Does anyone know what the top speed of the EMD BL2 is? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks!
Depends on the gearing. It would be in the same speed ranges that the preceeding F3's and the succeding GP7's were geared by their owners.
Most were geared for a max of 65 MPH in freight service, I have heard of units being geared for a lower top speed in manned helper operations as well as units being geared for higher top speeds in passenger operations. The BL2 could have been geared for any of these kinds of operation, however, I suspect they would have been geared for 65 MPH as was normal for freight units on the Class 1 carriers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
65 MPH per this webpage:
https://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20BL2.HTML
I'd go with what BaltACD said, though.
See also:
- PDN.
The data in the Diesel Shop webpage is for C&O BL2s built at the end of BL2 production in 1949. It is representative of the type, but not purely accurate. There is a Don Dover BL2 article in issue #46 of Extra 2200 South. On page 21 it states that all BL2s were built with the 62:15 gear ratio, except Western Maryland #81-82 which were built with 65:12 (helper) gearing. The WM units were later regeared to 62:15. The Rock Island BL2s were regeared to 61:16, probably in 1951 when steam generators were added.
Paul_D_North_Jr 65 MPH per this webpage: https://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20BL2.HTML I'd go with what BaltACD said, though. See also: Martin Blomberg, designer extraordinaire EMD truck design has lasted half a century by Ephraim, Max from Trains October 1994 p. 46 blomberg emd truck Borden tank car + P5a = BL2 Monon 32 by Morgan, David P. from Trains October 1975 p. 29 BL2 diesel emd KRM Everyman's locomotive: the Geep Our GM scrapbook; the BL2 and the GP series by Kamm, Al, Jr. Morgan, David P. from Trains December 1965 p. 20 diesel emd gp7 gp9 - PDN.
thanks evryone! i was just wondering if putting bl2s on a passenger train was morally wrong... now i know!
Maine_Central_guythanks evryone! i was just wondering if putting bl2s on a passenger train was morally wrong... now i know!
Morally wrong....?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Morally wrong? Well, there's several tourist lines that run BL2's on passenger consists, no-one said they were going to go to Hell for doing so.
And you're a model railroader and you want to use a BL2 to pull passenger trains on your layout, hey it's YOUR layout! You only have to please yourself!
I've put steam engines on the head end of my Lionel New Jersey Transit cars and called it an "excursion!"
BL2s were often equipped with steam generators, and I'm sure that wasn't for an extra push up the grade.(Fact is, C&O had four of these generator-equipped BL2s that saw regular passenger service on the Holland-Muskegon line in Michigan...two daily round trips.)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
RI and B&M both used their BL2's in suburban service on a regular basis.
I remember seeing the Monon useing BLTs on passengers cars before Amtrack.
The rarely photographed rear end of a BL2
Wasn't the BL2 supposed to be half of an F7 with a porch and hood with two windows behind the cab for rearward visability when switching cars?
It was an attempt to make a road switcher out of an F3 (which they are nearly mechanically identical to) without changing enough for it to truly be effective, and the units ended up being the worst of both worlds.
Only 10 roads bought them.
Then, of course, you had the Santa Fe converting cab units to road switchers resulting in the equally beautiful (sarcasm) CF-7. As for the BL-2, I prefer it's more popular brother, the BLT, with mayo please!
The CF7 conversion also involved redesigning and rebuilding the frame. Note the heavy side sills on a CF7 compared to the bridge truss on a BL2.
You have two very different things in the BL2 and CF7.
The BL2 was a '40s stylin' exercise, bringing a sort of modern look to a cab unit with better rear visibility. If you remember the quote about making a GP7 so ugly railroads would keep it in the back country where it would earn its keep ... this was the locomotive branch lines could paint up beautiful to justify the then-very-large investment in technology and GM profitability.
ATSF had a whole slew of cabs that stopped being first-line power. The mechanicals were still good for other service but the carbody wasn't. Now, when I first read about this as a kid, I wondered why they didn't keep the F-unit nose and just reinforce the framing for the hood -- then I learned about how road-switchers get practically used. (See also the nose modifications on some of the long cowl units.) The CF7 was a practical rebuild, like the Beep, and some proof of that is their continued utility to small operators.
Her a$$ is prettier than her face.
Still in training.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.