While reading Albert J. Churella "From Steam to Diesel" ( link earlier in this thread from Wanswheel ) the author points out over and over, at least 20 times, that steam locomotives were put together with very loose fitting parts and literally shook themselves to pieces. That the tolerances in machining and craftsmanship were 10 times less than that acceptable in diesels. That spare and replacement parts were always ill fitting. That steam locomotives were very loose contraptions. That mass production methods used in diesel builds were inherently far superior to the methods used in steam, where individuals and craftsman, that may be having a bad day, introduce numerous errors and sloppy work whilst machining staybolts or whatever.
By the 17th time referencing this problem, you could figure this would explain why some locomotives in an order, or of particular class, were better steamers than others, it is a wonder how a locomotive ever made it over the road from Azusa to Cucamonga without falling apart.
You would assume that at the end of this run there must have been a phalanx of pipe fitters and men with giant wrenches putting the thing back together again.
It's too bad we don't have any steamers left like a N&W J or a Union Pacific 4-8-4 or Challenger so we can witness this spectacle ourselves.
There must have been a few fellows left from the halcion days at Baldwin or Lima during the war years, that upon reading this in 1998, shed a tear or two.
Point taken Overmod! That would sort of make Microsoft the EMD and Apple the GE. Looks as if Blackberry may get out of the hardware altogether.
MiningmanThat is the dichotomy I struggle to understand.
Happens today. Research in Motion/Blackberry, anyone?
If you stood outside of the Eddystone Complex in 1945 and told people that in about ten years from now 75% of the buildings would be demolished and the rest sold off and Baldwin no longer makes locomotives they would have carted you off to the asylum.
That is the dichotomy I struggle to understand. That amount of experience, importance to the national interest, and the industrial might to simply just vanish.
Well the 2 practices that you pointed out certainly don't seem unreasonable at all. I was thinking more along the lines of the "hanky panky spanky" file.
I suppose that Baldwin and Lima, even with all those countless years of service in providing the finest in locomotive production, design and innovations just didn't have the right pieces to face the challenges ahead. Still think that BLH could have made it to the second round.
Westinghouse is a whole different story and could fill volumes and volumes. Quick version 1st page Westinghouse, last page CBS.
Thanks again for the input.
http://www.historyandmemorabilia.org/2014/04/ronald-reagan-visits-general-electric.html
OvermodI 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.
Take a look at Kirkland's "Dawn of the Diesel Age" or "The Diesel Builders" volume on Baldwin. Baldwin had a modern diesel engine on the test bed when Westinghouse bought controlling interest in Baldwin and promptly scrapped all of Baldwin's diesel research. They even replaced the design staff with Westinghouse people. Westinghouse promoted development of a clone of the Junkers aircraft OP engine to compete with the FM OP. When the problems of the OP became obvious to everyone Westinghouse bailed out and left Baldwin to die.
I am with you on my opinion of Westinghouse. The list of companies that Westinghouse executives mismanaged into bankruptcy is long.
Thanks yet again Wanswheel. That kept me up half the night reading away.
Especially like the line "Schpeterian gales of creative destruction".
and..."customers like Ralph Budd did more to push GM into the locomotive industry than did the top management"
It does read as a bit biased on EMD's side. There are instances in the text where what's good for the goose.....well you get the drift, however, I am sure the corporate mindsets, design errors and poor construction/quality at Baldwin, Lima, FM, and to a lesser extent Alco, were as noted, however, those tales seem a bit "thick". The put downs of Samual Vauclain are particularly harsh and over the top.
The absolute perfect timing, all the time. every time, over decades by EMD/GM versus the perfect bad timing, all the time, every time, over decades by everyone else is a bit rich as well.
FM story is amusing.
If that's the way it occurred then so be it. Different story up here in the Great White North, ...and I'm leaving the files open
Thank you for putting this in proper perspective.
Overmod the case wanswheel mentioned was brought, probably with no little political motive, during the Kennedy and Johnson years,
the case wanswheel mentioned was brought, probably with no little political motive, during the Kennedy and Johnson years,
Excerpt from From Steam to Diesel by Albert J. Churella (1998) (The Federal Government Intervenes, pages 129-132)
https://issuu.com/cruelty73/docs/from_steam_to_diesel
On April 12, 1961, EMD became a part of this “attack on bigness” when a federal grand jury indicted GM for alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act regarding its activities in the locomotive industry. In February 1959, Attorney General William P. Rogers, an Eisenhower appointee, intiated an investigation against EMD, and this led directly to the 1961 indictment. A grand jury, empaneled on November 17 of that year, met for the next seventeen months, while the new Kennedy administration continued and expanded this antitrust action.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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...)
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.
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.
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.
Had Baldwin received a very large order from Pennsy what was the Baldwin answer/offering. Essentially the RF-16 in a different car body?
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.
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.
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