Anyone know any particulars? I'm assuming they were too expensive to justify rebuilding due to differences between them and the 12 unit DRS-6-6-1500 fleet that required engineering changes that weren't worth the cost for just three units?
A mention of the welded frames of the AS616's causing the Union Railroad headaches makes me wonder if that was the reason.
http://www.rmrrc.net/Newsletter/back_issues/February,%202003_newsletter_print_res.PDF
Leo_Ames Anyone know any particulars? I'm assuming they were too expensive to justify rebuilding due to differences between them and the 12 unit DRS-6-6-1500 fleet that required engineering changes that weren't worth the cost for just three units?
I just read the article you referenced in your second post, and you've probably guessed correctly, a rebuild of the other units more than likely just wasn't worth it. Add the fact that heavy rebuilds involving prime mover changes with someone elses prime mover are always easier said than done.
I imagine the diminishing supply of Baldwin parts may have had something to do with the decision as well. Last year I read an interesting article in "The Railroad Press" by Mike Bednar about the Baldwin switchers on the Lehigh Valley. The "Valley" train crews liked them, said they were good locomotives, but when Baldwin exited the locomotive business the "Valley" dropped them almost overnight strictly due to the parts non-availability problems they knew were going to come. The units had a lot of life left in them but the "Valley" didn't want to take any chances.
Parts non-availability has been an issue more than a few times. I can remember when EMD announced that it would no longer carry parts unique to its V-6 engines (probably crankshafts and camshafts). A mass retirement of otherwise servicable SW1's followed shortly.
Cost effectiveness probably killed their rebuilding.
The rebuilt units were so distinctive looking, too...
Parts availability isn't the reason why they only repowered their DRS-6-6-1500 fleet. This happened around 1960 at a time when Baldwin parts were plentiful and cheap and everything was available new from Eddystone.
The Escanaba & Lake Superior even did a factory rebuild on one, a S12 or RS12 I believe, in the late 70's or maybe even 1980 which involved the last Baldwin technical field adviser or whatever he'd be called and involved such things as installing a new prime mover with zero hours on it and creating a virtually new Baldwin locomotive.
The cost of spare components, primarily for the Baldwin trucks, were on the rise by the 70's and slowly did in several otherwise useful fleets of EMD re-engined Baldwins on such lines as the North Western, here, and I imagine the 70's is also likely when Lehigh Valley's switchers also went [Edit: All were gone by 1969, I'm surprised since many EMD repowered Baldwins lived relatively long lifes and their other Baldwins which weren't repowered lasted several years longer].
I suspect that line I found shortly after posting this topic is the primary explanation here. The issues they were having with the AS616's welded frames I imagine are why these weren't part of the program at that time.
If even the frame is proving problematic, it makes little sense investing money into a rebuild of it. The only major weakness at the time with the DRS-6-6-1500 on the other hand was evidently the aging prime mover itself.
Frame problems, as I recall. The DRS-6-6-1500s frames were apparently sturdier than those of the newer AS-616s. Don't know any other details however. Years ago Rails Northeast published an article on URR diesels that made mention of this.
Jim Young
Carnegie, PA
What I would like to see is the structure of the AS-616 frame where the engine would be installed. Doesn't Baldwin rely on part of the engine crankcase to stiffen the welded frame -- and would a 567 transplant have the right characteristics?
Now I wish Henry Rentschler were still alive!
I've never heard of a locomotive engine being a stress bearing structural member (Not that that means anything).
If that's the case, I imagine they created a reinforced engine bed for it to be mounted to for that necessary additional strength?
I'd love to hear more especially since it makes little sense to me. I'm no engineer, but when they're already adding tons of ballast, why would the diesel power plant have to contribute anything to the strength of the frame?
It's not like it's a racecar where weight has to be kept at a minimum, making it desireable to kill two birds with one stone by incorporating the engine block as a structual member.
JimYoung Frame problems, as I recall. The DRS-6-6-1500s frames were apparently sturdier than those of the newer AS-616s. Don't know any other details however.
Frame problems, as I recall. The DRS-6-6-1500s frames were apparently sturdier than those of the newer AS-616s. Don't know any other details however.
In the pictures I've seen, they appear to be cast frames on DRS-6-6-1500's rather than fabricated.
I don't think Baldwin abandoned cast frames until partway through AS-616 production.
That has nothing to do with why they didn't rebuild their AS-616's, I wager.
More than one source attests to them being happy overall with their DRS-6-6-1500's and extremely pleased with the EMD repowerings when their original power plants started to have issues. The Union Railroad liked their Westinghouse traction motors which were more ruggid than EMD's own designs and with their shorter wheelbase, they could go places that 6 motor EMD's couldn't due to clearance issues and tight radiuses of some of their trackage
They only went when they did due to their aging Commonwealth trucks that were getting expensive to overhaul and maintain. That the similar and newer AS-616's never joined their earlier siblings in making the trip to La Grange I think likely rests with the issues the URR experienced with their welded underframes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.