This might get a little sticky-

If this train gets finished up as an operating train set, with a newer Cat, Cummins, MTU, whatever engine and an alternator, I might have a solution for operating it in shortline or tourist service.

There were plenty of trolley cars, PCCs coming to mind, that were built as single end cars, but with a small set of hostler controls built into the rear end for shop moves. Why not do something like that with the Flying Yankee? A small console with controls could be hidden in the observation section. The largest item might actually be the brake valve, automatic only, similar to what an RDC would have.

Since this is a fixed consist, it should not be too difficult to run maybe a dozen control wires the length of the train, and an MR pipe, to supply air to the brake valve. The warning light overhead becomes a headlight, and a horn and maybe an electronic bell get hidden down low.

There are various options for throttle control, which would mimic what is between the front control stand and the engine. A mechanical linkage would not be practical. If not an electrical throttle, an air or even hydraulic system could be made to work.

If the plan was to do a Smithsonian quality restoration, 201-A engine and all, then this idea is not a good one. All bets are off. Also, the FRA may not want to see that tail car used as, in effect, a cab car, and should be consulted.

And of course, with the financial situation and state ownership, I'm putting the cart many furlongs ahead of the horse here. But push-pull operation could solve the issue of not being able to turn the train around, at least on a tourist line.

Regarding EDM's last suggestion, the end car is a boat tailed observation car similar to the MILW Skytop, only smaller. There really is no place for a control station without compromising the original passenger-only design. The train set is unique enough that such a compromise really would diminish the whole and that's certainly not what preservation is about.

I think this is overall, a good discussion regarding the "Flying Yankee", albeit a piece of somebody else property! If nothing more, it shows that people seem to favor the iconic trainset as worthy of completion. The art-deco styling is a natural calling card. The operating details will need to be hammered out before people start dropping dollars into the project. Where to run it, how to run it, how to store and maintain the mechanical components, etc.
Good discussion by some savvy folks.

I tend to agree, though in a way the frequent trips this thing was expected to make under the original restoration plan (did I see five trips a day?) with a restored Winton were also not what preservation is about. It is sort of like using the Wright Brothers' plane from the Smithsonian to conduct tourist sightseeing flights to pay for the storage costs. If the Winton is restored, operating it once in a blue moon (e.g. once a weekend or even month during the summer months) is about all you could expect. PCook's idea to get the Winton running but install a replacement for a few short years without damaging the original fabric would be a workable alternative I think.

If this trainset is anything like the slightly later Nebraska Zephyr set at IRM, there is already a tail pipe built into a small cabinet by the rear window. That, and a radio to talk with the crew in the cab, is all that's needed to back the train. Admittedly not at track speed, but I'm not sure track speed would be wise with the tail car leading no matter what. It's pretty light. The Budd pre-war construction was considerably lighter than the post war cars we know so well.

I don't think this is the thing to do in this case, but for something similar you could use a locomotive remote control system. The control box is not that big.

-Hudson

Hamster's comments had me dig out and take a look at some drawings and photos in the 1940 Car Cyc. The "Twin Zephyrs" and the "Mark Twain" had a table in front of the end window. You could incorporate the controls into that table; just lift the lid and they are right there.

It wouldn't take much, not talking about an AAR control stand. A few toggle switches (FO/RE, GF and HL to start-); a pushbutton for sand; alarm and WS pilot lights; whatever works for the throttle; horn valve; and the brake valve, which could even be the automatic out of a desktop stand.

The suggestion of using an 'internal' tailhose and the radio is a good one, as well. Keeping the speed down makes sense, too. I agree that this train should not run at speed in reverse. I would imagine the locomotive is built a bit beefier than the tail car.

When I saw the unit in September 2013, the rear car was totally stripped out for rebuilding, whereas the other cars had been fully restored internally (from memory + the photos I took at the time).
Not sure how far they got with the rear car before restoration stopped, but it does at least provide a "blank canvas" if someone was thinking about a small control desk/box at the rear.

Question for PC?

Would a Detroit Diesel 16v71 fit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZuuTBYRHSc

Robert

Thanks for the photos! When I visited there were a lot more building materials in that last car. Not much visible progress, but the materials to make a start were there.

I would bet that a 8cyl 567 or 645 would fit....the problem would be the engine bed....width might be a little tighter,but not overly so....
To minimize the aesthetic changes, for radiators, cooling fans, etc shouldn't be too hard either....
Another option, if you wanted to get crazy with expense might be to build a custom crankcase to fit in place of the Winton...use 645 power assys, a 16 cyl crank, etc to make a unique inline 8 for it...
It might seem impossible..but, the block of 567/645, etc is not cast,it's simply stamped plates,welded together.....it can't be that hard to make something that would work....

The Detroit Diesel 16V-71 is nine inches longer at the block than the 12V-71, but it is also more powerful than the Winton 8-201A, and at the time this was being talked about, it was felt that the 12V-71 operating with a moderate duty cycle would be more practical than the 16V-71 operating at a very light duty cycle. Also, the 12V-71 was a good match for the capabilities of the D79 generator, and that generator was in turn a good match for powering two GE 716 or two EMD D29 traction motors.

PC

(Added 6/5) A participant asked outside the forum about how the engine cooling would have been arranged. It was planned that the 12V-71 would have the radiator mounted to the skid, and the air flow provided by an engine-driven fan as on a truck. A duct would have been fabricated to bring cold incoming air from the chamber over the cab down to the radiator inlet. The original cooling fans (2) would have been left in place to maintain appearance, with no drive belts, and allowed to freewheel. This would also maintain the ability to reverse equip the train at some later date. The heat of the radiator would be vented through the roof as with the original Winton. The 12V-71 and D79 generator was so much lighter and smaller than the Winton and its GE generator, that nearly all the Winton's auxiliary equipment could have stayed in place.

Good to know! I'm intersted in this conversion because I hope to see the MTZ return to rails some day, and that Winton is worse than the FY's.

CD

The thing about these sets is the lack of couplers at the ends. Would be easy to pull it backwards if there was a standard coupler on the boat tail.

PC, I wonder if there is any CAT engines that would fit the foot print? Probably. Outside of the 3512 and 3516, Cat engines don't have a great reputation in the RR environment.

Robert

The Caterpillar C15 ACERT TA (Tier 3) running at the "A" industrial rating (continuous load) of 440 BHP at 2100 RPM is a good match for the power requirements of this train. The larger Cat C18 is too much engine for this application.

I do not know how the C15 would match up torsionally to the EMD D79 generator. There would need to be a study including the coupling to determine their compatibility to insure you did not end up with a torsionally active system. The application would have to include a coupling with center spool piece to let the engine function properly with the D79, which is a free standing two-bearing machine. For the Detroit 12V-71 we had intended to use a Thomas (Rexnord) type coupling like the ones the Navy uses on generator sets.

PC