I was watching some old Pentrex videos and in one of them they were talking about the Baldwing Center Cabs. Does anyone know the reason for it’s downfall? Having the cab in the middle seems like a good idea. Would this concept be practical today or is this just one of those rare and unique engines ever built?
Larry
There are more myths about Baldwin products than you can count on one hand. Whether it is the supposed lack of multiple unit capability, late entry in the market or the poor tracking capabilities of their larger models, you can take your pick of any one of these oft repeated fallacies, none of which are true as they were related in some surprisingly reputable places. In general, the transfer type engine or “ centercab” was created in an era prior to the advent of anti- wheel slip technology and as a result, was designed to be a very heavy unit for moving large cuts of cars in drag, transfer or switching operations. Hence the redundant dual cab stands. When compared to contemporary EMD products you could say they were not general purpose engines. This is why it is unlikely you will see this type again. No foreman of engines likes to see a variety of types to service. However, in the early transition era, there was a great deal of concern with the crash worthiness of diesel cabs in general by engine crews when compared to steam locomotives whose long boiler placed the cab far back to the forward impact point. That’s why many engines were run long nose forward. Today these concerns ( at least as far as I know ) are not present. The Baldwin’s were built with virtually indestructible cast steel frames. One could argue they were overbuilt. However when an EMD product met a Baldwin product in a cornfield meet, there are many stories of who came out on top. It wasn’t the EMD. While redundant control equipment is an increased cost many roads would not pay for if it were only for the crew’s convenience. Visibility is another issue that someone more qualified than myself would have to answer by comparing actually running a “centercab” in service and comparing it to today’s switchers. That would be some interesting information.
Very interesting. Thanks
Visibility: no different than running long hood forward. To do that safely, you need two men in the cab - one on each side. “In those days”, they had the manpower.
The “stories” that were mentioned above are both true and false. Baldwin used a tender truck design for its “modern” units of six axel six motor design and friction bearings. They were also asymetrical. the result of single point contact with the frame, the looseness of friction bearings and the asymetrical design caused bad tracking when power was applied to all 3 axels of the truck. The trucks would hunt. When the 6-6-1500’s were first used in Oregon, they spread the rails where a 2-8-0 or 4-8-0 would not. A lot of upgrading of the track structure was required.
When you have units that will not multiple with the rest of your units, you end up needing to purchase more locomotive units than otherwise needed. If I were the owner of the RR, that would not be permitted to happen, and most roads did not permit it.
Baldwin wasn’t really late into the market, but they were either too early or late. They had a 6000 HP unit in 1947 when all that was desired were 1500 or 1600 HP units. They were late with roller bearings and tri-mount trucks.
Baldwin and Alco used asymetrical trucks for their 6 axel-6 motor units. This design of trucks with the center axel mounted toward one end of the truck rather that in the middle have a habit of not tracking well.
One thing that was not mentioned was “not reliable”. Baldwin did have some reliability problems, but then all manufacturers had some of these things. The real problem, is that Baldwins could do more work per HP than any of the others and the railroads always underpowered trains using Baldwin units. The SP would put one 6-6-1500 or AS 616 on a train that would require two SD-9’s, and overwork the Baldwin. Of course, eventually, it would fail and then get a very bad rap - and so would Baldwin. I have seen AS616’s wouk upgrade, all dri
I agree with the rugged durability of Baldwin units as well as the misperception that they entered the market late. Actually Baldwin’s first prototype diesel was produced in 1925 and had several switcher types on major roads by the 1930’s. As far as multiple unit capabliity, this was an option on all production models, according to John Kirkland who held the position of Superintendant of diesel locomotive production. As far as the truck design you mentioned in regard to tracking , as far as I know, the jury is still out when you look at their troublefree operation on some pretty rough track on several logging roads. This was debated back and forth between Baldwin and several roads. Baldwin claimed poor track maintenance and the roads blamed the design of the trucks. Hunting was a problem at speed at times. I think the only reason they were pushed out of the market was the strong standardization philosophy of EMD who also had their production capability honed by their experience in the automotive field. I agree that Baldwin’s are under rated. How many EMD products share an equally long operational record? Come to think of it, what’s the oldest diesel unit still in regular operation? I know the Trona Baldwin units were resold for further use which to me is just nothing short of amazing.
Part of the problem was that Baldwin locomotives as a whole tended to be oddballs in an EMD/Alco/GE world, and maintenance tended to suffer as a result. I have also read that they tended to be high-maintenance with lots of oil leaks and a wiring layout that often ran afoul of the oil lines.
Some of the longest-lived centercabs did have multiple-unit control, but they didn’t keep their original De La Vergne engines. EJ&E re-powered almost all of their centercabs, some with upgraded 606A engines, but most with EMD 567 engines. The EMD-repowered centercabs lasted about four to five years longer than the Baldwin-powered centercabs.
I saw in two videos these center cab units operating on the Pennsy. Yet, the PRR is not listed as an original buyer. Did Baldwin make more than one model of the center cab transfer units?
This HAS to be a record for necro thread revival.
Interestingly enough, PRR had only one kind of center-cab Baldwin (RT-624; BS24m) although there are expensive painted models of the earlier DT-6-6-2000 in PRR paint. You’ll see references to “DT-6-6-2400” but the road numbers map to Limas…
PRR also had 22 Lima centercabs (at 2500hp) and I suspect there are some out there who mistake them for ‘earlier’ Baldwins. See Allen Hazen, Will Davis et al. on the various series here.
Minneapolis Northfield & Southern Ry. used them.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=399082
For a time circa 1964, MN&S double headed them on their trains. Running wide open up a grade, they sounded like a Caterpillar D8 pushing gravel in a pit.
My investigation after posting finds the the RT-624 was an improved version of the DT-6-6-2000. One RT-624 survives at the Illinois Railroad Museum, in operating condition.
I’m frankly ashamed that you would miss the obvious so badly, and not point out that they sounded like a pair of Euclid TC-12s.
(Of course there were three examples of a “TC-12” competitor made with D-8s, and now a replica…)
Hey, I know what, let’s see what that sounds like, too…
Mom - I invited some guys over for Memorial Day and the tore up the front yard.[#oops]
I stand corrected. The surviving Baldwin Center Cab at the Illinois museum is a DT 6-6-3000
Need a little more correction. There is no DT-6-6-3000; it’s a DT-6-6-2000. You were right as you had it in your earlier post.
Theoretically a 3000hp transfer unit could have been built with the early Sharknose DR-4-4-1500 engines, or a 3200hp unit with the engines in the RF16s. But there was no demand for anything with that power on six axles at the time, and of course the whole humongous-double-engined centercab market did not develop much further.
Parade O’ Baldwins, anyone?
The Baldwin engines were actually two engines put together with the cab in the middle of the two. They had (at least for the 1940’s) a huge amount of power, so were often used as transfer engines slowly moving long cuts of freight cars from one yard to another railroad’s yard a few miles away.
Besides the extra power involved, there were union issues at that time. Most railroad contracts said a locomotive had to have an engineer and a fireman. The unions said this meant if you ran two diesels m.u.'ed together, you still had to have two employees per engine. By making two normal locomotives into one huge one, the railroads could say it was only one locomotive so only required one crew. Those issues were resolved by about 1950. (BTW that’s also why so many early F-units came with drawbars instead of couplers between them, and were numbered by the railroads as sections of the same locomotive, like an A-B-A set numbered 303A-303B-303C.)
There is quite a history with these centercab designs. EMC was involved briefly with them early on (for Illinois Central) but rapidly diverged into producing ‘cow-calf’ locomotives (like a center-cab with a coupling between one end of the cab and the adjacent hood) which were like switcher bodies on FT running gear. These TR units were drawbarred, and built prewar.
Postwar of course EMD had a whole series of TR units, usually with switcher-size units (and developing additional horsepower by adding multiple units: a cow with two ‘calves’ being called a ‘herd’, at least by railfans.) Someone more alert than me will know when it became expedient to have these coupled in MU rather than semipermanently joined…
This approach gave flexibility, but incurred the cost of four trucks instead of two for the centercabs, so you see the Baldwin approach initially sold to a surprisingly large number of roads. Of course by the time the 600A series was refined into production and Baldwin had supposedly eliminated the worst of its reliability quirks, no one was buying the ‘new’ version but PRR… and they only briefly.
There were some large centercabs not built by major builders; see the units built for Ford that ran so long on the WA&G.
The definitive ‘cure’ for the big centercabs was the introduction of second-generation road-switcher power, which could do with one engine and nominally better visibility what previously called for two. By the time large two-engined power became ‘desirable’ again, for other reasons than transfer effectiveness, it would be in different carbodies with a decidedly different machinery layout. (Practically speaking, perhaps starting with these.
The Ford/WAG locomotives were closer in size to large industrial switchers than a Baldwin or Lima centercab.
Trona Railway ran their Baldwin center cabs until 1993… Rail classics had a good article on them sometime in the mid 70s. along with a centerfold photo which I liked so much I framed it and hung it in my room.
But much, much bigger (both in actual and apparent size) than most of the industrial centercabs built. 132 tons is appreciable – I know it is a bit specious to compare this with a Charger or Genesis locomotive, but it’s getting into that weight range. These were NOT little locomotives. (Think of it as three 44-tonners for perspective…)
As an aside: it felt almost like seeing an old friend to encounter a couple of the ‘Ford-replacement’ F units from the WA&G operating in Arkansas – one guy even painted his mailbox to match them.
