Talk:EMD FP7

FP7 and FP9 vs E-units
If the FP series were intended as passenger units, why did EMD produce models that, on the face of it, competed with their own E-series locos produced at the same time? Were the FP's preferred by roads with a lot of mountain climbing, or was there some reason to not want the six-axle units? Any theories?Fawcett5 21:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * These are my suppositions, not checkable fact, so we should find some references before jumping off on it. But, I think, the FP series were intended as dual-service units, as fully capable of freight service as the corresponding F unit.  They were just a lengthening for extra steam generator water / fuel capacity.  Additionally, it is well known that railroads who had to climb mountains with heavy loads preferred F units to E units for the purpose, because of more traction motors (less possibility of burnout) and all the weight being on driven wheels.  They were also used on short-haul services, where they would have been more practicable than an E unit.


 * We should see if we can find any references that state this. &mdash;Morven 21:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds plausible if you can find some refs. Such units seemed to be more popular in Canada- CP and CN also operated ALCO/MLW FPA-2 and FPA-4 units that were, I think, the same idea - and as far as I know these were only in Canada. Come to think of it, Canadian roads were the only ones to go with a four axle variant of the passenger C-liner (all others had a A1A rear truck combined with a B-B on the front). Hmmmm.  Fawcett5 23:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images
We've now got a free image of the FP7 in service: File:Amtrak San Francisco Zephyr.jpg. Given that, both File:SSW FP7 306.jpg and File:PRR FP7 9840.jpg should probably be orphaned and deleted since the new image is an image of the FP7 in service, which is the rationale for the other two images. I've thought about it and I can't come up with an alternative rationale for those two images. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since they're both images of the FP7 in their heyday, I'm not entirley sure they should go. DanTD (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but we've got to be careful about WP:NFCC. Maybe one of the two images, but certainly not both. I'd say keep File:PRR FP7 9840.jpg, since it shows the B-Unit. That's unique. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Number built
Both CGW 116C and C&EI 1609 were wrecked early in their service lives. Both units were returned to EMD as trade ins on new units. EMD order number 8000 was for CGW 116C and EMD order number 8003 was for C&EI 1609. See http://utahrails.net/ajkristopans/REPAIRJOBS.php This page documents the second CGW 116C as EMD serial #13560:2 http://www.trainweb.org/emdloco/on8000.htm

This NdeM unit is not listed on the roster http://www.trainweb.org/jaydeet/fp7.htm, but is listed as EMD Serial #11011 from EMD Order 6052 here http://utahrails.net/ajkristopans/GMEXPORT2.php#fp7 This page lists NdeM 6309 as an FP7 http://www.trainweb.org/emdloco/on6000.htm The Extra 2200 South NdeM roster in issue #45 page 19 lists NdeM 6309 as an F7A with the same serial number, but a different EMD order number.
 * I've refactored a bit here. None of these sources convince me that 381 actual locomotives were built. Jaydeet (which you've removed as a source) lists 378 locomotives. Gerald L. Foster gives 376, and the discrepancy could easily be explained by the two EMD demonstrators later sold to the Soo Line. Per and  NdeM is probably a regular F7A and not an FP7. Jerry Huddleston's exhaustive list of CGW power  shows two FP7s, not three. DieselShop acknowledges a wreck but still lists 10, not 11. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The referenced photo on Mr. Slides shows an F unit with the characteristic gap between the lead truck and the tank of an FP7. Another better view of NdeM 6309 is here: http://railwaysrailroads.com/mexican_trains24.html This photo shows an F unit identified as an F7A with the characteristic gap between the lead truck and the tank of an FP7. A conclusion is that both photographs show an FP7 that was misidentified as an F7A. The Extra 2200 South roster stated that NdeM 6309 and NdeM 6319 at one time may have traded identities. That may be a reason for the confusion or that another FP7 was renumbered as NdeM 6309. Nevertheless at least two photos are extant that show NdeM 6309 as what appears to be an FP7. A conclusion would be that J. D. Thompson used the Extra 2200 South roster data on the FP7 roster. Both cited EMD serial number pages use EMD Product Data Cards as reference, and both cite NdeM 6309 as an FP7. There are multiple photos of C&EI 1609 online here:   http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=674074 and here:  http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cei/cei1609jpa.jpg http://www.ebay.com/itm/C-EI-RR-FP-7A-1609-8x10-color-photo-/300850896749 Early photo different tank. http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/50983/rec/7 Early 6/29/1950 photo, note square door corners. The newer photos both show C&EI 1609 with phase 2 carbody features, note the curved edges of the cab door. This unit was not built with this feature indicating a rebuild. Extra 2200 South issue 79 page 21 states C&EI 1609 was rebuilt in kind in May 1958. This does not concur with the rebuild date on A J Kristopans site which states that C&EI 1609 was rebuilt on order #8003 dated January 1952. A conclusion is that this unit may have been rebuilt twice by EMD and that it may have been a part of an equipment trust.

CGW 116C first was destroyed in a wreck at North Hanover, Illinois on June 2, 1951. The cab and front part of the frame separated from the unit when it collided head on with CGW 112A. See http://www.ebay.com/itm/CHICAGO-GREAT-WESTERN-RR-CGW-DIESEL-116-C-112-A-TRAIN-WRECK-N-HANOVER-IL-1951-/260947093188?nma=true&si=ocyFZfr%252FCiF7zb6ZM83Del66BwE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 for photo. Conclusion is that the remains of CGW 116C first was traded in to EMD on a new unit 116C second that used parts from the old 116C on a new frame, EMD Order #8000 of October 1951. This unit may have been a part of an equipment trust. --SSW9389 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the online Interstate Commerce Commission accident report C&EI 1609 was destroyed at Mode, Illinois just south of Shelbyville, Illinois on June 28, 1951. --SSW9389 12:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There are ongoing discussions about these three FP7s on the LocoNotes, C&EI, and CGW Yahoo Groups. There is an eyewitness account on the CGW Yahoo Group that states CGW 116C was cut up on site and loaded into gondolas. Also detailed on the CGW Group is where primary source Newspaper, Periodical and rebuild photos of 116C may be located. There was mention of photos of the C&EI Mode, Illinois wreck on the C&EI Group. --SSW9389 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CGW 116-C was damaged during the head on collision at North Hanover, IL on June 2, 1951. On June 6, 1951 the locomotives involved in the wreck were photographed at EMD on CGW flat cars. The 116-C was not cut up onsite and loaded into gondolas. No records are found declaring the 116-C was then a trade-in to EMD. The trade-in program at EMD did not start until 1952 after the 116-C was repaired in October 1951. 116-C was repaired on EMD order 8000. (Note: The 8000 number series contains repaired locomotives by EMD). No documentation exists as to the details of the repairs and what was re-purposed. EMD repaired the 116-C locomotive with a finish date of October 1951. CGW documents from 1952 and later do not indicate a change in the In-service date, nor indicate a serial number change that would apply only if the locomotive was new. Errors as to the total number of new EMD locomotives built 'emphasis added' contained within Wikipedia as the definition to what is classified a repaired locomotive vs. a new locomotive. A repaired or rebuilt locomotive containing the same original serial number is not a new locomotive and should not be reflected in the total number built.

Conclusion: 116-C was damaged and repaired with the same locomotive containing the original serial 13560. As noted on the back of the photograph with typed information by EMD of the 116-C after completion "Rebuilt by EMD Date received at La Grange Jun 6 1951-20 weeks at La Grange cost of repair $115,075.46." Cgwfan (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The CGW annual reports list a 1st equipment trust of 1949 and 2nd equipment trust of 1949. Which is believed to have contained many of the CGW diesel locomotives. After 1949 Conditional purchase agreements were used to make purchases on rolling stock including locomotives. Since 116-C was purchased in 1951 it is not apart of an equipment trust. Cgwfan (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Jerry Huddleston's list of CGW motive power I personally assisted Jerry with this information. It contains all locomotives that the CGW owned including their serial numbers, including CGW locomotives still in existence in 1998. Cgwfan (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Interstate Commerce Commission reports. Terminology used in these reports do not conclude what a Railroad classified as major, extensive, significant, or minor damage, what can be repaired on a diesel locomotive, or extensive damage in which a locomotive was scrapped thus terminating the serial number on a locomotive. Highly suggest to not continue to use these as a source of Railroad roster information concerning final disposition. Cgwfan (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The cost of the repair to 116-C:1 equals about 85% of the cost of a new unit. A new frame was included in all 8000 order number series EMD rebuilds. The CGW got essentially a brand new unit 116-C:2 with a 15% trade in credit. The data conflicts between CGW sources and A J Kristopans and Don Strack. --SSW9389 11:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC) This website give the CGW 116-C serial number as a second 13560 http://www.trainweb.org/emdloco/on8000.htm

What we have here is the difference between those that strictly count serial numbers and those that count frames. This is a long ongoing debate. EMD historian A J Kristopans has documented 36 F units that reused previous serial numbers. Mr. Kristopans used EMD Product Data Cards to document his findings. In addition two stretched Cotton Belt FTs have been photographically identified as having been rebuilt on longer frames. All these F units were sent back to EMD for rebuild. What has not been thoroughly documented is how EMD accomplished major rebuilds. In these cases where Mr. Kristopans has documented a reused serial number the units were rebuilt on new frames. EMD did not have the capability to straighten frames until much later. When a wrecked locomotive came in to EMD for repair it was because the repair would be too difficult for the owning railroad shop to accomplish. The unit would be evaluated by EMD for usable parts. The usable parts would then be stripped to be used on the new frame. In a discussion with railroad author Joseph Strapac last year about the rebuild of St. Louis Southwestern 921 he emphasized the point that EMD would have made sure that any parts reused could be warrantied. This type of rebuild would start with a new frame, which would then be wired just like a new unit, recent changes on the F unit production line would be incorporated in the rebuild. Trains magazine May 1955 issue 7th Annual Motive Power Survey by David P. Morgan pp 45-46 has a mention of the EMD rebuild process. Where the CGW argument that the original 116-C was rebuilt and was not a new unit falls apart is at cost. David Morgan wrote in his book Diesels West that railroads were paying $90 per horsepower. That math works out to the 116-C costing 85% of a new unit to repair and that just isn't true, it's a new unit with trade in credit, just like Mr. Kristopans states here http://utahrails.net/ajkristopans/REPAIRJOBS.php. The high repair cost suggests that very little was left of the original CGW 116-C to reuse. By rebuilding the CGW 116-C this way EMD was able to furnish the railroad with an up to date warrantied unit. The railroad could write off the entire cost of the rebuild and continue to write off the one fifteenth depreciation per year on the unit and not have to recapitalize the unit. --SSW9389 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Diesels West, by David Morgan, was a publication from 1963, 12+ years after the repair of the CGW 116-C. RR's were not paying $90 per horsepower in 1951. The "85% of a new unit to repair cost" deemed by SSW9389 was inaccurately and grossly misstated including the very poor argument that "CGW got essentially a brand new unit 116-C:2 with a 15% trade in credit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgwfan (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

infobox, ref
has C&NWRy drawings and spec sheets for #4051A, a FP 9 rebuilt from a FT, with a “B” engine. I think that if this thing had “7” series D-27-B traction motors, it would be a FP7. I’m going to post it that way, and use all the F7 and FP9 pages as a ref.Sammy D III (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)