R. T. POTEET wrote:The only really plausible explanation for why Baldwin diverged into this double-cabbed 'baby-face' concept is that they hoped to tap a potential market for a 2000 hp unit which would be ordered by those railroads which only needed a 2000 hp locomotive on a train which would not be required to be turned at the end of the run.
It used a "standard" 2000 hp passenger engine as a basis and the "standard" babyface carbody. It was just double ended. I believe this was a custom order for CNJ. Baldwin was willing to customize its engines for individual railroads. They also were extremely inovative in their designs. Those gen-set switchers that are the latest thing, Baldwin had a 2-D-D-2 version back in the 1940's. Not to say that all its inovations panned out, many were dismal failures.
They only marketed six of these double-cabbed 'baby-face' units north of the Rye-o Grand-ay; their single-cabbed 'baby-face' offering only netted a grand total of two sales.
Not quite. The single ended baby-face carbody was used on many engines. They were bought by the MP NYC, CNJ, SAL among others.
CNJ was once described as a railroad that went nowhere and didn't do anything when it got to the end of the line; they apparently liked their units fine but with a relatively short mainline there was never a reason to go out for any kind of a follow-up order.
The double ended baby face units were designed for commuter service out of Jersey City. By definition a commuter run is a short run, so the length of the CNJ had nothing to do with it. They filled a niche market. A single commuter engine that didn't require turning facilities at the terminus.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
On mainlines diesels usually run together in multi-unit lash-ups. Whenever the same set of two or three engines work together for a period of time, the railroad usually sets them up so the 'end' unit is facing forward, so two engines will often be seen running back-to-back rather than both facing forward. That way, the engines can pull a train back the way they came without having to be turned, just go to the cab of the other engine.
I'm sure what I said in my earlier (as it turns out, off-topic) post about the unions could help explain the "babyface" units too...trying to build a huge stand-alone engine so you wouldn't have to run two smaller units and thereby risk having to have two separate crews for them.
Its not necessarily the height of the hood, its which end if front.
It would be safer to drive your car backwards, because it puts more crushable stuff between you and whatever you hit. But would you want to drive 200 miles trying to face backwards and still operate the steering wheel and the pedals?
Almost the same thing with the engines. The control stands are easier to operate in the forward direction. Conventional control stands are almost sideways so they almost bidirectional. Engines that have a "comfort cab" have a dashboard style control stand that is very difficult to operate in reverse (which is why many roads are going back to the more flexible older style control stands). Plus if you are running backwards the signals are on the off side of the hood and their view will be blocked by the hood.
There is no rule or law that prohibits engines from running backwards. Single unit trains do it all the time. It is more of an inconvienience and there may be a gentleman's agreement or policy to avoid it on a railroad.
branchline wrote: Hi Dave,Who made the Hi-nose GP40?Malcolm.
Hi Dave,
Who made the Hi-nose GP40?
Malcolm.
EMD
Then Atlas
I read (here I think) that some roads (eg NS) kept the high short hood as an optional extra because someone manadated that low short hood units should be run short hood leading "most of the time". Some roads preferred to not Y or turn locos and keeping the Hi nose allowed them to work either way round... I don't know if this is correct?
I do like the NS Hi-nose GP40 I picked up cheap this year though!
Many early diesels had the long end forward (GP7, RS1, 2, 3). By the SD40 era (early 1970's) the short hood was generally forward, except for the N&W and SOU which continued to put the long hood forward. Grade crossing protection was the primary reason. By the late1980's pretty much everybody was short hood forward (with the exception of 'legacy' units).
Hello Dave,
Thanks for that info,talking about diesels like SD9 forinstance ,I notice that roads like the Norfolk Southern had the long end designated as the front was this for crew protection? it must have been like driving a steam locomotive also they had high short hoods rather than low hoods.
My mistake, re-reading his original post it was the babyface units. They weren't necessarily "experimental", just a variation of the "standard" Baldwin engine with two cabs to serve a unique market. the CNJ wanted a quick turn around with out having to turn around. the Reading actually had double ended trains with a observation car at each end and Pacifics with faired tenders that fit around the obs ends (the Crusaders).
They were as successful as any Baldwin diesel. Electric engines also tended to be double ended until the 1950's and later (E-33, E-44, E60C, etc). Very few diesels were double ended that were visible. many roads had dual control stands in the cab (RDG, MP, SOU, etc) so the engineer could operate from either side, but the hood was single ended. If you look very closely at a exRDG SD45 you can see the front wall of the cab sticks out about 6 in to accomodate the dual control stands.
Hello Den,
Yes it was the babyface diesels I was referring to ,I thought these locos were unique too and yet electric locos such as New Haven's EP5,Pennsy's GG1,AEM7 and HH8 have a cab at each end and of course my favourite the Budd RDC.But Britain being rather small had no need for multi loco lash-ups for passenger or freight and we now have high horsepower units of class 66 built in London,Ontario which though impressive doesnt appeal to me.It took us a long time getting around to push-pull trains with some combination cars being rebuilt wih cabs and controls and the new generation of push-pull now have a baggage car with control cabs and Virgin Rail here have replaced them with the Pendolino 125mph tilting emu's.Since our British Rail was privatised in 1994 our rail scene is a lot more complex than before.Thanks anyway for your information.
I will speculate that Branchline is referring to the double CABBED Baldwins. I don't think CNJ had any of the Baldwin transfer diesels, but they did have CNJ 2000-2005, model number DR-6-4-20. One problem with this kind of locomotive is the extra cost of the extra cab--things like controls, windows, on and on.
A version of this double cabbed concept we see a lot today is the back-to-back pairing of diesels used in wayfreights.
Ed
Hello Branchline.
The locomotives you're talking about ( I think? ) were DR 6-4-20's with double cabs (nicknamed babyfaced Baldwins), there were 6 of them built around 1949. they had six wheel (A-1-A) trucks and were used primarily on passenger trains, With the double cabs there was no need for turning at end of their runs which was a big cost and labor saving. Unfortunately Baldwin found it to cost prohibited to build the special units.
I'm not an expert on the loco's by a long shot, I just always thought they were pretty unique. They had other loco's with the " babyface cabs" these just happen to have two.
Hope I was helpful.
Den.
branchline wrote:In 1985 I had a Red Ball brass Baldwin double ended diesel which I had inteded to paint in blue and orange of Jersey Central,I would like to know if the Baldwin was an experiment into the viability of using dual ended locomotives?
I assume you mean the HUGE Baldwins of the forties-fifties?? At that time, railroad union rules said each "locomotive" had to have an engineer and a fireman. That was fine for steam, but with diesels where several engines could be m.u.'ed and controlled by one engineer, it didn't make any sense. That's why F units came in A-B sets with a drawbar so they could be considered one engine. Baldwin responded by creating their big "transfer" centercabs, which were basically two full-size road switchers with one cab in the middle.
Anyway, they weren't really an "experiment", they were fairly successful although only about 30-40 were built. Some of them lasted into the very early seventies.
Thanks for your info,here in Britain double ended locos are the norm with class 31 built by Brush,class 37 by English Electric (these have a super exhaust note and send out plenty of co2) and class 47 by Brush some class 47 locos have been refurvbished and re-engined with caterpillar engines and reclassed 57,class 59 and 66 nick-named sheds built by GM and class 67 a single windscreen loco called Cyclops and Spanish built.We also have a loco of class 20 which has a cab at one end very rarely run as a single unit but usually seen in pairs.
A lot of British diesels in preservation such as switchers class 03/04,06,07,08,and 14. there are mainline locos 24,25,31 33,35,37, 45 47,50 and 55.Quite a few are mainline registered especially 50 and 55 but restricted to 85 mph .
Since double ended units had been used for decades before and continued to be used until this day, mostly on small industrial engines, I don't know if "experiment" is the right word. It was experimental only in that very few units were produced (mainly because it was more flexible to use 2 switch engines than 1 double unit). Both Lima and Alco produced contemporary or later units and double hood units are popular overseas.