Author Topic: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement  (Read 1245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

arbomambo

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1179
  • Respect: +384
Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« on: June 14, 2014, 08:29:36 AM »
0
Hello all...
I know I'm really late to this particular party, but I'm considering FT units to add to the ATSF 1957-era fleet...
Am I wrong in thinking that the rear truck placement on the Intermountain and MT FT units is screwy?....this can't be prototypical, is it?....
and if this is, indeed the case, that it's too far 'inboard' from the rear...why?....is it a concession to body mounted couplers?
Bruce
"STILL Thrilled to be in N scale!"

Bruce M. Arbo
CATT- Coastal Alabama T-TRAK
NTRAK Board of Directors
https://nationalt-traklayout.com/

[/ur

spookshow

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1038
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +51
    • Model Railroading Projects & Resources
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2014, 08:46:10 AM »
0
Are you referring to the rear truck on the B unit?



Cheers,
-Mark

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8222
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1665
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2014, 08:46:51 AM »
0
I don't have a scale ruler on them, but I believe they are close, if not correct.  The prototype FT was, to me, an odd duck, and EMD improved the looks of F units with the F2 through F9 models.

I assume that you're really looking at the truck placement on the B units, which are not symmetrically balanced under the frame.  Take a look at the picture of this Southern FTB.  That rear truck is waaaaaaay inboard:


DFF

EDIT: Seriously, Mark?! An almost simultaneous post with the same picture?!  What are the odds?

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

spookshow

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1038
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +51
    • Model Railroading Projects & Resources
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2014, 08:50:22 AM »
0
LOL, I think that must be the one and only side-on B unit picture on the internet  :D

Cheers,
-Mark

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8222
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1665
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2014, 08:53:16 AM »
0
Heh, I agree that it did take a little bit of sifting through online photos to find that.   :D

DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13126
  • Respect: +2446
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2014, 09:25:53 AM »
0
http://www.burlingtonroute.com/docs/rosters/droster/ft_diagram.gif

When they were first built the A and B were drawbared together as one unit. The overhang at the rear of the B was where the steam generator went if the RR ordered them.

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8222
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1665
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2014, 11:40:42 AM »
0
Looking at Chris333's diagram, it becomes obvious that the guts of an FT B-unit are reversed from the FT A-unit.   Therefore, the gaping space under the rear of the FT B-unit would be where the pilot would go on the front of an FT A-unit.  So, it's like the B unit is built backwards.

DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

LV LOU

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2014, 03:35:06 PM »
0
Looking at Chris333's diagram, it becomes obvious that the guts of an FT B-unit are reversed from the FT A-unit.   Therefore, the gaping space under the rear of the FT B-unit would be where the pilot would go on the front of an FT A-unit.  So, it's like the B unit is built backwards.

DFF
Actually,not built backwards,the overhang is what would be the cab area..They just put a flat end on the cab end without changing the frame..

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8222
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1665
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2014, 03:40:48 PM »
0
Lou,

I agree.  That's what I meant by stating that it's like they built the B-unit backwards.  The front of the FTB is opposite what would be the cab end if it were built as an A-unit.

DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3434
  • Respect: +644
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2014, 06:47:50 PM »
0
Actually,not built backwards,the overhang is what would be the cab area..They just put a flat end on the cab end without changing the frame..

Not to quibble guys, but the B unit frame was different, with truck spacing slightly longer. And not all AB sets were drawbar connected; Santa Fe insisted on, and paid for, couplers between A an B units for more flexibility.
Otto K.

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 20510
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1819
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2014, 07:21:27 PM »
0
Not to quibble guys, but the B unit frame was different, with truck spacing slightly longer. And not all AB sets were drawbar connected; Santa Fe insisted on, and paid for, couplers between A an B units for more flexibility.
Otto K.

Eh, just another invocation of the Ed's Rule...  :)
--- Peteski de Snarkski
--- Honorary Resident Curmudgeon

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6382
  • Respect: +256
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2014, 01:30:24 AM »
0
There were also B units without the overhang, built as part of A-B-A locomotives.  The FT was an oddity, but then, it was also the first true mass-produced road diesel, and both EMD and the railroads were still learning.
N Kalanaga
Be well

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3434
  • Respect: +644
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2014, 02:17:01 AM »
0
Eh, just another invocation of the Ed's Rule...  :)

Thanks; I didn't know Ed was around in 1940 8)
Otto

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6382
  • Respect: +256
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2014, 04:38:16 AM »
0
Ed's like Murphy:  He was around long before he was named.
N Kalanaga
Be well

arbomambo

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1179
  • Respect: +384
Re: Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2014, 12:54:51 PM »
0
Thanks, guys...
That sews it...gonna have to acquire, at the least, an A-B-A set...based on all the material I can find, the 4-unit Freight sets were broken up into separate and 3 unit lashups a little before my 1957-era...so I'm figuring  a 3 unit lashup could suffice and be 'representative'...I will have to figure out how to add a coupler to the B end of the A unit...truck mount will have to do it...
Thanks again,
Bruce
"STILL Thrilled to be in N scale!"

Bruce M. Arbo
CATT- Coastal Alabama T-TRAK
NTRAK Board of Directors
https://nationalt-traklayout.com/

[/ur