I dug out John Kirkland's excellent book "The Diesel Builders - Volume III, Baldwin Locomotive Works" and sure enough on page 139 there's a photo of SAL 4500 operating in MU with a pair of EMD FT units -- the set is A-B-A with 4500 leading 4108 and 4014. The date is not given; the photo is credited as being from Kirkland's collection.
Further searching turned up a curious item, repeated numerously on e-Bay which is a post card that shows 4501 coupled ahead of ALCO-GE road switchers. Can't say if these are just coupled sitting somewhere (dead steamers appear to be alongside) or if this is a working lashup, but it is of interest to our discussion here. I don't know what the policy here is for posting eBay links, but this post card is not hard to find.
Of even further interest is the fact that I turned up a photo or two of one of the SAL's 1500 HP BLW A1A-A1A units (2700 class) with a 27 point MU jumper on its nose, beside its headlight. Look here:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2384855
This, taken together, would have standardized the SAL's Baldwin fleet, since all of the RS-12 units were built with electric throttle.
Getting back to prices for options briefly...
Kirkland (in the same book) gives the price for dynamic brake on a Centipede as being $19,000. At that time, the price of one unit complete in standard condition was $287,250 (same book.) I include this for interest, to see how much this added to unit cost. Would the cost to add dynamic brake to a DR-4-4-1500/1 unit have been $9500? That would be a logical guess, but a guess only... perhaps decent for ballpark discussions but not quotable for history.
I don't have any price breakdowns for other options on that model. I do have price breakdown for AS-16 units in 1953 in a proposal (obviously never carried out) from BLH to the Louisville & Nashville. In that proposal, BLH is offering to sell L&N 53 AS-16 units at a price of $145,000 each. Dynamic brake isn't listed in the attachment labeled "Exhibit A" calling out modifications discussed or possibly of interest to the railroad since L&N still wasn't buying anything with that option. However, more to our point about electric throttle, there is a quotation for this as an offered modification.
"Item 1 - MU Control. To provide and install MU control both ends which will permit operation with BLH, EMD or ALCO units. ....Add per locomotive $2262.00"
So the cost of the electric throttle is wrapped up into the cost of multiple unit control, it would appear, since no other costs associated with control equipment are given and this is an actual sales proposal, not just a specification issuance. (Specification AS-16-4 with Revs through 1953 is bound into this proposal book; the proposal material is in front of it.) This means that all costs are included and spelled out.
Of course, the cost of the controller and wiring is not the only cost associated with setting the locomotives up for MU operation. If we look at the specification for these units, under Modifications (this means "options" to the general person) we find the following description for "Multiple Unit Control":
"At both ends, unless otherwise specified. Provides control of power circuits, braking circuits and sander circuits in multiple. Air compressors are synchronized. Gangway provided between units with illuminating light. All piping is provided with pipe connectors on either side of the coupler, but with one set of hose provided at each end. Hot water temperature switch is included with this installation."
(That last mentioned item may seem unusual. BLH units at this time still did not have, as standard equipment, an engine hot water shutdown. This is in fact an option, set to (according to the Modifications page) "reduce engine speed to idle if engine water temperature exceeds 200F." This was provided so that trailing units would be protected against engine overheat since their engine temperatures weren't known in the lead cab.)
I think that's about as much information as I can find here right now on pricing and optioning of dynamic brake and compatible throttle / MU for BLW / BLH units. But I'll keep looking around as I find the time.
-Will Davis
Railroad Locomotives - My Blog
Seaboard rewired their fleet of Centipedes in the process of trying to cure their faults and to standardize their electrical systems. And the 4500 lasted into the 1960's until the Centipede era ended on the Seaboard and actually outlived several younger sisters by four years. So I imagine she too could MU with EMD's and Alco's.
I've found pictures of 4 or 5 of them leading a consist of locomotives from other manufacturers and presumably MU'ed to them after looking around. But of those that I could identify a number on, none of them were the 4500 and they were all higher numbered members of their class. I think the 4508 was the lowest numbered one I found a photo of MU'ed to EMD's and/or Alco's.
rcdrye There are plenty of photos of Seaboard's Centipedes operating in multiple with EMD and Alco locomotives, so I expect Seaboard spent the extra $19,000 per unit.
There are plenty of photos of Seaboard's Centipedes operating in multiple with EMD and Alco locomotives, so I expect Seaboard spent the extra $19,000 per unit.
RIght you are! - I've seen this as well. The $19K was for dynamic brake; there would have been a different and separate charge for electric throttle. I'm not sure how much that would have been. (I have somewhere here an official sales proposal from B-L-H to L&N for road switchers, and although the date is somewhat later it would be interesting to know if they quoted a price for electric throttle. I'll look for that.)
I know for a fact that the first unit, SAL 4500 had an air throttle (Westinghouse CE-100) because it's clearly shown in trade materials and press releases of the day. But it's certainly true that the rest were either delivered with electric throttles or modified to incorporate them. It would be interesting to see if photos of 4500 in multiple with EMD's or ALCO's exist to see if it got modified as well, although I'd bet it did.
"There is no evidence I've seen that Lima-Hamilton was about to overtake Baldwin Locomotive Works in sales. Where does that assumption come from? I'm aware of only one order that was on the books and which was transferred from Lima-Hamilton to BLH Eddystone, which was an order for 1200 HP road switchers for the New York Central."
That "assumption" that Lima-Hamilton was about to overtake Baldwin Locomotives Works in sales comes from Jerry A. Pinkepank . Lima had picked up enough orders for 1951 that had they all been constructed, they would've surpassed Baldwin in sales that year. But many of those orders were cancelled as a result of the merger like a 60 unit order from Southern Pacific since few wanted to purchase locomotives that were guaranteed to be orphans. Furthermore, Lima produced locomotives well into 1951 with the last unit produced not being until September of 1951 when production of existing orders that hadn't been cancelled or transferred to Baldwin ended.
They had far more orders on the books than just a NYC order for additional LRS-1200's when merger happened the previous December. Instead, it appears that only 63 Lima designed locomotives were outshopped in 1951 with most cancelled or switched to Baldwin equivalents like PRR's order for RT-624's in place of additional Lima transfer units.
"It is not true that Lima's staff was relegated to construction projects. According to Kirkland, after the Lima-Hamilton and Austin-Western mergers were completed, it was the original owners of those two companies that ended up with working control of the entire corporation. (This from his book on Baldwin.) In another instance (his volume on F-M and Lima-Hamilton) Kirkland points out that the actual decision to kill the Hamilton pattern T69SA / T89SA locomotive engines was made by Fred J. Geittman, who had originally designed the Hamilton engine in the first place and who now, through the merger, held high position at the merged Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton."
I've seen it cited several times that the Lima design office was closed after 1951, that the engineering team was scattered to the winds with many leaving the company, and that they had very little say in the engineering future for the continuing line of Baldwin products despite the design team being assigned to that area after merger until it was dissolved. And the locomotive plant was even renamed the Construction Equipment Division of BLH.
Their future after this from everything I've ever read until your post clearly indicated that their life after September 11th 1951 for what was left was in the area of things like continued crane construction, other construction equipment, machine tools, and so on.
So I'll stand by that. As for the Hamilton engine itself, I don't believe it was ever particularly defended in this thread or that it was ever stated that not sticking with that after merger was a bad idea. I think the closest positive that was stated during this thread about the Hamilton engine was that it simply had more room for growth at the start of Lima diesel production than a mature design like the Alco 239 that wasn't able to follow Lima past the 1000 HP threshold did. It was a modern and promising design that never had all the issues engineered out of it and because of Lima's short stay in the diesel business, has a poor reputation today. But I don't think anyone necessarily thinks that it was a mistake not sticking with this for the merged company. Just that perhaps its reputation today would be more positive than it is had it continued to be developed.
"Statements in press by Lima-Hamilton's president at the time of introduction of its diesel locomotive line made it clear that Lima-Hamilton did not intend to pursue diesel-electric locomotives above the size of switchers. The quote was, I believe, "Above 1500 HP there just has to be a better way than diesel."
Yep, their trade advertisements explaining their thoughts on the future for locomotive production stated that "above 1500 horsepower, there must be a better way".
It's quite clear that Lima Hamilton's rail ambitions had three major goals at the start. Get what they could out of their steam investment with a belief that modern steam had a future (Presumably as interim road power until their free piston design arrived), prepare for a gas turbine free piston locomotive, and enter diesel switcher production. Their advertisement that they placed in publications after merger detailing their goals and the strengths of each company are quite clear on those three goals.
And I wasn't aware that anyone in this thread ever claimed otherwise. I think it was quite clear that there was a consensus that they were betting on free piston locomotives being the future in the late 1940's for road service that would kill off the rest of steam and start replacing diesel road locomotives. The only debate I remember several weeks ago was on just when that dream ended.
That said, their thoughts of strictly producing switchers for their diesel electric locomotive production only lasted until the April 1950 model lineup was introduced when road switchers were introduced and heavy work on going beyond 1200 HP was initiated with a 1600 HP road switcher actually being ready to be constructed when merger ended that plan. If that was a sign of diminishing hopes on the free piston concept or just a recognition that production was several years away in the future and they didn't want to miss out on lucrative road switcher production in the meantime, I don't know.
Reading down through this string, I see a number of things I can help shed some light on. I'd highly suggest those interested in the merger of Baldwin Locomotive Works and Lima-Hamilton Corporation track down John Kirkland's excellent books on the subject. The reasoning behind the merger is made quite clear. There is also a good bit of technical and historical information that would supplant / correct information that has been stated or implied in this message string so far. Using my memory of those books and my pile of BLW / L-H / BLH technical manuals I can just briefly point up a few corrections.
-The "Centipede" was available with dynamic brake as an option, at $19,000 per unit.
-The "Centipede" was available with standardized electric throttle as an option. (This would have been the Westinghouse type exactly as used in all Lima-Hamilton diesel locomotives, and in all of the Westinghouse-equipped Fairbanks-Morse C-Liners.) This was designed to allow multiple unit operation with other makes of locomotive.
-There is no evidence I've seen that Lima-Hamilton was about to overtake Baldwin Locomotive Works in sales. Where does that assumption come from? I'm aware of only one order that was on the books and which was transferred from Lima-Hamilton to BLH Eddystone, which was an order for 1200 HP road switchers for the New York Central.
-Statements in press by Lima-Hamilton's president at the time of introduction of its diesel locomotive line made it clear that Lima-Hamilton did not intend to pursue diesel-electric locomotives above the size of switchers. The quote was, I believe, "Above 1500 HP there just has to be a better way than diesel."
-There was no RF-15; this unofficial designation's origin is unknown, but the earliest appearance of it that I can find is in Al Staufer's "Pennsy Power II." These units, Pennsylvania Railroad 9700 through 9707 (both A and B) have their own operating manual, which is DF-105 and which refers to the units as model DR-4-4-1500/1 exactly as one would expect. They do indeed differ in some respects from the earlier units of the same type, but their official model designation did not change.
-If one wishes to research relatively unknown model numbers, however, he will find that manual update DF-106 of October 1950 when applied to the DF-105 manual changes the data page to reflect model DR-4-4-1600/1 which has never, to my knowledge, ever been printed anywhere except of course on my website. This is what was already apparently being called the RF-16 by sales and marketing .. and all operating manuals in the DF-107 series use that model designation.
-Cancellation of the 400 series engines, as has been mentioned attributed to Westing, appears not to have been due to any particular engine fault but rather due to cancellation of the Essl design program, which focused on rapidly changeable power packs which could be maintained as ready service spares and not as installed items - this according to Kirkland. I do have an interesting photograph in a Baldwin sales book which shows an engine that appears to have the same characteristics generally as the 408 (including identical valve covers) but which is a V-12 and which is twin-turbocharged, connected to a water brake at Eddystone.
-It is not true that Lima's staff was relegated to construction projects. According to Kirkland, after the Lima-Hamilton and Austin-Western mergers were completed, it was the original owners of those two companies that ended up with working control of the entire corporation. (This from his book on Baldwin.) In another instance (his volume on F-M and Lima-Hamilton) Kirkland points out that the actual decision to kill the Hamilton pattern T69SA / T89SA locomotive engines was made by Fred J. Geittman, who had originally designed the Hamilton engine in the first place and who now, through the merger, held high position at the merged Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton.
If one wishes to take the time to find these books, and read both (as I have) the reasons for the BLH merger become quite clear. To briefly paraphrase -- the sellers' market for diesel locomotives was over, and there wasn't room for the number of builders that existed. Lima-Hamilton was merged to eliminate it as a locomotive builder and to allow it to convert manufacturing capacity to road construction equipment, or else sell it off. The merged corporation, with a "right sized" locomotive business and expanding road construction equipment business would theoretically have the right balance in its manufacturing facilities to see through the end of dieselization and the launch of the massive construction of roads and then the interstate highway system.
Another fallacy is pointed out by Kirkland -- Westinghouse "control" of Baldwin. Westinghouse only ever held 12% of Baldwin's stock. This is not control. It is a voting presence through having a seat or two on the board of directors (enough, as he says, to make sure Westinghouse didn't go to someone else for electrical equipment.. and who would be to say that the company couldn't have convinced Elliott, or Allis-Chalmers, or Brown-Boveri perhaps to go in?) but it isn't control of the company.
Someone mentioned the Westinghouse "Blue Goose" Gas turbine electric locomotive. I have an advertising and specification book for this locomotive which should clear up some questions. (I have covered this book on my site.)
-On the first page --- "Introduction. The information contained in this book describes the gas turbine locomotive which was built by Westinghouse Electric Corporation with the cooperation of the Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and first placed in road service in May, 1950...." This should clear up the question of who was in the project. It is no mistake, and not a deception, to have "Westinghouse - Baldwin" painted on the sides of the locomotive.
-The running gear design incorporated a Westinghouse patent roller carriage interposed between each truck and the carbody. On the gas turbine, the end trucks had 2.5 inch lateral motion with limitation by leaf springs, while the center trucks had 7.5 inch lateral motion with no restriction. This suspension was also used on the prototype B-B-B wheel arrangement ignitron rectifier electric locomotives built for use on the Pennsylvania Railroad. This design is particularly interesting, and adapted for locomotives intended to operate at relatively high speeds. The truck swivel action took place between each truck and its roller carriage; lateral side play took place between each roller carriage and the locomotive carbody.
I hope this helps those who are still trying to get to the truth on these topics.
The Phoenix Star is a old Algoma ship as well. Many of the FM engined ships have been part of the Algoma Central fleet. And the Manitoba had a close sister ship that has been gone for a number of years now that was part of the Algoma fleet (Although the Manitoba never was).
The Algoway and the Algorail have been on their way out for a few years so they're not wasting effort in a proper repainting. Not much different than 1950's era steam. And they look far worse in the ballast tanks, cargo holds, and self-unloading tunnels so that's the least of their worries. Lots of salt cargoes and sailing in the lower St. Lawrence River above Montreal where it starts to turn into salt water are rotting them from the inside out.
Those two had two sisters. The recently scrapped Agawa Canyon (A name that should be familiar to anyone with an interest in the now gone railroad) and the Roy A. Jodrey that bottomed out on Pullman Shoal off Alexandria Bay NY when almost brand new 30 years ago and sunk in deep water where she still is today.
Well that's good news about "Manitoba." However those Algoma ships look like they need to strike up a serious relationship with a paint brush! Yikes!
Reminds me of an old mariners joke: "That ship must have gone through the grand-daddy of all hurricanes!" "How so?" "It's had all it's paint blown off!"
It's interesting to see that two of those boats were part of Algoma Central's fleet.
She's actually safe thanks to always having owners that cared for it and have regularly reinvested in her (Not to mention she was idle for half a decade before her current owners bought her which saved a lot of wear & tear). So she should be around for quite a few more years for Boatnerds and railfans that also see the appeal in watching large impressive ships to enjoy while she continues to earn money for her owners.
It's the other three survivors of upwards of a dozen 1960's era Canadian freighters that had FM powerplants that have very questionable futures.
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/algorail.htm
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/algoway.htm
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/phoenixstar.htm
Too bad about "Manitoba", but if a big antique like a ship can't earn it's keep anymore, or becomes too expensive to operate, or just ages out, well. you know the rest.
Fine looking ship just the same. It looks like it's been well taken care of.
Would that cause a lot of smoke when they're being revved up (Something they even advertised back in the day wouldn't happen)? I noticed this ship earlier this year really smoking as she departed the Eisenhower Lock on the St. Lawrence Seaway near Massena NY. She has 4 Fairbanks Morse model 8-38D8-1/8 8 cylinder OP diesel engines (Which I assume are essentially 8 cylinder versions of what would've been in something like a Train Master).
Sadly after this season, she very well might be the last active ship on the Lakes with opposed piston FM power [Edit: I forgot about a converted package freighter called the Stephen B. Roman, that now hauls powered cement for Essroc and still has her pairs of 10-38D8-1/8 and 8-38-D8-1/8 engines]. The demise of two other active ships with them is imminent with this season likely their last. And a forth is sitting idle possibly never to sail again.
Leo_Ames I rather like the sound of FM's engines. Every time I watch an older Canadian freighter going down the St. Lawrence Seaway with four OP's hard at work inside the engine room, I wish I could've been standing trackside as a group of something like C-Liners went by at track speed. Also love hearing that sound in several classic submarine movies as well.
I rather like the sound of FM's engines.
Every time I watch an older Canadian freighter going down the St. Lawrence Seaway with four OP's hard at work inside the engine room, I wish I could've been standing trackside as a group of something like C-Liners went by at track speed.
Also love hearing that sound in several classic submarine movies as well.
Having worked around FM's in yard service - the oil out the stack was a continuing drawback.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NoHAB!
I love Baldwins, but there is nothing like the voice of the 567. Witness here:
watch?v=bj77zRSTRZU
or for a longer tasty touch, the three videos that start with this one:
watch?v=63uj6CTyERA
(I looked for Baldwin babyface sound, but didn't come up with anything compelling...)
Consider the three locomotives on the farthest left in the roundhouse. Not quite a babyface but definitely not a bulldog nose either, despite the 567 engines inside them:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=288441&nseq=26
Overmod Never was an "RF15" that didn't have a Sharknose carbody; all the babyfaces were DR units. The typical freight ones, for example, were DR -4-4-1500. "RF15" is a railfan expression for DR-4-4-1500s built with the RF16 carbodies -- I think there were four, all PRR.
Never was an "RF15" that didn't have a Sharknose carbody; all the babyfaces were DR units. The typical freight ones, for example, were DR -4-4-1500.
"RF15" is a railfan expression for DR-4-4-1500s built with the RF16 carbodies -- I think there were four, all PRR.
The Web site at anthraciterailroads.org has some spotting guides for CNJ Babyfaces that are good enough, and detailed enough, to determine any differences between the Babyface and Centipede noses -- I always assumed they were made on common bucks and jigging.
Lyon_Wonder I wonder if Baldwin's centipede would have received the "sharknose" style body and cab had production been extended beyond 1948?
I wonder if Baldwin's centipede would have received the "sharknose" style body and cab had production been extended beyond 1948?
Reading between the lines (in the published material) the 'centipede' underframe was developed for the Essl modular locomotive, and for things like the V1 and M1 turbines that involved very high horsepower out of a single locomotive.
Emphasis seems to have shifted to the carbody-on-trucks design very early in the '40s -- there were a number of demonstrators even in the war years. (Look at the Trains article on the Jersey Central double-enders, which covers this design trend, but then strangely mentions the BP-20s only in passing)
One problem with appending a shark nose to the Centipede carbody would be the extreme transition between the roof of the main body and the roof of the cab area. If you look at the scale of the 'babyface' units vs. the sharks, you'll see the same issue would apply to adapting the latter. The alternative would be to have the windshields higher up, following the (taper) curve of the Centipede body, with a taller nose -- similar in general aspect to the GN W-class electrics == or a taller 'block' between nose and pilot, similar to the styling of the PRR T1s.
[In the interests of fair disclosure: yes, I did some sketches of sharknosed Centipedes many years ago...]
this why this forum exceeds all expectations all the time
What a delight it is to hear from someone so knowledgeable about these subjects!
Leo_Ames Lima-Hamilton was set to surpass Baldwin in sales the year of the merger despite the long head start that Baldwin had.
Lima-Hamilton was set to surpass Baldwin in sales the year of the merger despite the long head start that Baldwin had.
There is no doubt that Lima QC and interest in detail design was higher for diesels, just as it was for steam locomotives.
My suspicion has been that Lima remained a proponent of steam for heavy mainline use very late (Long Compression being touted 1949 and perhaps even into 1950) and this had something to do with the bias toward reliable switcher HP. If there are records of a Lima attempt at a multiple-unit freight or passenger locomotive, something to match, I would dearly love to see them, because I have not seen anything of the kind. Road switchers were probably good, but only sold to one customer (NYC), and for dedicated commuter service at that. Seems to me that Lima might have concentrated their early diesel-electric designing on what makes a good switcher -- and yes, I concur readily that they nailed it well -- but not seen widespread road dieselization as a niche until... too late.
I do have to wonder why Baldwin didn't adopt LH construction methods, just as I wonder why they ignored the lessons from EMD's designs. I was more than a little surprised to find that the C&O M1 turbine effort was a Baldwin in-house design, and NOT an adaptation of Loewy's Triplex or PRR's V1 (right down to construction being kept secret from key PRR people!) and so the technical foibles of those locomotives can be squarely placed at Baldwin's door, too. I personally think there is no excuse for wiring something in a way that produces untraceable ground faults -- let alone encourages them. Much less excuse when your merger partner not only understands this, but has proper solutions in place...
Beyond Lima's quality control and attention to detail, their designs were innovative in many ways.
I snip the points only for brevity. They are insightful and correct. (I am not sure Lima was actually first to use the hollow-bolster approach to TM cooling, but they were early and sensible in implementing it, so I'll give them credit.)
The 'catch' is in the use of a slow-speed engine with minimal boost potential. It's easy to second-guess the coming use of higher-horsepower single units, but I do not believe that T89SA engine would have permitted any particularly greater degree of reliable horsepower increase than similar designs, either by increasing crankshaft speed or number of cyllnders. But as I said, I think Lima's bigger-engine hopes were running on the gasifier (the potential being greater than either straight gas turbines or the BCR coal-turbine project, neither of which were particularly going anywhere as diesel replacement through the late '40s, except on UP where, similar to the Big Boy experience, the chosen fuel was so, so, so cheap that turbines made some sense net of all drawbacks). More on the gasifier below, in conjunction with a good point you made.
And like I said, many outstanding Lima orders were just cancelled outright as production wound down rather than substitute a Baldwin design. Lima's reputation of today in regard to their diesels wasn't really present at the time and they were clearly on the upswing and were doing well in a surprising amount of time. It would be revisionist history to make Lima's attempt out as a huge success, but I think it's equally revisionist history to relegate their strong but short start as a disaster like many do today.
Lima's was not an engineering disaster; it was (after the fact) a marketing and sales disaster. The question (to me) is whether their strong start in switching would have translated into a meaningful piece of wider dieselization (where, as with EMD parts for example, many of the 'expensive' components of the locomotives are common across models). Their "2500hp" locomotive was as unwieldy as Baldwin's (if better constructed); the road-switchers were probably better than 244-equipped RS Alcos, but had no higher-horsepower upgrade path ... as the 251s did.
If you are privy to the late order-book information for the 'cancelled' contracts -- who else did LH sell road units to? I have little doubt NYC would have preferred more A3174s to the RS-12s they got.
I think Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton would've been wise to take a closer look at what Lima was producing and quickly starting to sell. There are easily two or three Lima innovations that they undeniably screwed up by not adapting to their own designs.
In hindsight, absolutely. I suspect I know how the politics went...
... they were quickly taking their power plant forward and had already surpassed the 539 with ease and in a short amount of time when they jumped from 1000HP to 1200HP with extremely few changes ...
But 1200 with that turbo was about all you were going to get and still have reliability... as a potentially interesting side note, there were ads between 1955 and 1959 for 600-series diesels from what wa given as the Hamilton Division in Hamilton, OH -- which to me indicates that the Hamilton plant that was closed circa 1960 was retasked relatively quickly. Is this just a case of NIH, or was the 600 actually preferable (in marine application) to the smaller pure-Hamilton design?
OvermodSeveral of the key patents for gasifier application to locomotives at Baldwin date as late as 1959. What I've read suggested that the free piston research was all but dying out shortly after Baldwin and Lima merged.
OvermodSeveral of the key patents for gasifier application to locomotives at Baldwin date as late as 1959.
What I've read suggested that the free piston research was all but dying out shortly after Baldwin and Lima merged.
I do not think this was due to the merger deprecating LH research; I think it is more directly associated with Baldwin's withdrawal from locomotive building (the European free-piston designs were starting to run into their own mysterious troubles right around that time) leading to a retasking of gasifier research -- as you note -- into marine applications.
We have a fairly hard date on when gasifiers lost momentum for ship propulsion -- that being when the GM plant in the converted Liberty ship Patterson (my date is 1956, but some references indicate 1957) turned out to Have So Many Problems (see SAE paper 620820, Jan 1 1962)
There is an interesting review of older free-piston engine history here.
An FG9 would be a poor imitation of a 4000hp gasifier locomotive...
... I am puzzled ... since it's known that Lima-Hamilton and the PRR were set to produce an experimental cab unit when the merger came about powered by their free piston design. I'm surprised that if they got that close to building a prototype by themselves that a rolling test bed was never built by the merged firm if they continued thinking it represented the future of the locomotive industry throughout the 1950's.
I would thoroughly agree with this, except that I think PRR was in a financial hole around the time of the gasifier experiment, and had come off a fair string of terminated or perceived-as-unsuccessful locomotive projects (so perhaps not commanding as high a level of equipment-trust participation in experimental design!). To the extent money was available for development of locomotive technology, I think it was going into electrics in those early-50s years. It would not take very much uncertainty, either on the part of the locomotive builders or Westinghouse, to put the kibosh on PRR's paying for something using quirky and relatively untried technology, and still fraught with known difficulties in an over-the-road locomotive, in place of buying more practical-in-principle diesels. Note how quickly the experimental electric program was deprecated, and ultimately I think replaced by outsourcing the E44s to GE?
So I wonder if the research you note was being undertaken was even still intended for rail use by that point since steam turbines were still common power plants on large vessels and that was the second area that Hamilton viewed this technology as an ideal power plant of the future for.
No, I didn't mean to imply Baldwin was continuing research into practical use of gasifier technology for locomotives -- only that the merged BLH continued to work in gasifier research much later, and could -- at least theoretically -- have built some sort of locomotive prototype if there had been demand for it in the '50s.
So I imagine there's a possibility that they had decided the turbine route wasn't the future for railroading but that a next generation turbine power plant for maritime usage was worth continuing research on. Particularly at a time when vessel sizes were increasingly rapidly and many older vessels were starting to go to scrap (And with the wartime fleet quickly approaching old age). Anything to that?
Anything to that?
Assuredly, up to the late '50s. Then the gasifier system GM built punked out. And, shortly thereafter, so did the whole idea of repowering Liberty ships with new engine technologies. Even straight gas turbines failed to thrive at that time.
What I will argue though is that Hamilton's experience with diesels most certainly played a major role in their acquisition. Lima recognized at a very late date that their faith in steam's longevity was misplaced and that they had to quickly catch up if there was going to be a chance to compete. Aligning with one of the most experienced domestic producers of diesel engines was the way to accomplish that. Lima surely went after them in part for their diesel assets.
Aligning with one of the most experienced domestic producers of diesel engines was the way to accomplish that. Lima surely went after them in part for their diesel assets.
I will not argue with that. My point is only that the engine choice they made turned out as dead-ended as Baldwin's. (That is not entirely fair to Baldwin, as they certainly did try to match Alco in the 2000-hp V-16 category with the 2000-series turbo engines, and then apparently shucked the idea to chase the OP will o'the wisp, before having to go back to the old Big Iron approach.
The Blue Goose involved Baldwin and Westinghouse. Lima-Hamilton didn't merge with Baldwin until several months after it had been outshopped and were busy themselves with a competing experimental that also involved Westinghouse to a degree and PRR in particular that was in the blueprint stage when the merger happened.
Have those blueprints survived? If so, they will be as interesting as detail drawings for the PRR V1 turbine... I am still disgusted that none of the Westinghouse records on the V1's turbine detail design seem to have survived.
So I imagine credit for that arrangement that apparently rode more smoothly than the best diesels of the era goes squarely to Baldwin.
I would attribute it to Union Pacific, who used it in one of the early City diesels in the '30s and then, of course, in the earliest gas-turbine units. That's by no means either definitive or historical, just the general sense I get from contemporary designs.
OvermodI do not want to mock Lima-Hamilton quality or longevity, but they had absolutely nothing that would have scaled into a practical road locomotive, and the transfer locomotives they built were really not that much more effective than Baldwin's... a couple of switchers on a common underframe. Development potential was just not there, and I see no particularly greater longevity for an unmerged Lima-Hamilton than was seen later for FM.
Lima-Hamilton was set to surpass Baldwin in sales the year of the merger despite the long head start that Baldwin had. Furthermore, what locomotives that they did produce enjoyed long lives and surpassed many of their competitors from even the more successful firms in longevity despite their small number and many going to larger railroads (Which isn't a recipe for longevity such as the non Class 1 origins of many surviving Baldwins can attest to).
Beyond Lima's quality control and attention to detail, their designs were innovative in many ways. The use of a dry sump lubrication system, many steps being taken that eased the inspection process for many components compared to the competitors at the time, interchangeable exhaust and intake valves, gear driven engine auxillaries, water cooled exhaust manifolds, I believe the first use of an intercooler on an American locomotive, electric traction motor blowers (Which reduced the clutter that competitors had with their jackshafts, gear boxes, and V-belts cluttering things up under the hoods of contemporary switchers), stress relieved bolster and fuel tank weldments to correct a problem competitors were having, running all cabling through conduits (Something Baldwin's oil leakers with their exposed wiring would've been wise to adopt), and hollow center castings and truck bolsters for the cool traction motor air to be routed through to name many of them. Several of which would become industry standards.
That's not to say that I think they could've survived or even that I think their designs should've been selected to be what the company went with in the end. But I think Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton would've been wise to take a closer look at what Lima was producing and quickly starting to sell. There are easily two or three Lima innovations that they undeniably screwed up by not adapting to their own designs.
Overmod, I think, mostly circumstantial that Hamilton offered a local supplier for engines. Engines that were just as limited as Alco 539s in context.
And they were quickly taking their power plant forward and had already surpassed the 539 with ease and in a short amount of time when they jumped from 1000HP to 1200HP with extremely few changes. Of course that didn't mean much since EMD just days later shocked them by doing likewise (A suspected leak had occurred it seems due to the timing involved) and Baldwin surprised them even more by ramping up their engine to 1200 HP which they hadn't thought possible. But Lima's engine, while conservative since they recognized that missteps had been made elsewhere by going too far and that locomotives have to be ballasted anyways, was still a modern & efficient engine that used lightweight components and produced high power from a small displacement.
If you have concrete evidence that it continued throughout the 1950's, I won't argue that since clearly you're very knowledgeable about the subject and everything I know about the subject comes from about three different articles I've read over the years. But I am puzzled by it since it's known that Lima-Hamilton and the PRR were set to produce an experimental cab unit when the merger came about powered by their free piston design. I'm surprised that if they got that close to building a prototype by themselves that a rolling test bed was never built by the merged firm if they continued thinking it represented the future of the locomotive industry throughout the 1950's.
Furthermore, even Lima-Hamilton brass was expressing very cautious optimism on the project before the merger since similar attempts elsewhere were failing and they knew that they were going into uncharted territory where the chances of failure were great. And Westinghouse, a partner with Lima-Hamilton and PRR on the experimental free piston unit along with buying a controlling interest in Baldwin whom they felt was struggling to adapt with things like their turbine project dragging its feet and needing a shake up of management, allowed their stake to decline afterwards. To some, that suggests that they were perhaps dillusioned at the prospects of a free piston gasified turbine locomotive coming about and turbines in general. And not long afterwards they of course got out of building railroad traction equipment entirely (As you noted).
So I imagine there's a possibility that they had decided the turbine route wasn't the future for railroading but that a next generation turbine power plant for maritime usage was worth continuing research on. Particularly at a time when vessel sizes were increasingly rapidly and many older vessels were starting to go to scrap (And with the wartime fleet quickly approaching old age).
OvermodLima 'embraced' Hamilton for the gasifier, not the diesels
What I will argue though is that Hamilton's experience with diesels most certainly played a major role in their acquisition. Lima recognized at a very late date that their faith in steam's longevity was misplaced and that they had to quickly catch up if there was going to be a chance to compete.
Aligning with one of the most experienced domestic producers of diesel engines was the way to accomplish that. Lima surely went after them in part for their diesel assets. And it's known that General Machinery eyed Lima since they were looking for a partner for their free piston research work that was in its earliest stages in 1947 based on free piston air compressors from Junkers that Germany was installing on their submarines. They recognized that their research would have two major uses; water transportation and rail use.
And with the glut of WWII hulls, partnering with a major locomotive producer looking to quickly catch up in the diesel game and providing a stage for their promising research project made sense and was mutually beneficial. Heck, their operations were even located near each other which made it even more logical.
Lima-Hamilton's plan after merger from what I've read was to wring what was left out of steam (Including buying Alco's patents and parts business, supplying components to the North American rail industry, and export orders), quickly develop a range of diesel designs to compete in the near to medium length future with, and continue research on the free piston design with an eye towards producing a viable gas turbine locomotive that would eventually replace all locomotive power including diesels down the road.
OvermodIt may also bear noting that the gasifier proposal used span-bolstered B-B+B-B arrangement, not the Centipede chassis; was this (and the contemporary Blue Goose) a Lima innovation that Baldwin reluctantly took up? I had not thought so, but am always prepared to be enlightened.
Leo_Ames OvermodOf course, this is leaving out the potentially very interesting 'untold' history of the free-piston locomotive powerplant, which I think was Baldwin's perceived 'ace in the hole' in just this period... and while that IS a legitimate 'Centipede'-related topic, I think from the design information that has survived that the chassis had gone to span-bolstered trucks by the end of the '40s. The free piston was Lima's ace in the hole, not Baldwin's.
OvermodOf course, this is leaving out the potentially very interesting 'untold' history of the free-piston locomotive powerplant, which I think was Baldwin's perceived 'ace in the hole' in just this period... and while that IS a legitimate 'Centipede'-related topic, I think from the design information that has survived that the chassis had gone to span-bolstered trucks by the end of the '40s.
The free piston was Lima's ace in the hole, not Baldwin's.
It certainly was Baldwin's after the merger. I repeat that one reason for retaining the 606-8 style slow-speed engines involved a belief that the free-piston gasifier was going to be the future of high-horsepower-at-lower-cost locomotives. And much of the reason for Baldwin acquiring LH *had* to be the gasifier development... it certainly wasn't anything to do with steam engines; it certainly wasn't anything to do with Lima-Hamilton diesel-electrics; the cranes and such were useful, but I think not a major reason for merger.
It was a Hamilton project that Lima embraced after acquiring them for their diesel technology.
Lima 'embraced' Hamilton for the gasifier, not the diesels. It's, I think, mostly circumstantial that Hamilton offered a local supplier for engines. Engines that were just as limited as Alco 539s in context.
But it hadn't progressed far enough along to produce a prototype installation on a locomotive when the firm unexpectantly merged with Baldwin with Lima's promising designs & research projects quickly killed off like work on a free piston gasifier locomotive.
Several of the key patents for gasifier application to locomotives at Baldwin date as late as 1959.
The thing that killed the gasifier was very likely noise, and I think probably pulse noise in the intake tracts, not the exhaust. Imagine two-engined aircraft with paddle blades running unsynchronized... in and out of phase relatively randomly, to boot ... down at ground level. I am firmly of the opinion that if the problems with practical free-piston gasifiers (so easily addressed today!) had not existed, we would not have seen Westinghouse's exit from railroad electrics lead to Baldwin's near-total cessation of locomotive competition. The 'usual' assessment has been that the noise problem wasn't thoroughly recognized until the general 1954-56 period, but there was sure something that made a seemingly advanced prototype disappear quickly, and it wasn't Baldwin prejudice against a lighter, better, cheaper modular powerplant that did it.
It may also bear noting that the gasifier proposal used span-bolstered B-B+B-B arrangement, not the Centipede chassis; was this (and the contemporary Blue Goose) a Lima innovation that Baldwin reluctantly took up? I had not thought so, but am always prepared to be enlightened.
I do not want to mock Lima-Hamilton quality or longevity, but they had absolutely nothing that would have scaled into a practical road locomotive, and the transfer locomotives they built were really not that much more effective than Baldwin's... a couple of switchers on a common underframe. Development potential was just not there, and I see no particularly greater longevity for an unmerged Lima-Hamilton than was seen later for FM.
It was a Hamilton project that Lima embraced after acquiring them for their diesel technology. But it hadn't progressed far enough along to produce a prototype installation on a locomotive when the firm unexpectantly merged with Baldwin with Lima's promising designs & research projects quickly killed off like work on a free piston gasifier locomotive.
Even though Lima's projects showed great promise and orders for existing designs were quickly growing with the company set to surpass Baldwin's sales that year when the merger the board secretly arranged shocked the entire company, Baldwin factions reigned supreme with the Lima plant and staff assigned to heavy construction equipment manufacturing. It was the nail in the coffin for that research project, their entire line of locomotives, and their many innovations that Baldwin engineers almost universally ignored and failed to incorporate into their own designs.
Lima's designs were more advanced, showed much promise,and many felt at the time were better locomotives. Yet everything except the parts business was quickly killed off (And many Lima orders were outright cancelled rather than substituting an equivalent Baldwin design), Even at the end of 1963 well over a decade after the last locomotive rolled out of the erecting hall and well into the diesel replacement age with railroads standardizing and moving away from older minority makes, 164 of their 174 locomotives were still kicking.
Only their orphan status and trouble sourcing parts finally killed them off in the mid 1960's. And at least Armco kept a significant group of them kicking into the 1980's.
I have now hacked my copy to the point I can read the relevant issues (1962 and 1982).
Westing: Jan 1963 pp.38-42
Brown: May 1982 pp.38-45 (and then two more Centipede articles)
Essl patents:
2249628 (Jul 15 1941)
2299420 (Oct 20 1941)
and the one most specific to 6000, issued after the locomotive was built
2317849 (Apr 27 1943)
According to Westing (who would know!) the stated objectives for the modular drive, as perceived at the time, were (1) minimal reduction of power upon failure of one (or more) engines, and (2) ease of servicing. This had two parts: the engines were easy to remove, and spare engines could easily and quickly be installed (making it unnecessary to work on engines while confined in a carbody). A key part of this was the installation of the radiators and coolers in a 'modular' section of the locomotive roof.
Proof of the second part was rather dramatically illustrated when an engine went out during testing on the Reading, and the engine was swapped out for module #5 in "less than 20 minutes" (Westing, p.39)
As it turns out, I was wrong; although the engines were lined up to be close to the right side, there was an aisle up the left as well as between modules that made it relatively easy to get to the engines. Unlike the British Leader, the asymmetrical mass distribution of the offset engines was 'counterweighted' in the location of the radiators and coolers to keep the engine laterally balanced.
It would appear that the reason for the initial failures of this locomotive were related to excessive excitation loading. By the time that was fixed, the 'bean counters' had come to the realization that the locomotive was never going to be a particularly inexpensive proposition vis-a-vis a cheap bridge-truss carbody sitting on pin-guided trucks ... and a principal advantage of the design, large HP in a single unit, was rendered irrelevant by agreements with the Brotherhoods that one crew would be required on an MUed 'locomotive' whatever the size of its consist.
RME
Since I can't (yet) get into my DVD Trains collection -- were the engines that were actually originally installed the 408s (as I suspect) or the 300/12LV V-12s? [Edited note: Only 408s were built for installation in the carbody: four production, and one spare (that was later installed when needed to replace one that had failed). Intriguingly enough -- there were wood mockups, probably weighted for balance, installed in the other four bay areas...]
Also: Does the article go into the specific weaknesses of the 408 design that led to discontinuation? They must have been severe, as BLW's whole postwar strategy was based on big, slow horsepower, and when they went back to high-speed power it was not with either gensets or American engines, but with German technology and Mekydro drive... [Edited note: Westing says it was generator field modulation, and then overall cost of the complex locomotive, that were the problems, not something intrinsic and insoluble with the V-8 700/750hp engines]
(Of course, this is leaving out the potentially very interesting 'untold' history of the free-piston locomotive powerplant, which I think was Baldwin's perceived 'ace in the hole' in just this period... and while that IS a legitimate 'Centipede'-related topic, I think from the design information that has survived that the chassis had gone to span-bolstered trucks by the end of the '40s.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.