U36B's

quote:

Originally posted by DominicMazoch:
My guess is that the U36B's of the SCL. AT, and Conrail, were VERY slippery!

Dominic -

See if you can find the March/April 1999 issue of Vintage Rails in which is an article of mine entitled "Up the Creek in a Leaky U-Boat". It deals with my experiences with GE power including three years as Road Foreman for the SCL in Birmingham. U-33b and U-36bs were usually seen on Lineville Sub trains between Birmingham and Machester, GA (former ACL) running in four-unit sets. They went on to Waycross, but thankfully I didn't go south of Machester, 196 miles out of my HQ at Birmingham.

Our ruling grades on the entire Atlanta Division (including also the former SAL line to and through Atlanta) were 1% compensated and SCL rated all turbocharged four-axle units from GP30s up to U-36bs at 2050 tons (also sharing that rating were the ex-ACL high-speed SDP35s).

The answer is, yes - on wet rail they'd slip out of a sandhouse. On sets of mixed power with a U-36b in the lead, on the hills in the rain the engineer would try to jockey the throttle to find the notch where the slipping ceased, but the trailing units weren't designed to haul full tonnage in the fifth or fourth notch. I've gone back and pulled the jumper cable behind the U-36b and set up the trailing unit so I could run them in run-8 to get up the mountain; we'd stop at the top to put the jumper cable back up so the engineer could run all of them from there on in. Not fun (in one consist I remember, a GP40 with a motor cut out was second, followed by a U-25c and a GP35). Once we got the jumper cable down and the trailing units set up, the six-axle U boat and the GP35 went to work and we got right up the mountain. The engineer had had to get them down in notch four to hold the U-36b, and we **** near stalled.

Not only did the SCL buy a hundred or so of these things, they had no idea about where they should be used - which, of course, was on the level of the Richmond-Florida mains. We should have had good old six-axle power up in the hills where I was. The SCL had to know that something was wrong when an EMD GP30 was rated the same as the U-36b on a 1% grade, and would actually do a better job at it.

The only saving grace of the SCL's (and Auto-Train's) U-36bs was that they had the Blomberg trucks from the F7 and FP7 trade ins. They were probably the best riding U-boats anywhere, but that didn't make up for the shortcomings.

EdKing

There is a reason why you don't see any U-Boats or Dash-7's around any more, but there are hundreds of SD40's still running everywhere.

The U-Boats and Dash-7's were not among GE's better ideas.

How successful were the U Boats the ATSF rebuilt at cleburne, TX.

How soon they forget

RAILS to REEFS
Sink a U-Boat
Save a Fish!

quote:

Originally posted by DominicMazoch:
How successful were the U Boats the ATSF rebuilt at cleburne, TX.

Pretty good, I'd have to say. There was one with a B-B wheel arrangement and it ran like nobody's business. I had it several times on hot trains on the Needles District and was very pleased with its performance. But only one was rebuilt.

The more common C-C "SF30" units were reliable and a great improvement over their original configuration, as they were rebuilt from U-boats delivered during the era in which GE thought there should be multiple protective devices aboard the engine so that, if anything went wrong, the engine would either go to idle or completely shut down, and be repaired, re-set, or re-started at the next mechanical servicing point. Well,the wide-open west was nothing like the northeast. There may likely have been a repair point less than a hundred miles ahead of the engine in the northeast, but it's a thousand miles from Belen to Barstow. We had plenty of dead or idling GE's being hauled across the desert by EMD's. For example, the low oil reset button, which had to be pushed every time the diesel shut down from an alarm, was behind a swing-down door, on the left outside, too high to reach from the ground, and too far below the window. So, we did some risky things to keep going, such as holding somebody upside down by his ankles and lowering him from the window, or leaning way over the side of the front running board and using a broomstick to push the button. Santa Fe had all it could stand. The SF30's did away with all but the most serious protective devices, used simplified high and low voltage racks, and generally just went about the business of pulling freight. Santa Fe tapered the nose, so there was also a little more room to board or alight from the units while carrying a grip.

Overall, I'd say the project was a success.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Jim:
How soon they forget

RAILS to REEFS
Sink a U-Boat
Save a Fish!

A-men, brother!

The U boats and Dash 7's were not some of the good things GE brings to life!

Dominic,

U-Boats by Greg McDonnell, and Locomotives - The Modern Diesel & Electric Reference, also by Greg McDonnell... great reference books!


The Heritage of North American Trains - Steam, Diesel and Electric Locomotives from Pioneer Days to Modern Times, by David Ross & Brian Solomon.

Three informative hardbacks...

In 1960, GE's U25B demonstrators packing new 2500HP FDL16's(prime movers), central air systems, pressurized engine and control compartments, advanced wheel-slip control and an improved cooling system; and backed by aggressive marketing... entered into the domestic road-unit marketplace.

GE built on this first step and eventually became the leading manufacturer of North American Freight locomotives.


Rick

I did not like running them .

They make a fine looking model train though

quote:

Originally posted by OGR Webmaster:
The U-Boats and Dash-7's were not among GE's better ideas.

Rich,

I thought GE always had a better Idea?

Larry

Jim,

You don't become the number one builder just by being cheaper. The highly competitive freight industry places significant demands on the freight companies.

If your equipment isn't up to the job, at hand, an alternative product will be found. GE must have/must be provided/providing the North American railroads with road power that is up to the task...

Even those early GE U-boats must have garnered some credibility.

I frequently see people, on train forums, lament... when EMD's SD40-2's are mentioned. They, the SD40-2's, must not have been the ultimate rail freight motive power or they would still be the primary power package, today.

I've operated a SD40-3 and it got the job done, but inside that conventional cab, it was spartan... there was nothing overly comfortable about it. In fact, we had to pry/force the right side window open, on an extremely hot day.

I didn't have a chance to get the train up to maximum speed, but I don't think being inside the cab, of that unit, doing 60 plus mph, would be like riding in a Rolls Royce.

EMD's 645 prime mover was not the end-all/be-all power plant, either. EMD's replacement for the SD40-2, the SD50, a bigger locomotive, struggled with that prime mover... the 645.

The GE U-boats paved the way for GE's current power packages, and GE appears to have found the winning formula. The SD40-2's aren't even in the same league, as the big six axle GE's we see, today.


Rick

quote:

You don't become the number one builder just by being cheaper.

Well, in this case it was a price competition. Buy someone elses brand or get the price jacked up on what you really want. That early GE trash was just that, trash! Why would any "safety oriented" company buy a locomotive that you had to climb straight up a ladder only to have to side-step down the running boards risking life and limb on jagged bolts extending beyond the car body if they didn't get them cheap?
Not until the Dash 9's came along did GE have a halfway decent locomotive (the new EVOs are a step in the wrong direction and the new ACs a step in the right direction).

quote:

They, the SD40-2's, must not have been the ultimate rail freight motive power or they would still be the primary power package, today.

The SD40-2 was the "ULTIMATE" all-around locomotive for its time. It could do anything and do it with style and grace.
Then the RRs decided that they wanted to haul more tonnage with less units and the Hi-Ad war began and it is still going on. Much to the detriment of train handling.

Jim,

Have you ever heard about the extensive work GE did to position themselves, as a player, in the domestic road-unit marketplace? GE didn't just wing-it. Besides significant R & D... they tested multiple demo power-sets, logging thousands of miles across the continent, providing motive power customers opportunities to test drive their new road switcher.

I don't think the railroad purse holders went in blind.

Like GE's current name for their mainline star, Evolution, that's what the business of locomotive manufacturing is all about... evolving.

You have an idea(s), you develop those ideas and test them; and then, you throw your hat into the ring and go from there... Today's choices will probably seem to be lacking... at some point in the future.

I don't really care who builds the best locomotives. I have an appreciation for locomotives,and I like seeing the products that are/were built... including the best.


Rick

quote:

Have you ever heard about the extensive work GE did to position themselves, as a player, in the domestic road-unit marketplace? GE didn't just wing-it. Besides significant R & D... they tested multiple demo power-sets, logging thousands of miles across the continent, providing motive power customers opportunities to test drive their new road switcher.

Like the song says..."It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!"

quote:

I don't really care who builds the best locomotives. I have an appreciation for locomotives,and I like seeing the products that are/were built... including the best.

Unlike yourself, I do care. I care because I have had to operate locomotives with sub-standard design elements. I care because I have lived through the growing pains of GE locomotives and can only shake my head when I think that it has taken them so long to rise to the level of performance that EMD had over thirty years ago in the SD40 series.

But, don't get me wrong here. EMD has had their fair share of brain-farts too.

Maybe if the people involved in designing the locomotives would only have consulted with the people who have to operate them, things would have turned out a lot different.

I remember Ed Kings story on the SCL with U-36's. I guess that's why EMD stuck with 3000 horses (GP-40) on 4 axle power. That last 600 HP was for speed at the top end, I would guess that's what GE thought.
I have a question though, why did GE use overhead throttle on their early U boats. What was the purpose? To make duel controls simpler?

WP bought GE U30B's instead of EMD SD45's just because they were cheaper. Also the U23B's were cheaper than the GP38's WP wanted. End of story. A painter in the WP diesel shop told me that when he painted the GE's they were definitely cheaper with the metal used in the car body. He hated to climb around on them as he worked. GE may have worked to enter the domestic market but any and all early GE's I've worked on were truly a distant second to EMD's produced at the same time period. For working on SD40-2's, they did ride nice at 70 mph in the 1990's and I ran a lot of them. Today's SD40-3 is a tired worn out POS and even the SD60's are tired now. I had Dash 8 in a consist the other day and it was equally tired, worn out and falling apart.

A factor not yet mentioned... upkeep. Anything man-made quickly turns into a piece of **** if not properly maintained. Skipping or significantly reducing regular maintenance, on heavily used equipment, is a good way to turn the unit(s) into beaters.

Ordering bare-bones models probably doesn't help matters, either.


I wonder if some of your professional experiences were partially due to these types of situations?

Re: companies purchasing cheaper models... if the model is designed to last X number of years, with proper maintenance; and performs to the owners expectations, then it's served it's purpose.

Continually evolving technology seems to have served the customers needs... well enough.

Any type of commercial transportation enterprise regularly upgrades it's fleet(s), i.e. aircraft, ships, trucks, automobiles and locomotives all see high turnover, in their respective industries.


Rick

Kane

When the U-boats were in service, they weren't called "THE WORKING MAN'S BEST FRIEND" for no reason. A facility that tried to maintain them was always full.

I was once involved in a GE demonstration. 3 B's and 3 GP59's. The GE power blew a power assembly on the load box. The seals were on back order from Erie. One of the GE"s was involved in a grade crossing accident. The steps were on back-order out of Erie. (We used a GP9 step as a replacement.)

The Copper-Bessemer engine that GE used was an abomination.

Rd...,

In 1960, GE had it's U25B demonstrators(4 sets) log 61,006 miles, on 14 roads. To me, that is a significant period of time to conduct live demonstrations.

The Railroad's in-the-know people should have noted all these problem areas, if they were any good. When I go to buy a new home, I pay to have knowledgeable people give me a comprehensive report re: the quality and condition of the structure... I also educate myself, so I have a decent understanding of the issues at hand; and I make my final decision... after taking all the pertinent information into account.

Wouldn't railroads take the same care/due diligence... when it comes to expensive motive power purchases?

So you've got a locomotive manufacturer, GE, that's provided ample opportunity for buyers to appraise their product(s); and you have qualified buyers... How do you end up with the pieces of **** you guys are going on about?

BTW, nobody, no manufacturer, builds absolutely perfect railroad equipment. I haven't seen that happen, yet.


Rick

The problems with the U-Boats did not show up in the early years when they were new. However, after they had a few hundred thousand miles on them, they deteriorated much faster than the EMD's of the time. The Cooper-Bessemer prime mover was very problem-prone. The design of the cab, with its 16-notch throttle instead of the standardized 8-notch setup in everything else, also proved to be a point of problems.

It was virtually impossible to walk by the rear of the engine on the walkway where the radiator was without being sucked against the radiator screen...which was ALWAYS dirty. The big mechanically-driven cooling fan was another source of maintenance problems. An electric cooling fan on the roof of an EMD could be replaced in a few hours. Replacing the cooling fan in a U-Boat was a week-long project.

There is a reason why there are still many 1960's era EMD diesels still in use, while the U-Boats are almost all scrapped. The EMD's of that era were demonstrably superior to the GE products of the day. Today that's probably not the case, but it certainly was back then.

Define: deteriorate!

But did EMD use some of GE ideas for coolong when they came up the "special cooling package", that is, the "tunnel motor"

"This work is dedicated to the General Electric workers who labored to design and build the locomotives that occupy these pages and to the generations of railroaders who have worked with them."

"The images and words presented on these pages pay homage, not only to a class of locomotives that triggered a motive power revolution, but to the people who designed them, built them and worked them."

"This volume is a tribute to..., and to those who have endured long nights and hard miles in rocking, rattling cabs of the 3,600 U-boats built."

- from U-Boats, by Greg McDonnell.

The 3,600 U-boats were the stepping stones to the top...


Rick

quote:

Originally posted by DominicMazoch:

But did EMD use some of GE ideas for coolong when they came up the "special cooling package", that is, the "tunnel motor"

No. EMD had been using that design of "fans mounted below the banks of radiators" on export units long befor the "tunnel cooling system modification" was developed for the SP. Also, the "tunnel motor" design was for rapid cool-down upon exiting the snow sheds/tunnels on Donner Pass, prior to entering the next shed. In long tunnels, the "tunnel motor" design did NOT make the unit operate any cooler.

For what it's worth, the GE U36B units where such a failure on SCL that GE finally came up with a way to help them "hold their feet" on the rails. GE developed the MATE for the U36B, and even convinced the SCL to actually PURCHASE the MATEs!

What, you ask, is a MATE???? Why it was simply a "slug" or Motors for Additional Tractive Effort. The damned U36B units had WAAAY too much HP for just four traction motors, so by modifying the high voltage electrical system, each MATE was coupled and wired up to its respective "mothor" unit, thus deviding all that HP by eight traction motors instead of just four.

The U36Bs with their MATEs, worked quite well in drag service in the Bone Valley area of Florida on the SCL.

What a total disaster they were!

quote:

Originally posted by OGR Webmaster:

It was virtually impossible to walk by the rear of the engine on the walkway where the radiator was without being sucked against the radiator screen...which was ALWAYS dirty. The big mechanically-driven cooling fan was another source of maintenance problems. An electric cooling fan on the roof of an EMD could be replaced in a few hours. Replacing the cooling fan in a U-Boat was a week-long project.

The air compressor was located under that d--- fan, if it was operating in sub-zero weather a water cooled air compressor would freeze with the locomotive operating over the road. Then there radiator cores, when the engine finally got hot an starting putting hot water through super cooled radiator, the cores would burst giving the rear of the unit a golden shower.

Always love seeing a GE in the scrappers yard

Dominic,

I contributed to this thread, because I noticed you seemed to be interested in some of the Universal series equipment.

I found that era of locomotive manufacturing... quite interesting. In my opinion, they don't all have to be 10's... to be enjoyed.


Rick

Actually, I started this thread because I just got a SP U33C by WBB. Not scale, but nice looking. "Nice" does not have traction effort though.

A MATE with 2 U36B's should produce arounf the same TE as 2 U33/6B/C's or SD45's. 6 powered axles per prime mover.

Kane: THX for your interest.

Dominic,

My first O gauge diesel was a Lionel Traditional U36B, in the Western Pacific livery. I knew is was a pretty basic model, but I enjoyed it. I even purchased a second WP U36B, so I could shackle them together.

I always enjoyed learning about a new purchase... and it's prototype.

Have fun!


Rick

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Water:
For what it's worth, the GE U36B units where such a failure on SCL that GE finally came up with a way to help them "hold their feet" on the rails. GE developed the MATE for the U36B, and even convinced the SCL to actually PURCHASE the MATEs!

What, you ask, is a MATE???? Why it was simply a "slug" or Motors for Additional Tractive Effort. The damned U36B units had WAAAY too much HP for just four traction motors, so by modifying the high voltage electrical system, each MATE was coupled and wired up to its respective "mothor" unit, thus deviding all that HP by eight traction motors instead of just four.

The U36Bs with their MATEs, worked quite well in drag service in the Bone Valley area of Florida on the SCL.

Hot -

When the N&W merged (leased, whatever) the Wabash in 1964 the Wabash had 15 U-25bs with Cooper-Bessemer engines, all of which were sent back to GE and re-engined. The story I got was the C-B didn't exercise much quality control since they knew they were going to lose the business as soon as GE developed the capability to manufacture the engines itself. True - false? I don't know but it sounds plausible.

There were two kinds of MATES. A single-ended MATE was coupled up to its U-36b and the combination was supposed to be the equivalent of two U-18bs. These were your Bone Valley sets.

The double-ended MATE (Motors for Additional Tractive Effort) was coupled between two U-36bs (power for the truck on each end was drawn from the locomotive coupled thereto) and was supposed to be the equivalent of two U-36cs.

Trouble was, where I was working we needed four units worth of power, so they'd send up a U-36b in the lead trailing a U-36b-Double Ended Mate-U36b to make four units. Under bad rail conditions, the lonesome U-36b would still not hold the rail in the eighth notch (by that time the 16-notch throttle was, thankfully, gone) so the engineer would still have to jockey the throttle to hold it.

Barnum was right.

GE must have laughed all the way to the bank.

EdKing



___________________________________________
Edited by the webmaster to fix the quote formatting. No content was changed.

Fact:
You could change out 5 power assemblys in a row on an SD45 in the same amount of time that it took to change out one P/A on a GE.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Jim:
Fact:
You could change out 5 power assemblys in a row on an SD45 in the same amount of time that it took to change out one P/A on a GE.

...which is yet another reason why there are still hundreds of EMD's from this era still running and the U-Boats have all been scrapped.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Jim:
Fact:
You could change out 5 power assemblys in a row on an SD45 in the same amount of time that it took to change out one P/A on a GE.

Not only that, but for the sell price of the GE connecting rod (Master rod), a railroad could pruchase a NEW (NOT rebuilt or UTEX) EMD complete power assembly (head, liner, piston, piston carrier, AND connecting rod)!

I have the Chessie MPC U36B. Nice, but nowhere near scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Water:
Not only that, but for the sell price of the GE connecting rod (Master rod), a railroad could pruchase a NEW (NOT rebuilt or UTEX) EMD complete power assembly (head, liner, piston, piston carrier, AND connecting rod)!

...which is yet another reason why there are still hundreds of EMD's from this era still running and the U-Boats have all been scrapped.

There are a few U boats on one of the iron ore roads. But more endangered than whooping cranes.

I don't see where the overall situation with GE stuff is that much
better today than twenty years ago. We may have gotten rid of the
really bad ones, but the newer stuff is still just a bunch of time
bombs looking for a place to happen! Getting rid of the prime mover
would be a good place to start in a serious GE make-over. If I was
the principle purchasing agent for a big road today, I'd be going
EMD in a heartbeat...more expensive today, but worth more in the end.
And you have options with older EMD that don't really happen with
old GE. That is highly unlikely to change anytime soon.

One huge difference between EMD & GE was the quality of Service Engineers. The EMD people were extremely well qualified and willing to assist on problems regardless of age of the unit! GE was at the other end of the spectrum.

Was EMD without problems? Not by a darn sight, on one new order we had problems with the operation of the automatic brake valve on a unit. We ended up stripping out the manifold in the brake stand. We found the pipe from the MR almost completely blocked with sheets of paper rolled neatly obstructing the pipe. (The literature was from the UAW advocating strike action against EMD.)

I would have gladly traded our u-boats for any old GP7 or ALCO RS3. At least the RS3 could be made to operate!

What probably helped GE was the ability to lease their locos (yes I know they can also lease EMDs as well). The point being that the GEs weren't a major risk since at the end of the lease (usually fifteen years) the railroads would simply return the GE's if they weren't happy with them.

Stuart

quote:

The point being that the GEs weren't a major risk since at the end of the lease (usually fifteen years) the railroads would simply return the GE's if they weren't happy with them.

Don't know how you came up with that, stuart. Since "banks" provide the fianancing money (yes, GE Capital and/or GMAC in some cases, but those where still "banks"), when the lease was up, just how would a railroad "return" a 15 year old locomotive, and to whome would it be returned to? Certainly NOT GE nor EMD! The "banks" also didn't want all those old, worn out junkers either. Since they had deprecated to zero, the railroad could either purchase them from the "bank" (as they did with EMD power), or just let them go to scrap (as with GE power).