EMD BL2

[BNSF_GP60M]

Are there any BL2's in regular service? I know that there is one in tourist duty in the East.

[locomutt]

I have heard that there is a Western Maryland one
in service somewhere in the east;exactly where,I'm
not sure. But I do know that the Kentucky Railway
Museum at New Haven,Ky. has Monon # 32,and is
in service for excursion runs. Their web: www.kyrails.org

[Anonymous]

BL2s have to be, in my opinion anyway, one of the ugliest loco EMD ever made. [B)] Not as ugly as the pug nosed GE units but still ugly. [:0] [:0]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I once opined that the BL2 was "EMD's mistake" for several reasons. It borders on being ugly, but the engineering is pretty awful, too. It was an intermediate step between carbody-type units and hood units, and the frame design shows it. The sides have a small bridge-type truss to carry the load, which makes access to the engine and main generator difficult at best. It was also expensive to build.

That being said, it is an interesting transition between F's and GP's.

[CShaveRR]

I grew up thinking that the BL2s were your basic diesel locomotive, because that's basically all I saw until I was about 10. C&O used them on our branch line (duh!) for both passenger and freight service.

I also remember going into the cab of Monon 32 at an EMD open house. Talk about cramped interiors! And the C&O units could only have been worse, because some of them were equipped with dual control stands!

[eolafan]

The only BL2 units around that I am aware of are at the National Raiway Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin and they (I believe) have two, and I believe the railroad museum in St. Louis may have one.

[Noah Hofrichter]

The two in Green Bay that eolafan mentions are the former Private locomotives that were owned by Glen Monhart(I might have spelled that wrong). He also owned the Janesville and Southeastern F unit set also at the museum up there. Both the BL2s and the F's were stored in Janesville WI, on the Wisconsin and Calumet and the Wisconsin and Southern for a while before going to Green Bay.

Noah

[jchnhtfd]

I seem to recall reading a comment from an EMD official that the BL2 was supposed to be ugly. If true, they succeeded! But you have to admit that it has it's own unique charm...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

I seem to recall reading a comment from an EMD official that the BL2 was supposed to be ugly. If true, they succeeded! But you have to admit that it has it's own unique charm...

The comment in question was made by *** Dilworth and he was referring to the GP7, in which he wanted a locomotive that would be so ugly that it would be kept out on the lines away from headquarters, where it could do real work.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Noah Hofrichter

The two in Green Bay that eolafan mentions are the former Private locomotives that were owned by Glen Monhart(I might have spelled that wrong). He also owned the Janesville and Southeastern F unit set also at the museum up there. Both the BL2s and the F's were stored in Janesville WI, on the Wisconsin and Calumet and the Wisconsin and Southern for a while before going to Green Bay.

Noah

Didn't Mr. Monhart own an E-unit painted in ACL's gag-a-maggot purple? Does anyone know what happened to that locomotive?

[rji2]

The West Virginia Central runs a BL2 out of Elkins, WV. It was, I believe, a Western Maryland unit.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

I seem to recall reading a comment from an EMD official that the BL2 was supposed to be ugly. If true, they succeeded! But you have to admit that it has it's own unique charm...

The comment in question was made by *** Dilworth and he was referring to the GP7, in which he wanted a locomotive that would be so ugly that it would be kept out on the lines away from headquarters, where it could do real work.

Dilworth's comment about "ugly GP7s" strikes me as way too clever to be taken at face value. Recall that the GP7 didn't appear until several years after Alco had begun marketing a roadswitcher. The roadswitcher in all respects was a more functional design than the carbody diesel: easier to maintain, easier to switch with, more versatile, easier to climb on and off. This was obvious. Also obvious was that EMD could have built a GP3 if it wanted, but it didn't, even though the engineering changes from the F3 were not complicated or difficult.

So why not? I think it had to do with EMD wanting to protect its high profit margins, and if one looks at the corporate history, one sees that GM management wanted to reap a lot of rewards after patiently spending a very large sum over 15 years to develop and perfect its diesel-electric locomotive. GM management replaced the innovators that had built EMD with production men, which speaks volumes about what it wanted EMD to do: stop developing new products and run a factory that made lots of money.

Any time one sees a big, powerful, cash-rich company decline to field a head-to-head competitor against a small, weak, impecunious competitor, one immediately suspects that the big company wants to protect the profit margin on its existing products. Moreover, EMD felt that its product was so superior to the Alco in terms of availability and operating costs (for every cent the New York Central spent to maintain an EMD, it spent 1.5 cents to maintain an Alco in equivalent service) that it didn't have to come up with a roadswitcher. And, if one is instructed by management to run a factory at maximum efficiency, the last thing a factory manager would want to do is split the production lines from one model to two different models that while mechanically and electrically identical had very different assembly steps.

So one can see some irony in Dilworth's statement, as if management had instructed him, "***, gin up a roadswitcher so that Alco can't have that market to itself. We'll tell the salesmen to offer the GP7 to them at first, and then try to upgrade them to the F7. Would you help out our salesmen by making it ugly, ***?"

If that's true in EMD vs. Alco, then where does GE come in?

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

Looks? Operating costs? I'm not sure what you're asking.

I mean taking over from EMD's lead . . .

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

You're sure it has?

[swg]

As long as GE stands for "Grossly Engineered" and EMD "Easily Maintained Diesel" EMD wins hands down no matter the looks ( control stand is much better than desktop controls )

[daveklepper]

I strongly disagree about lack of innovation at EMD after the initial dieselization. I worked for EMD the summer of 1952. EMD's management recognized that they had to innovate to survive. There were the competitive builders, improvements would mean new business as railroads could buy new power for unit reduction, easier maintenance, and greater fuel economy. Alco simply saw the advantages of a road switcher before EMD. In this respect, EMD was simply following conventional railroad thinking, which had designed different locomotives for freight, passenger, and switcher service. When Alco built a diesel, they were more attentive to minority customers needs, and the RS-1 went to railroads who wanted a road-switcher but could not get EMD to build what was first a low-production model (relatively). Dillworth was still the great innovator and he was on board even past retirement as a consultant until he passed on. The only interference I remember by top GM management was prevention of EMD's entering the straight electric market, and this prohibition was reversed some time after 1952.

[Gluefinger]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1If that's true in EMD vs. Alco, then where does GE come in?

GE wasn't a thread until 1959 or so with the U25B

[Noah Hofrichter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom
Didn't Mr. Monhart own an E-unit painted in ACL's gag-a-maggot purple? Does anyone know what happened to that locomotive?

Honestly I don't really know. If he did though I'd like to see that.

Noah

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Gluefinger

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1If that's true in EMD vs. Alco, then where does GE come in?

GE wasn't a thread until 1959 or so with the U25B

Yeah, and the U25B was UGLY also. [:0] [:0] [:0]

[Anonymous]

After Glenn Monhart's death, his collection of diesels was auctioned off. The E-3 #501 was purchased by the North Carolina DOT Rail Division in 1998, and is on long-term loan to the Spencer, N.C. Museum. HTH[8D]

[trainfan1221]

kfuztv,
In response to your original question, there is a BL2 on a tourist railroad based in Lackawaxen, PA. I don't know the current status of the unit as the line was having difficulties last I heard. I have seen it in the past. The BL2 is one of those things that are really weird to look at but kinda cool when you see one in person. I guess "unique" applies to the model.

[daveklepper]

You are reading too much into my comments. I simply wanted to defend EMD's reputation for be ABLE to innovate when it wanted and still wants to do so! I agree that one firm might find it appropriate to cater to small customers' needs and another to only look for massive orders. Alco did have some success with the DL-109, particularly on the New Haven, but not the degree that EMD did with its E and F units. There was good reason for EMD not to enter the road-switcher market: Why sell one locomotive to a railroad when you can sell three? I also wanted to put into perspective just the degree with which GM "interfered" with EMD management. EMD was pretty independent and still could depend on GM for good research and technical support.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

MWH makes a valid point: The market leader is less likely to come up with major innovations because they don't want to disturb the status quo. Other examples: EMD did not begin to turbocharge the 567 engine until Union Pacific virtually forced the issue with its own turbocharging experiments; Alco was first with main alternators and AC/DC transmission with the C630 (The Joneses already have one) before EMD introduced the same concept with the 645 line; the horsepower ratings of EMD locomotives tended to lag behind those of the competition. EMD could lead with innovation but chose not to because they didn't need to.