Talk:EMD FT

Just a historian's note here, but all GM locomotives built prior to 1941 were built by the Electro-Motive Corporation (EMC). The Electro-Motive Division (EMD) was formed on January 1, 1941 with the merger of the Winton Engine Company with EMC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SSW9389 (talk • contribs) 09:17, August 28, 2006.

Another thing, Added B-Unit to surviving ones, one of the two that EMD sent as a demonstration, is located at the Virginia Museum of Transportation in Roanoke, Virginia --Manokiller 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The only survivor from the prototype is the A unit at St. Louis. The four unit demonstrator went to SR but only the one A was saved. The B unit that recently joined it is NOT from the original demo set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.148.216 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A J Kristopans gives a March 1939 build date for the A units and May 1939 build date for the B units. The November 1939 date usually used is when the units left EMC's LaGrange Plant on their demonstration trips. See http://utahrails.net/ajkristopans/FREIGHTCABUNITS.php -- --SSW9389 08:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The 567A engine was used in the FT locomotives starting in May 1943. --SSW9389 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Who has a list of steam generator equipped FTs? This could be either regular steam generators or the stand by steam generator. EMC 103 had steam generators in the B units on its demonstrator trips. Santa Fe 167LABC was built with steam generators and 95 mile an hour gearing in February 1945 after the War Production Board restrictions were relaxed. --SSW9389 13:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to an EMD FT Operator's Manual dated June 1944. http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Railroads/EMD_FT_OM.pdf The Table of Contents in section F-2A shows a Stand By Steam Generator. Section F-2B which is ommitted shows a Steam Generator. --SSW9389 06:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don’t mean to waste your time again. I came across Kettering’s 1951 A.S.M.E. paper at UtahRails.net [1], I imagine you are aware of it. This would seem to be about the ultimate 567 reference, and as a link anyone can get it, but I don’t know how to format it. If this were posted somewhere, one of us, at your option, could spread it around EMC/EMD articles. Reasonable? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Eugene "Gene" Kettering was the son of Charles F. "Boss" Kettering. Boss Kettering was the GM engineer who worked out the details of the EMC 201 engine for railroad locomotion. His son Gene Kettering started with Winton Engine in 1930 then moved to EMC in 1938 with the 567 engine project. Gene Kettering became the Assistant Chief Engineer in 1944 working for Chief Engineer Richard M. "Dick" Dilworth. Gene Kettering became EMD's Chief Engineer on April 1, 1948. This data is mostly from Preston Cook's "Building a BEST-SELLER" article in the current Classic Trains. The Gene Kettering article posted on Utah Rails covers both EMC 201 and EMC/EMD 567 engine development through the 567B.--SSW9389 06:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Evolution from United States Navy submarine technology

I have restored information related to evolution of the FT (specifically in the original A-B-B-A configuration) from contemporary United States Navy Sargo-class submarine production. Differences between the 567 engine and the GM-Winton V16-278A marine diesels used in submarines should not distract attention from the fundamental similarity in the 5400-horsepower system redundancy and electrical power distribution scheme providing the reliability essential to long-distance independent operation for both trans-Pacific submarine patrols and railway main-line freight operation. Contemporary diesel-electric freight locomotives without this flexible system redundancy had been effectively restricted to switching operations on side tracks in proximity to shop facilities where breakdowns would not cause major timetable disruption. Thewellman (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this "information", as it stands, is nothing more than you pointing out an apparent similarity in configuration, without any citation of proof that this similarity is anything other than happenstance. It does not belong in this article at all, much less in the lead paragraphs. Thus I have removed it again.

I do see that some published sources point to a general connection between the development of U.S. Navy submarine diesel-electric powerplants and the application of diesel-electric propulsion to railroad locomotives. However, there is no reason to believe that the FT's specific configuration was directly derived from the powerplant of a specific submarine class, nor would there be any reason to base it on a submarine powerplant at all. You're simply saying, "Submarine X has a diesel-electric powerplant with four EMD V-16 1350 hp diesels, and the FT's A-B-B-A configuration also has four EMD V-16 1350 hp diesels." Well, so what? The FT's A-B-B-A configuration, while a popular one used by railroads, was not a fundamental aspect of the FT's design. The base configuration was just a simple A-B, with only two engines. And Electro-Motive Corporation had already introduced twin-engined configurations for diesel locomotives and trainsets several years before the FT, as well as V-16 diesel engines of similar size. These configurations were based on the power and traction needs of railroad customers. There's no particular reason to relate them to submarine powerplants, which would have been sized based on the submarine's mission and capabilities.

Your additional comments about similarity between the flexibility of electric power distribution in the submarine and locomotive powerplants likewise lack any published basis and thus do not belong in an encyclopedia article. The two applications seem rather different, so it's not even clear how much similarity there would really be, but Wikipedia certainly can't include such a claim based solely on your say-so. And even if such a claim could be made, how would it be especially relevant to the FT locomotive as opposed to EMD locomotives in general? Why would it not similarly apply to EMD's twin-engined E-unit passenger locomotives or its diesel-electric switchers? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Preston Cook article here http://utahrails.net/loconotes/pcook-winton.php --SSW9389 11:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail, on page 404, extensively quotes EMC Chief Engineer E.W. Kettering discussing the development of the 567 engine, and in it he specifically mentions railroad service. A major part of the weakness of the 201-A powerplants in railroad service is known to stem from the fact that they were designed to be compatible with Navy specifications. Acptulsa (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

EMD FS and FTS units

In the immediate Post WW2 era EMD's Field Service Department issued the Field Service News. In Volume II No. 7 dated July 15, 1947 there is a definition of an FS unit. The FS was any combination of "A" and "B" units. 1350 HP per unit, 16-567 or 16-567A Engines. Couplers and draft gears at both ends of all units. No links (drawbars). FS locomotives differ basically from FT locomotives in the following respects: different underframe, different end platforms, and each FS unit is equipped with couplers at both ends. FT locomotives are permanently linked between the "A" and "B" units and may be either coupled or linked between the "B" units of a four unit (5400 HP) locomotive. AT&SF, D&RGW, MP and the Southern are the only ones that have FS type locomotives. This same information can be found on pages 62-63 of Trains Magazine May 1975 issue.

The Cotton Belt also had eight units built in 1945 that were equipped with couplers on both ends. These units are not on the EMD Field Service News page, but appear to be identical to Santa Fe units of the time. The FS booster units were fitted with the 5th porthole and an operator's control station. FS and FTS A units would have couplers and stirrup steps at the rear. FS and FTS B units would have couplers and stirrup steps at the front.

The FTS designation appears on Cotton Belt Folio cards and is used to describe FT units that have had their drawbars removed and turned into single units in 1955 and 1956. The FTS designation is also used in a table on page 1 by EMD in the Locomotive Reference Data dated January 1, 1959. --SSW9389 13:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Preston Cook briefly discusses the FS units on page 12 in Classic Trains Summer 2015 edition. --SSW9389 13:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The five FT types

According to EMD Field Service News Volume II No. 7 dated July 15, 1947 there were five types of what we now call the "FT". These five types were the FT-A, FT-B, FT-SB, FS-A, and FS-B.

The FT-A was a cab unit that was linked to a booster with a drawbar. It had a draft gear and coupler in the front.

The FT-B was the booster unit that was linked to an FT-A unit with a drawbar. It had a standard draft gear and coupler in the back.

The FT-SB was a short booster unit. It was linked to other FT units with drawbars. There was no draft gear or coupler.

The FS-A unit was a cab unit with a draft gear and coupler in the front and a Santa Fe coupler with draft gear at the back.

The FS-B unit was a booster unit with a Santa Fe coupler in the front and a draft gear and coupler in the back. The FS-B booster units as-built had the 5th porthole and hostler control.

A four unit set of FT units is 193' long. A four unit set of FS units is 194' 4" long. There is an extra 8" length between the FS-A and the FS-B units because couplers were used instead of drawbars.

Steam Generators

The two original EMC FT booster units were equipped with steam generators while on the demonstration tour. The steam generators were removed before sale to Southern (CNO&TP) in May 1941. Santa Fe had Vapor- Clarkson CFK-4225 steam generators installed in booster units #167B,C when they were completed in February 1945. The Santa Fe #167 four unit set was built with 57:20 gearing good for 95 mph. A 300 gallon water tank was installed in the Santa Fe boosters and the normal space for a fuel tank was used for additional boiler water. Diesel fuel was piped from the A units to the booster units in the Santa passenger FTs. Additionally Santa Fe had 20 booster units equipped with steam generators in 1946 to dieselize passenger runs. These were the #158B,C - 166B,C and 168B,C. Rio Grande had 18 booster units equipped with steam generators #5432-5433, 5442-5443, 5452-5453, 5462-5463, 5472-5473, 5482-5483, 5492-5493, 5502-5503, and 5512-5513. Great Northern had two boosters equipped with steam generators #250B-251B. Seaboard Air Line had 22 boosters equipped with steam generators #4100-4121. The Great Northern, Rio Grande and Seaboard booster units were equipped with a 2500 pound per hour steam generator. Source of data EMD Service Department Locomotive Reference Data dated January 1, 1959. And Santa Fe data from Early Diesel Daze by John B. McCall. --SSW9389 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Meaning of "FT"

The best information on the meaning of the locomotive FT is in this linked article by Wallace Abbey. Wally Abbey was a long time railroad industry employee who worked in public relations for the Soo Line and later worked for Kalmbach Publishing. See Abbey's article about FTs here: https://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php This article was originally posted to the Santa Fe Listserve in 2001. --SSW9389 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)--SSW9389 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)--SSW9389 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)--SSW9389 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)