This locomotive had powered axles under it almost all the way from front to back. Nobody else built a diesel like that. Someone at Baldwin thought this was a good concept. Can anyone tell me what the rational was for doing it this way? I was just curious. I never saw one of these in service.
George
Only the middle eight axles were powered on a centipede. The first one was built as a Baldwin demonstrator which was sort of an early genset unit, which was supposed to have 8 750 HP transverse engine/generator modules (it only ever got four) for 6000 HP with the imposing model number DR-8-12-750/8 which indicated 8 powered axles (out of 12) with 8 750 HP engines. The prototype didn't work out so the frame was re-used on the prototype for the production type DR-8-12-1500/2 which had a pair of 608SC engines for 3000 HP. Seaboard and NdeM got single unit versions (Seaboards's would multiple with other makes - not common with Baldwin models) and PRR got two-unit drawbar-connected versions. None were particularly successful, though Seaboards an NdeMs' had a fairly long life, improved after Baldwin developed the "Mexican Hat" piston (after its shape, not NdeM) to fix a chronic problem with turbo failures due to unburned fuel.
The rationale was based on 1930s electric locomotive design (think GG1) and on union contracts that did not allow treating MU consistes as a single locomotive. Changes in law and contracts would have done the centipedes in even without Baldwin diesels' poor performance and high maintenance cost.
Labor contracts did not specifically mandate a crew for each diesel unit but management at the time did fear grievances over this issue. This was the rationale for the letter suffixes on booster units and one road number for four-unit FT sets.
It's correct that only the middle eight axles on the centipedes were powered, however provisions wer made to power the other four axles for a "freight only" version. Both pilot and trailing truck had mounts for traction motors for a DR12-12-1500/2. Seaboard Air Line's were retired in 1959 and 1960. Most of Pennsy's were out of service in 1958 but actually not scrapped until 1962. NdeM 6400-6406 and 6409-6413 were rebuilt about this time. 6409 and 6412 would be gone by 1962, and all but three of the others were gone by 1967. 6401, 6402 and 6405 would serve NdeM until 1971. (Which leaves the tantalizing possibility that at one point, one locked knuckles with something as new as a GP38 or an SD40. Photos exist of them with C424s. NdeM had better luck with their units for serveral reasons. They had patient, persistent, highly capable and resourceful shop crews (which helped many an oddball locomotive survive). They also placed the units in service that played to their strengths. (Pennsy made the baffling decision--at one point--to attempt using them to shove cars over a classification hump--which gave them lots of practice at rerailing centipedes.) SAL's were able to run with other units AFTER SAL rebuilt them with EMD-style electric throttles. (Baldwins came with a pneumatic throttle as standard equipment, which was why most could not MU with other builders' units. This trait was a leading factor in dooming their locomotives to an early scrapping. Baldwin would later offer an electric throttle as an extra-cost option.) NdeM also ran trains suited to the use of a single centipede as power and also as manned head-end helpers between Saltillo and Carneros, both assignments that rendered their incompatibility with other units a moot point.
While there was a rampant fear among the railroads that the unions would demand a crew for each locomotive, there were no contracts that required this. Fortunately unions accepted the precedent set by traction companies (interurbans) and agreed any number of MUed units required only one crew. The centipede's design was based on the possiblity the unions might make a demand that each unit have a crew.
I've never seen any mention of the Centipede prototype being able to shut down and start up engines as needed. Without that feature it wasn't a 1940's era Genset.
Mexico's Centipedes were rebuilt by Baldwin starting in 1953 which is when they received their new "Mexican hat" piston design and improved turbochargers that resolved most of their issues. They also lacked dynamic brakes which along with their inability to MU saw them gravitate to helper service where their high tractive effort could be put to good use and those drawbacks didn't matter as much.
And while a large new locomotive order and a recession saw Pennsy's Centipedes stored in 1958, many came out that Fall again and several stayed active into the 60's. Retirement came in 1962 and some units were still active when that came.
Beyond reliability (Which was poor and saw Pennsy derate them), several significant mechanical issues, inability to MU with other power and lack of nose connections, and the lack of dyanamic braking, another significant issue with Pennsy's were the drawbars which meant that only Juniata's backshop could handle maintenance on them and roundhouses couldn't accommodate them due to the length.
Retirement dates for SAL's Centipedes show as 1961 for the 4500, 1957 for series 4501-4505, and 1961 for 4506-4513. For Mexico, I show two being unrebuilt and retired in 1954, two being retired 1961-1962, seven from 1964-1967, and the last three in 1971.
I have different dates for the SAL units in different orders, though all mine show 1959 and 1960 dates. Our NdeM information matches. I had conflicting reports regarding PRR's last time used, though have the 1962 retirement date from several sources. It was towards the middle of the 60s that NdeM's started staying strictly between Saltillo and Carneros to serve as head-end helpers. As we've both noted, they went from 10 in 1964 to 3 by 1967. (It's the ten still in service in 1964 that I have models of. 6400-6406, 6410, 6411, and 6413. Thank you Broadway Limited, even though they have the Pennsy carbody.)
Yeah, as far as I know none of them had dynamic brakes.
It created a dilemma for the Pennsylvania when the Fall traffic rush of 1958 hit and they were unexpectantly returned to service after being stored several months earlier. Maintenance had been neglecting their many brake shoes since there were so many and they were a pain to replace since a large diesel order that was planned to kill the last of steam during traffic rushes was expected to keep these from ever being needed again when a recession struck and reduced traffic requirements. So minimum work had been being undertaken in recent months.
But return they did and the brake shoes were in horrible shape due to their heavy usage due to the lack of dynamic brakes and subsequent neglect when it was thought they were done for soon. There's first hand information in Trains Magazine of their reactivation and subsequent usage of some members into 1962 when they were retired so I think that's reliable information. What I don't know is just how many survived in active service into that final year.
My guess is that the photo you saw was indeed one of the two that was retired early in Mexico. I've never seen the reasons explained why they didn't get rebuilt along with their sisters so crash damage makes perfect sense. I imagine the other unit also was seriously damaged and considered not worth rebuilding either via a wreck or a particularly bad fire.
My Centipede retirement dates come from this publication and were compiled by Kenneth L. Douglas with assistance from David H. Hamley. I can't personally attest to their accuracy.
Leo_Ames I've never seen any mention of the Centipede prototype being able to shut down and start up engines as needed. Without that feature it wasn't a 1940's era Genset.
I had the impression from contemporary literature that the individual drive was intended for reliability in cases of road failure, and adjusting available power to train characteristics at the start of a given run. From what I understand, though, current designs of genset are not designed to fully start and stop engines based on actual load, although there are controls allowing separate loading/idling, so the comparison is not as dismissible as it may appear at first. That functionality would be relatively simple to add to a Centipede, as you'd only need to interrupt the throttle rack opening and generator field on a selctable-individual-engine basis. (This might well be electrical rather than pneumatic, because no proportionality is required, but you would need some sort of dashpot to prevent excessively quick throttle response when individual engines were cut in with the locomotive at high speed or load.) I would NOT expect any early expectation of MUing 6000 HP locomotives together in the early '40s, even if Baldwin weren't working off analogy with single-locomotive-headed consists a la steam. If MU were to be combined with individual control over 8 engines per unit ... well, actually, the EMD 'digital' logic system (with three 'bit states') would have worked because at least one engine per locomotive would have to stay running at all times, so you could easily 'isolate' in pairs, triples, etc. even without addressable switches and cables for each individual engine in multiple units...
These things would NOT be used in switching, so very little benefit in full demand-based on-the-fly startup/shutdown. Even if the coolant loops were interconnectable to keep a chosen set of engines hot, and oil systems on that set were all interconnected and acting as prelubers for the shut-down engines, I doubt that automatic cranking and shutdown on that number (and relative size) of V-12s or V-8s would be particularly practical or safe with the technology of the early Forties. If I remember correctly, the sets were transverse and took up most of the available carbody width, so no longitudinal corridor to reach the individual engines easily for manual starting while moving.
When the design was re-engined with inline motors there was plenty of room for passage, but of course no particular reason for select-a-power of any kind. There was little of that reliably available in the first place... ;-}
And since we have single engine locomotives that are still called "Gensets", you don't even need multiple engines to be called one. So I misspoke.
I think most though when they think of a Genset, they think of multiple small engines and the ability for those to matched to the job.
Leo_Ames And since we have single engine locomotives that are still called "Gensets", you don't even need multiple engines to be called one. So I misspoke. I think most though when they think of a Genset, they think of multiple small engines and the ability for those to matched to the job.
You know, to be honest I had always thought of 'gensets' as being multiple-engined locomotives, and what I was saying about '40s-era 'gensets' did explicitly presume that -- so Leo does not need to qualify his reply merely on that basis. This post of Leo's brings up a (possibly) important semantic issue:
Is a given locomotive a "genset" if it takes advantage of small packaged engine-generator sets, or just because it uses a small high-speed engine/generator set in place of a larger or purpose-built diesel-electric powerplant? I believe most 'genset' locomotives with only one "genset" in them are actually hybrids, like the Green Goat, that use a small onboard engine-powered generator for charging and/or peak power assist. Those are probably best considered not as 'genset' locomotives, but assisted battery locomotives, or hybrid locomotives.
(Situation might be -- not really, but semantically -- complicated because there are so many standalone generator units with 567s and 645s in them... ;-} )
Technically it is possible to build a 'genset' chassis but populate it with only one genset unit to start. It would also be possible to take the 567 out of a unit like a Geep or F unit and replace it with a genset, for example to make a dinner-train locomotive EPA compliant or more economical to keep in service. But neither of these changes the fundamental assumption that a 'genset' locomotive is designed around the assumption that there are multiple engines, and the output power of the engine is 'scaled' by controlling those engines separately -- whether via independent throttle control (automatic or manual), dropping units back to idle, or physically shutting some of them down.
The chief operational difference between the original Centipede idea and the modern genset is probably still in the design philosophy of keeping one engine/generator modlule associated directly with only one traction motor. ISTR some discussion that the locomotives, if provided initially with a reduced number of engine/generator 'modules' to give a lower power, would also lack TMs on the 'unassociated' axles. Economy by starting up and shutting down some of the engines 'in flight' was most probably not a major point, even though keeping some of them off to save fuel on a given run would have been (and starting one to replace a failed one's output would have been).
This all in turn begs a different question: Why are there no current genset engines that allow 'predictive' automatic startup and shutdown, and idling/power-modulation, control? In my opinion, any extension of the genset idea to road locomotives would almost certainly have to provide some such capability.
If this topic ought to be taken to its own post -- mods, hit it!
RME
The original Baldwin Centipede demonstrator (described by me as a sort of 1940's era Genset) really was more like 8 750 HP locomotives on the same chassis. I can't locate the article that explained this, but it appears that the intent was to have each engine pod power one axle, but I'm sure the idea of starting and stopping individual engines never even ocurred to Baldwin engineers. It would probably have been nearly impossible with Baldwin's pneumatic controls. I think the idea was that the smaller 750 HP engines, of a design similar to the rugged VO engine used in switchers, would be easier to maintain than larger, tubocharged engines like the 608SCs used in the later versions. I think it says a lot that only four of the engine pods were built. The plumbing connections to add or remove them must have been pretty messy.
BLW 6000 was less a demonstrator and more of a testbed for Max Essl's concept of multiple small engine-generator sets. Only four engines were actually installed in the testbed since a World War was occurring at the same time, which caused various limitations and shortages.
The article describing this monstrosity is in the January 1963 TRAINS.
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.)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
So I imagine credit for that arrangement that apparently rode more smoothly than the best diesels of the era goes squarely to Baldwin.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
this why this forum exceeds all expectations all the time
I wonder if Baldwin's centipede would have received the "sharknose" style body and cab had production been extended beyond 1948?
Lyon_Wonder 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...]
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.
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.
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
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...)
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.
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.
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!
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.