Intermountain and MT FT rear truck placement

[arbomambo]

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

[spookshow]

Are you referring to the rear truck on the B unit?



Cheers,
-Mark

[davefoxx]

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?

[spookshow]

LOL, I think that must be the one and only side-on B unit picture on the internet 

Cheers,
-Mark

[davefoxx]

Heh, I agree that it did take a little bit of sifting through online photos to find that.   

DFF

[Chris333]

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]

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

[LV LOU]

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]

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

[Cajonpassfan]

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]

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... 

[nkalanaga]

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.

[Cajonpassfan]

Eh, just another invocation of the Ed's Rule... 

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

[nkalanaga]

Ed's like Murphy:  He was around long before he was named.

[arbomambo]

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