Freelanced Rebuilds

[METRO]

A couple months ago, I'd been thinking for a while of a way to justify putting Baldwins on my layout as coach switchers. At the time I was using a pair of Athearn SW1000s but I never really liked the look of the engines and would have much rather had some VO series working on them instead, only problem is that my line is set in the current day.

Then one cold day on my way to campus, I saw my answer switching at an autobody plant: an IC rebuilt GP-9 (my friends and I call em chop-jobs because of the lowered nose.) So I got online and looked to see if I could find any Baldwins that had been rebuilt, and when that turned up cold I had a friend of mine who's an enginering major take a look at the VO series and we figured out what could be a reasonable rebuild.

What I settled on was a pair of VO-660 Phase-1s that had been rebuilt by Montréal Locomotive Works using the guts of late-model S-series switchers. To model this I picked up a pair of Stewart Hobbies Baldwins and just switched around a few details.

Instead of using the Baldwin exaust stack I fitted a shortened Alco-style stack near the radiator vent (close to where is is traditionally on Alcos and MLWs) instead of near the cab. Then I added a set of vents on the top of the hood as well. I figure the repowered units would put down about 1000hp (same as the Alco/MLW S switchers) and, once painted, they'll look great taking over for the SW1000s pulling passenger and commuter rakes into my main station.

So, anyone have any thoughts or comments? Anyone ever do anything simmiar? I think it's a great way to keep first generation power on modern layouts.

~METRO

[Morpar]

As an industry to my future layout, I will have a small-medium sized locomotive rebuilder just "off scene". This will give me:
1. An excuse to have chopped nose SD7 + SD9 units running around with the IC rebuild look (that's all that have been built for now)
2. An excuse to have a completely different paint scheme on some units (I like colors, what can I say)
3. An reason to have "foreign road" units around more often
4. An industry to send loads to and from
5. A reason to have locos that don't really "fit in" with the roster.
I say go for it!!! There are a lot of first generation rebuilt units still in service out there, so I see no reason not to do the same.

[jrbernier]

METRO,

The NP had Baldwin switchers and had problems with them. They had them rebuilt with EMD prime movers - your idea have merit!

Jim Bernier

[Anonymous]

Sounds like my justification for an Erie-Built not only surviving into the 21st Century, but also working with cars that need HEP (which wasn't invented when they were built). The museum's C&NW 6001B is assumed to have laid dormant in a weed-grown corner of the yard for many years, to the extent that most of the mechanical components were well beyond saving. It was decided instead to rebuild the loco using more recent and easily available EMD parts, and to fit HEP at the same time to allow it to work main-line excursion trains as well as the bilevel cars it usually hauls. After a 10-year rebuild we now have a loco that looks exactly the same as it did when it left the Fairbanks-Morse Erie plant, but has modern mechanical components. Operationally it is assumed to be as powerful as the original (2000HP), and when I can afford to I plan to fit a 2nd-generation EMD sound chip - with turbo - as this is the type of power unit it is now assumed to have. The things we do to run locos we like!

[METRO]

Brit, The NYC actually repowered FM C-liners with EMD parts so I think you've got something there. The only real spotters difference I rembember was that the rebuilds had a pair of EMD-style exahust stacks (1st gen GP/SD style) and something like that could be very easily fitted to your C-liner.

As for why I chose an MLW rebuild instead of a GMD, the answer is twoforld:

First, most all of the other locomotives on the commuter roadname are ALCOs and GEs so it made sense to keep the Baldwins in the same line.

Seccond, when my buddy and I looked at enginering specs from the old NYC locomotive book, we saw that the Alco S-series and the Baldwin VO-series were mechanically very simmilar, they used the same gear ratios, had a very simmilar wheelbase and had simmilar positioning of most internal components. They also both ran on inline-6 cylinder engines while the SW and NW series, with a few lower powered exceptions ran on larger 8 and 12 cylinder engines.

~METRO

[Anonymous]

Metro, I didn't know about the NYC rebuilds - guess it comes under the heading of "prototype for everything"! I've considered changing a few details on mine, but given it's a museum loco I've decided they would have rebuilt it to look original rather than changing anything. Thanks for the information!

[WSOR 3801]

As for the EMD powered Erie-built...

2000 hp is usually non-turbo V-16. Turbo V-16 would be 3000 hp, turbo V-12 would be 2300 hp. You could just say it's 3000 hp, with some drawn off for HEP, as done on the F40PH, but a much nicer carbody.

Non-turbo sounds quite a bit different from turbo. I usually work on nonturbo, but the railroad does have some SD40-2s to listen to once in a while.

Not trying to nitpick or anything, just some background info.

[Anonymous]

Not nit-picking at all - thanks for the advice! I don't often get close to EMD power units over here (though some of our latest diesels are EMD-built (the Class 66)). I thought the turbo would be a good way to make the loco noticably different (to enthusiasts at least) from the original - nobody does a Fairbanks-Morse sound decoder anyway to the best of my knowledge. I'll just change over to quoting the power as being the same as an F40PH, given my plan would be to run a pair of them with 5 superliners and a few MHCs/Express boxcars on mainline "railtour" services (if I ever manage to build a larger layout) this would make sense. Thanks for the information!

[METRO]

Actually Brit, if I were to rebuild an Erie, I'd design the internals more like an F-59 or P-42 because of the longer carbody.

A prime problem of the F40 was that with large loads (as on GO Transit) or over mountains (as on Amtrak and Via) they were seriously underpowered. The units on GO got nicknamed screamers because they had to run at very high RPMs in order to pull the 10-car trainsets and provide HEP at the same time. On Amtrak and Via, the situation was actually worse as many trains in mountainous areas had to cut HEP on grades to keep the generators from burning out.

To fix this problem, EMD designed the F-59 with independent HEP engines (resulting in a slightly longer engine) and upgraded horsepower. your Erie could easily fit a seperate HEP system within it, probably where the steam generator was, and you could say that the exaust was routed into the main stack thereby eliminating the need for any external detail parts.

Just a thought there

~METRO

[DanRaitz]

Metro,

I know at least 2 railroads that repowered Baldwins.
The St. Louis & San Fransico "Frisco" and the Missouri Kansas & Texas "MKT".

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/slsf/slsf201.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/mkt/mkt34arp.jpg

Dan

[joseph2]

Maybe you could use a VO-660 and say it received a overhaul in the 1980's.My employer uses a Baldwin DS 44-1000 that was overhauled in 1979.A company called Auto Train used a Baldwin to switch a coach yard in the 1970's.

[METRO]

Lol there's something not quite kosher about a Baldwin switcher with an EMD front grill! Haha, anyways, the story I'm sticking to is that my VO-660s were rebuilt by MLW in the late 1960s with the internals of an S-13.

One of the things I always loved about the Baldwins was the front grill on the early VO series, so an GMD (Canadian division of EMD) rebuild would take that great asthetic feature.

~METRO