The board has occasionally had discussions about why ALCO and Baldwin (BLH) didn't survive as diesel builders. What about F-M what were the issues there? Any insights?

superheater@rrmail.com

> The board has occasionally had discussions
> about why ALCO and Baldwin (BLH) didn't
> survive as diesel builders. What about F-M
> what were the issues there? Any insights?

I think the main problem with F-M was the servicability of their engine design. The opposed piston diesel has many advantages, including smooth running, compact size for a given displacement, etc., but some routine repairs are very difficult to accomplish on this engine design.

A power assembly (cylinder, cylinder head, and piston) can be replaced in about an hour on an EMD diesel. On an F-M, this same operation requires the removal of the upper crankshaft and therefore takes a LONG time and a lot of effort. Granted, the F-M didn't have any exhaust valves so there were fewer things to break in a power assembly, but replacement is still necessary occasionally. I think this more than any other fact did F-M in once the engines had been in service long enough for these sorts of differences to become apparent. There may have been other detail design features which were problems with F-M diesels.

The older railroaders I worked with did have good things to say about F-M locomotives, particularly the durability of their Westinghouse electrical gear.

Regards,
Hugh Odom
The Ultimate Steam Page
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp

whodom2001@yahoo.com

> The board has occasionally had discussions
> about why ALCO and Baldwin (BLH) didn't
> survive as diesel builders. What about F-M
> what were the issues there? Any insights?

My father-in-law, who was a machinist in the Pennsylvania Railroad's Harrisburg engine terminal from 1939-1963, steadily cursed Fairbanks-Morse locomotives as the most difficult to work on of all the diesels he dealt with -- EMD, Alco, GE, Baldwin and FM. The opposed piston engine meant that dealing with a problem on the bottom end required removal of twice as much stuff to get to the problem. On one memorable occasion, an engine just reassembled was outside on the load box when a lube oil line near one of the air intakes broke, rather than shutting down as it should have, the engine ran on, sucking its lube oil in and burning it until the engine seized up.

I have also heard it said that, while the F-M opposed piston engine worked well in ships and submarines that had the whole ocean available for cooling water, it was not as successful in locomotives for the opposite reason.

My own memories of F-M locomotives is confined to the Reading's RS-4 class of 2400-horsepower Trainmasters, which occasionally appeared on passenger trains on the Bethlehem branch. They could effortlessly take a 4 or 5 car commuter train from a dead stop to track speed in no time! I once was treated to a cab ride in one, and the sensation was akin to a ship at sea -- the thing had a slow, stately side-to-side rocking motion at speed. I recall wondering if the thing would remain upright. The most awful error the Reading shops ever made, in my opinion, was to paint a Trainmaster in the RDG's latter-day green and yellow!! I believe they finished their days on the RDG in hump service.

K4s1361@hotmail.com

I've done quite a bit of research on our submarines during WW II. Here is an interesting sidebar to the whole F-M story:

During WW II the crews of our submarine force used to love to get subs either built or refitted with F-M diesels. They were very clean burning producing much less exhaust smoke when compared to other manufactures(there were several).

This didn't matter so much in the early part of the war as our subs would generally run on the surface at night to charge the batteries and dive at dawn to avoid patrolling Japanese forces.

As the war progressed, more and more skippers would stay on the surface during the daylight so they could see the enemy better and also run much faster, 19 knots on the surface as opposed to only a few knots while submerged. They would post extra lookouts and dive if they saw an enemy plane or man-o-war. Radar wasn't available until later in the war and even then not all the subs had both surface search and air search radar, know as SD and SJ.

The F-M diesels, being almost "smoke free" according to some accounts, really helped our subs sneak up on the enemy and probably saved many sailor's lives. With a low profile in the water and little exhaust smoke it was tough for the enemy to see our guys.

All of the larger subs had four diesels per boat. They could divide up the systems. A skipper could have one engine charging the batteries and three on the screws or any combination he needed.
Of course when they were chasing down an enemy convoy it was "All ahead full!"

-Alan Levy

alanl759@aol.com

Oops. Subject line correction....


alanl759@aol.com

> The board has occasionally had discussions
> about why ALCO and Baldwin (BLH) didn't
> survive as diesel builders. What about F-M
> what were the issues there? Any insights?

There's more to the story than technical issues, although as rail historians we tend to focus on those first.

FM was the target of a hostile takeover bid (you can search the New York Times index to find details). The company had a 50-unit order for Train Masters to, IIRC, Illinois Central almost lined up, but news of the corporate shenanigans scuttled the deal, and, some would say, the company.

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.



cupper@att.net

Back in the 60's, I talked to LIRR's Chief Mechanical Officer, Jack Brannen. He told me, and I quote, "I never saw any locomotive with so much downtime!" My own Dad was one of the heads of the Track Dep't. He said that the LIRR C-Liners (B-C truck arrangement) were notorious switch pickers. Tied onto a train, nothing could stop them, but as far as services went, it was another story.

glueck@maine.edu

> The older railroaders I worked with did have
> good things to say about F-M locomotives,
> particularly the durability of their
> Westinghouse electrical gear.

The supply of the electrical systems could not have helped matters at FM either. This was also one of the problems faced by Baldwin when Westinghouse exited the heavy electric business. It's the basic problem of not producing the electrical equipment and trying to replace a "friendly" supplier. This was also a key problem for ALCO when GE starting building its locomotive line using the same electrical components.

David Farlow


hudson.industries@att.net

I think the issues and dsitinctions between the FM and the other motive power types have been correctly stated. In the marine environment the FM was priceless, both among submarine vets and the Merchant Marine. Though, I have heard more than one shore engineer cuss the top crankshaft.

Cooling was not a problem for us on the water nor was maintenance. It was just a matter of swinging the falls in the fidley above the crankcase cover and hauling away. I could imagine that this would be a real pain with a locomotive and its cowling. I had always wondered why there wasn't a more widespread adoption of the FM among the railroads. You all answered my questions ...

There is no comparision between the FM and the GM 567 predecessor, the 268A. The early GM was always blowing pistons, and its front end drive due to a relatively low mean oil pressure. We always had to rig up a supplementary electric oil pump on the 268 to keep things from getting too dry.

This is from a steam guy, but if I ever fulfill my dream to mount a diesel on the shop floor at home, it will be an FM. Now what could I load it with ...?

Steve

http://www.strasburgrailroad.com
ssweaver@paonline.com

> This is from a steam guy, but if I ever
> fulfill my dream to mount a diesel on the
> shop floor at home, it will be an FM. Now
> what could I load it with ...?

> Steve

Just in case someone asks you what you want for Christmas ... see below


http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/engines.htm
lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Just in case someone asks you what you want
> for Christmas ... see below

Go to another page at the Fairbanks Morse site and you will find that the currently supports the OP 38 8-1/4 diesel. This is the engine used in the locomotives F-M built.

Also the current Fairbanks Morse supports the ALCO 251 diesel prime mover.

You will find some interesting links on the bottom of the OEM replacement parts page and you will find links to firms providing parts for older FM engines. Particularly check out W.W. Williams.

W. W. Williams is an interesting firm. Besides being in the emergency power supply business, it actively goes after product lines that the original firm does not wish to support. It provides support for Plymouth Locomotives and for Goodman Locomotives.
http://www.wwwilliams.com/home/index.jsp

Brian Norden

OEM replacement parts

Just curious how many of the double crank, opposed piston FM engines are working today in daily powerplant service.
In the town I live in, there are two operating, one of which went through a total rebuild this past summer.
Also, are these powerplant engines very different from the locomotive engines, or pretty similar? I'd like to know, if someone can tell me.
Mark D.

> Just curious how many of the double crank,
> opposed piston FM engines are working today
> in daily powerplant service.
> In the town I live in, there are two
> operating, one of which went through a total
> rebuild this past summer.
> Also, are these powerplant engines very
> different from the locomotive engines, or
> pretty similar? I'd like to know, if someone
> can tell me.
> Mark D.
I remember that the Destroyer Escort (Radar Picket) that I served on back in the 50's was powered by four F/M 1500 HP, air start, reversible diesels and were capable of moving along at 21 knots when at "All Ahead Frantic"
The 2 1/2 years I was aboard, these engins were trouble free and very well liked by the engineering crew! I guess that it's a shame the
RR version couldn't match that record!
Bob

rrnut@prodigy.net

The big thing that killed off most of GM's competitors was the General Motors Acceptance Corporation. General Electric also had the General Electric Credit Corporation. The buy now pay later attitude the railroads' management had and still does make GM and GE the two big front runners in the industry.

Roger Mitchell
Master Mechanic
Fort Collins Municipal Railway

n0mcr@netzero.net

Bob
F-M made inline engines too; did your DER have them or OP's?

Electric City Trolley Museum Association