Actually, probably comparatively little problem negotiating foot-of-hump to top-of-hump vertical curves, for the same reason Alco's high-speed mods to the Mallet chassis worked; the differential is taken up in the equalization and, presumably, the articulation joint between underframes could be eased a bit vertically if there is too much unloading of the outer axles or trucks.
Seaboard's Centipedes could MU with anything else, at least in back - in fact all of Seaboard's Baldwins could. The gave them an assignment flexibility the drawbar-linked pairs of PRR's BP60/BH50 could never hope to have. I seem to remember that NdeM's did not MU, but as single units they didn't take up as much shop space when things went wrong. NdeM had the usual turbo fireworks problem with the 608SC engine. To fix that Baldwin developed the "Mexican Hat" piston - named for its shape, not the Centipedes' owner - about 1953, which fixed the problem of unburned fuel "souping" the turbocharger. As seemed to be the case for lots of Baldwin's engineering, it was too late for most of their customers to care. Nonetheless NdeM's Centipedes lasted into the 1970s, long after anybody else's.
I could see problems for Centipedes even as hump pushers. Imagine what would happen with that long cast frame when they went over the vertical curve at the crest of the hump.
[quote user= Besides pushers on Horseshoe did they try anything else?
[/quote]
After the PRR downgraded the Centipedes even their assignments in helper service was plagued with problems. The non-powered front pilot trucks had a bad habit of derailing trying to negotiate track curvature when on a hard push. It did not take long for them to be placed in storage. Some did return to limited service in helper service on more suitable tracks and ocassional hump service in eastern PA. Other short lived assignments included ore trains.
As far as I know Seaboard was delighted with them, and so was NdeM, both being railroads with comparatively light track but wanting higher speed (and perhaps valuing shorter overall power length).
The real tale, of course, is in the economics: Baldwin went to conventional carbody-on-trucks construction just as fast as they could, and the massive cast underframe/multiplicity of wheels, while having plenty of advantage for electrics, was recognized as overkill for most contemporary dieselization even by the end of the War (see Dolzall for what Baldwin was doing).
Had the Essl locomotive with 408s or even 412s been made to succeed, there would have been a big reason for the design. I have always thought this was associated with the UP business (this was just after the experiment with condensing steam turbines). 6000hp Good ... 3000hp meh...
Great stuff. Thanks for the response and time. They were pulled off the Broadway right quick.
Well they got stuck with 24 of them. Besides pushers on Horseshoe did they try anything else? Does anyone know why the UP rejected/cancelled the 2 they ordered? A very bad blind date, best forgotten?
Did Seaboard make out any better with them?
Intended as humor only.
The 'double Centipedes' were intended as diesel T1s, just as the T1s were steam GG1s. Any consist anywhere will go 100mph with a single locomotive, no special tinkering or doubling hills necessary...
The S1 was overkill from the pre-Depression idea PRR had to run regular fleets at very high average speeds, getting rid of all its historic old bottlenecks with modern construction that would make the efforts of Rea and Cassatt and Atterbury, significant as they were, part of true high speed. (The last vestige of this was the 'passenger' V1 Loewy was pushing circa 1947; it took Government incentive and money to achieve a hollow shadow of the idea with fancy MUs from New York to Washington over two decades later...
Now the S1 specs involved 1000 ton consists at steady 100mph. Contrast that with doubleheaded K4s that could get to about 93 before starting to develop scary guiding and riding defects. Think of it as two Milwaukee Atlantics instead of E6s under a common boiler ... and then tell me how long a train is represented by 1000 tons of the lightweight aluminum cars Mr. Klepper so liked in the Fleet of Modernism ... and who has platforms that long? I have little doubt even with an effective FA over 5 this would be developing high-speed slipping and a host of other issues at 'max weight' even if track were ideal.
Could it be fixed? Perhaps. But even the T1 at 880 tons was 'surplus to many requirements'. ASSUREDLY 16 great axles of power was more than needed even with primitive wheelslip control, just as 2 sets of 2 was too few. I do not think the Centipede pairs were anywhere near as wack as the M-1s (and I am prepared to be as forgiving of railfan misstatement of fact regarding them just as I am for the production T1s) -- the problem was detail design on the one hand and fixing problems expediently when recognized on the other. If there is ANY source of unreliability in your first-string passenger power it's bad; when it takes hours to troubleshoot what may be a simple issue, it only matters that the train was delayed. And if there are a thousand little places a surprise showstopper can develop and they get worse and more numerous with mileage or age... you will be finding more and more excuses to use things that don't have all those failures...
Meanwhile, if you no longer have trains that need 6000 go at 100 mph, a Dilworth solution looks increasingly attractive. Support it well ... and provide attractive financing options as well as reliable support... and you will not be too surprised at Centipedes going where PRR could use their alternate advantages...
Well thats depressing. Were the Centipedes not put up front on the Broadway at the start? There must have been some kind of test run beforehand. Guess they didn't get too far on the Broadway. The S1 ran some passenger trains into Crestline, no? here and there, nothing regular I assume.
No third entry...want to keep this with the biggest cast frame behemoths ever. I suppose the T1's sort of qualify and sure as heck not the E7's, but no to both. Did the Centipedes successfully conclude any passenger run start to finish? You really don't think either could handle even 5 miles flat out? I think the S1 from about the 2.5 mile marker on.
Baldwin must have been embarrassed, hope they made some amends that cost them, although the demise of Eddystone was far too severe.
Answer: nobody.
Centipede train has dramatic low-speed acceleration with all those Westinghouse motors; one consequence of the engine architecture is there's enough available power even with the engine at idle to make power sufficient to take the light engine to 25mph or better.
Theoretical point at which rising S1 cylinder hp meets Baldwin constant-power hyperbola coming down is probably around 40-45mph; 'peak' of the horsepower curve for the S1 nominally higher than that (don't have the stats available to me). So when the S1 gets to that speed its train will be well behind the Centipede's train but closing the gap.
At which point the ground-fault relay on one or both Baldwins starts kicking out, the engine starts 'souping', and it would be looking bad if it were not for the inception of high-speed slipping on the S1 forward engine that damages the valve gear and impairs practical lubrication and ruins the fire and pulls some boiler structure loose with the additional draft. (Not as bad as the S2, but no fun).
Now, as noted in Thoroughbreds, don't put a third column in for the E7 powered train; it likely won't be up to speed by the next station. But it will get there...
OvermodBut how much of early GE was precisely the cheap front-loading price advantage covering for a decreased running reliability and weird somewhat-over engineered tech that could go obsolescent alarmingly fast?
It's no accident that U-boats went a lot faster than EMDs of the same generation. Soo Line's 10 U30C's (800-809) showed up with great promise for the hotshot trains (by Soo's standards) between Schiller Park (Chicago) and Shoreham (Minneapolis). First downgraded to Chicago transfer duty, later transferred to Twin Cities transfer duty so they were near the shop, rarely straying farther than Duluth/Superior. They were eventually sidelined often enough that Soo bought out their leases before they expired (the lease option was part of GE's perceived price advantage) and traded them in. They were out of road service before most of the F7s.
rcdrye For every penny an EMD cost in maintenance, an Alco cost one and a half, an FM two and a half, a Baldwin three, a Lima four...
This unreliable-Lima business is very sad to hear because the detail design of the engine and other physical systems on the locomotive was specifically done for long life and DFM. Up to now, I had thought the "problem" with them was that all new production was deprecated almost as soon as the ink was dry on the BLH merger, in favor of far less maintainable invented-in-Eddystone designs. It did not help that the Hamilton engine had no sensible upgrade oath to second-generation or larger power -- that was for free-piston engines -- but I thought it was a better choice for the intended service than the highly massive Baldwin/DeLa Vergne-derived engines were.
Baldwin's 606A and 608A were respectable but very late.
So late in fact that they missed the prospective cut for second-generation power. Heaven knows the Belgian license-built engines were competitive into the Seventies ... for European and export power needs. (And better standards of build quality and DFM, etc,etc,etc.) I would argue that a 1500hp engine with a jewelry crankshaft that size is not a good fit apart from outfits like SMS that care about the advantages and work out the goofiness.
GE was the first to end up about even in cost, but without EMD's parts network in the beginning.
But how much of early GE was precisely the cheap front-loading price advantage covering for a decreased running reliability and weird somewhat-over engineered tech that could go obsolescent alarmingly fast?
Quoting rcdrye " PRR seemed to be determined to put a few of each at major terminals."--spread the misery?
Johnny
In the end it was maintenance that made the biggest difference once the equipment trusts were paid up. For every penny an EMD cost in maintenance, an Alco cost one and a half, an FM two and a half, a Baldwin three, a Lima four... Baldwin's 606A and 608A were respectable but very late. GE was the first to end up about even in cost, but without EMD's parts network in the beginning. Baldwins, Limas and FMs were also needy, and didn't work well when less than adequate maintenance was applied.
It's really interesting to look at system assignments for various builders. On railroads as different as Soo Line and SP, power from minority builders tended to drift toward shops that "liked" them and knew how to deal with them. On the SP, that meant that FMs ended up in the Bay Area, and Alcos and Baldwins ended up in the LA basin and Oregon before pollution laws forced them out. PRR seemed to be determined to put a few of each at major terminals.
Nice ...fascinating.
How about a mythical race from a standing start between the S1 and a Centipede set. Say 5 miles out of Crestline on the Fort Wayne division.
Who wins after 5 miles on straight track...5 miles, standing start.
The Shark conversions were interesting. One 'traditional' thing about Baldwins was that it was difficult if not impossible to use the Westinghouse main generator, as it was wound to work with a prime mover that peaked just over 600rpm. And another was the whole air-throttle MU control 'thing' -- Baldwin made a compatibility option but it was fairly expensive and its engineering details varied by unit 'as built', an infuriating thing for shop forces.
The three Shark rebuilds were essentially contemporary Alco road switchers above the deck, and bulletproof Westinghouse 370s below. Note how easily the improvement to 1800hp was accommodated.
The problem was that you still had only 1800hp, in stylish but not easy to see out of carbody, in an era rapidly moving toward high unit horsepower for four-axle units and higher unit horsepower on six axles for the jobs the rebuilt Sharks would do.
I might have toyed with the idea of something like the LRC locomotive engine and trucks as a rebuild for dedicated TrucTrain service if the urge to rebuild older power for 'tax' purposes had persisted in this respect a little longer. But that would still be a locomotive suited to niche service.
Likewise there were some interesting possibilities with the BP20 'platform', either with two 251s or one enormous one. Remember that the freight Shark conversion came a year after the very enlightening testing of a big six-motor 2400hp Alco on PRR commuter service in New Jersey, so there was great opportunity for converting the passenger Sharks that ran precisely there for so long instead of 'buying new' In the event, of course, all the trains-off in the mid-Sixties freed up all sorts of paid-for Es (first E7s and then E8s) and the golden opportunity of government capital subsidy was just getting under way (CNJ GP40Ps being one very successful example), so there was a kind of 'hole' just in the years PRR was retiring and rationalizing weird nonstandard power -- even fairly good, or 'salvageable' power -- to get their expenses manageable etc.
The Centipedes were a high-speed chassis with low-speed engines. They were a reasonable concept as such as late as Kiefer's report in 1947, but only if you needed relatively high speed on relatively light track with short length for the horsepower. That was just the opposite of the Dilworth design philosophy in the F-unit era, and I think it's fairly easy to see which was a 'better' answer to railroad managements of that time.
Centipedes would make full sense only as a more reliable version of the Essl concept: 6000hp or more in a single unit. I don't think there was any good way to get that many 251 ponies in that chassis and cool them too... and even then you still have traction-motor blower ducts that don't line up on curves, about a thousand brakeshoes needing fairly frequent replacement, and the whole 6000hp shebang out of service if any of the physical systems went bad.
NO point in rebuilding 'in kind' to 3000hp -- as with the Alco Shark rebuilds, not enough bang for the buck. (But confess, it would be fun to see a pair of them with Shark noses...)
Did the Pennsy ever consider conversions, yes they did. In 1958 three Baldwin Shark freight units were damaged and repaired by ALCo. The engine, main and auxiliary generator, and control system were all replaced with equipment found with ALCo 1800HP road switchers. The running gear remained original, the engine was an ALCo 251, GE generators and Westinghouse traction motors.D
This attempt by the PRR was found to be successful but they also discovered from a cost standpoint it was not worth it thus refraining from any major conversions in the future.
Due to the unusual configuration of Centipedes, mandating a mated pair to operate as a single unit, I doubt any conversion would have been feasible or cost effective.
Did the Pennsy do any of these conversions?
Did they ever consider, for a brief fleeting moment anyway, of repowering the Bp 20's ( Passenger Sharks) or the Centipedes? I suppose that would involve even the trucks and traction motors, utilizing only the carbody. They were certainly unique and quite visually stunning. Regardless, they were toast before Penn Central was formed.
On second thought, a Bp 20 and a Centipede in PC black with the mating worms logo would be a great disappointment to what they used to look like.
Looking back it's such a shame we did not keep a set of each. They would be rock stars today.
Overmod Miningman Unusual and slightly weird looking RS3m. I believe what you have there is a fairly typical example of a 'DeWitt Geep'. There is a 567 under the elevated cowling required for the greater engine height. These were successful conversions that lasted many years...
Miningman
Unusual and slightly weird looking RS3m.
I believe what you have there is a fairly typical example of a 'DeWitt Geep'. There is a 567 under the elevated cowling required for the greater engine height. These were successful conversions that lasted many years...
I'm surprised that the NYC Limas made it into Penn Central paint. Don't think any of those quite handsome Pennsy big centre cab units Lima/Baldwin did. Obviously as Overmod stated, the 567 conversion was a success so they shouldered on, keep 'em going and use 'em up.
Yes indeed a resurrection of a true builders name for GE would be fitting indeed.
I mean besides building a nation and winning the war, what else did Baldwin, Lima, Alco do? I suppose Alco sort of lives on, as a ghost anyway, at Bombardier.
My opinion is that those are exactly the kind of questions we need in the quiz to attract more participants.
Knew that one would be too easy for the quiz!
A shame Lima never really got their feet under them in diesel production.
Wouldn't it be fitting if the successor company to either Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton or ALCO bought GE's locomotive business?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Definitely Lima's! They looked real sharp when new. RIP Lima
And the other (hint, they're not ALCOs...).
Another more unusual rebuild. Guess who originally built this?
Miningman Unusual and slightly weird looking RS3m.
I believe what you have there is a fairly typical example of a 'DeWitt Geep'. There is a 567 under the elevated cowling required for the greater engine height. These were successful conversions that lasted many years... unlike the NYC project to put a 16-567 in a PB as a test, similar to something ATSF tried in a trio of subsequently famous PAs, for a very short time.
Interesting Penn Central lashup including first and second generation Diesels and the failed added colour to the mating worms logo. There was some criticism that their loco's were too stark looking so they added red into the PC but its soon faded to an awful shade of pink. Nothing was going right for Penn Central at this point.
Overmod Even harder to believe is that some C636s actually were delivered from Alco in PC paint; hard to remember they were so new when you'd see them on heavy freight. One of these, going through Trenton in the early Seventies, had the loudest exhaust I have ever heard in a locomotive, more painfully experienced than heard. And then there was the noble experiment of Hi-Ad trucks in both B and C styles, cutting-edge modern and fast as hell to a 10-year-old ignorant of anything like harmonic rock on worn-out track... Air starters, those I never quite 'got'. Except perhaps as budget alarm clocks, only need one for a whole subdivision and no need for a snooze bar ...
Even harder to believe is that some C636s actually were delivered from Alco in PC paint; hard to remember they were so new when you'd see them on heavy freight. One of these, going through Trenton in the early Seventies, had the loudest exhaust I have ever heard in a locomotive, more painfully experienced than heard. And then there was the noble experiment of Hi-Ad trucks in both B and C styles, cutting-edge modern and fast as hell to a 10-year-old ignorant of anything like harmonic rock on worn-out track...
Air starters, those I never quite 'got'. Except perhaps as budget alarm clocks, only need one for a whole subdivision and no need for a snooze bar ...
The Australian C636s had air starters too...
I remember one in the shops at Nelson Point Port Hedland that was very reluctant to start, and being connected to the shops air system was running for minutes until they decided to try something else...
Before GE adopted alternators, the generator was just used as a starter motor.
Despite the CP Rail M630 in the video, Australian M636s had electric starters, that were a lot quieter.
I've ridden hundreds of miles in C636s and M636s fitted with Alco HiAd trucks and they always rode very well. On one occasion I leaned way out of the cab window in a trailing unit to watch the movement of the big coil springs in a sharp curve (well, sharp by our standards).
When BHP took over the former Goldsworthy Yarrie line, built with jointed 94lb rail, but upgraded with second hand welded 132 lb later, some harmonic roll was experienced from the HiAds which by that time were under C36-7s that had been built on the C636 underframes. There were six Dash 8s that had been built new with GE floating bolster trucks and they were found to behave better on the rougher track.
But to return to air starters... I recall heading out to Sydney Airport in the late 1950s to farewell our next door neighbour who was the senior engineer of the Royal Navy's Fourth Submarine Squadron which had been based in Sydney since WWII and remained there until the RAN got its own submarines in the 1970s. We were used to seeing poeple of to the UK by ship, but this was the first time anyone flew all that way.
The aircraft was a BOAC Bristol Britannia powered by Bristol Proteus turboprops. The first engine was started by by a ground compressor unit and i think that was the loudest thing I'd ever heard up to that time. I think they were able to start the other turbines using bleed air from the first, and the sound of the starter was muffled by the considerable whine of the first turbine. In those days you could stand on the hardstand separated only by a low fence from an international flight.
I was reminded of this in Port Hedland in 1976 when a Lockheed Electra arrived with a computer system for the port conveyer belts. There being no ground compressor unit within a 1000 miles in any direction, one of the Allison turboprops was left running for the two hours it was on the ground, and this became annoying some five miles away inside the railroad offices.
As to the sound of the C636, the 16 cylinder 251F had a single pipe exhaust manifold, unlike the four pipe manifolds on the twelve cylinder 251s on the state systems. Anyway, the sixteens produced a chugging noise very similar to the GE FDL engines quite different from the sound of a twelve cylinder.
There was a load bank at Nelson Point and I recall walking past a C636 locomotive at full throttle with my ears covered and noticing that I could feel the vibration through my steel capped safety boots.
Peter
I'm not afraid to admit that the PC was my favorite road. I started railfanning in 1970 at the age of 11 or 12. The PC Pennroad branch in Detroit was only a block away from my house. That summer, we flew to visit my aunt and uncle in New Brunswick, NJ. They lived only 4-5 houses from the NEC. They laughed when I'd run for the front door every time I heard the howl of a train. I was an early subscriber to X2200S and loved taking roster shots. The PC Junction Yard always had a lot of dead power and the employees were always friendly and helpful. Several years later, when I was driving, I got stuck in the snow at the engine terminal. One of the MoW employees hooked up a chain to his truck and pulled me out. The good ole days...
PS--Anyone got any old issues of PC Railroader magazine they want to sell or photocopy?
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