January 10, 2012
The "Acceptable" Diesel
I'm a railfan. Not a particularly well-educated one, I'll admit, but I have a huge soft spot (my noggin, most like) for trains. Like many uneducated but well-meaning rail buffs, I miss the steam era though it was already over before I came around. I also think that diesel locomotives all look the same and are boring as heck because of it. Yeah, like nobody has ever said that before, right? Even the cutesy nicknames given some of the diesel trains of today don't help: "Jeeps" and "Torpedo boats", feh. No, there's no way a diesel-electric engine can be as interesting as even the most humble of steam trains. One of the best moments of my life was riding on top of the coal tender of a steam loco at the Illinois Railway Museum whilst Larry, the husband of my cousin, played engineer for a time. Sure, once I took my glasses off I looked like a negative raccoon, and I stank of smoke like I'd just walked out of the Towering Inferno, but it was a wonderous experience, one that's long gone. For that alone, I feel like all diesel locos are evil.
The ALCO PA (and attendant booster PB) is the only diesel locomotive that should be allowed to stick around. The PAs first took to the rails in 1946, with the last of them being manufactured only seven years later. A total of 297 PAs or PB were built. While that sounds like a lot, in truth it wasn't. It had the misfortune of coming into the world at a time when ALCO was being soundly thrashed, market-share wise, by EMD and their nigh-on ubiquitous E-units and F7 locos (nearly 2400 "A" units built). Quite honestly, they couldn't compete.
To railfans, however, that doesn't matter. What matters is that the PA had character and style in a world that was becoming increasingly bland and lifeless. And considering how much its Model 244 turbocharged V16 2000hp (later 2250hp) engine smoked while accelerating, it may as well have been a steam loco.
Unfortunately, it was that same Model 244 engine that spelled doom for the PA. Rushed into production, it never had the bugs worked out and proved to be unreliable in service. Indeed, this dog of an engine ended up being the death of ALCO, as it never recovered from the reputation lost from the near-constant failures of 244s.
But none of that matters to a railfan. They're different. They're rare. They're quirky. All of that means that they're my favorite diesel loco. Alas, there are also very few left in existence... five, to be exact, two of which are in Mexico.
I know I have a few train fans out there (Ed Hering, please pick up the red courtesy phone) who are probably a lot more knowledgeable than I regarding this sort of thing. Please, chime in!
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
This is how trains should look. Streamlined, steaming, and in black and white.
Except for one.The ALCO PA (and attendant booster PB) is the only diesel locomotive that should be allowed to stick around. The PAs first took to the rails in 1946, with the last of them being manufactured only seven years later. A total of 297 PAs or PB were built. While that sounds like a lot, in truth it wasn't. It had the misfortune of coming into the world at a time when ALCO was being soundly thrashed, market-share wise, by EMD and their nigh-on ubiquitous E-units and F7 locos (nearly 2400 "A" units built). Quite honestly, they couldn't compete.
To railfans, however, that doesn't matter. What matters is that the PA had character and style in a world that was becoming increasingly bland and lifeless. And considering how much its Model 244 turbocharged V16 2000hp (later 2250hp) engine smoked while accelerating, it may as well have been a steam loco.
Unfortunately, it was that same Model 244 engine that spelled doom for the PA. Rushed into production, it never had the bugs worked out and proved to be unreliable in service. Indeed, this dog of an engine ended up being the death of ALCO, as it never recovered from the reputation lost from the near-constant failures of 244s.
But none of that matters to a railfan. They're different. They're rare. They're quirky. All of that means that they're my favorite diesel loco. Alas, there are also very few left in existence... five, to be exact, two of which are in Mexico.
I know I have a few train fans out there (Ed Hering, please pick up the red courtesy phone) who are probably a lot more knowledgeable than I regarding this sort of thing. Please, chime in!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:45 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Are you sure we're not related?
I'm not as knowledgeable as I could be if I spent my scant free time somewhat differently, but I'm still a sucker for locomotives, particularly the classic age-of-steam. Let's put it this way: A while back I found a torrent of the most dreary, grainy, boringly-narrated series ever made about the waning decades of British steam rail, and I sat through the whole damned thing anyway. Every other year I make sure that at least one of my wall calendars features steam locos.
That is one stylish diesel, right there, yessir.
I'm not as knowledgeable as I could be if I spent my scant free time somewhat differently, but I'm still a sucker for locomotives, particularly the classic age-of-steam. Let's put it this way: A while back I found a torrent of the most dreary, grainy, boringly-narrated series ever made about the waning decades of British steam rail, and I sat through the whole damned thing anyway. Every other year I make sure that at least one of my wall calendars features steam locos.
That is one stylish diesel, right there, yessir.
Posted by: GreyDuck at January 10, 2012 10:30 PM (eHm8o)
2
GD, one of the stations on my satellite package is "RFD-TV", which I jokingly call "Rural Feed Delivery." It's for farmers and cowboys... literally. But for about six months at 4pm on Mondays, they'd show an hour's worth of railfan videos. Sometimes it'd be classic film of (say) the Santa Fe, but the next week would be modern video from some rail celebration in 2005.
Why, yes, yes I did watch them all.
Why, yes, yes I did watch them all.
Posted by: Wonderduck at January 10, 2012 10:55 PM (f/6aJ)
3
When I was ten I vastly preferred diesels. I knew them all by sight and could easily tell a GP-7 from a GP-15 from an SD-40 from a "U-boat".
I liked diesels because I understood the vast improvement in efficiency they represented. It required one man to operate rather than two or three, and the awesome THUD THUD THUD of the massive two-stroke engines operating at full speed was an amazing sound.
I didn't get interested in steam locomotives, in fact, until I began working on a novel that began with a kind of "steampunk" setting, in 2000; and thanks to that I now have some interest in them.
I liked diesels because I understood the vast improvement in efficiency they represented. It required one man to operate rather than two or three, and the awesome THUD THUD THUD of the massive two-stroke engines operating at full speed was an amazing sound.
I didn't get interested in steam locomotives, in fact, until I began working on a novel that began with a kind of "steampunk" setting, in 2000; and thanks to that I now have some interest in them.
Posted by: Ed Hering at January 11, 2012 05:04 AM (4X4NQ)
4
Two stroke? Are you sure about that?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 11, 2012 10:10 AM (+rSRq)
5
The GP7's EMD 567 engine was a two-stroke V-16, as a matter of fact.
Posted by: Wonderduck at January 11, 2012 02:32 PM (OS+Cr)
6
The idea lives on in the Deltahawk aviation diesels (actually it's improved in that the air is not being blown through the crankcase).
Posted by: Author at January 11, 2012 03:02 PM (G2mwb)
7
Believe me, I was surprised, too, when I learned that. They have a
redline of about 600 RPM and when one goes thundering by at full
throttle, believe me the entire town knows about it.
Posted by: Ed Hering at January 11, 2012 06:12 PM (4X4NQ)
8
You could never design something like that now. You could never get it approved, because of the noise and the pollution.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 11, 2012 07:24 PM (+rSRq)
9
On the contrary, Steven, most of the rail diesels currently running are turbocharged two-strokes - one of the latest of which was the EMD710 (16-710G3C-T2), approved by the EPA for Tier II Emissions Spec in 2004. The engine met spec through EFI rather than mechanically-governed injection.
Posted by: JT at January 13, 2012 02:55 PM (iStSI)
10
I guess, now that I think about it, that any engine using fuel injection (including diesels) could avoid most of the pitfalls of a two stroke engine, couldn't they?
In an engine using a carburator, the problem is how much gas-air mixture to blow through the cylinder when the valves are open. Too little and you have burned exhaust in your next compression cycle. Too much, and you have unburned gas in your exhaust. In the middle you pretty much get both.
But if all you're blowing is pure air (with a turbo, I can believe) then there's no reason to hold back. Really crank that baby, and end up with the cylinder full of clean air just before the valves close and the cylinder compresses.
Some (probably a lot of) clean air also blows right through and into the exhaust manifold, but so what?
In an engine using a carburator, the problem is how much gas-air mixture to blow through the cylinder when the valves are open. Too little and you have burned exhaust in your next compression cycle. Too much, and you have unburned gas in your exhaust. In the middle you pretty much get both.
But if all you're blowing is pure air (with a turbo, I can believe) then there's no reason to hold back. Really crank that baby, and end up with the cylinder full of clean air just before the valves close and the cylinder compresses.
Some (probably a lot of) clean air also blows right through and into the exhaust manifold, but so what?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 13, 2012 09:13 PM (+rSRq)
11
Not sure about railroad 2-strokes, but Deltahawk has a 2-stage compression: supercharger and turbocharger. The supercharger is necessary for starting the engine. Minimum starting RPM is 1200. For this reason, airplanes with Deltahawk cannot be hand-propped, which is a pity.
Note that these 2-strokes still have the usual problem with NOx emissions. Aviation diesels simply ignore the problem - for now. I am sure that railway people use urea or other chemical to reform or capture the oxides.
Note that these 2-strokes still have the usual problem with NOx emissions. Aviation diesels simply ignore the problem - for now. I am sure that railway people use urea or other chemical to reform or capture the oxides.
Posted by: Author at January 16, 2012 11:57 PM (G2mwb)
12
Oh BTW: Russian railroads continue to tinker with a gas-turbine engine. The power of 1 section is 11,100 hp.
Photo:
http://www.parovoz.com/newgallery/pg_view.php?ID=336167&LNG=RU#picture
Note the clean exhaust. The fuel is a liquified natural gas.
Photo:
http://www.parovoz.com/newgallery/pg_view.php?ID=336167&LNG=RU#picture
Note the clean exhaust. The fuel is a liquified natural gas.
Posted by: Author at January 17, 2012 12:08 AM (G2mwb)
31kb generated in CPU 0.0407, elapsed 1.2793 seconds.
47 queries taking 1.2129 seconds, 288 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
47 queries taking 1.2129 seconds, 288 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
