We are in need of a reaction arm and cradle assembly to tighten EMD 567B main bearing caps. We have the torque multiplier for 567Cs, which is used with the reaction arm to do the 567Bs. Any leads would be greatly appreciated. This would be used by the staff at Steamtown National Historic Site to replace the thrust bearings in F3 663.

Thanks,
Mike Tillger

The adapter kit Mike is looking for is EMD part number 8437890.

PC

Hopefully the silence on this posting indicates people are busy looking in their tool inventory and not that the entire preservation industry has failed to save essential service tools for some of the most numerous diesel prime movers in preserved locomotives.

PC

Or, perhaps, many other preservationists are cursing the fact that EMD/EMC made locos that required such specialized tools to service them, and that they weren't readily made available to them along with the locos and/or engines. Or, that they didn't work with the people that know about these special tools and their needs to figure out what they would need in the future.

Not all of us were that careless. When the Deltic Preservation Society acquired its two Deltics from British Rail in 1982, Napier engineers were on hand to either supply the special tools or dictate what the DPS would need to plunder out of Doncaster Works, down to the special counter-balanced lifting beam fabricated to lift Deltic power units out of their bays.

Now might be a good time to contact CP as they phase out all the older 567 powered GP-9s. Wouldn't be at all surprised if this stuff was being thrown in dumpsters as we speak. I watched as they brought in big excavators with claws and ripped up 1950s vintage switchers on the spot saving nothing but the roller bearing trucks.

Finderskeepers wrote;

"Wouldn't be at all surprised if this stuff was being thrown in dumpsters as we speak."

According to my Dad who watched as they demolished the NYCRR East Buffalo NY Roundhouse they simply took all the boilermakers tools (tube cutters, expanders, brushes, etc.) and any steam locomotive related tools and supplies and threw it all into the empty turntable pit (the table was already gone). Then they filled in the pit with the bricks from the roundhouse itself. No dumpsters required. But that was in the late 1950's/early 60's. All those tools might still be buried there ?

Cheers, Kevin.

I was told by a former manager of the Amtrak Beech Grove shop that during his orientation, his assistant manager showed him the field on the property where he personally buried all the warehoused steam locomotive parts (under orders of course).

[grabs shovel]

Point, please.....

". . . perhaps, many other preservationists are cursing the fact that EMD/EMC made locos that required such specialized tools to service them . . ."

Really? Certain repairs to my Toyota require specialized tools, too. I'd think that when EMD helped the railroads set up their diesel service facilities that such tools would have been part of the deal, along with newer tools needed to service later locomotive models.

picture of the adapter(s) we are looking for, we have the torque multiplier as it is the same one we use on our C block EMD.
Thanks,
Mike Tillger

A couple "old heads" have told me, over the years, that one of the reasons they "preferred" to work on Alcos and GEs, as compared to EMDs, was, to paraphrase one of them, they were a pile of parts bolted together that you could disassemble and fix with a regular toolbox, whereas EMD "shoved a big block of metal into one end of La Grange and bored a locomotive out of it" and required the special tools and techniques to repair.

Now, this is surely exaggerated to some extent--I'm sure someone will rush to tell us about the special Alco left-hand, special-thread tension modulator that wouldn't even work on MLW locos (Canadians, you know). And some of this is just the same Chevy/Ford or VW/BMW/Mercedes or Toyota/Mitsubishi rivalry you'll see at any auto parts store or show.But these guys were attempting to explain why older Alcos persisted in service on short lines long after major railroads ditched them.

Over the years I've see some shortlines that contracted their services to industrial locomotive owners to fix their steeds. No doubt someone, somewhere up there has your coveted tool sitting around somewhere, not just preservationists, and you probably want to cast your net a little further than just us museums and wannabe guys. Or is your inquiry here representative of how desperate you've gotten?

Each of the builders (Alco, BLW, EMD, GE, LH) issued a catalog of special tooling for their particular locomotives. Some of the more inventive railroad shops were able to 'homebrew' some of the less specialized items.

In the case of devices involving the application of a large torque to an engine assembly, irrespective of the builder, the basis of the tool was standard (and some specialized) items supplied by the Sweeney Tool Company.

Mikes' photo shows a Sweeney torque multiplier, along with a cast aluminum device (also made by Sweeney) that restrains the device within EMD the crankcase inspection port. The reaction arm may have been made by EMD back when the mfg. activity @ LaGrange was more diverse in scope.

Today, these human powered devices have been supplanted by pneumatic or hydraulic devices that allow for more consistency in application, pose less of an injury hazard and allow for greater productivity.

Sad to say, much of this old tooling found its way into the scrap bin when shops were closed or downsized. I know of only a few cases where sympathetic employees rescued this type of material from oblivion...and in one case, actually labeled it for the benefit of future users.

After a succession of owners, the Sweeney Company is no more. Pneumatic and hydraulic torquing devices for railroad application are available from a variety of sources,with their design based upon standard commercial items.

I note that TESCO is the pre-eminent supplier of tooling for GE locos equipped with all the various GE engine designs.

Dave

When someone comes up with the items in question, I suggest that they involve a machinist/draftsman/mech engineer to document the materials and full dimensions so that new ones can be made/adapted.

Rich C.

Forgive my ignorance (as someone who's favorite locomotives weigh in at less than an EMD crankcase alone)...

What is the uniqueness of the "B" block that the tool for the "C" block won't work? What about the "BC" conversions that I understand are very common for the "B" block? Is it a matter of fitting the bolt, fitting into an opening, or the amount of torque, etc., etc.

I hope Mr. Cook can give a quick layman's explanation. Thanks!

Nick

Nick, the 567 engines from the start of production through the 567B used rectangular handhole covers on the engine oil pan and air box. Starting with 567C production the crankcase was extensively redesigned with round handhole covers to improve the strength of the structure and provide for equal loading of the gasket all the way around the cover.

The reaction cradle and mount bracket are used to anchor the free end of the Sweeney torque multiplier when using the tool on main bearing stud nuts. For the early engines through the 567B the bracket which mounts to the oil pan is designed to seat securely in the contour and dimensions of a rectangular handhole cover.

There is a tremendous amount of force involved in major fastenings in large diesel engines and consequently having the tool anchored correctly at the proper angle and geometry for the job being done is an important safety concern. I have seen instances where sockets shattered when force was applied without them being completely and correctly seated, resulting in debris being thrown with considerable force. I have also seen instances where fastenings with previously undetected fatigue cracks fractured suddenly when being torqued, throwing the torque multiplier off the stud or bolt.

The BC conversion, when an engine is so equipped, makes no change in the main bearing cap stud arrangement so the use of the tool is identical for a 567B or a 567BC.

PC