F Units in Freight service

[ns8401]

It could have thrown a rod for any number of reasons, age is one, wear and tear is another. I assume they were maintained fairly well so it was probably just a natural failure.

[Bulby]

It could have thrown a rod for any number of reasons, age is one, wear and tear is another. I assume they were maintained fairly well so it was probably just a natural failure.

I can't say either way, I am not familiar with the Gettysburg shop forces. That particular engine spent awhile there.

The former AC F9s all show a care and love by the mechanics at Algoma Central; even today, the 1750, 1752, and 1761 require very little attention, and provide the most reliable power on the Keokuk Junction.

If you are doing nothing but switching, you don't want F units. If switching is light, then they are fine. The lack of switching steps and low visibility to the rear are negatives in switching service.

[Ypsi]

While were talking about F units in freight service, this is a little old (1979), but here's a nice way to run F units to protect the crew in the case of an incident at a grade crossing:

WAG 2300 by irail2010, on Flickr
WAG 2300 by irail2010, on Flickr

Apparently that was the normal practice of the Wellsville, Addison & Galeton Railroad. Figured some of you would find this interesting as we have talked about switching in an F unit and such in this thread.

[SD80MAC]

I don't believe it was normal practice to run them nose to nose like that, those pictures are of the railroads final run.

[hoborich]

Are the FP9s regeared for freight service, or are they still geared for passenger service. Anyone know?

[MQT1223]

This might seem irrelevant considering how old the F units are but does anyone think or know if the streamlined body of the F units has the locomotives get better fuel economy? I know the locomotives have an old engine design in them but I'd be curious how F units stack up compared to Pioneer's GP20's and other Geeps. Also be curious how they would compare against mid generation locomotives like a GP40-2 or an SD40-2. Does the amount of axles (four vs. six) affect fuel economy? Would fuel economy differ in F and E units even though they share the same shrouded designs? Could F units have a chance against a modern locomotive such as a GEVO or an SD70ACe for fuel economy? Do the "Hybrid" locomotives today do better then F units? If you put a modern engine in an F unit or E unit body (why you would I don't know, gotta keep things original, but back to the point) could you get better fuel economy in a shrouded diesel locomotive then in a "Hybrid" locomotive?

[Bulby]

Are the FP9s regeared for freight service, or are they still geared for passenger service. Anyone know?

Speaking for the Pioneer Fs:

PREX 1750 and 1752 still show max speed of 89 mph gearing, if you know where to look. I assume that 1761, 1755, and all of the other ex-AC locomotives are still geared for 89 mph; unless AC regeared them and didn't re-stencil max speeds (I highly doubt this). Pioneer didn't regear them. At any rate, the 1750, 1752, and 1761 all load "as one" when working together if that is any indication.

I've never been in the 401 (o.o.s.) or 402 to tell one way or another. 401 came from the B&LE, so it probably came with freight gearing.

I'm not sure about any of the other Fs; though some of the Fs listed actually were freight Fs.

This might seem irrelevant considering how old the F units are but does anyone think or know if the streamlined body of the F units has the locomotives get better fuel economy? I know the locomotives have an old engine design in them but I'd be curious how F units stack up compared to Pioneer's GP20's and other Geeps. Also be curious how they would compare against mid generation locomotives like a GP40-2 or an SD40-2. Does the amount of axles (four vs. six) affect fuel economy? Would fuel economy differ in F and E units even though they share the same shrouded designs? Could F units have a chance against a modern locomotive such as a GEVO or an SD70ACe for fuel economy? Do the "Hybrid" locomotives today do better then F units? If you put a modern engine in an F unit or E unit body (why you would I don't know, gotta keep things original, but back to the point) could you get better fuel economy in a shrouded diesel locomotive then in a "Hybrid" locomotive?

Several questions here, I'll try to split this out:

Streamlining: it looks good, but doesn't matter much at the slow speeds most shortlines run.
While I do not have exact figures in front of me, the Pioneer FP9s get a little bit better fuel economy than the GP20us and GP16s in normal conditions.
F units are favorable for fuel economy over 40 series locomotives; the 645 engine is a fuel hog (as are most second generation prime movers).
axle count mainly effects tractive effort, not fuel economy.
E units will burn more fuel because of twin prime movers and a total of 24 cylinders, to an F's 16 cylinders.
On a horsepower basis; no, an F-unit would not compare to a GEVO or SD70 on a horsepower per gallon basis (reliability is another story).
Hybrids are junk.
The streamlining has little effect below 40 mph.

[MQT1223]

Are the FP9s regeared for freight service, or are they still geared for passenger service. Anyone know?

Speaking for the Pioneer Fs:

PREX 1750 and 1752 still show max speed of 89 mph gearing, if you know where to look. I assume that 1761, 1755, and all of the other ex-AC locomotives are still geared for 89 mph; unless AC regeared them and didn't re-stencil max speeds (I highly doubt this). Pioneer didn't regear them. At any rate, the 1750, 1752, and 1761 all load "as one" when working together if that is any indication.

I've never been in the 401 (o.o.s.) or 402 to tell one way or another. 401 came from the B&LE, so it probably came with freight gearing.

I'm not sure about any of the other Fs; though some of the Fs listed actually were freight Fs.

This might seem irrelevant considering how old the F units are but does anyone think or know if the streamlined body of the F units has the locomotives get better fuel economy? I know the locomotives have an old engine design in them but I'd be curious how F units stack up compared to Pioneer's GP20's and other Geeps. Also be curious how they would compare against mid generation locomotives like a GP40-2 or an SD40-2. Does the amount of axles (four vs. six) affect fuel economy? Would fuel economy differ in F and E units even though they share the same shrouded designs? Could F units have a chance against a modern locomotive such as a GEVO or an SD70ACe for fuel economy? Do the "Hybrid" locomotives today do better then F units? If you put a modern engine in an F unit or E unit body (why you would I don't know, gotta keep things original, but back to the point) could you get better fuel economy in a shrouded diesel locomotive then in a "Hybrid" locomotive?

Several questions here, I'll try to split this out:

Streamlining: it looks good, but doesn't matter much at the slow speeds most shortlines run.
While I do not have exact figures in front of me, the Pioneer FP9s get a little bit better fuel economy than the GP20us and GP16s in normal conditions.
F units are favorable for fuel economy over 40 series locomotives; the 645 engine is a fuel hog (as are most second generation prime movers).
axle count mainly effects tractive effort, not fuel economy.
E units will burn more fuel because of twin prime movers and a total of 24 cylinders, to an F's 16 cylinders.
On a horsepower basis; no, an F-unit would not compare to a GEVO or SD70 on a horsepower per gallon basis (reliability is another story).
Hybrids are junk.
The streamlining has little effect below 40 mph.

So basically unless your comparing first generation 4 axle diesels like the GP20's the F unit has no economical advantages. Some nice trivia. Imagine how ugly a streamlined GEVO or ACE would look...

[Bulby]

So basically unless your comparing first generation 4 axle diesels like the GP20's the F unit has no economical advantages. Some nice trivia.

I didn't say that at all.

In the right conditions, an F9 is much more economical than a second generation diesel, or even a third generation. For awhile, Illinois Railway Museum's solution to rising fuel costs was to park the second generation power and run the 7 and 9 series Fs and GPs; it worked rather well to cut fuel consumption.

Economic advantages are not just measured in how many gallons of fuel a locomotive burns.

How much down time does a locomotive have? How much do parts cost? How often do you need parts? How many man-hours does each locomotive need in maintenance over the course of the year? How much can it pull on your railroad? How easy is it to maintain? How many miles can you get without an over-the-road failure?

All of this must be factored in, and when you consider that the modern, reliable replacements for the small, older power does not exist; the value of the old locomotives go up. They don't make them like they used to. I've seen crews accomplish on the spot repairs in F-units that would be impossible in anything newer.

[hoborich]

They don't make them like they used to. I've seen crews accomplish on the spot repairs in F-units that would be impossible in anything newer.

Sorta like my old 48 Ford, when I could pull over to the side of the road, pop the distributor cap, and adjust the point gap and be on my way.
You kids ask your dads what ignition points were.

I think I used to gap them to 15 thousandths. Why do I remember this crap, when I can't remember what I had for breakfast?

[SimRacin14]

R.J. Corman occasionally uses their Dinner Train FP7s in freight service here in Bardstown if the GP9 isn't working. It's not too often though(this was shot in 2009.)