DateTime
|
Author
|
Posting
|
|
01/28/01 21:53 |
Bill Kuebler |
NP began replacing the
middle porthole with a louver on most
of its passenger F-3s and F-7s beginning in 1952 (one or two units may have had this done in late
1951). It took a year or two to
convert all the ones they converted. The following B-units were thus converted:
F-3B: 6500B-6509B F-7B:
6510B-6513B The other passenger
F-3s (6551B-6553B, which went through
various renumberings and freight-passenger conversions) had three portholes each side throughout their
careers. Ditto F-7B 6550B. All F-9Bs
had three portholes each side. F-3B
6501B had a middle porthole on one side and a louver on the other side (!) in the mid-1960s. Prior to
that anomaly, it had a louver on each
side according to the conversion
described above. I showed
the engine numbers' "B" letter suffixes on all the above units for clarification only. The
suffix did not appear on the B-units
in large lettering until about 1961,
in the Loewy scheme era. If
you're modeling in the Pine Tree scheme and have a middle porthole on an F-3B or F-7B, you're pretty
much stuck with modeling 1952-53 if
you wish to be prototypical. If you want
to model earlier than that, you'll need middle portholes. F3, F7 portholes, modifications, phase I,
1950s, paint schemes, 1960s
Compiler C Frissell |
|
02/03/02 13:13 |
Bill Kuebler |
> Could it be that the
upgrades of only the passenger F-3's was done primarily > for --
horrors! -- cosmetics? Seems to me that since NP was exceptionally > fastidious about all aspects of the NCL's appearance,
keeping the power > looking like the latest thing may
well have been deemed worthwhile.
It > would explain why
freight units were not similarly treated as well as the > timing of
the changes which seem to have come almost immediately with EMD's > own model upgrades.
Jim, thanks for your thoughtful reply to this perplexing question.
I'm in no position to confirm or
deny the truth of your theory, but I will
simply offer my own opinion about "cosmetics." It's worth
just what you're paying for it! Since these F-3 upgrades all occurred in
the 1940s, or possibly very early
1950 at the latest for some of the changes, I would suspect that cosmetics had little to do with it. That
was an era under President Denney,
who had almost no regard for fancy diesel appearances. In fact, his idea of an NP F-unit, or any
diesel unit, was for it to be
painted nothing but black with no lettering save the road number and--just maybe--the road's initials! He
didn't even like the idea of
"Northern Pacific" appearing on the flanks, or heralds on
the noses, but guess he was talked
out of that by somebody. Even so, I
believe the black of the freight units was largely a result of correspondence between him and GM.
Incidentally, for those who might
have wondered, most railroads' diesel paint schemes (including GN's Omaha orange from what I understand, and
definitely including NP's freight
schemes) were designed by the various diesel locomotive builders' designers, especially GM
designers, sometimes with input from
the buying RRs and sometimes without it.
NP didn't really start paying much attention to passenger train
and equipment appearance until the
Macfarlane era. Wisely, when they
took another look at the cosmetics issue, the NP skipped the GM
folks, known for some rather
plain-Jane designs, and hired Raymond Loewy, a crackerjack industrial designer to say the least. That's the
reason the Loewy scheme was so
successful and remains one of the most admired paint schemes among rail fans and non-rail fans alike. But as I said, most of the above
regarding cosmetics as it relates to
our question is just my conjecture.
Here's my thinking, and again, it's just that, thinking. What is the one difference between the
passenger units and the freight
units that might have Anything to do with air-breathing? Well, it can't be the prime mover. The freight and
passenger F-3s all had the same 567B
type engine, with pretty much all the same accessories and appliances. It is not likely that any
airbrake equipment would account for
the upgrade differences, either, as airbrake equipment was all essentially the same in the two groups of
units, except for the
electro-pneumatic brake equipment installed on the passenger units
in 1952. I can't think of anything
about the electro-pneumatic equipment
that would be air-breathing sensitive that wasn't already a
factor with the other air brake equipment. The one difference was...steam
generators. Is it possible that NP
favored providing the highest quality air to the passenger units because they wanted the steam generators
to get the best possible air? Yes,
it's possible. Those things were touchy in
other respects, so maybe this, too, was an issue. I have no
evidence to support this thinking,
but it seems logical. If nothing else, it
may be the best answer for now account there being nothing that
makes any more sense. Anyway, don't
hold me to it, but that theory gets my
vote for now. > > As to your trivia question, I
imagine the horsepower rating of the
F-9's > must have crossed
some baseline number in engineer's pay schedules that the > F-7's
didn't. > Excellent thought! It is not common
for rail fans to consider pay
schedules when it comes to diesel power consists and preferences,
even though pay schedules were one
of the most important factors for crews.
Even so, that's not the answer here. Besides that, crews pay was not based directly on horsepower,
though it was usually proportional
to horsepower. It was based on "weight on drivers." Yes, F-9s were heavier than older F-units and,
thus, commanded a very slightly
higher pay rate. But remember, pay was based on weight on the drivers of the entire locomotive--i.e., all
three (or four) units. So, the order
in which the units were assembled didn't
matter, all other things being equal. Also, weight and pay would
not explain why having the F-9 in
the lead was not an issue in freight
service, but only in passenger service. Freight service pay rates
were based on the same system of
weight-on-drivers, although there was a
different pay schedule for freight and passenger service. Here is your big hint for the first
question (why F-9As seldom lead
mixed loco consist on trains 25/26): It involved something unique
to the Vista-Dome North Coast
Limited. Here is another hint for
the first question: It involves the period
1956-62. Think of what happened in 1962 that might account for the
end of this phenomenon. As for what
happened in 1956 that started it, that
is something not at all obvious, so I'll just give you another
hint. Jess Cannon became General
Mechanical Superintendent on 3/31/56. Very
shortly thereafter, he rendered a major decision that relates
directly to the subject at
hand. As for the second question
(why engineers preferred the F-9A in the
lead in passenger service), I'll admit that this is a very
obscure thing. Even so, it relates to the answer to Q#1 above, although
this answer applies to the entire NP
diesel era. So, I'll give you another
hint: It has to do with something inside the cab (it is not the
steam generator equipment) that was
in place for the entire service life of
the locomotive unit. Had you stood inside a passenger F-3/5/7 cab,
and then an F-9 cab, and had you
paid very close attention to little
details, you would have seen a certain difference in something
very important to an engineer.
Remember, passenger F-3/5/7s only, not
freight. Any more players
out there? F3, passenger, freight,
rebuilding, phase I, 1940s, 1950s
Compiler C Frissell |
|
03/31/02 16:20 |
David N. Hepper |
Maybe I now have a firm
grasp on the obvious, but it looks
like NP passenger F-3As went through three
transformations in appearance, not just two. It's not clear that the fine NP textbooks
specify all three versions: 1. As purchased. Phase 1 F-3 - 3
portholes on A units Paint: Passenger
Pine Tree (both versions) 2. Rebuilt
into Phase 2 (early) F-3 - 2 portholes on
A units, 4 rectangular vent openings covered by chicken wire between 2 portholes. Paint: Passenger Pine Tree (late
version) 3. Rebuilt into Phase 3
F-3 - chicken wire between 2 port
holes removed, 4 rectangular vent openings replaced by 4 louvered vents. Paint: Passenger Pine Tree, Loewy Question: Did any of the Phase 2 F-3A
units have the Loewy paint applied?
Probably the second rebuild occurred
early enough to precede Loewy, but does anyone know? F3, passenger, freight, rebuilding, phase
I Compiler C Frissell |
|
03/31/02 16:54 |
David N. Hepper |
Correction - Previous email should read '....two transformations, resulting in three unique appearances..', and not
'...three transformations..'. (that
would suggest four appearances). F3, passenger, freight, rebuilding, phase
I Compiler C Frissell |
|
03/31/02 16:58 |
David N. Hepper |
Considering the two rebuildings of the passenger F-3As from their original Phase 1 configuration, does anyone know why
the freight F-3As did NOT undergo
rebuilding and remained in their
as-delivered Phase 1 config.? The
reasons for rebuilding the passenger F-3s
are cited in NP books as '...to better filter dirt from air ingested into the engine
room..'. Presuming this same dirty
air would affect freight F-3s, I
wonder why they were not rebuilt. F3,
passenger, freight, rebuilding, phase I
Compiler C Frissell |
|
04/02/02 11:54 |
Bill Kuebler |
> The reasons for rebuilding the passenger F-3s > are cited in NP books as '...to
better filter > dirt from air
ingested into the engine room..'.
> Presuming this same dirty air would affect > freight F-3s, I wonder why they were
not rebuilt. Excellent question! I
have wondered about this for the past
thirty years. I have no clue. What's more, neither did the following NP men when I asked them this
question over the years: Elmer Smoak, Tacoma Shop Supervisor
instrumental in its conversion to
diesel ops; very much an expert on NP diesel
maintenance and operations. He simply said, "I don't recall at the moment." Perhaps he might
recall now, if asked again. I presume
he is still well, in Spokane. By the way, he once told me that the NP's F-9s, and especially the 567C prime mover, were his favorite pieces of
equipment in terms of the quality of
their design. Glenn Staeheli. I
wouldn't call him an expert in the areas
where Elmer Smoak was most knowledgeable, but he still seemed to accumulate all kinds of trivia.
If nothing else, he had a good memory
for such facts. But he had no clue on
this one. O. J. Murphy. If
memory serves, he said, "I used to know, but don't remember." Frustrating. Several road foremen of engines. Again,
the answer was usually something
like, "Hmmm... good question. I never
heard why..." I'm
afraid the one man who surely would have known the answer to this question, Jess Cannon, is no longer with
us. In fact, I suspect that his
predecessor, George Ernstrom, was the
man who made the relevant decisions regarding the NP F-unit modifications of those years. There is one fellow, however, who I
believe is still very much with us
and just might be able to shed some light on
this: Bill Shannon. Have never asked him this one. Haven't seen him at an NPRHA convention in some
time. F3, passenger, freight,
rebuilding, phase I, Jess Cannon, Elmer Smoak, Glenn Staeheli, George
Ernstrom, O. J. Murphy, Bill Shannon,
Compiler C Frissell |
|
04/27/02 16:36 |
John Moore |
Weighing in on this one I submit the following for thought.
Would not the higher sustained speed
of the passenger units be a factor? Higher speeds would result in more dirt and other objects into the grills.
Strength may be an issue here too.
Having grown up in the Eastern Montana and Western North Dakota areas I can testify that the wind
blows all the time and sometimes
with good force. Now put a large locomotive through that at 70MPH and
you can get a fairly good abrasive
force not to mention the effect the impact with larger stuff such as ice chunks flying off and wind borne
debris. F3, passenger, freight,
rebuilding, phase I, screens, louvers, air filters Compiler C Frissell |
|
06/21/02 10:46 |
Bill Kuebler |
Some months ago there was
a discussion on this list about F-3 conversions. Essentially, the question
was: Why did NP change its passenger F-3As from three portholes to two
portholes plus various types of air filters at different times--and yet the freight F-3As remained
as they were when purchased, with
three portholes? I posed that
question to Bill Shannon, who sent me the following reply and gave me
permission to post it here. --Bill
K -------- Original Message
-------- Subject: Re: Convention
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:42:44 -0700
From: Bill Shannon To: Bill
Kuebler Developing a credible reply
to yours of April 20 and including
phone contacts to friends and
retirees: I can visualize a
situation with a minor maintenance
individual imparting to a
superior of how to improve the air filtration on the F-3As. Later information indicated funds
were not available to complete the modifications on both F-3s FRT and PASS.
Additionally the F-3A freight would be in line for trade in for new units. I
would like to examine the so-called "NP Locomotive Books" since
some of the books talk about the air filter modifications while others are
silent. As a matter of information, diesel electric locomotive equipment book
number DE-5 charged to the CMO contains no information on modification of any
sort and never did. Another thought,
some bookkeeper was keeping a running record unit by unit for their own
edification. F3, passenger, freight,
rebuilding, phase I, screens, louvers, air filters Compiler C Frissell |