An open floor for our fellow preservationists to comment, I pose the following question.
While the rebuilding of EMD E unit SRR6914 continues to make progress at TVRM, it has come time to plan the repairs to the cab. Windows, sheet metal, and such are slowly taking shape, but the appliances are where I could use suggestions. Does anyone have knowledge of replacing the either the 24RL brake system and/or the engine controls with more recent appliances?
As backround, we will be installing a 26 brake, as the 24RL was completely removed 15 or 20 years ago. We have a couple of different schematics for a general 26 system, but of course we have 2 compressors, twice as many main reservoirs, etc., to try and work in. There is some concern on how the control stand could be changed to something like an AAR standard, both because of the power and dynamic brake installations. Most photos I have come across of interior shots, usually show the original systems, except for the F9's headed from KCS to NS (I think) which have a desktop contol stand. Putting the 26 in the front right corner will yield a reverse-motion to application and release, so we thought we would bounce around other ideas first.
So again, anyone who knows how this could be done, or put us in touch with someone with such experience, it would be greatly appreciated. If your in the area, stop by. I'm sure one of the shop staff will show you the unit weekdays, and us weekend warriors are often there saturdays.

Thank you. Mike Overlander
Success to all.

Hello,

The only preservation project that included a conversion from 24 to 26 is the restoration of NYNH&H FA-1 0401. Every other restoration that I have known of has not involved a brake conversion - with the owners seeming quite content with the 24 system. I know that 24 brakes are an older design, but do they have significant operational weaknesses or other problems that make a conversion a necessity?

Many thanks,
Tom Cornillie

I don't know for sure the reasoning. Some of our equipment is 26 (like 610, 4501 I think, 630 will be) but some is not, like our GP7's and Alco RSD's. With all the 24RL parts gone, and 26 parts available, its just where we are headed.
Mike.

Running a passenger train at speed or down grades with 24RL and a graduated release consist is like driving a sports car. With 26 its more like a Ford F-350. 24 is very precise and will allow you much greater latitude in train handling than the 26....With 24 you just don't have to work as hard to run the train the right.

Once you get beyond that it's nothing but pain. In my opinion there are fewer and fewer approved shops that can service it correctly and consistantly. The expense of cleaning the portions alone is reason to junk it. Factor in the amount of time it takes to perform the 736 day cleaning, the wear and tear on various parts of your anatomy handling the components, the shipping cost of the material back and forth to the AB shop, the spare inventory you need to keep on hand because no doubt one of the portions coming back from the shop "Passed the Test on the Stand" and won't function on the unit plus all the extra brain power you have to devote to remember how it all works when you used to troubleshooting 26.

In the very near future PRR 5711 & 5809 will be converted to 26LUM. An added benefit will be a simplified Cab Signal/LSL system and the ability to carry a complete set of spare valve portions onboard. Another plus is that we were able to standardize a 26F control valve that can be used on our freight units and passenger equipment.

I will enjoy the demise of the 24RL as much as when the old mechanical cooling controls and Barco transition systems went in the scrap dumpster a few years ago.

EBL

On the 0401 project, we were faced with a very deteriorated 24 system-- the engineer's side cab windshield (right over the 24 pipe bracket) had been out for about a year, and the brake valve portions were off during that time, with predictable results to the internals of the 24 system. We got things patched together enough to get her home, and it was decided to replicate the 26 brake stand design used on the four D&H PA-4 locos in 1974, as part of the rebuild of this locomotive. It was quite a mess when we got it. The 26 conversion work is about 95% complete on 0401 at this point.

We have three 24-equipped locos now, B&M RS-3 1508, B&M GP9 1732, and MEC RS-3 557. 1508 is being prepped for service this season, 1732 will be getting major work in the next year or so, and 557 will get the "treatment" in a few years. I hope to keep all three operating with 24 systems as long as possible, for certainly for preservation reasons, and because 24 is a nice brake to use in service.

The FL9s used by Metro-North and CDOT were converted to 26 systems, and the earlier Chrome Crankshaft jobs were rather nicely done. The 26 stand is in front of and to the center-right of the engineer's position, where it seems to fit quite nicely. In the earlier conversions, the original control stand was kept; I don't know about what they did in the later (1991) conversions.

Getting periodic service on the 24 system can be costly; $2000-2500 for sending the portions out for COT&S, plus lots of heavy stuff to ship round-trip. The 26 has an additional 12 months of service time over the 24 system, too.

Howard P.
Rotair Valve, CT

I agree with Mr. Levin. I have four locos here at the GSMR that all have 24RL. (Ironically, the 1702 has a 26NL. . . .). I would absolutely love to convert all four geeps to 26L. The main reason is the days of service and the cost to rebuild. I am in the $2800 to $3000 price range to rebuild the 24RL equipment, and have to do it every 2 years. The 26L would cost a little more than half to rebuild, and last for three years (and give significantly more reliable operation). The other big factor for us is that we have every just about every valve under the sun hanging under our cars. 26c, d22, UC, AB, ABD, and ABDW. It would be complete if I could get Steve Jackson to send a K up from Durango. We also mix it up with a combination of steel shoes and comp shoes, some cars with single clasp and some with double. You know it when you add the Jackson, with UC valves, single piston, and double clasp steel shoes on all six axles. Bottom line, we don't use the gradual release, and probably never will. I would rather have the benifits of the 26L, with the pressure maintain. (I know the 24RL has pressure maintain ability, but that is with yet another portion, which makes it even more expensive to rebuild).

To each his own, and I would support maintaining a 24RL system when the unit is in a museum environment, or will be controlling all D22 or UC equipped cars. The more you use the loco, or the more reliable it needs to be, I would rather have 26L, or even a 6 for that matter. I don't really like the self lapping independent. I guess it comes from cutting teeth on an Alco S-1.

To those who are interested in 24RL parts, I have a source for at least one set, that has been rebuilt and on the shelf. I hope to have five more sets available in the next year or two. I'll save all the brackets if I know someone is interested.

Ryan

The CDOT FL-9's that were rebuilt by M-K got rebuilt with Dash 2 control stands, hence the 26C brake valve is in the usual position, to the left of the control stand.

The only negative comment I've ever heard about having the 26 brake valve located directly in front of the engineer's seat is, in the unfortunate event of an accident, the engineer has the potential to take a brake valve handle in the gut.

Having given a great deal of thought to this subject, in addition to actually performing the 24 to 26 conversion (and spec'ing a few more), I thought I might throw my 0.02 into the pot. I apologize in advance if I happen to repeat any point that was made previously.

1) I note that the ergonomics of placing the 26C brake valve in the right front corner are identical to the placement of the original 24RL stack. The left hand controls power, the right hand controls braking.

2) I don't believe an EMD AAR stand is the solution to your problem. The end result could be a major rebuilding of the cab floor and engineer's seating pedestal, along with having to move the engineer's seat in order to maintain the proper sight lines.

So, in order to preserve the existing functionality at the lowest possible cost, I would do the following: Locate the 26C at the right front corner, either up against the dash or on a freestanding pedestal attached to the floor. As for the control stand, I would procure an EMD AAR style three handle master controler and build up a new stand around that item. If you decide to leave the loadmeter, warning lights, etc in their original locations (to maintain historical integrity :-) ), then the stand can be a very minimalistic and relatively unobstrusive affair. Or, you can just duplicate the entire arrangement sans the portion that mounts the brake valve.

The control stand and brake stand should be fairly simple fabrications, which a skilled man could do with some angle, some 10 gauge sheet, along with a small plasma burner and a MIG welder. If the choice is to go upscale, make up some sketches and get some quotes from your local fab shop.

You mention that you possess some schematics. I note that there are a number of variations (part numbers)for certain brake portions, with the 26C and 26 F coming to mind. So, unless you can match the prints up with an actual locomotive (in order to secure part numbers)and/or have a suitable 'expert' on tap, I would contact the good folks at NYAB for assistance. It can't hurt-and it might save you a good deal of heartache down the line.

While your at it, I would get have them quote on the system. The reason is this: While you can purchase the material as RTO (as-is), the portions still need to be sent out for overhaul/qualification. While I may be wrong, it is possible that certain items may cost out more favorably as new. I note that NYAB stocks very little in the way of portions.

You will also need some pipe brackets. The parts that mount the 26C and 26F are fairly substantial items, and will certainly cost out more favorably as RTO . As of late, many of the scrappers have been saving this stuff for resale.

There are also some reservoirs to be purchased-which can also be new or RTO. Also, there are some double checks and single checks which can be purchased from Graham White.

Except for the 26C and the P2, all of the equipment mounts in the nose. There are some brackets that need to be fabbed up-simple stuff, but time consuming.

Connecting the MR, BP and BC pipes to the brake portions can be done with Schedule 80 pipe and fittings (the old standby) or if one is really intrepid, one could use HP flex hoses (Sourced from Parker or ?). By the way, keep the local FRA equipment inspector in the loop after you open the job.

For the smaller lines, I would use DOT-spec'ed Nylon 11 tubing and DOT compression fittings. This material is not only far less expensive to purchase than copper-but is easier to work with and route into nice, clean runs and bundles. Not only that, the builders use it on new locomotives.

One final thought: With all that new found space in the nose, scrap the H filter on the MR line and replace it with a Salem 824 centrifugal filter which can be located within the nose. These things are worth their weight in gold.

If you have any more questions, send me a PM.

Dave