What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel

[Robert Hale]

I thought that I could set a few personal goals that involves the museum this year and one is simple; become a lifetime member. The other is much more complex but I have been doing research for the last year as to what/how to accomplish this goal. I will try to start the drawings for W.W.&F. #s 54 & 55. I have been looking at the 1925-1940 era industrial switcher designs and trying to hypothesis what the RR would have done to have built or home-built for a possible transition/mixed use of non-steam locomotives if the RR lasted past 1933. Granted, the use of very common current day engines/drive train would be used to keep running costs down, but the sheet metal body would reflect the era's styling cues and operating routines. I know many might be reluctant to have such locomotives at all, but I see it as an opportunity to do something for the long term life of the RR/museum and keep it inline with a "what if" timeline, as well as providing a locomotive the is as heavy as the steam locomotives to serve as back-up power and use for work trains to save wear and tear on the more valuable locomotives in the collection. Please feel free to ask me anything, I am still drawing up the basics of the specifications. Also, I don't want to step on any toes by posting this, so if it is a bad idea or not welcome please let me know.
Rob

[Robert Hale]

Update: #54 & #55
I have decided on the gearbox/drive train layout, it will be similar to the Baldwin 600cm trench locomotive 0-4-0 gas-mechanical from WWI, just with it being double ended. Still researching off the shelf gears/bearings to minimize costs. Also developing the centralized control stand for bi-directional use. Will be diesel powered with common power plants. That is all.

Rob

[Bernie Perch]

Rob,

Why don't you study what the Mount Washington Cog Railway used to make their diesel-hydraulic locomotives?  I believe they used a standard power unit with hydraulic motors.  I know it was unsuccessful on the Southern Pacific and Rio Grande for various reasons, but on a small road like the WW&F it may be the simplest way to go.  I am not a mechanic, so this is just a "from the hip" suggestion.

As far as the aesthetics of the locomotive, make it look good . Design it with AAR type trucks with drop equalizers like passenger car trucks similar to  those used on road switchers.  The Durango & Silverton made a beautiful self propelled car and put it on what I feel was a very cobbled looking front truck made from an industrial locomotive.  It looked terrible.  Home made locomotives tend to look cobbled up.  Try to avoid that.

Bernie

[John Kokas]

I would suggest looking at a center-cab design with two engines.  Each one connected directly to its end truck.  The one advantage is if you have a road failure of an engine, you have the remaining one to get you home.  Think of a scaled down GE 44 tonner.

[Robert Hale]

I would suggest looking at a center-cab design with two engines.  Each one connected directly to its end truck.  The one advantage is if you have a road failure of an engine, you have the remaining one to get you home.  Think of a scaled down GE 44 tonner.

That is the idea. It would be a period correct (except for the power plant) "kitbashed" locomotive using surplus chassis from WWI, in theory (like a what if). Outside some custom shafts/gearboxes everything will be sourced from the light/medium truck industry to keep costs down and have a good supply of spares.
I'm going to hit this hard this year, getting my CAD program up and running since most of my VA stuff has closed out now. I have to call some vendors and contact some youtubers to get input into the gearboxes.

Rob

[Robert Hale]

Rob,

Why don't you study what the Mount Washington Cog Railway used to make their diesel-hydraulic locomotives?  I believe they used a standard power unit with hydraulic motors.  I know it was unsuccessful on the Southern Pacific and Rio Grande for various reasons, but on a small road like the WW&F it may be the simplest way to go.  I am not a mechanic, so this is just a "from the hip" suggestion.

As far as the aesthetics of the locomotive, make it look good . Design it with AAR type trucks with drop equalizers like passenger car trucks similar to  those used on road switchers.  The Durango & Silverton made a beautiful self propelled car and put it on what I feel was a very cobbled looking front truck made from an industrial locomotive.  It looked terrible.  Home made locomotives tend to look cobbled up.  Try to avoid that.

Bernie

I thought of that, but there are allot of issues with Diesel-hydraulic (pump/lines/motors/cooling/costs) and it would not be a period correct design. Using a mechanical design from the period of the early 1900's with a minor modification (using an automatic transmission/diesel engine) you could have a loco with good power and speed.
My goals are: ease of maintenance. That means common filters, belts, parts, spares, controls (pneumatic) with a minimum amount of custom parts (machined/cast/fabbed). I think the final weight might be in the 20-24k range. I thought it could be a viable solution for a robust locomotive for the RR for when steam is not running and save some wear/tear on #52, but look and feel period correct for the size of the line. More to follow.

Rob

[Mike the Choochoo Nix]

What are you using for wheels?

[Jason M Lamontagne]

Hi Robert,

Am I clear in understanding that the extent of your project, at least at present, is to prepare drawings?  Anything more would require the board to review the plans and approve the project, even if materials and labor are donated, to ensure the resulting machine would be appropriate.  That said, the mental exercise your proposing, along with the resulting plans, sounds like an interesting project.

I can confirm that we are growing more interested in a 2-truck diesel locomotive.  52 is an industrial machine designed for slow speed and is ill suited for our main line use.  Above 6 or 8 MPH it’s hard on itself and track.  It (52) is also the reason we’re so restrictive on pony plow and snow flanger design.  Carpenter steel called them “dinky’s.”  They’re not meant for what the WW&F is all about.

We most likely would not build a 2 truck diesel locomotive from scratch; it’s too far outside of our mission to devote that many resources.  We’d likely try to locate an existing machine which requires rebuilding, in order to keep costs down.  We’ve thought of some alternatives including the use of two Plymouth dinky carcasses.

That said, if you develop some designs and drawings, it’d be great to see them!

Some helpful design hints: keep most weight on the chassis and off the truck frames.  Trucks should be as light as possible.  Prime movers should be standardized; either gen-sets or hydraulic power units depending on the transmission of choice.  Center cab with dual prime movers preferable.

  If we used dinky carcasses, we’d couple the two chassis together, as if double heading two 52’s, put floating center pivots on, a girder frame atop those- then two hydraulic power packs or gensets around a center cab.  Plymouth chassis would retain their final chain drive, and be powered by hydraulic or electric motors. Plymouth engine cowling and radiators used as is; new cab which would allow some custom styling. 

We’d also thought of regauging a 3-foot center cab, or semi-scratch building from a standard gauge carcass. 

When will this happen?  We have plenty of someday projects; it’s healthy to aspire.

See ya
Jason

[Robert Hale]

Yes, I hope to have drawings sometime soon. Here is a link for some good photos of the Baldwin gas-mechanical I am basing the truck design off of. My idea is a blend of this locomotive and a Garrett steam locomotive. Everything that powers the unit except for the gearboxes, rods, wheels, counter weights, truck frames and brake rigging will be on the frame. That means cab, hoods, engines/transmissions, cooling systems, fuel tank(s), air tanks, batteries ect.
The only differences I plan between #53 and #54 is the engines. #53 will have the 6BT (12 valve with the non-computer fuel control) with single exhaust (turbo) and #54 will have the 6B with 6 individual stacks (non-turbo). I am trying to find out about the 45RLE transmissions if they have an aftermarket manual valve body for shifting to delete the computer and delete the reverse gear (reversing will be done in the truck gearboxes). Also, they do make larger capacity pans and the trans coolers will most likely triple the transmission fluid capacity.
I started to look at frame materials in the area of 7"x3" box 3/8" thick, 7/8" plate for frame gussets, and 1 3/4" plate for the truck frames. Handrails would be 7/8" rod stock. More to come.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82183-baldwin-gas-mechanicalmoelwyn-photos/


Rob

[Robert Hale]

What are you using for wheels?

Machined centers with tyres. Not sure of the size yet. Tapered roller bearings on the axles.

Rob

[Bernie Perch]

Rob,

If you are thinking of wheel centers with spokes, I made patterns for two sizes which are currently stored at the railroad.  Depending on the thickness of the tire or how much is machined off the center, you could go from a 18" wheel (like on the Model T railcar) to a 20" wheel (like on #11's lead wheel assembly), or even more with thicker tires.  With the larger center you could start with about a 31" wheel or larger depending again on the thickness of the tire.  I don't know if you are thinking this large a wheel, but it is remotely possible.  At this point I wouldn't offer making a mid size pattern because of the many pattern projects I have to complete and based on #11's time line, this project would be ten years away before it was physical consummated.

If you are thinking side rods and cranks with the larger wheel center, the patterns for the cranks are also made and in storage.

I have seen mine locomotives where the traction motor was mounted longitudinally between the axles with worm gears.  You could possibly use truck differentials with some of the gears removed for this.

Bernie

[Robert Hale]

Rob,

If you are thinking of wheel centers with spokes, I made patterns for two sizes which are currently stored at the railroad.  Depending on the thickness of the tire or how much is machined off the center, you could go from a 18" wheel (like on the Model T railcar) to a 20" wheel (like on #11's lead wheel assembly), or even more with thicker tires.  With the larger center you could start with about a 31" wheel or larger depending again on the thickness of the tire.  I don't know if you are thinking this large a wheel, but it is remotely possible.  At this point I wouldn't offer making a mid size pattern because of the many pattern projects I have to complete and based on #11's time line, this project would be ten years away before it was physical consummated.

If you are thinking side rods and cranks with the larger wheel center, the patterns for the cranks are also made and in storage.

I have seen mine locomotives where the traction motor was mounted longitudinally between the axles with worn (sp?) gears.  You could possibly use truck differentials with some of the gears removed for this.

Bernie

The gearbox design will operate in the same fashion as an outboard motor lower end; Forward/reverse/neutral. The gears will come from a Dana 80, two ring gears and one pinion 6:1 ratio. The outboard gears going to the lower shaft driving the side rods will be from the 2.5 ton Rockwell axle bull gear (4 per box). All fitted with tapered roller bearings. Short driveshaft to the transmission. If patterns are already made for counter weights and wheel centers, that does save allot of time. I will be emailing someone that could machine the gear box shafts and axles and contribute to their youtube channel content.
I'm trying to find the simplest solution to drive the wheels, and thus far this is the simplest I could come up with. It keeps the axles simple, the truck frames simple, the gearbox is accessible for oil changes, the transmission/engine pans are accessible for maintenance. It will also include two cast iron air compressors (one per engine) for the shifting/braking system. As far as vacuum brakes, I would need someone's help with that since I am not familiar with them.

Rob 

Edit: Thanks for merging the topics.

[Ed Lecuyer]

[Moderator's Note]
I re-titled this thread to reflect the topic at hand. I also moved it into the Museum discussion area, rather than the section reserved for non museum-specific topics.

That said,
I like the idea. The photos of the WWI era Baldwin the design is based upon show a really neat looking locomotive. Jason would be sure to love it - it is a Baldwin after all!

[Robert Hale]

[Moderator's Note]
I re-titled this thread to reflect the topic at hand. I also moved it into the Museum discussion area, rather than the section reserved for non museum-specific topics.

That said,
I like the idea. The photos of the WWI era Baldwin the design is based upon show a really neat looking locomotive. Jason would be sure to love it - it is a Baldwin after all!

Yes, that is why I chose that set-up. Simple, period correct. Also thanks for merging the topics. Now that I have a clearer picture moving forward in my life (VA appointments done) this is giving me motivation to get the drawings done.

Rob

[Roger Cole]

Isn't there the remains of a 2-foot narrow gauge diesel in Portland.  I think it is being used as a parts source for Edaville's two other diesels from the same batch created by GE for the Whitin Machine Works.  It might be cheaper and easier to resurrect that hulk than build a totally new engine.