Is the frame on a cab unit (E,F, FA, PA) cast or fabricated? I understand the carbody itself is an integral part of the structure. Say someone wanted to replicate a PA carbody Would it be theoretically possible (money and preservation considerations being no object) to 'stretch' an FA or FPA by sectioning the carbody and inserting new fabrcated structural components? Just curious-

davew833@yahoo.com

> Is the frame on a cab unit (E,F, FA, PA)
> cast or fabricated? I understand the carbody
> itself is an integral part of the structure.
> Say someone wanted to replicate a PA carbody
> Would it be theoretically possible (money
> and preservation considerations being no
> object) to 'stretch' an FA or FPA by
> sectioning the carbody and inserting new
> fabrcated structural components? Just
> curious-

Given enough money and time anything is possible. Hence, when I win the Powerball expect to see an A-B-A set of Erie Builts at IRM. Orange and maroon with stainlesss noses no less!

Seriously, while the structures are similar between an E and an F, I haven't torn into an FA yet and likely never will do a PA so I can't comment on them, the structures are different. While they are fabricated from the same basic pieces of steel, the designs are different.

I was surprised to find the structure behind the sheetmetal is completely different between an E and an F when looking at the nose and cab area. Why this is I have no idea. Also, due to the 20 foot difference in length, there are additional "trusses". Since the trucks are different lengths, I do not think it would be possible to simply "section" the locomotive in the middle to add the length as you would not gain the neccesary space between the bolsters and the pulling faces to fit the trucks.

As far as FA's and PA's go, it appears to me the noses are different lengths which would also preclude a "section" job as you mention.

And then of course you have the "historical fabric" to deal with.....;0)

Todd Jones
IRM Diesel Department

Restoring MILW E9 33C

milw104c@charter.net

> I was surprised to find the structure behind
> the sheetmetal is completely different
> between an E and an F when looking at the
> nose and cab area.

While the structure may be different behind the cabs, back in the mid-70's after a couple of the cabs of Southern's E-8's were damaged in a wreck, they salvaged the cabs from a couple of FP7's to repair them, and scrapped the rest of the FP7's.


kevingillespie@usa.net

> While the structure may be different behind
> the cabs, back in the mid-70's after a
> couple of the cabs of Southern's E-8's were
> damaged in a wreck, they salvaged the cabs
> from a couple of FP7's to repair them, and
> scrapped the rest of the FP7's.

My previous post wasn't as clear as I would like. I should have said the structure for the nose and cab are different between the E's and F's.

Since the Southern did the above mentioned, it apparently isn't different enough to stop a resourceful shop from cobbling them up.

Todd Jones
IRM Diesel Department


Restoring MILW E9 33C

milw104c@charter.net

Nice set of photos of the restoration of the E unit! They show that such restorations entail a good deal more than just a paint job.



bobyar2001@yahoo.com

> Nice set of photos of the restoration of the
> E unit! They show that such restorations
> entail a good deal more than just a paint
> job.

Thanks Bob.

Below is a photo howing what I started with. For some reason I just can't see leaving it this way and keeping all that "historic fabric".


Restoring MILW E9 33C

milw104c@charter.net

Mr.Jones, If I may add to the above question, would not the under frame as well as the over frame car body not also have to be stretched to accomplish what Mr Wilkinson is asking? And if this is, indeed, the case, wouldn't it weaken the structure of the frame to cut it and piece in new framing to accomidate the extra length? I can understand the ability to do so if the underframe is fabricated, however, if it is cast, I can see the cutting and piecing of this area as a problem that could later cause the engine to become , shall we say, swaybacked due to the extra load and vibration caused by alteration to the original design that was never meant to take this kind of modification.I don't have a lot of experience with this sort of thing, at least not with locomotives, But it seems it would take a lot of reinforcing to insure the structural integrity.

-Angie

Ladypardus@cs.com

Todd,

Nice to see good work being done on 33C! I've checked the IRM website occasionally over the past few years to see if anything had been done. Great pictures, too. It's interesting to see what the 'historical fabric' under the paint of an E unit looks like. (Apparently there's a good deal of Bondo involved!)

Does she run?

> Given enough money and time anything is
> possible. Hence, when I win the Powerball
> expect to see an A-B-A set of Erie Builts at
> IRM. Orange and maroon with stainlesss noses
> no less!

> Seriously, while the structures are similar
> between an E and an F, I haven't torn into
> an FA yet and likely never will do a PA so I
> can't comment on them, the structures are
> different. While they are fabricated from
> the same basic pieces of steel, the designs
> are different.

> I was surprised to find the structure behind
> the sheetmetal is completely different
> between an E and an F when looking at the
> nose and cab area. Why this is I have no
> idea. Also, due to the 20 foot difference in
> length, there are additional
> "trusses". Since the trucks are
> different lengths, I do not think it would
> be possible to simply "section"
> the locomotive in the middle to add the
> length as you would not gain the neccesary
> space between the bolsters and the pulling
> faces to fit the trucks.

> As far as FA's and PA's go, it appears to me
> the noses are different lengths which would
> also preclude a "section" job as
> you mention.

> And then of course you have the
> "historical fabric" to deal
> with.....;0)

> Todd Jones
> IRM Diesel Department


davew833@yahoo.com

> Mr.Jones, If I may add to the above
> question, would not the under frame as well
> as the over frame car body not also have to
> be stretched to accomplish what Mr Wilkinson
> is asking? And if this is, indeed, the case,
> wouldn't it weaken the structure of the
> frame to cut it and piece in new framing to
> accomidate the extra length? I can
> understand the ability to do so if the
> underframe is fabricated, however, if it is
> cast, I can see the cutting and piecing of
> this area as a problem that could later
> cause the engine to become , shall we say,
> swaybacked due to the extra load and
> vibration caused by alteration to the
> original design that was never meant to take
> this kind of modification.I don't have a lot
> of experience with this sort of thing, at
> least not with locomotives, But it seems it
> would take a lot of reinforcing to insure
> the structural integrity.

> -Angie

Good questions Angie.

For the most part, diesel frames are fabricated. Some notable exceptions are SC series EMD's, early Baldwins, and the first 5 FM H10-44's. (MILW 760 mentioned in earlier posts has a cast frame.) Sectioning and lengthening a fabricated frame is not unheard of. Some railroads actually rebuilt old cars to longer lengths this way.

One thing to remember on E and F series locomotives is that the frame, maybe the center sill would be a better term to use, does not support the entire weight of the locomotive on it's own. The "Covered Wagons" have trusses, which are visible in the shot of 33C I posted. The center sill is not strong enough in these locomotives to support the weight of the engine without the side trusses. Without them, it would sag as you mentioned.

And that leads to the question; Would adding say two trusses in the center give you the proper length? I have no idea. I do know that the trusses for the most part span between the bolsters. As mentioned earlier, an F would not have the neccesary length between the pilot and bolster to fit a A-1-A truck.

Considering the number of E's in existance, this would be simply an excercise where someone could prove their abilities. And the size of their bank account. (Note that to do it properly, you would also have to completely redo the engine room to mount the two prime movers, main gens, etc)

Now, how this relates to making a PA out of a FA? I don't know enough about those choo choo's to comment. But, it is an interesting thought. ;0)

A question I have, that should probably have it's own thread but I'll put it here anyway, is; What is the general consensus concerning painting a locomotive for a different road than it worked for? A couple examples that come to mind are ex-MILW F's painted Monon, or say a South Shore Little Joe painted Milwaukee?

No, I'm not trying to paint ours that way guys. ;0)

Todd Jones
IRM Diesel Department


Restoring MILW E9 33C
milw104c@charter.net

> Todd,

> Nice to see good work being done on 33C!
> I've checked the IRM website occasionally
> over the past few years to see if anything
> had been done. Great pictures, too. It's
> interesting to see what the 'historical
> fabric' under the paint of an E unit looks
> like. (Apparently there's a good deal of
> Bondo involved!)

> Does she run?

Yeah, E's and F's have some bondo right from the factory. Not near as much as some Urban Legends say however.

But, seeing as 33C evidently had a meeting with a rather large object that required the replacement of a large amount of steel (By the MILW I might add), she's going to have a fair bit in the nose area to get the proper contours.

And, yes, she runs. That's one reason she was brought into the shop for restoration before a certain other locomtive in our collection.

I hope to have it done by next summer. (With a lot of help from others in the Department I might add.)

Todd Jones


Restoring MILW E9 33C
milw104c@charter.net

> Is the frame on a cab unit (E,F, FA, PA)
> cast or fabricated? I understand the carbody
> itself is an integral part of the structure.
> Say someone wanted to replicate a PA carbody
> Would it be theoretically possible (money
> and preservation considerations being no
> object) to 'stretch' an FA or FPA by
> sectioning the carbody and inserting new
> fabrcated structural components? Just
> curious-

As I understand it, the biggest obstacle--perhaps THE insurmountable one--is getting proper A1A trucks. I suggest you purge this fantasy completely unless McCormack & Co. have spare trucks around (the ones they're adapting are FM C-Liner trucks being modified to fit properly, I believe).

lner4472@bcpl.net

Anyone willing to go to the trouble of cutting, stretching, and pasting one type of locomtive together out of another would probably be money-foolish enough to have proper trucks fabricated from scratch, too. And no, I don't qualify on either count. It was just a hypothetical question.

BTW, My inspiration for the question is the commercial aviation world, where it's not uncommon for airliners to be 'stretched' by sectioning in a new piece of fuselage, even years after the plane's built. A good example is KLM's 747-300s which were sent back to Boeing to have their upper decks stretched to look like 747-400s. (Japan Airlines has done it too.) MAJOR surgery, but cheaper than a new plane!

>
As I understand it, the biggest
> obstacle--perhaps THE insurmountable one--is
> getting proper A1A trucks. I suggest you
> purge this fantasy completely unless
> McCormack & Co. have spare trucks around
> (the ones they're adapting are FM C-Liner
> trucks being modified to fit properly, I
> believe).


davew833@yahoo.com

Doyle purchased the three remaining pairs of trucks, and two pair are under the PAs. Yes, they did require much bolster modification to fit on the PA.

> As I understand it, the biggest
> obstacle--perhaps THE insurmountable one--is
> getting proper A1A trucks. I suggest you
> purge this fantasy completely unless
> McCormack & Co. have spare trucks around
> (the ones they're adapting are FM C-Liner
> trucks being modified to fit properly, I
> believe).

> As I understand it, the biggest
> obstacle--perhaps THE insurmountable one--is
> getting proper A1A trucks. I suggest you
> purge this fantasy completely unless
> McCormack & Co. have spare trucks around
> (the ones they're adapting are FM C-Liner
> trucks being modified to fit properly, I
> believe)

As I recall the trucks are off some Erie Built B units. (Very rare units in their own right. But apparently to far gone) C-Liners generally used B trucks, although some, notably NH's had the A-1-A trucks under the rear only.

Todd Jones


Restoring MILW E9 33C
milw104c@charter.net

> As I recall the trucks are off some Erie
> Built B units. (Very rare units in their own
> right. But apparently to far gone) C-Liners
> generally used B trucks, although some,
> notably NH's had the A-1-A trucks under the
> rear only.

> Todd Jones
Todd,

You are correct. The trucks were salvaged from Ex-PRR Erie Built B units bought by the CPR and used in Smith's Falls, Ontario as a "linear shop" to fabricate continuous welded rail(CWR). CP closed the plant a few years ago.

Mike



mnowell@senstarstellar.com