A Turbocharged Failure – The Story of the Cleveland 498, Part II

In this second part of A Turbocharged Failure, we will go through some design features of the engine.  What better way to do this then to simply go through the engine manual and show a few key areas of the engine design.  Numerous additional photos of the 498 will appear in Part IV. 

Be sure to view last weeks Part I: A Turbocharged Failure – The Story of the Cleveland 498, Part I

The initial “catalog photo” of a production 12-498, with a Falk MB series reverse-reduction gearbox.

I have two versions of the 498 manual – both of which are titled as “preliminary” manuals.   The older version, which is undated and likely from around 1957, and lists 4 models of the 498; a 6-, an 8-, a 12- and 16-cylinder.   Like all manuals, an end view diagram is included, however this is a rather primitive, hand- drawn sketch. 

Engine cross section drawings. A colorized version would never be done. Click for larger

By the time the second edition was printed, dated for July of 1960, an all-new diagram was made including outlining various parts of the engine.   Along with this, several additional diagrams appear in the manual, as well as some more photos of various engine parts and repair techniques. At some point the 6-cylinder version was dropped from documentation, and would ultimately never be built.

Engine data and ratings – Click for larger

Engine Operation
Like all Cleveland engines, a simple lever is attached to the injector linkage.  A small thumb latch allows the lever to control the engine with no governor input.  When unlatched, the governor takes over all control of engine operation, used in conjunction with whatever remote propulsion control system is used.   On the 498 (and some Cleveland 567’s) equipped with reverse reduction gears, a second lever was added to control the air clutch, so that propulsion speed and direction could be controlled right at the engine.  498 engines were air-started- using an air motor, unlike the 278A engines which had direct air start into the cylinders.  

Engine operating levers on the 498. Click for larger

Crankcase
Like the previous Cleveland models, the 498 used an all-welded crankcase of various forged parts and steel plate.  A balanced, alloy steel crankshaft is used, interestingly enough the 12-cylinder crankshaft did not have any counterweights.  The crankshaft is drilled for oiling the connecting rod main bearings and wrist pins.  A vibration damper and balancer are mounted on the front end of the engine. 

Pistons, Connecting Rods & Liners
One of the biggest sets of improvements to the 498 engines from the previous 278A – are actually a few concepts borrowed from sister division EMD and the 567C engine. 

While the 278A and all previous models used a semi-water deck style liner (like the EMD 567 though the “B” block) – the 498 used a sealed liner which was attached to a water manifold in the airbox by a jumper (much like the 567C). 

A look in through the crankcase inspection cover at the connecting rods, showing the “pee pipe” attached to the lower end of the liner for piston cooling.

Again, borrowing from EMD, the pistons are a two-piece, trunk style floating piston (introduced on the LST 12-567 in WWII), whereas the 278A used a more traditional one-piece piston and a wrist pin.  On the floating piston, the piston itself sits on a thrust washer, which in turn sits on the piston carrier attached to the connecting rod.  Again, departing from the 278, Cleveland adopted the “pee pipe” piston cooling scheme EMD used since the first 567 of 1938, as opposed to the drilled connecting rod of the 278 & 268, which directed cooling oil from the crankshaft to the bottom of the piston. In the 498, the drilled connecting rod is only used for oiling the bearings and wrist pin.

Piston cooling on the 498 (top) used a drilled connecting rod to lubricate the bearings and wrist pin, however used a jet of oil which sprayed into an orifice directing oil into the cavity below the piston crown. The 278 (bottom) simply used the drilled connecting rod to lubricate everything, and used a spring check plate to retain oil in the crown.

The connecting rod of the 498 used a strap style of “cap” to contain the bearing and connect to the crankpin.  Like all Cleveland’s, each connecting rod used its own bearing on the crankpin, unlike the EMD engines which use a shared crankpin and bearing set by use of the fork and blade connecting rods. This allowed the EMD to be a slightly shorter length overall, as the cylinders were directly opposite each other, versus slightly offset on the Cleveland.

Cylinder Heads & Exhaust
Again, sharing with previous Cleveland models, the 498 used individual external heads, however these had some upgrades.  One of the big downfalls with the 278A style head, is there is a half-circle seal against the back of the head, which seals the cam pocket to the head.  Unfortunately, this is a major source of oil leaks.  The Navy devised a tool in the 1950’s to help combat this problem – a bracket clips into the injector control pocket on the block and a set screw presses the head back into the pocket, thus compressing the seal before the head is torqued down.  The 498 head had a specific tab on them (visible in the above photo of the operating levers), in which a bolted clip catches, allowing one to compress the head back into the seal.   The head itself was also torqued down in an interesting way. The head used stretch bolts, in which a special hydraulic tool was attached to pick up on the bolt before it was tightened down. The 498 returned to a two-piece valve cover design like the Winton 248 used.  The fuel lines were also moved inside now. 

Looking down on the cylinder head, which is a bit more cramped then those on the 278 family. Both fuel lines are now inside the engine, connected to main fuel lines under the exhaust manifold. The 498 used a two piece cover, like the original Winton 248 engine (I wonder if they are the same castings..). The new head design uses a combination safety and test valve, which were separate valves on the 278. EMD did not utilize these valves, which open should any excessive pressure build while the engine is running, preventing a bent connecting rod or worse. Note that the exhaust jumper has some sort of spray on insulation.

The hydraulic tool for tightening the head bolts was a rather simple process. The tension shaft is threaded onto the top portion of the stud, the tool is slipped over the tension shaft, and a nut on top secures it together. The tool is pumped up to 5,000PSI, and the actual nut holding the head down is tightened with the socket handle inside of the tool. The later 1960 manual indicates that these could also be manually torqued down to 1,030 ft. lbs. Click for larger.

A slight revision on the exhaust jumpers as well was devised.  Previous engines used a completely water- jacketed jumper (the older manual incorrectly stating that the 498 had this as well), however with the 498, it was preferable to keep the exhaust gases as hot as possible entering the turbocharger – thus no water jacketing on the exhaust jumper. A small pipe exits the head and carries water to the main exhaust manifold, which was still water jacketed.   The main exhaust manifold itself used diffuser sections to carry the exhaust gas to the turbocharger. 

Camshaft, Accessory and Governor Drive
Nothing all that special going on here.  The water pumps and blower are driven off the accessory drive on the front of the engine.  The camshafts are driven from the rear end of the engine by the crankshaft through a set of gears.   6- and 8-cylinder engines use one-piece camshafts, with 12- and 16-cylinder engines having two-piece camshafts.  On the forward end of the camshafts, the left side has a vibration damper (not used on the 12-cylinder engine) and counterweight, with the right side having the fuel pump mounted. 

The governor drive is also driven through bevel gears on the camshaft drive.   The engine uses a Marquette hydraulic governor for operation.  Driven from the back of the camshaft, the overspeed governor is a bit of a complex mechanical/hydraulic device devised by Cleveland, rather than using an additional off-the-shelf Marquette governor like the previous models. When the engine overspeeds, a centrifugal flyweight arrangement closes off oil flow to the small oil pump in the governor, forcing it to build pressure which discharges to a small piston on top.  The piston acts against a spring and controls a set of linkage going to each injector rocker arm.  When the overspeed is tripped, these arms engage onto the rockers, and hold the injector down in the no fuel position. 

Overspeed operation. Click for larger.

Oil & Cooling system
The 498 uses 3 lube oil pumps, a scavenging pump and a two pressure pumps (one for main oiling, one for piston cooling).  Diesel-Electric engines had an additional scavenging pump installed for the support bearings on the generators.  An additional small oil strainer is mounted on the feed line for the turbocharger bearings. 

The cooling system for the 498 is virtually unchanged from the 278A except for the lack of water- jacketed exhaust elbows mentioned above.   The 498 uses a raw water-cooled intercooler mounted between the turbocharger and the blower. 

Intake & Exhaust
What sets the 498 apart from her sisters is of course the use of the turbocharger. In addition to the turbocharger, the Roots blower is also used.  See description below.  Since the Roots blower is not doing all of the work providing scavenging air, it was found a much smaller lobe length would be required, although they did spin at a slightly higher RPM then those on the 278A.   

The turbocharger for the 498 was furnished by De Laval Steam Turbine Corp. and was a basic “gas turbine driven compressor”.  The Model A turbocharger was supported in its own service manual supplied by De Laval.  The unit used a “monorotor” construction with both sets of blades mounted on a common central hub.  The housing between the turbine and compressor is water cooled from the engine freshwater cooling system.  The engine also supplies lube oil for the bearings, with an optional self-contained oil pump if so required.

The turbocharger on the 498 was mounted to the front end of the engine, with the air intake sandwiched between the turbocharger housing and the intercooler. A duct ran from the intercooler to the bottom intake side of the Roots blower.

An interesting note on the turbochargers.  On most engines, the turbocharger was mounted vertically, as seen in the photo above.  On the batch of engines sold to Cuba (more on this in Part III), the turbocharger was mounted horizontally.  It is unknown why this was done, be it for clearance issues in the building, or some other unknown reason likely lost to history.

Another interesting note, the tug Robinson Bay (again, more on her in the next part), used an 8-498 engine.  However, it appears this engine did not use a De Laval turbocharger, but it looks to be an Elliot-Bucchi design! More questions we likely will never know the reason why to.

The 16-498 engines built for Cuba used a horizontal De Laval turbocharger. The tug Robinson Bay used what looks to be a much smaller Elliot (or so it appears) style turbocharger, but the engine was still rated at 1400HP. (1959 Diesel Engine Catalog Left, 6/1958 Diesel Times Right, J. Boggess Collection). Click for larger.

498 engine plumbing for a Diesel-Electric tugboat (click for larger)

In Part III we will go through every 498-engine built (it was only 58!)


Sidebar: My co-conspirator & former EMDer Jay Boggess & I have concluded that we really started this project about 10-15 years too late!  Too many souls have moved to the Great Beyond – souls that could answer the questions our research has uncovered.  We do not have clear reasons why the 498 didn’t make it (more on this in Part III and IV), only guesses and suppositions and the little bit we have been able to gather talking to guys who worked on these engines in the last few years.  But then, 15 years ago, we didn’t have the internet to bring folks from across the country together, sharing common interests and information. And besides, 15 years ago, I was in junior high living 900 miles away!

Special thanks for this part go to Preston Cook, who sent me a Xeroxed scan of a 498 manual several years ago. I have since been able to acquire several versions of the original manual and service newsletters thanks to Great Lakes Towing Co., who was gracious enough to send a few surplus copies to me when we started this research project. I would love to find a service parts book, and an De Laval turbocharger manual (we only have a photo scan of it) for the Cleveland 498, and would happily pay a good price for them! My contact is in the upper Right of this page.

A Turbocharged Failure – The Story of the Cleveland 498, Part I

June is a the two year anniversary of this blog, and with that I am kicking off a series dedicated to the Cleveland 498 engine. The 498 engine has been shrouded in mystery over the years, and was one of the main driving forces of creating this page. I wanted to do a writeup on the engine, but had no place to put it! Just to put this right on top – if anybody has any stories, recollections, information, photos or documentation on these engines, PLEASE send me a message! I am trying to document these engines as best as I possibly can.

In the days after WWII, medium speed, 2-stroke diesel engines essentially hit a horsepower wall, around 1600HP or so.   A common way or obtaining a higher horsepower rating, was simply to add more engines!  Unfortunately, adding more engines, means more space is being taken up.  So, the solution is to try and get more horsepower out of what you already have. 

Enter turbocharging.  

Now, turbocharging was not a new concept by any means. Many diesel engines benefited by use of turbocharging, but these were almost all 4-stroke engines.  Cleveland Diesel had a single turbocharged 4-stroke engine design during WWII, the 258S (originally a Winton engine) which was a 2000HP direct reversing engine built for subchasers.  Even several WWII aircraft, including the B17 Bomber were turbocharged. Turbocharging a 2-stroke engine was an entirely new concept.  As it is, a 2-stroke requires some form of positive displacement blower for scavenging.  The issue with adding a lone exhaust-driven turbocharger, is in periods of startup, lower idle and acceleration, the engine gets starved for air, as it is not providing enough exhaust to spin the compressor.  Kind of a catch 22 situation.  More on this later. 

The basic operation of a turbocharger from a Garrett-AiResearch manual.

Throughout WWII, General Motors Diesel (Cleveland Diesel, Detroit Diesel & Electro-Motive) was the leading Diesel engine supplier to the war effort.  Cleveland Diesel would supply over 13,600 engines (from 7-1939 thru Dec 31, 1945), be sure to read our history about Cleveland Diesel here: Cleveland Diesel Engine Division – GM’s war hero turned ugly stepsister

Cleveland Diesel WWII Production:
16-278A: 1,930
12-278A: 771
8-278A: 243
6-278A: 554
Total 278A Production – 3,498 engines
16-278: 20
12-278: 352
8-278: 55
6-278: 72
Total 278 Production – 499 Engines
268/268A (all models) – 9,136 Engines
248 (all models) – 268 Engines
Miscellaneous – 239 Engines
Total – 13,640 Engines

The Cleveland 16-278A engine was one of the most widely used engines during the war and peaked at about 1800HP, which was about on par with the EMD 16-567C, which was introduced in 1953.  Alco was already there with their 12-251B, also making 1800HP, however this was a 4-stroke, with a turbocharger already.  Fairbanks-Morse cracked the magic 2000HP barrier in a medium speed engine with the 10-cylinder 38D OP engine by 1950, using only a Roots style blower.  

With General Motors (and Cleveland Diesel) still working closely with the Navy, an experimental test was devised by the Navy’s Engineering Experiment Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland in 1947 to start testing turbochargers.  A proof of concept test was launched, using a Detroit Diesel 1-71 (yes, GM turbocharging has its roots in the diminutive, little 1-71 engine!).   With the proof of concept done, more testing was devised in the early 1950’s at the Engineering Lab using a bone stock 16-278A engine.   A test was devised in which a mock “turbocharger” (another Roots blower) was installed on the test floor, operated by an electric motor, to feed the engine in a simulated and controllable environment.  A goal was set to maintain a cylinder firing pressure in the area of 1300 PSI (compared to the stock 850-1050 PSI) and make 3,000HP. Numerous tests were conducted with various configurations of inner and after coolers, blower sizes, injectors, controlling exhaust timing and use of snorkels for Submarine use. A similar test was conducted using an 8-268A engine as well.   Unfortunately, I have yet to come across any photos of these tests. 

The winner – Using the stock configured 16-278A engine, with turbocharger feeding the Roots blower with an aftercooler made an impressive 2,990HP at its rated 750RPM.  With controlling the exhaust timing, the engine made 3,130HP.  Amazing numbers for a stock engine! Not to mention, a true testament to the engineering of this engine, and its ability to take such punishment.

Performance ratings for the test engine, from Turbo-charged engines for the Navy, by L. Wechsler and T.W. Shipp, Internal Combustion Engines Branch, Bureau of Ships

After the tests, three turbocharger manufacturers would begin working with the Navy to spec out an appropriate design, and how to supply the air to it, be it via individual ducts from each cylinder (common on 4-strokes), divided manifolds or a single manifold using a venturi system.   The results of the testing were concluded in a presentation at the SAE National Diesel Engine Meeting on October 27th, 1954.  The report, High Supercharging, Development of a GM 16-278A 2-Stroke-Cycle Diesel Engine, was presented by Warren G. Payne and Wolfgang S. Lang of the US Naval Engineering Experiment Station. 

Unfortunately, not all the testing was complete at the time of this paper, so it is unknown just how well the testing progressed when the turbochargers were installed on the engine.  What is known, is that testing further proceeded at the Engineering lab on the 16-278A, The Lanova Corporation handled the 6-71 testing in New York, and De Laval Steam Turbine further tested the 8-268A at their own lab. 

The test 8-268A test engine at the De Laval test lab, used a model B-8 turbocharger. From a 1955 De Laval advertisement.

After the presentation, a discussion panel ensued, which is also part of the transcript of the report, in which comments were heard from other engine builders and engineers.  One such stands out:  Rudolph Birman of the De Laval Steam Turbine Co., who essentially picked apart the findings. Mr. Birman states several things, such as:

“Water cooling of the exhaust manifold cannot be tolerated in a turbocharged 2-stroke engine.”

 “All starting, idling and high exhaust back pressure problems are eliminated, however, if the positive displacement blower is retained and the turbocharger arranged to operate in series therewith.”

“There is a similar disagreement between the findings of the authors and those of De Laval with regard to the location of the intercooler in a turbocharger-positive-displacement-blower in series arrangement.”

I do not know if De Laval were working behind the scenes with GM/Cleveland Diesel already (given the time frame, they must have been), however, Mr. Birman’s commentary would essentially be the entire basis for what would become the 498 engines in just a few short years. 

The concept drawing of the Cleveland 498 first appeared in the August 1955 issue of Diesel Times, along with some basic specifications and features.

Another set of comments worth noting, was from A.K. Antonsen and E.L. Dahlund of Fairbanks, Morse & Co. FM was working in-house on their own turbocharger design, starting in 1945 on a basic 10-cylinder 38D 8 1/8th OP engine used in submarines, as well as a smaller 3-cylinder 5¼” OP engine.  Full production of a turbocharged OP engine was not offered commercially until sometime in the late 1950’s (Anybody have a specific year?). The Turbo OP would be a very popular stationary power engine, and would peak at over 4,400HP for the 12-cylinder engine.

FM’s Turbocharged OP engine is still produced today, producing astronomical amounts of horsepower mainly for standby power generation. Note that like the Clevelands, it retains the Roots blower. FM Brochure

As mentioned above, one of the shortcomings of the turbocharger on a 2-stroke is the lack of enough scavenging air.  The issue was addressed by simply retaining the Roots blower, but it was found a smaller one would work (we will get to this more in Part II).   With the testing on the 268A engine, in place of the blower a small hydraulic motor was tested mounted to the turbocharger.  In periods of low RPM, the hydraulic motor would turn the compressor, essentially making artificial air pressure with the turbo.   The pump for the hydraulic motor was driven by the engine.  

An early Detroit Diesel 6-71T engine used for an industrial application.

With Cleveland Diesel now working on a whole new turbocharged engine – GM sister division Electro-Motive was doing the same.  EMD started their own program in January of 1955 to turbocharge their current 567C engine, unlike Cleveland, they did not start by redesigning the entire engine from the ground up. Like the Navy tests, EMD used an electrically-driven Roots blower in a mock test using a 12-567C engine for development purposes, but EMD would design their own turbocharger for the 567C engine.  Instead of using the combination Roots blower and turbo in series, EMD designed their own all new turbocharger, which would be mechanically-driven from the crankshaft through a geartrain during starting, low speed, low power and accelerations, providing scavenging air. The turbocharger is connected to the geartrain through an overrunning clutch.  At certain power levels (approximately Throttle Position 6 on a locomotive), there is enough energy in the exhaust so that the turbo runs faster than the geartrain, the overrunning clutch disengages, providing “free” turbo-supercharging.  This would go on to become a very successful design and used throughout the 710 line (with several refinements of course).   EMD’s first production turbocharged locomotive, the 2400HP SD24, was introduced in 1958. We may do an article specific to EMD turbocharger history down the road, but for now we will stick to the CDED 498. 

The prototype turbocharged EMD 16-567C engine from “Performance of a Turbocharged 567C engine” by A.N. Addie/EMD. Production turbochargers would be used only on 16 cylinder engines, and were given the “D” model. Turbochargers would not be used on 12-cylinder engines until the 645 line.

Union Pacific Railroad was doing their own separate development with adding turbochargers to the 567C used in GP9 locomotives starting in 1955.  Working with Garrett-AiResearch – (later makers of the turbocharger used on the 6-71), a manifold was devised, and four small turbochargers were added feeding into the stock Roots blowers through an intercooler.  UP would also test engines with turbochargers made by Elliot, but using only two slightly larger ones then the Garrett installation.  These tests were successful, and several engines were converted.  UP would send GP9’s to EMD in 1959, which were upgraded with new EMD turbochargers for further testing. Ultimately these test engines were converted to EMD turbochargers, or had them removed.  I urge everyone to read Don Strack’s Utah Rails page on the Omaha GP20’s for much further information on this test program. Please be sure to visit the links below.


Omaha GP20’s, Union Pacific’s GP9 turbocharging program
Omaha GP20’s Diesel Era V7 #6, 11/12 1996

The quad Garrett turbochargers installed on the 567C. Note the complex plumbing for the exhaust and charge air going to the blowers. Union Pacific Photo, Don Strack Collection.

The Elliot installation was a little more simplistic, with a single exhaust manifold feeding a pair of slightly larger turbochargers, with each one feeding one of the blowers. Union Pacific Photo, Don Strack Collection.

The Cleveland 498 made its public debut at the General Motors Powerama Festival.  Powerama was held August 31st-September 25th of 1955 in Chicago, Illinois.  The event, “A Worlds Fair of Power”, would be a giant showcase of products from General Motors, including Cleveland Diesel, Electro-Motive, Detroit Diesel, Euclid, Allison, GMC Truck & Coach, Fabricast and Frigidaire.  On display were numerous engines, pieces of heavy equipment, locomotives, and even the Great Lakes Towing tugboat Laurence C. Turner, and the Fleet Submarine Tautug SS-199.

The first Cleveland 498 displayed at Powerama. I have my doubts that this was a full production engine, as it just does not look “right”, especially the exhaust jumpers and manifold. I think this was more of a mock up model for display. Note the differences just in the cutaway model on the left. The first production engine used commercially was still several months out. Unknown photographer, VDD collection.


Stay tuned for Part II, where we will discuss the 498’s design features and specifications.

This will be a four part series, the links of which will appear for each post as they are added.
Part II – Engine design features & specs
Part III – Uses and installations
Part IV – The last one, Tug Idaho

Note: A complete set of bibliography and notes will appear in Part 4

When Bad Things Happen I

As the saying goes, Ship Happens. Sometimes, worse then others. In todays case, this is a piston and rod on display at the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum from Erie Lackawanna 310, an Alco S1. The engine in case is an Alco/McIntosh & Seymour 539, a 4 stroke engine with a 12.5″ bore and a 13″ stroke. A valve dropped while the engine was running, and decided to do a little dance in the cylinder.

http://www.hoosiervalley.org/

A Roots Blown Experimental Alco?

Last year, I picked up several rolls of Navy Microfilm full of engine goodies, two boxes of which were marked as “Alco 16-251A Experimental Submarine Engine”. I pulled them out when I got them, but did not go very far, as it is literally every blueprint sheet to build this engine. Thinking it was just another 251, I put them back in the box.

Last night I dove into them a bit deeper, and naturally the LAST frames on the reels (It looked like a roll of film exploded in the living room) had an elevation drawing. Cool! I devised a way to scan these, although frame by frame on my flatbed. It is a project, but it works. I need to draw up and 3D print some holders to do it more efficiently.

Click the following for larger versions.

After studying the drawing for a second, I noticed the exhaust was not connected to the intake side at all. Wait, 251’s are 4 stroke, and have a turbo…where is the turbo? There is none! That’s a roots blower on the front!

Front mounted on the engine is a blower. The discharge from the blower feeds into a raw water cooled aftercooler before going into the intake side of the engine block.

So, naturally, this raises plenty of questions. I can not find a lick of information about this engine in my usual places, so if anyone has anymore clues as to its history, shoot me a message. I don’t know if this was meant as an emergency generator engine, or propulsion. If anyone wants to build one… I have 600+ plans!

Loss of a Museum Tug – Pegasus

It was sad to hear that this past week, the tug Pegasus made her last trip to the great shipyard in the sky. Figure I would throw together a little post about a cool old vintage tug that would meet an unfortunate end this week.

The Pegasus was built in 1907 by Skinner Shipbuilding in Baltimore, for Standard Oil Company, as the S.O. Co. 16. The tug would later be renamed the Socony 16, and eventually wound up as the Esso Tug #1 after several rounds of company reorganizations. McAllister Towing of New York would purchase the steam powered tug, and rebuild her. Converted to Diesel propulsion, an EMD 567 was installed in place of the large engine and boiler. Now renamed the John E. McAllister, she would join the companies massive fleet doing shipdocking and other harbor work. McAllister would also purchase sister tug Esso Tug #2, and rebuild her the same way, now renamed as the Roderick McAllister. Another Socony sister tug – the Socony #14, would find a new home with Philadelphia’s Independent Pier Company, and was renamed the Jupiter. She also is a museum tug in Philadelphia.

Unknown photographer, Courtesy of Dave Boone
Ernie Arroyo Photo, Courtesy of Dave Boone

By the 1980’s, towing companies were selling off the last of the older, converted steam tugs. Numerous smaller companies would benefit from this, and would give many of these older tugs a new life. In 1987, the John E. McAllister was purchased by Hepburn Marine Towing of New York, where she was renamed as the Pegasus.

Photo by Jay Bendersky
Photo by Jay Bendersky

Hepburn Marine would do various work throughout the city, including spending several years towing carfloats for the New York Cross Harbor Railroad. Hepburn would ultimatly charter the tug James E. Witte from Donjon, the former Central Railroad of New Jersey tug Liberty for doing this work – a tug much better suited. Pegasus would be retired in 1997.

The Tug Pegasus Preservation Project was formed, and spent many years actively restoring the tug from the hull up. Volunteers spent several years actively restoring various parts of the tug, and the Pegasus would tow the Lehigh Valley Barge #79 (The Waterfront Museum – see link below) numerous times around the city. I was only ever inside the Pegasus once, a few photos are below.

Pegasus at the 2009 New York Tugboat Races
Wheelhouse
Inside the deckhouse.
Galley

McAllister would repower the tug with a WWII surplus LST package – a 900HP EMD 12-567ATLP, with a Falk (Falk designed, however several contractors during the war built them, including Esco and Lufkin) reverse-reduction gear. This was one of the most common tug repower packages used after WWII, and I am slowly working on a large post about them.

The engine in the Pegasus was originally installed in Landing Ship Tank (LST) #121, shipped by EMD 6/16/1943. LST 121 was launched August 16, 1943 by Jefferson Boat & Machine. 121 would spend her career on the Pacific front and was present at the Marshall Islands, Iwo Jima, The Marianas, Western Caroline Islands and the Tinian Capture, earning 5 battle stars. She would be sold for scrap in 1946.

The Pegasus project fell dormant, and was looking for new caretakers and leadership for several years. Unfortunately, nothing would come to fruition. The museum ship world is one of the hardest aspects of preservation out there, and it gets harder every year as these boats get older. We have lost numerous preserved tugs just in the last few years. Times are tough, but be sure to help support your favorite museum ship. Every one of these groups needs all the help they can get.

Links of interest:
John E. McAllister/Pegasu
s – http://www.tugboatinformation.com/tug.cfm?id=659
LST 121https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/16/160121.htm
(Former) Website of the Preservation Projecthttps://web.archive.org/web/20191222165321/http://tugpegasus.org/index.htm
Tug Jupiter, Socony #14http://philashipguild.org/
Tugster posts on the Pegasushttps://tugster.wordpress.com/category/pegasus/
Waterfront Museum (LV #79)https://waterfrontmuseum.org/

Alco’s and a WWII Survivor

In the days leading up to WWII, the US was beginning to build up the fleets across the board, from Submarines, right down to Tugboats and various auxiliary craft. The Navy came up with a tug design (largely based off of the TAMS Inc. designed tug Thomas E. Moran) for the new fleet of “YT” or “Yard Tug”, which would be used mainly for assisting various warships into dock in ports across the world. Known as the Woban class, the first few tugs would be built at various Naval shipyards on both the East and West coasts. The second batch of tugs was built by Consolidated Shipbuilding, located on the Harlem River in New York City. These Diesel-Electric tugs, built in the Spring of 1940, were powered by twin Alco (McIntosh & Seymour) 539 engines – however I do not know if these were indeed 539’s, or the later model 540 that was introduced during WWII, which used a welded crankcase designed specifically for the Navy. The tugs used Westinghouse electrical gear, and were a rather spartan design.

YT-145 Montezuma , the class leader would become a poster boy for Alco, used in several advertisement’s. The second tug, YT-146 Hoga, would become well recognized for her service in Pearl Harbor in the December 7th attack, spending the day as a fireboat as well as pushing burning ships aground.

This design of tug would be built in astounding numbers during the war, being powered by either the above mentioned Alco’s, Cleveland 278/278A engines, or Direct Reversing Enterprise or Fairbanks-Morse engines.

After the war, the Hoga would go on to become the fireboat for the City of Oakland, where she served until the early 1990s. The tug went into the Susian Bay reserve fleet, and was held for preservation for a number of years. In 2005, the tug was donated to the City of North Little Rock Arkansas, and was finally moved their by barge in 2015. While it is great to see her finally preserved, one must question why she would be preserved so far from where she spent her entire career.

Jay Boggess was able to get the photos above of the Hoga at the museum, unfortunately the Hoga is not yet open to the public, at least the interior. Hopefully at some point some good engine room photos of her will surface.

In doing some editing of this, I came across a quick engine room tour of the Hoga from the museums facebook, check it out here: https://www.facebook.com/AIMMuseum/videos/214860566483056

Also, here is a gallery of her while still in the reserve fleet, including some in the engine room: http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/08146a.htm

Some links to check out:

General Plans of these tugs – https://maritime.org/doc/plans/ytb142.pdf
Navsource: YT-145 Montezuma – http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/08145.htm
Navsource: YT-146 Hoga – http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/08146.htm
Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum – http://aimmuseum.org/

Comparing the 278A to the 567B Internally

One thing I am often asked by railroad friends when discussing the Cleveland 278A, is “Just what is the difference between an EMD 567, and what parts crossover?” Well, its a simple answer, They are two very different animals, and have zero parts crossover. I figured I would throw this gallery together of doing a full gasket renewal on a 278A, which shows the differences, at least in the cylinder and head area of the engine. Something to keep in mind – the 201A was the father of both this engine, as well as the EMD 567. EMD (EMC) engineers went off and designed the 567 from the mistakes of the 201A with the goals of a railroad engine, and Winton went off and designed the 248 which was the marine service engine, which evolved quickly into the 278/278A as I have mentioned in past articles.

The 278A is best compared to the EMD 567B, in that it uses a water deck style liner. The 278A uses an individual water deck area specific to each cylinder, not one section of the block per say, both of which are sealed with O rings, which cause leaks. Leaks are bad, especially when water gets into the oil side of things. Lets dive into a 278A and go through the process of finding a leak, and how to fix it, and compare the engines along the way. Click on all of the below images for larger versions.

The first sign of trouble, is generally when you see water coming out of the airbox drains. This at least narrows it down to one side, so then you start by pulling all of the covers off, and looking for Niagara Falls.

The leak itself can come from two very different issues – The liner O rings are leaking, as seen in this image. Follow the brown trail of water from the bottom of the airbox, leading up to the liner. A second way of spotting the trouble, is when blowing down the engine, you will get water vapor (or solid streams) coming out of the blow down. This is a second area that leaks, the O rings between the head and the liner. When this happens, water will run down into the liner, and out the intake ports in the liner into the airbox – if the piston is down. This will also cause the expansion tank/water side of the engine to pressurize. More on this shortly. A cracked head can cause this same issue, which can be a bit more troublesome to pin point, especially if it only does it when they are warm.

A third source of water issues on a Cleveland can be in the exhaust elbows. EMD’s have an integral exhaust path, whereas the Cleveland’s have individual exhaust jumpers between the head and the manifold which are all water jacketed. Look closely and you will see pitting in the elbow, causing water to leak into the head and liner through the exhaust valves.

The fourth area of concern, and this is NOT Cleveland specific – is when a liner lets go. In this case, the engine was not blown down before startup, and the liner violently let go (it is a sound I will never forget). The side of the liner pushed out, thus the entire water system dumped out in a hurry into the airbox, once again, Niagara Falls resulted. Now, Cleveland’s have a pressure relief valve on each head, thus when this happened, the valve opened (and shot a solid stream of water out) preventing the connecting rod from bending. EMD’s don’t have this. The only damage from this was the piston rings were broken by the chunk of liner that failed. And on that note – If your running an old engine, take the 5 extra minutes and BLOW IT DOWN every time! It can save you some serious trouble!

Now, we drain the engine down..

…and start to take it apart. Fuel and overspeed lines are removed, rocker assembly removed, exhaust jumper removed. In this case we pulled the injector also, but it is not required.

Sometimes it takes some creativity to get all the tools in there in certain spots on these engines. In this case a chunk pf bent pipe from a handrail was used as a cheater bar. Hey, it worked! 4 nuts hold down the head to the block, and 6 bolts hold the head to the liner. EMD’s the liner sits inside the block, but the Cleveland’s sit on top of the block, and do not use shared crab nuts.

No difference between them here – Lots of rags, and piles of parts!

With the head removed, we see one of the biggest downfalls of the 278A. There is a half moon shaped groove that fits a round rubber seal. When these seals start to go, the engines leak oil, and badly. In the 1950’s, the US Navy devised a tool and a process to push the head back onto this seal before you torque them down. This helps, but not that much. This, is why almost every Cleveland is covered in oil. The valve cover gasket seals (two per cover) are not any better, and are very temperamental. EMD built a box around their oil leaks…

Bottom of the head. Nothing special here. The left is toward the center of the engine. The large hole to the right is where the injector control rods goes into the head.

Now we have the head off. Pulling the head is typically the hardest part of the operation, as the stud holes will fill with oil and sludge, as well as carbon – more on that one shortly. Cleveland’s use direct air start, meaning no starter motor. 300PSI (up to 600 was used on the Sub’s) is directly admitted to the head in order of timing in 8 of the heads – that’s what the small line is just above the right most, lower head stud.

With the head off, we are at a crossroads. If the liner O rings are leaking, you need to forge ahead and pull the liner. If you are getting water through the liner, and the expansion tank is bubbling off – that means you lost a fire ring, which is a solid copper ring that seals between the head and the liner. When this fails, it burns out any number of the 12 small rubber O rings that seal the water side of the head and liner on small copper ferules. We dubbed these the little rubber douchebags. If the liner is still sealing good, you don’t HAVE to pull it, but it is typically good practice to just replace them all while its apart.

To pull the liner, you need a liner lifting plate (we had to make one, we now have an OEM one..). The piston crown has a small tapped hole for an eyebolt, thus you can secure the piston to the plate, and lift them out as one assembly.

But first, you need to pull off the bearing shell from the connecting rod. Cleveland’s use an individual rod and bearing for each cylinder, EMD’s double up with their fork and blade style assembly.

In this one, we pulled the piston out as the rings needed to be changed. 278A’s use a traditional wrist pin assembly, whereas by the later 567A engines, EMD switched to the floating piston.

Pulling the liner out – Cleveland’s have two liners available, a cast style, and a later fabricated style, which are interchangeable. The two ferrules that are closer together are the markers telling you this is the outer edge of the liner.

Liner and piston/rod is out. The rusty area is the where the water enters the liner.

Looking down through the airbox, you can see the water deck area. Water enters through the water manifold that runs through the airbox into the liner. The EMD 567C and Cleveland 498 engine simply used a bolted on extension from the manifold pipe directly to the liner, eliminating these O rings. These O ring seats can actually be changed, but it is an enormous project. You can see here how Cleveland’s have individual connecting rods on each connecting rod journal.

A full gasket kit for a Cleveland, which encompasses all new O rings for numerous things, cork seals for the covers, exhaust jumper gaskets and many other small gaskets.

With the O ring grooves cleaned up, the new O rings are installed and set in a bead of silicone, which helps seal them, as well as keeping them from pulling out when installing the liner back into the block. The liner is lubricated with dish soap to help it slide in.

With the liner back in, a new copper head gasket is installed, new fire ring, and new O rings for the water jumpers and oil seals on the rear of the head. A large cork circular gasket seals the injector control rod hole and the head. EMD’s essentially have all of this combined onto one gasket. Note that the liner is not fully seated down – This will be remedied when the liner is bolted to the head, and it is all cinched down.

With the head back on, everything else goes back together fairly quickly. The head is bolted to the liner with 6 bolts, which are torqued to 175 ft lbs, (290 on the 567B), and the 4 bolts holding the head get torqued down to 650 ft lbs (1800 on the 567B). The exhaust elbow uses two copper clad gaskets, as well as two smaller gaskets for sealing the water side (Cleveland’s are water cooled exhaust). It is a bit tricky to put them on, as the lower bolts are fine thread, and the upper bolts are coarse thread, so you cant mix the bolts up. You essentially have to roll the jumper on, starting with tightening the lower bolts first, in order to compress the gaskets, and line the top up.

Hopefully this answers some more of the mechanical questions of how the 567 and 278 engines compare internally. Down the road I may do something a bit more detailed on this and cover the other portions of the engine, and how they are different, such as the blower, oil and governing systems. Something to note about the Cleveland’s – they require no special tools to take them apart, outside of a torque multiplier.

Old Advertising X – Nordberg Radials

One of the coolest engines made – the Nordberg Radial. The engine, a 14″x16″ was offered in both 11 and 12 cylinder models, in spark ignition gas, Diesel, and Dual fuel options. I would love to find a manual for one of these!

Click for larger

I don’t foresee doing any articles on these engines as they are well covered on the web. Be sure to check out these pages for more on these engines:
https://oldmachinepress.com/2014/01/12/nordberg-stationary-radial-engine/
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Nordberg/NordMenu2.htm

The Winton 201 at the Century of Progress

Happy New Year! We shall begin this year with a brochure – the Winton 201 engine used to power the Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago, held in 1933-4. I was able to get a copy of this a few years back, so here is a scan. Click them all for a larger version.

It even came in its original, unused mailing envelope!
Winton News

Eugene Kettering would state in his 567 development paper the following about these engines at the expo:

“The boys worked all night and hoped the engines would run all the next day. It was no fun, but we learned fast and a new design study was soon underway at Winton. To mention the parts with which we had trouble in Chicago would take far too much time. Let if suffice to say that I do not remember any trouble with the dip stick.”

Needless to say, the engines did work at the end of the day, and provided an important stepping stone for Winton and the developments with which would become the 201A engine, to be used in many railcars, locomotives and submarines. While the engine was not entirely a success in the long run, it did lead to the development of the Winton 248 engine for Marine use, and the 567 engine for locomotive use, and the Detroit Diesel 71 line.

Amazingly enough, one of these engines is a survivor, on display at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL. It would become a trade show display for General Motors through the years. Unfortunately, the sister engine to my knowledge disappeared.

I truly hope one day we can see a Winton 201A run again for display.

Tug Profiles – M. Moran

A few months back, I made a post on the tug Luna and Venus, of the Boston Towboat Company, dubbed Historic Tugs I. The intention was to highlight museum vessels and whatnot with historic documentation and photos. To change that a bit, I am going to start a new series covering just tugs of the 1930’s-1970’s, including both new and repowered boats, using several styles of propulsion. This first tug profiled, will be the M. Moran.

Not much has to be said about Moran Towing, one of the oldest and well known tugboat companies in the world, founded in 1860 by Irish immigrant, Michael Moran. Moran Towing is a well established company, using a vast fleet of tugs, ranging from small 80′ direct reversing Canal tugs, to large, WWII surplus ocean going 165′ tugs, many of which were on charter from the US Navy. Fast forward to 1960: These were all single screw tugs, never exceeding much more then about 2000HP. Moran Towing had a long history of working with TAMS Inc., and later the General Motors Marine Design Section under naval architects Richard Cook and later Joe Hack.

In the era, just about every tug was considered “Ocean Going” (a scary thought..), however in reality only the larger, WWII era tugs really were just that, with the rest being glorified harbor and coastal tugs. Joe Hack would design Moran a 120′ tug, with a 31′ beam, and an 18’9″ depth. A new first for Moran was also introduced – twin screw propulsion.

Click for larger – CDED Drawing, collection of VDD

The tug was named the M. Moran, after the founder of Moran Towing’s Michael Moran. She would be the 7th tug named for him. The M. Moran was designed for an 11,000 mile range, or anywhere in the world – holding a capacity of 75,000 gallons of fuel. The M. Moran was built in Texas, by Gulfport Shipbuilding.

Click for larger – CDED Drawing, collection of VDD. I acquired these original drawings several years ago, they are several feet long! Thanks to Jay for scanning them.

The M. Moran had a rather unorthodox layout, using two split levels underneath the wheelhouse, giving her a rather odd, low profile appearance, but affording a massive amount of interior space. 9 full staterooms, two of which were dubbed a radio room, and a sick bay. A large central galley was located over the engine room – thus she lacked any actual upper engine room, also known as a fiddley. Behind the galley was a space for a 75HP Almon-Johnson towing machine.

Diesel Times – Collection of J. Boggess

You guessed it – the M. Moran was Diesel-Electric, powered by a pair of Cleveland Diesel, 1750HP 16-278A engines, with Allis-Chalmers main generators – all WWII surplus equipment, giving her a rating of 3,500HP. The engines were factory rebuilt, and were originally installed in US Navy Landing Ship LSM-529 (engine #55810), and LSM-324 (engine #55284). Ironically the other engine from LSM-324 would also go to Moran, re-powering the steam tug Michael Moran. The tug had a pair of Detroit Diesel 6-71’s for generators, as well as a piggyback shaft generator belt driven on top of each main generator. The tug had a pair of 9′ 10″ wheels, and a rated bollard pull of 95,000lbs.

Diesel Times – Collection of J. Boggess

The wheelhouse of the M. Moran featured American Engineering electric-hydraulic steering system, and the same Lakeshore throttle stands used by Cleveland for a number of years, of course modified for twin screw. A Sperry gyro, and radar rounded out the interior – pretty spartan, even for its time. While the maneuverability of Diesel-Electric is well known, an interesting feature of the M. Moran – being twin screw, was the cross-compatibility. The tug could run on only one engine, and power both propulsion motors when running around lite tug, somewhat of a throwback to the Destroyer-Escorts of WWII (where the propulsion motors in the tug originated), where various combinations of engines could power certain groups of motors.

Diesel Times, 10/1961 – Collection of J. Boggess

The M. Moran was placed in service on 9/27/1961, and her very first trip, just a week later – would take her all the way to Pusan, South Korea, towing the 30,000kW generating barge Resistance, a WWII LST converted into a powerplant. The M. Moran was well covered in Cleveland Diesel’s Diesel Times newsletter Diesel Times, as well as several issues of Moran Towing’s own newsletter, Tow Line.

Moran Towing Publicity Photo
Moran Towing Publicity Photo
Robert Lewis Collection

By the late 1960’s the M. Moran would gain a large upper wheelhouse. She would spend many years running around the Gulf area towing large project cargo, as well as the occasional foreign tow. The M. Moran was briefly renamed as the Port Arthur for a brief time in the early 1970’s, likely operating under a charter.

Robert Lewis Collection

Moran would go on to order a 2nd tug, to the same design as the M. Moran, named the Esther Moran. The Esther would be built in New York, by Jakobson Shipbuilding. At the same time, Jakobson also built the Patricia and Kerry Moran, which used the same hull design, however it was shortened 12′ with the tug being setup for harbor work, thus lacking the towing machine and split levels. These three tugs would be the last new tugs powered by Cleveland 278A engines. Cleveland was rolled into Electro-Motive in late 1961.

Robert Lewis Collection

Both the M. Moran and the Esther were not Cleveland powered very long. Both tugs would be repowered with EMD 16-645E engines with air clutches by the end of the 1960’s, giving them a new rating of 6,300HP – a massive amount of power at the time. Joe Hack would revisit the split level design with a pair of tugs for Gulfcoast Transit, the Katherine Clewis and Sarah Hays.

Will Van Dorp Photo

In 2000, Moran sold both the M. Moran and Esther Moran to Canada’s McKeil Marine. The M. Moran became the Salvager, and the Esther as the Salvor. The Salvager became the Wilfred Seymour in 2004, later being shortened to Wilf Seymour. Both tugs operate in the Great Lakes, and both would be converted into Articulated Tug-Barge combinations, with the Wilf getting a Bludworth coupler, and the Salvor a JAK system. The Salvor was laid up in 2018, and the Wilf is still in service.

Will Van Dorp Photo
Painting by Carl G. Evers

Noted maritime artist Carl G. Evers would do several paintings of the M. Moran, including one of her in Korea. Several of Carl’s paintings have graced the cover of Moran’s Tow Line.

More on the M. Moran and Esther Moran:
https://tugboatinformation.com/tug.cfm?id=772
https://tugboatinformation.com/tug.cfm?id=746
https://gltugs.wordpress.com/wilf-seymour/
https://gltugs.wordpress.com/salvor/

Note – Yes, I know the caption text is not centered under each photo. It is a glitch in WordPress that I have yet to figure out..