Talk:GE 45-ton switcher
|WikiProject Trains / Locomotives||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Weight and name
This locomotive's specific 45-ton weight was directly related to one of the efficiencies the new diesel locomotives offered compared to their steam counterparts, reduced labour intensity. In the 1940s, the steam to diesel transition was in its infancy in North America, and railroad unions were trying to protect the locomotive fireman jobs that were redundant with diesel units. One measure taken to this end was a stipulation that locomotives weighing 44 tons or more required a fireman in addition to an engineer.
Why would they make a 45-ton locomotive to skirt a 44-or-more-tons requirement? Shouldn't this be "more than 45 tons"? Perel 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This information was found on the 44 Ton page, but applies to the 45-ton also. Locomotives 44 tons or more were required to have a crew of two, this includes the smaller but heavier 45-Tonner. Billy Rules 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This locomotive can be called a 45-Tonner, but what does "tonner" mean, is it a run-on of Ton and Switcher, is it slang?Billy Rules 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Under Variants, "When necessary, the diesel engines could be shut down, and the electricity from the batteries would turn a motor that would turn a generator which created the necessary power to turn the wheels." Am I correct to assume that these were diesel-electric engines where normally the diesel engine(s) would turn an AC alternator to run AC propulsion motor(s)? Therefor, running on batteries, the batteries would drive a DC motor, in turn spinning an AC alternator (aka a motor-generator), providing AC current for the propulsion motor(s)? This could do to be clarified/explained.--gnomeselby (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That variants section....
I hereby challenge the unreferenced, extremely bizarre description of the alleged "electric variant" of the 45 tonner. That entire description is just too far out in left field to be reality. I could understand;
- A DC, straight electric version, powered by overhead wire or 3rd rail, with a resistance type control.
- An AC Motor-generator version, with an AC synchronous motor turning a DC generator for traction power.
- A battery electric version, with a resistance type control, with the batteries charged by any combination of a Diesel engine, 3rd rail or overhead wire, and the traction motors powered directly by the batteries when the other powers source(s) were not available.
But that entire batteries under the engines, powering a motor, to turn a generator, to power the traction motors concept is just too overly complicated and inefficient to have ever been seriously considered.
Why turn the electrical energy into mechanical energy, just so you can turn that mechanical energy back into electrical energy, in order to convert that electrical energy back into mechanical energy yet again? The energy goes back and forth between mechanical and electrical THREE times, losing efficiency every time. A simple resistance control system would be MUCH more efficient, and 300% simpler. I have also had recent personal experience with a GE 45 tonner, (US Army 8537 at IRM) and can personally verify that there is only about 6 inches of vertical space between the engines oil pans, and the floor under the engines (yes, there is a flat floor under there!), which leaves very little room for batteries.
Sorry if I've been a bit too technical here, but, I've got 22 years worth of weekends of working on, and with, Diesel-electric, and straight DC electric, locomotives built between 1911, and 1974, and sometimes bizarre writings like this article section need strong rebuttals. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)