle allowed for a single, albeit slightly larger accessory rack to accommodate both engines which allowed more room in back for steam generation capacity.  While cosmetically not the prettiest unit in the series, arguably the best mechanically.  

Was the E9 in fact the only one of the series to receive this modification?  

Yes. The proposed next model, the E10, for the Union Pacific, who was the last RR to purchase E Units, was never ordered/built.

Aside from a slight HP increase, was the 567C prime mover any better than its 3 predecessors?

Absolutely YES!!!  The 567C was a lot better than the 567B,  the 567A, and the 567 "U" deck and "V" deck engines.  

(Not counting the Winton 201-A used in EA, E1 and E2 as it was a completely different engine with its own unique problems.)

I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the E series to answer your question, but from a cosmetic standpoint there are no significant differences between the E8 and the E9.  I think the only difference was the headlight bezel gasket?

Hot Water posted:

PRR 5841 posted:

Hello everyone,

I seem to recall that unlike previous versions which had both V-12’s facing “Backwards”, the final iteration of this popular series had its rearmost V-12 turned around for reasons concerning better weight distribution and more steam generating capacity.  Having the “Front” of each engine facing the middle allowed for a single, albeit slightly larger accessory rack to accommodate both engines which allowed more room in back for steam generation capacity.  While cosmetically not the prettiest unit in the series, arguably the best mechanically.  

Was the E9 in fact the only one of the series to receive this modification?  

Yes. The proposed next model, the E10, for the Union Pacific, who was the last RR to purchase E Units, was never ordered/built.

Aside from a slight HP increase, was the 567C prime mover any better than its 3 predecessors?

Absolutely YES!!!  The 567C was a lot better than the 567B,  the 567A, and the 567 "U" deck and "V" deck engines.  

(Not counting the Winton 201-A used in EA, E1 and E2 as it was a completely different engine with its own unique problems.)

 

I was pretty certain I knew the answer to my first question but am delighted for someone to answer so emphatically on the second.  HW, if I’m not asking too much, could you please expound on your response to my second question?  

I have no idea what the actual differences were between the different 567 versions, I’ve always assumed it referred to internal changes like improved oil flow, larger cooling capacity, different firing order etc.

GG1 4877 posted:

I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the E series to answer your question, but from a cosmetic standpoint there are no significant differences between the E8 and the E9.  I think the only difference was the headlight bezel gasket?

 

 

Cosmetically, I was referring to the entire series, EA through E9.

Mechanically, I was referring to E3 through E9 as they had a version of the 567.

I'm not sure why you thought I was comparing only E8 to E9.

PRR 5841 posted:

I was pretty certain I knew the answer to my first question but am delighted for someone to answer so emphatically on the second.  HW, if I’m not asking too much, could you please expound on your response to my second question?  

Way too complicated to list here. You might want to purchase some old EMD Engine Manuals off eBay, but here are just a few of the most important changes from the 567B to the 567C:

1) The cooling water for each cylinder liner was changed from being supplied from the lower crankcase deck to & thru the lower portion of the liner, to a seamless steel water manifold inside each air box. Water jumpers attached to the water manifold supplied water to each liner, just below the air intake ports. The result was the elimination of constant lower liner seal water Leakes directly into the lube oil in the oil pan.

2) Improved piston tin to connecting rod connection. Previous to the "C" series, each connecting rod had a fully floating piston pin inside the sleeved "eye" top of the connecting rod. The new "C" design eliminated the "eye" of the top of the connnecting rods, and replaced it with a small support saddle for the piston pin, which was then bolted to the top of the connecting rod. The piston carrier had a simple sleeve "shell" beating which mated with the top of the piston pin.

I have no idea what the actual differences were between the different 567 versions, I’ve always assumed it referred to internal changes like improved oil flow, larger cooling capacity, different firing order etc.

Again, I suggest you obtain some older EMD engine manuals. They have lots of drawings & pictures.

PRR 5841 posted:

GG1 4877 posted:

I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the E series to answer your question, but from a cosmetic standpoint there are no significant differences between the E8 and the E9.  I think the only difference was the headlight bezel gasket?

 

 

Cosmetically, I was referring to the entire series, EA through E9.

 Mechanically, I was referring to E3 through E9 as they had a version of the 567.

I'm not sure why you thought I was comparing only E8 to E9.

I didn't think you were comparing only the E8 to the E9.  Just simply stating that they are for all practical purposes identical externally so you are truly stating the E8/E9 was not the prettiest unit of the series in your opinion. 

Nothing more nothing less.  No offense meant if some was taken. 

The mechanical discussion is very enlightening. 

Regarding the 567 original U&V deck, and then the A, B, and C, Kettering's excellent treatise (presented in 1951) on the history and development of the EMD 567 series is available here:

http://utahrails.net/pdf/EMD_5...Development_1951.pdf

The host is utahrails.net.

Kettering (Chief Engineer at EMD in those days) describes most of the design evolution/changes through the years. It is excellent.

There was an article or series in "Classic Trains" by Kalmbach at some point that summarized the development of the E-series passenger engines.     It did explain each upgrade in layman's terms.

My memory is that that the article stated that the change in orientation of the Prime movers was done in the E8 model.   The E9 was an upgrade to HP and possible prime mover tweaks as mentioned.    But I thought the major change to the internal layout was between the E7 and E8.

But this is all from convoluted memory, so don't crucify me if you find otherwise.

GG1 4877 posted:

PRR 5841 posted:

GG1 4877 posted:

I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the E series to answer your question, but from a cosmetic standpoint there are no significant differences between the E8 and the E9.  I think the only difference was the headlight bezel gasket?

 

 

Cosmetically, I was referring to the entire series, EA through E9.

 Mechanically, I was referring to E3 through E9 as they had a version of the 567.

I'm not sure why you thought I was comparing only E8 to E9.

I didn't think you were comparing only the E8 to the E9.  Just simply stating that they are for all practical purposes identical externally so you are truly stating the E8/E9 was not the prettiest unit of the series in your opinion. 

Nothing more nothing less.  No offense meant if some was taken. 

The mechanical discussion is very enlightening. 

No offense taken.  While the E9 was the mechanical epitome of the series, season had passed, the chapter was closed.  The post-war E’s with their bulldog noses and cheaper utilitarian paint schemes had acquired an image basically akin to F-units on steroids.  Not as pretty as their earlier counterparts with their resplendent paint schemes and art deco styling but still awesome in their own way.  ANY vehicle that uses TWO V-12’s to motivate it to speeds around the century mark is very cool in my book.  

prrjim posted:

There was an article or series in "Classic Trains" by Kalmbach at some point that summarized the development of the E-series passenger engines.     It did explain each upgrade in layman's terms.

My memory is that that the article stated that the change in orientation of the Prime movers was done in the E8 model.   The E9 was an upgrade to HP and possible prime mover tweaks as mentioned.    But I thought the major change to the internal layout was between the E7 and E8.

But this is all from convoluted memory, so don't crucify me if you find otherwise.

Actually, I seem to recall the same article, you may be right!  Thanks

PRR 5841 posted:

No offense taken.  While the E9 was the mechanical epitome of the series, season had passed, the chapter was closed.  The post-war E’s with their bulldog noses and cheaper utilitarian paint schemes had acquired an image basically akin to F-units on steroids.  Not as pretty as their earlier counterparts with their resplendent paint schemes and art deco styling but still awesome in their own way.  ANY vehicle that uses TWO V-12’s to motivate it to speeds around the century mark is very cool in my book.  

I can understand where you are coming from there.  I am heavily influenced by my childhood which included at first PC and then former PC/CR E8s, some E7s, CNJ GP40Ps, and GG1s.  I've always had a soft spot for the E8 simply for the memories.   However from a design perspective not much beats the original modernism movement that started in the mid 20's in art, architecture and music and progressed to industrial engineering in the 30's.  Art Deco was certainly a high point of design.  I just recently sold a 1939 3/4 ton Chevy and it was a beautiful machine.  

The EA and E1 really was the epitome of the series in terms of design in my opinion.  Seeing the B&O EA in Baltimore was a great experience for me.  Such clean lines. 

EMD certainly hit a home run with the 567 series prime movers.  Me watching the E8s track side as a young teen in the early 80's is a testament to the engineering that went into them.

While the 645 prime movers, especially in any of the -40 series of locomotives were probably EMD's most reliable diesel locomotives ever built, none of those will win a beauty contest. 

geysergazer posted:

Regarding the 567 original U&V deck, and then the A, B, and C, Kettering's excellent treatise (presented in 1951) on the history and development of the EMD 567 series is available here:

http://utahrails.net/pdf/EMD_5...Development_1951.pdf

The host is utahrails.net.

Kettering (Chief Engineer at EMD in those days) describes most of the design evolution/changes through the years. It is excellent.

Those here who grew up listening to 567s remember the sound. Some remember it as a "chant" but for me, 567s in Notch Eight BELLOWED!

GG1 4877 posted:

PRR 5841 posted:

No offense taken.  While the E9 was the mechanical epitome of the series, season had passed, the chapter was closed.  The post-war E’s with their bulldog noses and cheaper utilitarian paint schemes had acquired an image basically akin to F-units on steroids.  Not as pretty as their earlier counterparts with their resplendent paint schemes and art deco styling but still awesome in their own way.  ANY vehicle that uses TWO V-12’s to motivate it to speeds around the century mark is very cool in my book.  

I can understand where you are coming from there.  I am heavily influenced by my childhood which included at first PC and then former PC/CR E8s, some E7s, CNJ GP40Ps, and GG1s.  I've always had a soft spot for the E8 simply for the memories.   However from a design perspective not much beats the original modernism movement that started in the mid 20's in art, architecture and music and progressed to industrial engineering in the 30's.  Art Deco was certainly a high point of design.  I just recently sold a 1939 3/4 ton Chevy and it was a beautiful machine.  

The EA and E1 really was the epitome of the series in terms of design in my opinion.  Seeing the B&O EA in Baltimore was a great experience for me.  Such clean lines. 

EMD certainly hit a home run with the 567 series prime movers.  Me watching the E8s track side as a young teen in the early 80's is a testament to the engineering that went into them.

While the 645 prime movers, especially in any of the -40 series of locomotives were probably EMD's most reliable diesel locomotives ever built, none of those will win a beauty contest. 

The Baltimore museum is one of the finest in North America.  The EA there is awesome.  Your mentioning of the -40 series reminded me that the GP-40 was the first locomotive in the US capable of making a full-parallel start, reducing electrical components (No transition) and thereby improving reliability.  

If the E10 was built, would it have 2 645 prime movers?

I believe that the E units still at the UP have 645 engines. Don Bolt May have been involved in that engine change. 

David Johnston posted:

I believe that the E units still at the UP have 645 engines. Don Bolt May have been involved in that engine change. 

I believe you are correct.  I understand that the UP E units are basically GP-38’s internally.   This was done for easier maintenance and for crew familiarization especially regarding the GP-38 brake schedule.

PRR 5841 posted:

David Johnston posted:

I believe that the E units still at the UP have 645 engines. Don Bolt May have been involved in that engine change. 

I believe you are correct.  I understand that the UP E units are basically GP-38’s internally.   This was done for easier maintenance and for crew familiarization especially regarding the GP-38 brake schedule.

Concerning the UP Executive E Units, they have only one 16-645E 2000HP prime mover (the two 12-567C engines were removed and replaced with one 16-645E). Also, concerning the air brake schedule, both A Units were up-graded to the standard (at that time) 26L system. Lastly, the electrical controls are GP38-2, NOT "GP-38" (sic).

Please not that EMD model designations do not contain dashes between the model and the series number, i.e. it is F7 (NOT F-7), GP38 (NOT GP-38), GP40 (NOT GP-40), SD50 (NOT SD-50), etc., etc., etc..

geysergazer posted:

geysergazer posted:

Regarding the 567 original U&V deck, and then the A, B, and C, Kettering's excellent treatise (presented in 1951) on the history and development of the EMD 567 series is available here:

http://utahrails.net/pdf/EMD_5...Development_1951.pdf

The host is utahrails.net.

Kettering (Chief Engineer at EMD in those days) describes most of the design evolution/changes through the years. It is excellent.

Those here who grew up listening to 567s remember the sound. Some remember it as a "chant" but for me, 567s in Notch Eight BELLOWED!

Great article!  Thanks.  The last time I heard a 567 “Live” was trackside along the Hudson river while a FL-9 accelerated its train out of Croton-Harmon.  The diesel sound was much louder than I had expected.  Interesting to note that some FL-9’s had a “D” variant of the 567.

PRR 5841 posted:

geysergazer posted:

geysergazer posted:

Regarding the 567 original U&V deck, and then the A, B, and C, Kettering's excellent treatise (presented in 1951) on the history and development of the EMD 567 series is available here:

http://utahrails.net/pdf/EMD_5...Development_1951.pdf

The host is utahrails.net.

Kettering (Chief Engineer at EMD in those days) describes most of the design evolution/changes through the years. It is excellent.

Those here who grew up listening to 567s remember the sound. Some remember it as a "chant" but for me, 567s in Notch Eight BELLOWED!

Great article!  Thanks.  The last time I heard a 567 “Live” was trackside along the Hudson river while a FL-9 accelerated its train out of Croton-Harmon.  The diesel sound was much louder than I had expected.  Interesting to note that some FL-9’s had a “D” variant of the 567.

No, those 567C engines were up-graded with 645 roots-blown power assemblies, still within the "C" crankcase. The "D" engine designation was the turbocharged versions of the 567, such as the 16-567D3 in the GP30 model, and the 16-567D3A in the GP35/SD35/DD35 models.  Thus, what you heard was a louder exhaust sound from those 645 power assemblies and no exhaust silencer.

Hot Water posted:

No, those 567C engines were up-graded with 645 roots-blown power assemblies, still within the "C" crankcase. The "D" engine designation was the turbocharged versions of the 567, such as the 16-567D3 in the GP30 model, and the 16-567D3A in the GP35/SD35/DD35 models.  Thus, what you heard was a louder exhaust sound from those 645 power assemblies and no exhaust silencer.

 

Not to split hairs, but the "D" engine came in domestic models GP18, SD18, and GP28 from the factory (and in some export models).

The engine model according to the LOM is 567D1, or if you prefer, 16-567D1.

Here is the manual link:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/manual.html

Go down to the GP18. 

The "D" engine brought in the fabricated water jacket on the cylinder liner, which replaced the cast jacket cylinder liners in a "C" engine.  BIG improvement, as the cylinder liner wall thickness was much easier to control on the fabricated jacket cylinder liner. 

Regards,

Jerry

Jerry,

Thanks, I had forgotten that those FL9 models may have been built late enough to have had the 16-567D1 prime mover. I remember that the GP18s had lots of problems with the increased HP from 1750 (GP9) to 1800 for the "18" series (seemed piston cracking was an issue).

The second NH order for FL9s were all delivered in 1960 with 567D prime movers.  The first 30 built in 1956 had the 567C prime movers.  I'm not sure there are any external differences other than the NH orange used between the first and second order was a different shade. 

Jack:

Vaguely remember reading about the piston cracking, but don't remember the details.  I'll have to "root around" a bit, see if I can find anything.

Z

GG1 4877 posted:

The second NH order for FL9s were all delivered in 1960 with 567D prime movers.  The first 30 built in 1956 had the 567C prime movers.  I'm not sure there are any external differences other than the NH orange used between the first and second order was a different shade. 

I've heard that there was talk of designating the second group of FL9's "FL18."

Stuart

Stuart posted:

GG1 4877 posted:

The second NH order for FL9s were all delivered in 1960 with 567D prime movers.  The first 30 built in 1956 had the 567C prime movers.  I'm not sure there are any external differences other than the NH orange used between the first and second order was a different shade. 

I've heard that there was talk of designating the second group of FL9's "FL18."

Stuart

 

Nope. Never found anything in the records to substantiate that "rumor", including talking to the "old guys" in the Engineering Dept.. I knew Bob Konsbruk very well. He was also responsible for designing and assisted in building the DC substation for the electric locomotive & trolly lines at the Illinois Railway Museum.

gnnpnut posted:

Jack:

I'll have to "root around" a bit, see if I can find anything.

Z

(Groan . . . )  

Hotwater any idea how far the E10 was planned? last of the bulldog cab, boxy like the FP45's, any idea of planned changes over an E9?

Thanks

Mike Slater posted:

Hotwater any idea how far the E10 was planned?

I remember seeing the general arrangement drawings in the UP "sales file", so they were fairly serious about adding some more E Units.

last of the bulldog cab,

Correct. The E10 would have looked no different than an E9 from the outside.

boxy like the FP45's,

No.

any idea of planned changes over an E9?

Higher horsepower, i.e. 2500 or 2600 HP, otherwise it would have looked the same as an E9.

 

Thanks

Around 1971 BN rebuilt some E8's for their commuter trains before giving them to Amtrak. Were the diesel engines inside original equipment just rebuilt, or were they upgraded, and did they still use their steam boilers? Didn't I read somewhere that a few Rock Island E-B's only have one engine?

Chuck Sartor posted:

Around 1971 BN rebuilt some E8's for their commuter trains before giving them to Amtrak. Were the diesel engines inside original equipment just rebuilt, or were they upgraded, and did they still use their steam boilers? Didn't I read somewhere that a few Rock Island E-B's only have one engine?

Someone please correct me, but I believe all the BN units that went to Amtrak were not rebuilt and all retained steam generators when transferred.  However, several E9s were kept for commuter service and lasted in service until 1993.  The commuter rebuilds were done in 1973 and all remaining E8s were upgraded to E9 specs.   They also were upgraded with head-end power sets to replace the steam generators.

EMC built two AB6 single prime mover locomotives for the Rock Island in 1940.  There were based on B units with a flat faced cab and full controls hence the AB designation. 

Chuck Sartor posted:

Around 1971 BN rebuilt some E8's for their commuter trains before giving them to Amtrak.

The former CB&Q E Units used in the Chicago to Aurora commuter fleet, were rebuilt by M-K, out in Boise, Idaho. None of those units ever went to Amtrak, as all were retained by METRA until new F40PH units replaced them. 

Were the diesel engines inside original equipment just rebuilt,

Completely rebuilt and up-grade with 645 power assemblies. Also, Diesel engine driven HEP "skid units" were installed in the rear end.

or were they upgraded, and did they still use their steam boilers?

No steam boilers used in Burlington commuter service. Even back in the good old days, the Burlington had specially modified combine coaches at the headend of ever train with skid unit HEP gen sets.

Didn't I read somewhere that a few Rock Island E-B's only have one engine?

Sorry; I have no experience with the Rock Island.

Hot Water posted:

PRR 5841 posted:

Hello everyone,

I seem to recall that unlike previous versions which had both V-12’s facing “Backwards”, the final iteration of this popular series had its rearmost V-12 turned around for reasons concerning better weight distribution and more steam generating capacity.  Having the “Front” of each engine facing the middle allowed for a single, albeit slightly larger accessory rack to accommodate both engines which allowed more room in back for steam generation capacity.  While cosmetically not the prettiest unit in the series, arguably the best mechanically.  

Was the E9 in fact the only one of the series to receive this modification?  

Yes. The proposed next model, the E10, for the Union Pacific, who was the last RR to purchase E Units, was never ordered/built.

 

I did some further research and was able to corroborate PRRJIM’s opinion as true. “Classic Trains” summer 2012, pg. 33 

In short, it was the E8 that first had its rear engine turned around, this design change was later applied to the E9 as well.

Thanks for the clarification gentlemen.

prrjim posted:

There was an article or series in "Classic Trains" by Kalmbach at some point that summarized the development of the E-series passenger engines.     It did explain each upgrade in layman's terms.

My memory is that that the article stated that the change in orientation of the Prime movers was done in the E8 model.   The E9 was an upgrade to HP and possible prime mover tweaks as mentioned.    But I thought the major change to the internal layout was between the E7 and E8.

But this is all from convoluted memory, so don't crucify me if you find otherwise.

You were correct, thanks!