Pennsy goes with EMD and abandons long time chosen builder Baldwin.

[Overmod]

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?

[Miningman]

Thanks for the information re: dynamic brakes, don't believe everything you read as gospel.. Boneheads indeed. 

[DS4-4-1000]

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

[Overmod]

Miningman

Have 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? 

[Overmod]

rcdrye

The 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?

[Miningman]

Redrye- An entire large fleet of AS16s or AS616s would have had that Pennsy "look" to it. 

[rcdrye]

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.

[Overmod]

Miningman

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?

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.

[K4sPRR]

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.

 

[rcdrye]

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.

[Miningman]

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?