GAS ELECTRIC ENGINE

I am not sure if the Bachmann Doodlebug is a gas electric, or gas direct drive, but that is a start.

The Bachmann doodlebug is a good model of a 1920's gas electric. The maker, Electro Motive Corporation, acted as what we would call a systems integrator today. They purchased engines from Winton, electrical equipment from General Electric, and contracted out car body consruction to Brill and others. The machines were built in small batches, and each batch differed in small ways from the preceeding batch. Later when more powerful engines become available, Electro Motive will build the first diesel locomotives, and become the Electromotive Division of GM. The transmission was always electric. To get a train, even a single car gas electric train, moving from a dead stop, requires the engine, running at hundreds of RPM to be coupled to the wheels, running at zero RPM. No one has ever make a clutch strong enough to put a railcar into motion. Automatic transmissions had not been invented in the 1920's. The only workable transmission in that era was electric, an engine powered generator and street car style traction motors turning the wheels. David Starr

David Starr spake thus:

Actually, not quite true: you're forgetting, for instance, the ill-fated hydraulic diesels, made by Krauss-Maffei, that SP tried out for a while. Purely mechanical power transmission. They worked, but the excessive maintenance required eventually killed them.

Last time I poked around the old SP Locomotive Works in Sac'to, I saw a K-M parked in the lot with a bunch of other weird pieces of equipment. Quite a sight.

SP's KM diesel hydraulics were built in the 1960s, not the 1920s. KM's locos were built for German conditions -- much smoother track than in the US, lighter trains, and above all a different attitude to maintenance.

I've seen photos and models of them. Yes, quite a sight.

Yes, but the Krauss-Maffei diesel hydralics were built in the 1950's, where as the doodlebugs were built 30 years earlier, before the hydraulic transmission had been invented. I always assumed the Krauss-Maffei's failed to gain market acceptance because the hydraulic transmission wasn't really strong enough to flow the full power of the diesel engine thru to the wheels. After WWII, the Budd company conquered the self propelled rail car market with their RDC. Those had a pair of smallish diesel engines mounted under the floor, driving the wheels thru a two speed automotive style automatic transmission. It was quite noticeable to us passengers when the transmission finally shifted into high. There was a serious lurch, then the engine note would die down, and the car would keep bucketing along at a good clip.

If you ever get back, take some pictures.

David Starr

Yes but RDCs were NOT electric in any way so they do not count.

-- I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see

David Starr spake thus:

Not the case. They were plenty powerful enough; the problems were all with maintenance, since the US crews weren't used to servicing German equipment that had lower tolerances than the American-made stuff.

Will do.

Much like the Corvair problem: by the '68 and '69 models they had a better suspension, and handled much better than almost any other US made car, but you average Chevy mechanic couldn't keep the engines from leaking oil.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had a turbocharged 1962 Corvair Spyder. I'm not sure if any mechanic understood it.

Bill Bill's Railroad Empire N Scale Model Railroad:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My mother had a '62, but normally aspirated, that I drove a couple times when I was home on leave. It was a litle anemic, had styling worthy of an Edsel (gimmicky and uninspired), and did have a pretty crappy swing axle rear suspension. My brother managed to get the ends swapped around a time or two.

Nader was right about the handling of that car, although by the time his book came out it was pretty much corrected, and at the same time ('62) the major difference between the Corvair's crappy handling and your typical Ford's crappy handling was which end ran off the road first - it's just that the average American driver was more frightened of oversteer than understeer.

The Diesel hydraulics worked very well in Europe, particularly Germany and France. Hydraulic transmission was much lighter than electric so high horsepower from light locos was/is practical. This was more important in Europe than the USa as trains there run faster. In recent years alternators and three phase motors have enabled the Diesel electric to catch up.

Regards, Greg.P.

Diesel hydraulics date from the early 1930s - petrol electrics from the

The German HDs were very successful but the operating conditions were quite different; short runs with lighter trains at higher speeds. When Britain tried the same successful designs with similar loads and speeds the transmissions gave trouble because (?) theruns at higher speeds tended to be longer. Diesel hydraulics have also been very successful on heavy shunting locomotives.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those were the days when GM and Ford mechanics had still to discover torque wrenches!

Regards, Greg.P.

Not true at all, not by any means. There were many petrol-mechanical and later diesel-mechanical railcars *and* locomotives built and operated in places like the UK, France, Germany, the rest of Europe, Australia and Asia, going back to WW1 and before. Hydraulic transmissions for railway use date to the early 1920s.

Actually Steve, he is correct you are wrong. I have told you before you need to stop writing on topics you know nothing about. I think you are doing it on purpose to confuse the group (AKA trolling).

David, d> David Starr wrote:

Alright alright. I should have clearly stated that I was describing US practice. Sorry about that.

David Starr

I thought those Rio Grande things were regular transmission with a clutch. In fact the whole front end was a car, right?? They at times would pull a small trailer. I'm not sure they were classified as a rail car however.

Nope he's not. Here is one example of a gasoline driven motor car with mechanical transmission built in 1926:

The DRGW galloping goose/geese. Yes, these were rail conversions of ordinary medium trucks. Flanged wheels and bus like bodies were added on. The drive was same-same as when they were trucks going over the road, floor shift gearbox and a clutch. The doodlebugs were 80 foot combines (baggage&passenger), a considerably larger and heavier machine. "Railcar" as a noun is pretty generic, and has been used to describe just about anything running on rails, be it powered or non powered. For instance novelist Tom Clancy has his Moscow police inspector say of a murdered hobo, "I think he just got on the wrong railcar at the wrong time". I am not aware of a generic term for "self propelled rail vehicle", which would include the doodlebugs, the RDC's and the galloping geese.

David Starr