|
Bill,
Thanks for taking the time to share this info with us on the CB&Q Forum. It is another piece of a very large puzzle.
Later, Dave Sarther Tucson, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: William Barber clipperw@gmail.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> To: CB&Q Group <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, May 16, 2015 10:54 am Subject: [CBQ] Re: Demonstrator Locos In response to both Thom Mack and Keith Erhart, EMD, over the years, maintained two distinctly different programs. One was demonstrator locomotives used as sales tools so that customers could try out a product before buying and the other was a series of test bed locomotives, some times new and some times rebuilds, that were intended to study and test various components under development. Demonstrator locomotives usually had bold and bright paint schemes with either Electro-Motive or GM logos or both. Demonstrators were loaned to the railroads at no cost usually for a specific period of time. I am sure that some agreement was signed before the demonstration covering liability and the usual legal boiler plate. The RR was only cost was for fuel and other operating supplies. In their given demonstration period, they could operate the locomotives anywhere on their system, but I am sure that EMD's Product Application department coordinated with each RR as to where the best performance tests might be achieved. In almost all cases, demonstrator locomotives would have at least one EMD representative from the Service and/or Sales Depts. on board at all times. These people knew the locomotives and would provide any training necessary during the locomotive's operation. Often special instrumentation was applied to the locomotives to record performance data. I personally rode the SD45 demonstrators on the Erie Lackawanna and the Reading in the Spring of 1966 as one of my early assignments with EMD. Before the first GEs appeared, the Q was always a friendly and accommodating RR for EMD tests. Even after the first GEs, they remained a good EMD customer which continued into the BN days.
To the best of my knowledge, EMD never built any true GP or SD40 demonstrator locomotives. They did build one GP and nine SD test bed locomotives in 35 series carbodies. The GP unit was numbered 433A and the SDs were numbered 434 and 434A - H. Al l were painted black except no. 434 which was painted in Santa Fe blue and yellow. The only identification was the road number under the cab windows and in the number boards. The was no reference to EMD, GM or any other name on the 10 units. They were built in late 1964 - early 1965. The group was split up and operated over most RRs in the U.S. as well as Canada and Mexico. All were equipped with the new 645 engine, AR10 alternator and D77 traction motors. Several had flared radiators that would appear later on the SD45. Other components of the upcoming 40 series were also tested on some units. I believe some of these units operated on the Q. Because the 40 series model had not been announced at the time, they were test locomotives, not demonstrators. The primary purpose of this fleet was to gain time and experience on the many new components that would make up the 40 series production locomotives. While there was an operating agreement between EMD and each RR that the units worked on, there was no cost to the host RR except for operating supplies. The participating RRs got free horsepower hours. EMD Engineering and Service personnel were on the units during most of their test operation. In some cases, an EMD test car would also have been operating with the locomotives.
The F unit no. 462 that Thom mentioned, operated on the Q for a number of years starting about 1962. It's primary mission was to test what would become the AR10 alternator which was being developed to replace the tradition D type main generator. The D generator had reached the limit of it's design capabilities. In fact, if anything, it was beyond it's limits in the GP35 model! In it's early days of alternator testing, no.462 was equipped with water cooled diodes. In those days of the early 1960's, large capacity diodes were in the early stages of development. EMD was pushing the technology to the limit. As for the rest of the unit, it was standard F9 with a 1750 hp Roots blown engine. It did not have radiator capacity to handle the new 645 engine, either turbocharger or Roots blown. No. 462 eventually received a near production AR10. In later years, it was used by EMD as a dynamic braking unit in tests of later products.
Photos of many of EMD's demonstrators can be found at this website:
rrpicturearchives.net/locolist.aspx?id=EMDX&Page=1
A complete or almost complete list of EMD demonstrators is available at this website:
http://www.thedieselshop.us/EMDdemo.HTML
One last comment. Not all demonstrations went well. In 1945, EMD built a four unit F3 demonstrator, no. 291. While demonstrating on the Chicago Great Western on Christmas Day, 1946, it had a head on collision with a CGW 2-10-4 steam locom otive. The lead unit, 291A2 was destroyed with an EMD Service rep on board. He survived, the locomotive was scrapped. The 291A1 and the 291B1 from that consist were sold to the TP&W. They later, converted the B unit to an A unit. The second B was repaired and used as part of a second three unit F3 demonstrator, numbered 754. The two A units in this demonstrator were new. Most demonstrators and test locomotives were eventually sold off at reduced prices to individual RRs. Union Pacific purchased a number of demonstrators.The only EMD demonstrators that the Q bought were TR2 Cow and calf transfer locomotives numbered 912 A & B. They become CB&Q 9400 A & B.
Sorry, this a another long winded response, but it is an interesting story.
Bill Barber
Gravois Mills, MO
On May 16, 2015, at 3:12 AM,
CBQ@yahoogroups.co m wrote:
Fri May 15, 2015 7:28 am (PDT) . Posted by:"kerhart@frontier.com" f39dd060cb40aa8c1a9b8bcaef290e8f
I want to thank everyone for all their enlightening responses to the use of demonstrators on the CB&Q. As I read the replies, related questions came to mind as to how the program was administered. Being a frugal railroad, what costs did the Burlington incur in trying out these locomotives? Did they need to send crew for training? Were there lease agreements or did the "Q" just cover the fuel and other operating costs? Being a larger railroad, could the Burlington get a "sweet" deal to familiarize themselves with these locomotives from other manufacturers who were hoping that they could break the strong relationship with EMD? This would be a fascinating Burlington Bulletin!
Thanks again. Keith Erhart __._,_.___ Posted by: "sartherdj@aol.com" <sartherdj@aol.com> __,_._,___ |