I think the one thing Baldwin got right on some of their units was the size of the traction motor blower. Westinghouse motors needed good airflow just like any other manufacturers'. The PRR learned this the hard way when Centipedes were assigned as helpers on Horseshoe Curve, here the blower ducts didn't line up. A lot of crews liked Baldwins for switching - SP kept theirs in hump service for a good decade after they were kicked out of road service. SP's attempt to do the same with Alco C-628s and C-630s wasn't nearly as successful.
Soo Line saved the trucks from their DRS-4-4-15s and AS16s and re-used them on RSC2s and RSC3s. Some of the trucks lasted into the 1970s with their original Westinghouse motors.
A Baldwin ad in Rwy Age 31 Dec 1951 gives ratings for a 65-mph 68:15 geared B-B:
52500 lb 1020 amps continuous
57600 lb 1100 amps for 20 minutes
60800 lb 1150 amps for 10 minutes
Also says 1170 amps gives 62000 lb. At the time, a 74:18 65-mph Alco B-B was supposed to do 52500 lb continuous on 1085 amps.
The Baldwin ad also says a 63:15 geared B-B needed 1240 amps to produce 62000 lb TE, which I guess means 1240 amps on a 68:15 unit would produce 66900 lb. A 62:17 unit needed 1380 amps to produce 62000 lb TE, so presumably 1380 amps on a 68:15 unit would be 77000 lb TE.
timzBaldwin never claimed more continuous tractive effort than the corresponding Alco diesel, did they?
That's not quite the point he's asking about, just as timetable speeds will not prove speeding didn't exist. Hexapoles were said to support much more rapid loading into heavy train resistance or a longer MTTF in heavy (sustained high drawbar TE) situations.
The one firsthand reminiscence I've heard about this involved Baldwin BP-20s on the Long Branch commuter trains (a service terminated more by PRR's desire to eliminate orphan builders than by mechanical failures, at that point). According to one engineer who ran them, you pegged the ammeter at over 2000A and left it there for a minute or two as the train accelerated. Repeat at next stop, etc.
On the other hand, and I expect to hear from Big Jim on this but Louis Newton is very clear, several of the hexapoles on the TE-1 were damaged, supposedly beyond economical repair, during that locomotive's relatively short period in service. So it wasn't impossible to cook them even with only the equivalent of 2250HP per six motors being fed to them.
D77s might not have been the most robust, but they were probably much better than the original GE motors put into the DL-103 to 109 locomotives and some other early attempts. If I recall correctly Brashear reported ONE trip with ATSF 50 after which the ties were spattered with solder in some places and acerbic comments made about 'street car motors'.
Baldwin never claimed more continuous tractive effort than the corresponding Alco diesel, did they? Same 52500 lb for a 65-mph-geared B-B circa 1951?
A number of times I have seen authors refer to the Westinghouse 370 traction motor used in Baldwin diesels as have more overload or 'lugging' capacity than the traction motors in other first generations diesels, particularly the relatively wimpy traction motors in EMDs.
Anyone have amp rating, weight of copper contained or overall weight, or 'war stories' that might quantify any superiority of the Westinghouse motor verses the other first generation traction motors?
How did the Westinghouse motor compare with the later General Electric 752 motor???
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.