CaptainCrutch

6 hours ago, mowerman said:

The CF does have a tilt cab??????? Bob

CFs don’t have tilt cabs, just a doghouse rear of the cab (unless it’s a 4 door in which case it’s just in the cab). The whole drivetrain is located entirely between the axels.

It sounds to me like it’s losing prime in the fuel system. I’d try pumping that hand primer a bunch and if it starts with ease doing that then you have the answer to your problem.

Alternatively it could be something up with your shut down linkage, either the linkage itself or the part inside that actually shuts off the injectors. But my money is on the fact it’s losing prime, I had a similar issue at one point on my CF, and that was it.

6 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

I don't see how it would be any more efficient on fuel than a conventional truck with the loss of heat and everything. The regenerative braking capability's the real energy saver. 

I would use the traditional engine, transmission, drive shaft, and differential setup but have an electric motor act as sort of a carrier bearing between the transmission and differential. Then put a small Detroit 50 or other similar sized engine and have the electric motor assist when needed for extra power. Hopefully sodium ion battery's get cheep enough that I can do this someday. 

Surprisingly the heat loss really isn’t that significant, and on their first prototype they were getting a 50% fuel reduction to do the same work, because when the diesel motor is running its running at a constant throttle right at the peak of its horsepower curve, which is way more fuel efficient than having the diesel mechanical driveline we all know and love. And you can actually use a smaller diesel motor to do more work than most conventional trucks. Hybridizing a truck in the manner you mention would negate a lot of that efficiency, but it could definitely get you a little more fuel mileage. There’s a reason trains don’t get driven directly off the prime mover, instead they just have electric motors on every axel that are powered by the diesel generator… exactly like this truck.

There’s really no new technology here, it’s just a new application of something that worked for Mack back in 1927, and pretty much every train since before 1964.

37 minutes ago, mrsmackpaul said:

Dunno if all the info is correct

Im thinking the 1962 Kenworth is the blue log truck in the back ground with the Edison banner tied between the bolsters

No matter, good luck to them

 

Paul

Indeed, the blue logger is their retrofit prototype. My understanding is it uses half the fuel of a conventional truck while having so much power they kept snapping the driveline on it. And unlike if it was full electric it actually weighs less than it did before the conversion.

19 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

Just drop in when you can, glad the trucks are been enjoyed, even if it isn't by you at the moment, they deteriorate quickly if not getting driven at all

Oh believe me, I know that all too well…

On 8/19/2023 at 10:18 PM, mowerman said:

Excellent thanks for the post we thought you dropped off the Earth… bob

I’ve just been real busy. I could probably count on my fingers the number of times in the last year and some change that I’ve even been home to look at the trucks. Luckily my dad and younger brother have been having their fun with them while I was away. I’m likely to drop off again, but that’s just how life goes sometimes.

On 8/12/2022 at 6:43 PM, Angelo said:

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the 707a,707b,707c . I have lead on water pump for my 52 L model but it’s out of 707c and I’m not sure if it’s all the same. Thanks 

The 707a & 707b are pretty interchangeable across the board, just a few minor differences of which I can’t remember. The 707c sort of has the head turned around so the exhaust manifold is on the other side. I don’t know what other changes there might be associated with that.

I don’t think that’s a 707 motor but I guess I could be wrong. Probably one of the smaller Mack gassers.

On 11/8/2021 at 2:56 PM, Freightrain said:

For comparison, the Union Pacific Big Boy is 132ft long and 1.2 mil lbs.  It is a 4-8-8-4 articulated locomotive.  It only ran out west because it can not negotiate any tight radii.  If you look on Youtube, the UP did a whole bunch of videos of the restoration.  Talk about an undertaking.  Restoring a truck pales in size and scope!

Luckily with 1309 we don’t have to worry about many corners being too tight, despite what some news sources and former railroad employees said… She was built for the mountains, and larger engines ran on our road anyways. Just shy of 100ft long, barely fits on our turntable!

On 11/5/2021 at 7:55 PM, Licensed to kill said:

Thanks for the pics. That last pic looks like a detailed miniature train set. Any idea what kind of torque that would put out at full PSI?

I don’t know the torque numbers, I’m sure it can be calculated, but railroads use Tractive Effort for that sort of measurement, and this one has a little more than 70,000 lbs. For comparison the other diesels we have can only do about 50,000 lbs and 40,000 lbs, but a lot of the big freight diesels you see on the big railroads have around 80,000 lbs.

Regardless I’m pretty sure the earth itself turns under 1309 when it starts off, you can certainly feel it…

1309 is a 2-6-6-2 wheeled locomotive while the Big Boy is a 4-8-8-4 wheeled locomotive. The big boy is bigger, notably so, but that engine is so big it can’t come this far east. Still, 1309 is about the biggest engine you can reasonably operate regularly, and she’s much bigger than most of the other engines in steam.

My CF will be there but I won’t. Some other family of mine are taking it Saturday. Can’t wait to see the pics!