Locomotive "Edsels"

[Cris_261]

The May 1982 issue of Trains has a lengthy story on the Centipede, and it looks like there's copies still available on the back issue part of this website.

Union Pacific ordered a pair of drawbar linked Centipedes from Baldwin, but canceled the order. So the completed pair of locomotives was fielded as a demo set for a while before returning to its builder to be scrapped.

[PBenham]

Strongly recommended reading:"Pennsy Power II",and III, by Alvin Staufer and Bert Pennypacker. Also worth a look, "A Pennsy Diesel Power Review" by Paul Carleton. Both provide good coverage of the centipedes mis-adventures on PRR after the big red subway found the DR12-8-1500/2s were not equal to three E7s! Also look at "The Diesel Builders, VolII" by John F. Kirkland, which covered Baldwin. Easier to find, and easier on the wallet, is "Diesels From Eddystone" by Gary and Stephen Dolzall. All of these do not treat the centipedes very kindly. But in "Pennsy Power II and III", the authors did try to be objective. Kirkland defended the design, while Carelton was amused by their antics trying to do jobs they weren't designed to do!

[Anonymous]

Scarcely a glance by Trains?  I recall at least one cover story and several other articles considering its service on PRR and SAL

And the dates of those articles would be?

I've missed only a couple issues since 2000, and I can recall only a couple pics and a few passing mentions over that time frame.

[nanaimo73]

There are some articles here-

http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=S&cmdtext=centipede&MAG=ANY

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I know, "a cover story" and honorable mention in the turkey category of every other diesel article. It´s just when one has a love for a particular locomotive or railroad subject, there is NEVER enough coverage. It´s just a damn shame that Baldwin didn´t build the Centipede model in a factory about 1/2 way up Cajon Pass. BTW does anyone out there know what issues of what magazines had the Centipede articles? I suscribe to all major rail magazines but recent moves have caused the collection to vanish, still, I cannot recall more then passing interest in these great locomotives. Bob

[Anonymous]

Scarcely a glance by Trains?  I recall at least one cover story and several other articles considering its service on PRR and SAL, which considering its numbers and impact on railroading is not hardly a glance, but more like proportionally excessive.

S. Hadid

[Anonymous]

I agree with the comment that every publication, including TRAINS has blown by the Centipede without much more then a passing glance. It may well be the most ignored large production diesel of all time. Granted it only sold to 4 roads and one of them, UP conceled its order before delivery in favor of trying turbine´s.  I saw a Centipede in action only once. It was on the point of a rather short Seaboard passenger train, detouring over the ACL in the early AM northbound into Jacksonville. Hot still air, ground fog, a distant light and a strange horn, suddenly the ground shook, dust flew, engine noise, smoke, lurching, bounding, like a misguided cannon ball...NOTHING in my railfan experience of 50+ years equaled it.

I grew up just a couple miles from the Seaboards Beaver Street shops and yards in Jacksonville and had the honor of going to school with Mr. Hastings (SCL motive power super) son. I never heard ANY bad talk of the Centipedes from the Seaboard men, Hastings himself seemed to wish they were still around...almost as if they were killed by politics more then service.They had a good availability on the Meteor and other passenger trains which is what they were designed for. The whole concept was to take a longer route, roller coaster profile, single track railroad (Seaboard) and give it a locomotive that could whip a passenger train along better then E Units over on a shorter, flat, double track route (ACL). Give it plenty of wheels to spread its weight over possible sub perfect trackage on branchlines and secondary mains. What caused them to falter was a Baldwin curse. Electric panels that shorted out usually due to water finding its way in through the roof vents and fans. This happened to the CNJ babyface fleet and the GM&O beautiful A-1-A units (which went into storage almost new only to be traded and scraped years latter with few miles),.Certainly the bugs were out by the time the giant Transfer Locomotives were delivered.  

Had they stretched their legs on Sherman Hill things might have been different. Or had Baldwin gone ahead an brought them up to the planned 6,000 HP. Perhaps. Maybe if they had awaited the safety cab era and introduced them in say, 1995 ? Such are dreams made of, I for one miss them.

 

[tree68]

As far as looks: while I don't particularly care for Cesar Vergara's designs, I agree with his point that we should not replicate the past.  While the F40PH and the other EMD cowl designs are boxy looking, they do have an appeal of their own.  Also remember that the compound curves of the bulldog nose are expensive to produce compared even to an Alco flatnose.  Production costs are part of any design, and Vergara's comments concerning industrial design are worth listening to.

We should probably consider our selves lucky that the railroads that are buying passenger power apparently want that power to look like passenger power, or we'd have -70's and C44's on the point.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Missing from this discussion are the French Turbo trains that used to operate in Midwest corridor service. Some also ran on New Your Empire service?

Amtrak has had bad luck with their locos. From the SDP40 to the F40 to the GE models. Nothing that has the smooth look of a E or PA unit.

Amtrak had some bad luck with the SDP40F, much of which was the result of running over less than optimum track.  No bad luck with the F40PH's, 20 years of reliable service in a lot of high-speed running is not to be sneezed at.  The jury is still out on the various Genesis models.

As far as looks: while I don't particularly care for Cesar Vergara's designs, I agree with his point that we should not replicate the past.  While the F40PH and the other EMD cowl designs are boxy looking, they do have an appeal of their own.  Also remember that the compound curves of the bulldog nose are expensive to produce compared even to an Alco flatnose.  Production costs are part of any design, and Vergara's comments concerning industrial design are worth listening to.

[Wdlgln005]

Missing from this discussion are the French Turbo trains that used to operate in Midwest corridor service. Some also ran on New Your Empire service?

Amtrak has had bad luck with their locos. From the SDP40 to the F40 to the GE models. Nothing that has the smooth look of a E or PA unit.

[Murphy Siding]

 Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned?  U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?

The U-boats were mentioned here-

Particularly nasty "lemons" were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren't too thrilled by their low reliability). 

     I do remember reading  some not so flattering things about the bigger U-boats lack of traction on wet tracks.

[Cris_261]

 Alco Century Series C-628, C-630 demonstrators which failed right & left while out west. (Santa Fe & UP dropped orders)...exit ALCO in the US

I didn't know that Santa Fe took a look at Alco's C628 and C630 demos on the posibility of placing an order or two. Interesting!

UP bought ten C630s, that wound up on the Duluth Missabe & Iron Range, before heading north to the Cartier Railway.

[PBenham]

Very few railroaders that ran U23s, 25s,28's,30's,33's and 36's in both 4 and 6 motor configurations liked them. U-boats continue to "make friends", even 30+years later. A ride on Conway Scenic behind their U23B and an FP9 had the traditional layover at the 'notch. The engineer had nothing nice to say about the U23B they'd bought. It brought back memories of EL, LV, N&W and PC engineers complaining about their roads U-boats!

[oltmannd]

As for the FL-9 I would be hard pressed to call any locomotive a failure if the last units were only retired just this last year!

 

Thats a phenominal record!

 

A few things to remember, the first two FL9's also served as demonstrators, presumably NYC and PRR were the intended customers but they never bought one; FL9's were niche locomotives and lasted as long as they did because no builder offered a locomotive to fill that niche until GE came out with the Genesis line; their field of service gradually shrank as they got older.

It's interesting that the 1st 2 demo units were built with Blomberg trucks - but had 3rd rail issues.  EMD had to come up with the one of a kind "road" two axle Flexicoil as a replacment. 

They did look neat, particularly in the NH paint, but woof, woof!

[oltmannd]

 Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned?  U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?

The U-boats were mentioned here-

Particularly nasty "lemons" were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren't too thrilled by their low reliability). 

I remember reading an article (on Western Pacific ?) that said the railroad did not want EMDs leading when they were mixed in a consist with GEs.

The GP60M was too heavy, because Santa Fe wanted the safety cab on a 4 axel locomotive. This resulted in a rough riding locomotive with an inadequate fuel supply. Did they have any other problems ?

I have heard nasty things about NS's GP60s, too.  They SHOULD have been pretty good locomotives - don't know what the issues are.  They do need yaw dampers to keep the ride decent at high speeds, though. 

[nanaimo73]

 Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned?  U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?

The U-boats were mentioned here-

Particularly nasty "lemons" were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren't too thrilled by their low reliability). 

I remember reading an article (on Western Pacific ?) that said the railroad did not want EMDs leading when they were mixed in a consist with GEs.

The GP60M was too heavy, because Santa Fe wanted the safety cab on a 4 axel locomotive. This resulted in a rough riding locomotive with an inadequate fuel supply. Did they have any other problems ?

[Murphy Siding]

This engine would also be a lemon then the GP20 only made because UP forced EMD to turbocharge the 567 engine.

     I thought EMD put those into production, because UP had such good experiences with the turbocharged units?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

As for the FL-9 I would be hard pressed to call any locomotive a failure if the last units were only retired just this last year!

 

Thats a phenominal record!

[vsmith]

As for the FL-9 I would be hard pressed to call any locomotive a failure if the last units were only retired just this last year!

 

Thats a phenominal record!

[oltmannd]

Differing points of view:

 

The FL-9's were not lemons.   But they were rated at less horsepower than the diesels and especially the electrics they replaced, and so they could not do the job on anything like a unit for unit basis.   Then, maintenance was cut to the bone.   They were really the first successful dual power passenger locomotive in North America, and it is quite amazing that even after their official retirement, they occasionally show up in passenger service on the Waterbury and Danbury Metro North (ConnDot) branches, and a few a still officially active in work-train service.   Pretty darn good for a 50-year-old locomotive.

 

One issue, again, was that the vendor to EMD for the change-over switches and gear went out of busiiness and replacements were hard to come by as normal wear and tear required replacements.

 

Also, the very clever EMD-designed double-sprung third rail shoes that permitted electric operation on both the New York Central and the LIRR third rails required maintenance of both the shoes and the third rails.   All had to be kept within tolerances for the pick-up to work properly.  Penn Central would do track maintenance in the Park Avenue Tunnel, not provide the design ramps at the ends of the gaps where the third rail was missing, and wham!  a shoe would be klocked off the next FL-9 to run down the track.

 

There is a good book out on the subject:   Diesels to Park Avenue

 

Also, the Alcoes on the New Haven, the road switchers, the DL-109, and the FA and PA's during the early days, benefited from excellent maintenance and gave good service.   But once mainenance standards fell, the GM's became the favorites very quickly, especially the GP-9's. 

 

I rode the Boston - New York Turbotrain numerous times.   Definitely NOT a lemon.   And it ran on DC electric successfully without problems, first into GCT, then with a change in third rail shoes, into Penn.   The two real problems were (1) only two of a kind, specialized maintenance, and (2) rotton fuel economy.   It was not like the earlier experimental lighweights, but rode pretty well and reasonable and high speeds over reasonable track.

 

The Edsel was mechanically just another Mercury, and no better or worse, without any technilogical improvement, and the Mercury and Lincoln both looked a lot better in most people's eyes, certainly mine!

I will grant you that much of my disdain for the FL9 comes from my experience with them on Amtrak Empire Svc trains and MN Harlem trains in the 1970s.  MN did not seem to have much of a clue about keeping them going.  The six that Amtrak had rebuilt and maintained at Rensselear seemed to do better - in fact were the only ones I can ever recall clearing Park Ave tunnel on electric.  The farthest we ever go on an MN FL9 was the end of the platform!

But, from a design standpoint, there were very complicated.  They basically used DB grids with taps and a rotary program switch like a DC MU car to control voltage when on third rail.  It's almost as if EMD did the design by cobblng together parts they had laying around. 

Then there is the suspension.  Not exactly high speed passenger quality.  The front truck was a two axle Flexicoil.  Not nearly as good laterally as the swing-motion Blomberg.  The rear truck was a three axle Flexicoil - designed for freight service.  Not nearly as good as the A-1-A trucks on other passenger units - no swing hanger, again.  The locomotives had a reputation for hunting and PC limited them to 80 mph.  We did some ride quality tests on the Amtrak ones at 90 mph and they rode OK.  The rear truck was a bit bouncy.  Amtrak kept a good 1:40 taper on the wheels, so hunting wasn't evident at 90 mph.  I suspect PC had trued the wheels at 1:20.

[daveklepper]

Differing points of view:

 

The FL-9's were not lemons.   But they were rated at less horsepower than the diesels and especially the electrics they replaced, and so they could not do the job on anything like a unit for unit basis.   Then, maintenance was cut to the bone.   They were really the first successful dual power passenger locomotive in North America, and it is quite amazing that even after their official retirement, they occasionally show up in passenger service on the Waterbury and Danbury Metro North (ConnDot) branches, and a few a still officially active in work-train service.   Pretty darn good for a 50-year-old locomotive.

 

One issue, again, was that the vendor to EMD for the change-over switches and gear went out of busiiness and replacements were hard to come by as normal wear and tear required replacements.

 

Also, the very clever EMD-designed double-sprung third rail shoes that permitted electric operation on both the New York Central and the LIRR third rails required maintenance of both the shoes and the third rails.   All had to be kept within tolerances for the pick-up to work properly.  Penn Central would do track maintenance in the Park Avenue Tunnel, not provide the design ramps at the ends of the gaps where the third rail was missing, and wham!  a shoe would be klocked off the next FL-9 to run down the track.

 

There is a good book out on the subject:   Diesels to Park Avenue

 

Also, the Alcoes on the New Haven, the road switchers, the DL-109, and the FA and PA's during the early days, benefited from excellent maintenance and gave good service.   But once mainenance standards fell, the GM's became the favorites very quickly, especially the GP-9's. 

 

I rode the Boston - New York Turbotrain numerous times.   Definitely NOT a lemon.   And it ran on DC electric successfully without problems, first into GCT, then with a change in third rail shoes, into Penn.   The two real problems were (1) only two of a kind, specialized maintenance, and (2) rotton fuel economy.   It was not like the earlier experimental lighweights, but rode pretty well and reasonable and high speeds over reasonable track.

 

The Edsel was mechanically just another Mercury, and no better or worse, without any technilogical improvement, and the Mercury and Lincoln both looked a lot better in most people's eyes, certainly mine!

[Anonymous]

My friend's dad worked for NYC, PC, CR, and then for NS for a short time before he retired. He complained about the "Junk GE's" constantly later on, he hated the slow loading. He did some yard work sometimes, and would dread seeing the C40-8W's and U boats that he sometimes would get stuck with. He called me up and told me when the last of the old Geeps broke down and was sent to scrap or rebuild for a short line. Sounded like his dog died...I have a bunch of video of one of the last old Geeps working the Stanley yard, CR#7592(?), and another one, maybe it was 7552, can't remember the numbers anymore. I need to transfer that stuff to digital one of these days before the tape gets creaky...

He liked EMD's better than GE's in general, but he said the SD50's originally were junk, but eventually were ok. He wasn't an Alco fan at all, except for the old RS's and S switchers, he liked them ok, but the thought Alco road units sucked. I remember going inside an old F unit when I was in HS, and what a mess it was, he loved all the old non turbo 567 EMD's, regardless of what model.

[Tulyar15]

           Also, Krauss-Maffei makes most lists as "underperformers".  I wonder if they might have worked out a railroad with an easier profile?

I think in their native Germany they were treated more gently. In the 1950's the W. German Railway introduced the V200 class, a 2000hp B-B loco weighing 80 tons. These were regarded as successful at the time, so much so that the Western Region of British Rail the design for their D800 "Warship" class diesel hydraulic locos. (See my post on the British Operations forum regarding these that I posted yesterday). But whereas the V200 were limited to 75mph the Western Region saw fit to authorise the "Warships" to run at 90mph (and a lot of over enthusiatic drivers took them up to 100mph+) and in the summer of 1958 operated the fastest schedules on BR with them. But it was not to last. Soon problems which the Germans had not experienced started to crop. Eventually these were solved but at a considerable cost. During the summer of 1968 the Swindon built Warships did clock up the highest mileage of any 2000+hp diesels on BR (except for the Deltics!) but their high running costs resulted in them all going by the end of 1972.

Back in Germany the V200 class became extinct in the late 1980's but a number of examples are still running with Open Access operators in other European countries.

[edbenton]

This engine would also be a lemon then the GP20 only made because UP forced EMD to turbocharge the 567 engine.

[METRO]

Canadian Pacific never had any of the United Aircraft turbotrains, that was Canadian National and VIA.

In the US, they were owned by New Haven (only for testing really) then Penn-Central and Amtrak.

They were not so much lemons as they  were ahead of their time and tried to cram too much experimental tech into one body.  VIA actually got great service out of them for most of their lives on the line.  They also hold the absolute speed record for passenger equipment in North America as well, that's not a small thing.

Cheers!
~METRO

[Murphy Siding]

     Most of locomotives mentioned here had a reason listed for why they were an Edsel (or...lemon...or Pacer...or Nova...etc...).  A few made people's lists without any explanation.  Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned?  U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?

      Also, Krauss-Maffei makes most lists as "underperformers".  I wonder if they might have worked out a railroad with an easier profile?

[dmoore74]

The Turbo Trains were designed by United Aircraft.

[vsmith]

CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track

WHAT????!!!!!  When did CP get Turbo Trains?  I want one for my layout, way cool!  Hopefully Rapido will make the CP version.

Oh, you meant CN Turbo Train  .  Oh well, and here I was soooo excited 

[Pathfinder]

CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track

WHAT????!!!!!  When did CP get Turbo Trains?  I want one for my layout, way cool!  Hopefully Rapido will make the CP version.






Oh, you meant CN Turbo Train  .  Oh well, and here I was soooo excited 

[vsmith]

Lemon = Unreliable

 

Edsel =  Undesirable

 

Lemon = Aerotrain, despite its then futuristic appearence, it was underpowered, used GM bus bodies and seat for passenger cars that were simply retrucked with single axle bogies that road like hell, the cars were noisy as hell, and the effect was as uncorforatble as hell. It sent commuters running like hell from it.

 

Edsel = Maffei hydrolic units, these actually did work, they're still very common in Europe, but were so different mechanicly and maintanence-wise that ended up being unpopular with crews and roads that tried them. Also add:

DD-35/DD-40/U-50...just a little toooooo biggggggggg

UP Gas Turbine...just a little tooooo thirtsyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track