In the mid fifties Pennsy put on one last big push to replace the remainder of its steam fleet with a massive order for diesels. Baldwin (BLH) with its long time and friendly relationship with the Pennsy desperately needed the order for 600+ locomotives. They lost out. Pennsy went with EMD and its Geeps. What would have been if Baldwin did get the order? Would Baldwin have survived to a next generation locomotive. Would the locomotives essentially been all Sharks? It's projection and revisionist history but what is the likely outcome?
Kind of hard to remember at this distance but Pennsy also bought pretty good quantities from Alco-GE, Fairbanks-Morse and even Lima-Hamilton. Westinghouse's decision to stop producing locomotive electricals in the mid-1950s meant that Baldwin(-L-H) and FM had to stand in line behind Alco for GE's output. EMD could promise delivery dates - and meet them - while the others were projecting long lead times. Southern Pacific at one time expected to place a large order for RS11s but Alco was unable to meet SP's required timing, so the order went to EMD for GP9s. Both Pennsy and SP had Baldwin-GE units, but nowhere near as many as their EMD counterparts.
Another factor that had risen up by the late 1950s was maintenance, with Alco-GE per-mile costs slightly above EMD, and Baldwin and F-M costs double or more. Railroads that had shops that cared for lots of Baldwins or F-Ms had better results since the shop forces knew how to deal with them, but Pennsy's and NYC's practice of mixing them in with other makes all over their systems made for expecially bad economics for the minority makes.
Lets go back prior to 1956, the PRR solicited bids for diesel locomotives of which Baldwin was a participant. They lost out to EMD and their GP9. By 1956 the PRR was also facing a financial bind, therefore Baldwins bid in terms of finance, could not compete with EMD's cheaper and popular locomotive. If they did get the bid this could have resulted in some relief for the struggling builder.
Remember in time, Baldwin had to rely on GE for equipment as Westinghouse left the manufacture of locomotive component building. Who knows for sure, but if Baldwin had improved its finances due to the PRR accepting their bid they may have had a change in fate and became more self reliant as to components needed for diesel manufacturing.
As to them being all sharks, very doubtful. The road/switcher was the popular choice as the GP7 and 9 changed the future of dieseldom. So they would have to become more competitive in that sense and modernize their locomotives to accomodate industry progress. Costs for all railroads was becoming an issue, so for the larger roads such as the PRR or NYC or B&O, etc., it would be an important consideration in what they purchased. EMD at the time was meeting both needs.
If their ol business buddy's the PRR had awarded the bid maybe Baldwin would not have made the moves to survive like they did in the late 50's and early 60's. All of which as you know, failed.
Interesting post there Miningman.
MiningmanWhat would have been if Baldwin did get the order? Would Baldwin have survived to a next generation locomotive. Would the locomotives essentially been all Sharks?
Where is Will Davis when he's most needed?
I had not realized that Baldwin bid on an order that size, that late. Or that their engine philosophy, even as 'highly boosted' as it could be, gave an engine that either in cost or performance would be comparable with contemporary EMD practice ... or would be heavier and larger and 'less modular' than the EMD building-block approach of the time.
On the other hand, this comes right 'on the cusp' of the introduction of second-generation horsepower; it's only a couple of years later that PRR is testing the six-motor 2400hp Alco in commuter service (of all things!) and finding it potentially valuable there. No Baldwin 600-series engine is, in my opinion, capable of sustained operation in that range, and I doubt that there was much of a perceived future for heavy slow-speed engines by 1956.
On the other hand, it might be very interesting to extrapolate from what Baldwin was designing in 1956 to a different 'what might have been' - use of high-speed engines (which Baldwin did have developmental experience with, and had license to build (from Maybach) combined with 'hydraulic' transmission of some sort. Now, I suspect that Baldwin would have trouble with this, particularly when trying to incorporate the effect of different wheelwear on adjacent axles or trucks with the characteristics of MU air throttle (or MU to trailing diesels if the 'compatible' control system were used) -- let alone long-term build quality with pressure hydraulics when Baldwin had trouble with 'oil and water control' in much less critical circuits.
As noted, the locomotives wouldn't have been Sharks, or in a styled carbody of general RF-616E shape (just as Alco noses would have been more 'World Locomotive' styled and not FA style if built in 1956). All that's really necessary here is to look at why PRR bought Geeps instead of more F units ...
Of course, very likely all that's really necessary to know are the terms that EMD offered PRR on the order, which I suspect would have 'trumped' any Baldwin offer even if Baldwin could produce a locomotive technically superior to EMD in all the salient respects. There might also be concern that a company as 'shaky' as Baldwin was might be a poor supplier for follow-on service and support -- although it might be noted that Hank Rentschler was proud of the fact that the company supplied parts and support all the way through the early Seventies for the PRR Baldwins that remained in service.
I suspect some of the documentation on this survives at the Hagley, probably enough to answer this question with some assurance, but I suspect it is not indexed in such a way as to permit asking the staff without incurring search charges, and my likelihood of getting there for a research day is about zero for the foreseeable future.
The Baldwin 608A was a fairly decent engine, especially compared to the 608SC. Several of the railroads that bought AS16s or AS616s operated them into the 1970s, comparable to contemporary Alco and FM products. As Overmod points out, there were very few "over-the-road" users using them in the kind of services often assigned to GP9s. Maybe the only use of that kind was on NdeMs re-engined (or at least upgraded) DR8-12-1500/2 centipedes.
Redrye- An entire large fleet of AS16s or AS616s would have had that Pennsy "look" to it.
rcdryeThe Baldwin 608A was a fairly decent engine
Not only a good engine, but one that was license-built by Cockerill for quite some time. In a sense it was not as ill-suited for railroad service as EMD folks try to make out, as most locomotives don't suffer from relatively high engine weight per hp. Here is Will Davis' discussion of the 600-series engine development
People tend to forget that the Centipede was shorter and, I believe, possibly lighter than the 'equivalent' hp in EMD form at the time it was introduced. (This was mentioned in Kiefer's 1947 report on comparative motive power.) The problem there was all those wheels, and all that weight in one unit, and all those brakeshoes wearing out, that took the whole shebang out of service while stuff was being remediated.
Of course, the Centipede was a high-speed locomotive, and PRR had no particular interest in the things it could do by 1956. On the other hand, it was highly aware of the problems involved with jointed underframes in buff by that point, both on the electrics and the Centipedes. I for one loved both the AS16 and 616, but then again I didn't have to run them or work on a fleet of them...
Matthew Imbrogno, if he's still posting here, will know more about how SAL and NdeM changed out or upgraded (wasn't there substantial block change?) their original engines to 608As.
Out of curiosity, did Baldwin propose a 'cabless' option to counter the GP9Bs? Or did those only come into the picture later?
Have read that the AS 616s did not have (or offer) dynamic braking. was this a key flaw in its offering? Also read that if dynamics braking was in the design then it may have persuaded Westinghouse to stay in the game. Any thoughts?
MiningmanHave read that the AS 616s did not have (or offer) dynamic braking.
Wives' tale from boneheads.
Note from PRR: "Employees on class BS16m, and/ or BS16ms, shall not pass by dynamic brake grids on front hood while the locomotive is in dynamic braking."
SP had a potload with dynamics, at least one of which is still with us.
Here is the 'business end' of another example.
McCloud also had RS-12s built with dynamic, and one is at Travel Town, but I digress...
PRESERVED:
Pity we couldn't have saved 5239 (scrapped as late as 2009!)
Westinghouse made their own decision to exit the rail market -- remember, they were telling Baldwin what to do at that point, not the other way round.
Miningman Have read that the AS 616s did not have (or offer) dynamic braking. was this a key flaw in its offering? Also read that if dynamics braking was in the design then it may have persuaded Westinghouse to stay in the game. Any thoughts?
Southern Pacific's AS616 locomotives were equipped with Dynamics. I expect others were also
Thanks for the information re: dynamic brakes, don't believe everything you read as gospel.. Boneheads indeed.
Now, it's possible that what was meant is that "Baldwin did not originally offer DB as a factory option when the units were introduced" - the surviving demonstrator, I believe, does not have them even though it was apparently labeled by the museum as so equipped (in 2014).
But that would be far from the first time that a locomotive model as introduced lacked features that were provided later -- SD40/45-T2 anyone?
OK..very good clarification. Not sure what the average Diesel locomotive cost in the fifties. I'm sure there was a wide range of prices and options. I'm going to guess $250,000 but maybe that's high. In any case a very substantial order to Baldwin instead of EMD could/would have changed railroad history. Maybe kept GE/Alco together longer or gave GE second thoughts of going it alone. I'm also sure EMD offered an "easy payment plan" thus insuring they get their hooks in. Still it would have been something if the PRR was loyal ... That order was much needed at Baldwin to stay relevant. Also these were the days of back room deals, mysterious shenanigans and a great deal of ever changing and growing stress in the whole industry. Makes one wonder what we don't know about.
Baldwin's AS-616 demonstrator 1600 ended up on the Duluth South Shore and Atlantic as their 211, later Soo Line 395. It had dynamic brakes, the only unit from the pre- Soo Line rosters that did.
Had Baldwin received a very large order from Pennsy what was the Baldwin answer/offering. Essentially the RF-16 in a different car body?
SP did have 1 DRS6-6-15B and 5 AS616B's on its roster, I don't know if that was a special order or if they were catalog items.
By 1956, GE was already offering the Universal line for the export market, it was a matter of time before a domestic version was offered.
As far as the order that Baldwin didn't get, EMD offered a pretty good lease arrangement on the GP9's that were ordered. Considering PRR's financial situation, this may have clinched the deal.
If Baldwin did get that order, I would imagine that it would have been for AS16/AS616's. Carbody units were already starting to fade out by 1956.
MiningmanHad Baldwin received a very large order from Pennsy what was the Baldwin answer/offering. Essentially the RF-16 in a different car body?
Not RF16 anything. I thought I mentioned already that the age of 'covered wagon' carbodies for freight was over by that time. I'd think it would be the moral equivalent of the GP9, the AS16 (similar to the units that were, in fact, sent to PRSL, but without steam generators or passenger gearing). In those days 6-motor units were meant for heavy freight service, and there was no particular problem absorbing the available hp in just four motors with whatever passed for wheelslip detection or compensation in that bygone age. No need for the longer and heavier chassis of A-1-A units for PRR, either.
Personally, I'd like to have seen an analogue of the modern widecab engine, with a modified Shark's nose (to give a full front platform, or at least an approximation like that of the modified FP45s) and an AS16's long hood. The 608A engine was narrow enough that you could probably have approximated a Draper taper in a RF16 carbody ... if that had been invented in that era.
Not likely that either would be built 'to a price', though ... and what I know about that order is that it was largely won on price.
I would certainly expect that the 'compatible' 8-notch electric control would have been specified, instead of the standard air throttle rather than as an additional control feature, again to minimize overall cost.
Overmod- Yes you did address that question earlier. Was just making sure! So then, an AS 4-16, a four axle and shorter in overall length version of the AS6-16, with a draper taper, a less protrusive snout but a snout nonetheless and a porch up front. Sounds like a Geep killer to me. You should, or your equivalent, have been the head of Baldwin motive power, we may have modern day Baldwins plying the rails today.
Just to be clear: what would have been ordered, and built, would be AS16s with normal hoods, the least expensive thing in the catalogue. No fancy rails like a P5a, no fancy cab window trim like the FMs, probably the 'simplified' hoods with the square and not radiused-and-ground-smooth corners that you see on the very late Baldwin road-switchers. Might have been some stylistic features by '56 in common with the Rc-4s, like rectangular ports for twin sealed-beam lights instead of large round lights, with the idea that standardizing on one kind of headlight assembly across models would save money, and an order this large would justify not keeping 'compatible part numbers' with existing PRR Baldwins (but would permit sharing the same light and socket p/ns with Geeps)
Might have been interesting to see if Baldwin could have sold "AS-16B" units to PRR in the late '50s to compete with the GP9Bs. (And yes, we do have verified instances of GP9Bs leading on Morrisville turns ... on the high-speed part of the Corridor, no less! Think of it as a very, very long hood leading...)
Now I have a very clear picture of what could have been. Not sure if they would turn out to be as reliable as the GP9 but I'm sure Baldwin would have sent a guy out to change lightbulbs, no charge. I'm also quite certain there would have been AS16 B Units as there were for the AS616.
B Unit in the lead eh? Well I have one in PRR on my N scale pike and modules so I'll try it out at the next meet. See what the guys say! I will refer them to you if I am ridiculed.
I can hear them now..."What the?"
Just tell them 'Morrisville turn' -- and enigmatically have them Google it if that doesn't shut them up.
I am tempted to tell you to show them this
but of course there is a little more to that story.
A little bit off-topic, United States v. General Motors Corporation. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence in 1964. Excerpt from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1961948194FSupp754_1781/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20GENERAL%20MOTORS%20CORPORATION
The offense charged in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the indictment is:
18. For many years continuously up to and including the date of the return of this indictment, the defendant has monopolized the aforesaid trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of railroad locomotives in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” as amended commonly known as the Sherman Act.
19. General Motors has monopolized the above described trade and commerce by acquiring and maintaining power over price in the sale of railroad locomotives and the power to exclude its competitors from the railroad locomotive industry. General Motors has exercised its power over price and has excluded competitors from the railroad locomotive industry by its acts and conduct. In amplification of the charge, the indictment alleges that for many years, through such activities as selling at a loss to stifle competition, price and production juggling, applying economic pressure on customers and suppliers, unlawful location of plants and facilities, unreasonable advertising expenditures and generally by becoming too big in the affected commerce, the defendant has run afoul of the antitrust laws.
Thanks Wanswheel...makes you wonder what the real backstory was. There must have been some specifics and allegations along with anecdotal accounts. They didn't go forward with this based on nothing. As Overmod stated about that Davis fellow- "the stories I could tell". We may never know "the rest of the story" as Doug Harvey would say.
Maybe Overmod, or someone, could shed some light on whether or not there were problems at Baldwin in terms of quality control, construction and overall engineering. I have read ( perhaps boneheads again) that there were quality control problems with the T1 built by Baldwin. The haphazard wiring in early Baldwin diesels seems to be rather poor thinking and the numerous hoses and oil leaks everywhere getting into the works, especially in those floor "troughs' you would think should never have been in the first place. There are accounts of other rather avoidable and "should have known better" design and in construction. Some horror stories. Right or wrong? Myth or real?
The Baldwin AS-616 was largely passe by the summer of 1952. Espee writer Joe Strapac covers what was wrong with the AS-616 in his Southern Pacific 1970 Motive Power Annual on page 5. Baldwin could not meet Espee Mechanical Department requests for changes to the trucks and withdrew from the 1953 competition for new six axles. The six axle units Espee purchased in 1953 were all Alco RSD-5s and EMD SD7s. The then new Super AS-616 which demonstrated in 1953 sold two units in the US and 20 to NdeM. The two Super AS-616s demonstrators were sold to Pennsy in early 1954 along with that last RT624. Simply put Baldwin didn't have anything to offer after 1952 to progressive US railroads.
One major failure of Baldwin's engineering I'm aware of was in the double-ended diesel cab units they built for the Jersey Central's commuter service, the "Jersey Janus" locomotives. Baldwin very foolishly placed the radiators in close proximity to the electrical cabinets so if and when there were cooling system leaks, guess what happened? When the CNJ tried to sell the units they had no takers and ended up using them for parts doners for other Baldwin diesels and then scrapped what was left.
One thing we have to remember about GM's success in the diesel market is they had several things going for them, a superior product of course, but also a sales, parts supply, and technical assistance team second to none. GM wanted the business and went after it aggressively and had the wherewithal to make it happen. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say Baldwin and ALCO were just plain blindsided by the GM juggernaut and didn't know what hit them.
Interestingly SMS Rail in Paulsboro NJ uses vintage Baldwin diesels almost exclusively and they love the things!
www.smsrail.com
There was an article in TRP magazine a year or two ago by Lehigh Valley veteran Mike Bednar about the 'Valleys Baldwin switchers. According to Mike the Baldwins were good pullers and very popular with the crews, the 'Valley only retiring the units when parts availability became problematic.
So, it would be a bit unfair to say all the Baldwins were no good, some were very good indeed.
Oh, and those T1 flaws Miningman mentioned? The flaws were in the first two T1's Baldwin produced. Got that from a great article on the T1's in "Steam Glory 3" by David Stevenson. David said an experienced steam builder like Baldwin should have known better.
Firelock76When the CNJ tried to sell the units they had no takers and ended up using them for parts donors for other Baldwin diesels and then scrapped what was left.
But don't forget the one that was built into one of the shops -- was it E'port? -- nominally as a source of something like shop air from the compressor? I think there was actually a brick wall constructed in front of the thing to hide it from prying weasel eyes. (I saw a photo of the installation, so I know it 'happened', but this is now many years later and I don't remember the details...)
That would have been double-ender 2004. It was around as late as 1964 providing steam heat for a CNJ building at the foot of Johnston Avenue near the Jersey City passenger terminal, and then for a time it was at the Communipaw roundhouse providing electric power. I believe the curtain came down on 2004 not too long after that.
The Pennsy bought locomotives from all the builders, either in an attempt to diesielize ASAP, also perhaps in fairness to all the builders. There was an opportunity early on for Baldwin to be the dominant builder for Pennsy but EMD's lead in most aspect's was insurmountable and Baldwin made a lot of design errors. One would think that by 1950 or so Baldwin could get it together and be competitive and actually I think they were. Just a hunch but there is more to the big story than we know, as Wanswheel has put forth.
MiningmanOne would think that by 1950 or so Baldwin could get it together and be competitive and actually I think they were. Just a hunch but there is more to the big story than we know, as Wanswheel has put forth.
There are a number of 'conspiracy theories' out there about EMD sharp business practices. One that was current circa 1963 was that GM would preferentially assign routings for rail shipments of its new automobiles -- at the time a large and fairly lucrative traffic source -- to railroads that were faithful (and probably repeat) purchasers and exponents of EMD locomotives. Another was that EMD tapped into the power of GMAC to be able to set up 'sweetheart' financing deals for new locomotives outside the regular constraints of banks or equipment trusts. I'm not sure why these things qualify as 'abuse' of market power.
It also pays to note that the case wanswheel mentioned was brought, probably with no little political motive, during the Kennedy and Johnson years, and went about as far as the tinfoil-hat conspiracy that GM was using NCL to buy up trolley lines to convert them to GM buses. It may pay to remember the exact controversy that led to the court decision against GM with respect to NCL, which had to do with sweetheart purchases of GM equipment rather than competitive bidding open to other manufacturers. Are there, in fact, court cases decided against GM (and not reversed on appeal) with respect to locomotives?
Baldwin was not in a position to finance locomotives in that era, and my understanding was that their lack of reliability began to hurt them very badly in the eyes of the banking and finance people by the early '50s. This was specifically noted with respect to dieselization of the NYO&W, where the understanding was that even large sets of F units could be easily resold almost at need, and therefore there was no risk of stranded cost should the railroad encounter difficulties. I have no doubt whatsoever that Baldwin locomotives would not have similar resale 'fungibility'; indeed, by 1956 I suspect no few railroads would have been delighted to peddle their Baldwins to 'greater fools' for almost any amount better than scrap value.
It might be interesting to compare this with GE, which torpedoed Alco by deciding to make their own line of diesel-electrics, had trouble over the years building locomotives 'to a price' that chronically broke down, was sometimes very specific about railroads not using competitors' products to switch their facilities, and broke into the big time by leveraging its capital-credit resources much as GM did with GMAC.
I have wondered at times why Westinghouse, which surely at the time had the will to compete with GE in consumer equipment (did GE have anyone like Betty?)
not put together financing arrangements for locomotives using their electrical gear built by their controlled subsidiary ... or set up or rename a division to manufacture locomotives if the Baldwin/Lima 'brands' were seen as too retro or too run by failure-prone people at the time.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter