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…]
We will never know BUT the early RF15,s that went to the Jersey Central and maybe others had a carbody similar in nose design to the centipedes. I am not sure the shortness of the centipede nose would have lent it to the shark configuration in any event so it will remain speculation unless some builders art work shows up which I doubt at this late date.
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.
There were 36 DR 4-4-1500 A sharks and 36 DR 4-4-1500 B sharks. Two of the A units and two of the B units were the Baldwin demonstrators. They were purchased by the EJ&E and were later sold to the B&O. There is mention in the Baldwin Diesel book published by Kalmbach that the demonstrators had longer noses than any of the production sharks.
The PRR DR 4-4-1500 sharks were 9568 through 9593 and 9700 through 9707 A & B each number.
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:
NoHAB!
I love Baldwins, but there is nothing like the voice of the 567. Witness here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj77zRSTRZU
or for a longer tasty touch, the three videos that start with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/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.
Having worked around FM’s in yard service - the oil out the stack was a continuing drawback.
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.
.jpg)
Too bad about “Manitoba”, but if a big antique like a ship can’t earn it’s keep anymore, or becomes too expensive to operate, or just ages out, well. you know the rest.
Fine looking ship just the same. It looks like it’s been well taken care of.
She’s actually safe thanks to always having owners that cared for it and have regularly reinvested in her (Not to mention she was idle for half a decade before her current owners bought her which saved a lot of wear & tear). So she should be around for quite a few more years for Boatnerds and railfans that also see the appeal in watching large impressive ships to enjoy while she continues to earn money for her owners.
It’s the other three survivors of upwards of a dozen 1960’s era Canadian freighters that had FM powerplants that have very questionable futures.
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/algorail.htm
It’s interesting to see that two of those boats were part of Algoma Central’s fleet.
Well that’s good news about “Manitoba.” However those Algoma ships look like they need to strike up a serious relationship with a paint brush! Yikes!
Reminds me of an old mariners joke: “That ship must have gone through the grand-daddy of all hurricanes!” “How so?” “It’s had all it’s paint blown off!”
The Phoenix Star is a old Algoma ship as well. Many of the FM engined ships have been part of the Algoma Central fleet. And the Manitoba had a close sister ship that has been gone for a number of years now that was part of the Algoma fleet (Although the Manitoba never was).
The Algoway and the Algorail have been on their way out for a few years so they’re not wasting effort in a proper repainting. Not much different than 1950’s era steam. And they look far worse in the ballast tanks, cargo holds, and self-unloading tunnels so that’s the least of their worries. Lots of salt cargoes and sailing in the lower St. Lawrence River above Montreal where it starts to turn into salt water are rotting them from the inside out.
Those two had two sisters. The recently scrapped Agawa Canyon (A name that should be familiar to anyone with an interest in the now gone railroad) and the Roy A. Jodrey that bottomed out on Pullman Shoal off Alexandria Bay NY when almost brand new 30 years ago and sunk in deep water where she still is today.
Reading down through this string, I see a number of things I can help shed some light on. I’d highly suggest those interested in the merger of Baldwin Locomotive Works and Lima-Hamilton Corporation track down John Kirkland’s excellent books on the subject. The reasoning behind the merger is made quite clear. There is also a good bit of technical and historical information that would supplant / correct information that has been stated or implied in this message string so far. Using my memory of those books and my pile of BLW / L-H / BLH technical manuals I can just briefly point up a few corrections.
-The “Centipede” was available with dynamic brake as an option, at $19,000 per unit.
-The “Centipede” was available with standardized electric throttle as an option. (This would have been the Westinghouse type exactly as used in all Lima-Hamilton diesel locomotives, and in all of the Westinghouse-equipped Fairbanks-Morse C-Liners.) This was designed to allow multiple unit operation with other makes of locomotive.
-There is no evidence I’ve seen that Lima-Hamilton was about to overtake Baldwin Locomotive Works in sales. Where does that assumption come from? I’m aware of only one order that was on the books and which was transferred from Lima-Hamilton to BLH Eddystone, which was an order for 1200 HP road switchers for the New York Central.
-Statements in press by Lima-Hamilton’s president at the time of introduction of its diesel locomotive line made it clear that Lima-Hamilton did not intend to pursue diesel-electric locomotives above the size of switchers. The quote was, I believe, “Above 1500 HP there just has to be a better way than diesel.”
-There was no RF-15; this unofficial designation’s origin is unknown, but the earliest appearance of it that I can find is in Al Staufer’s “Pennsy Power II.” These units, Pennsylvania Railroad
There are plenty of photos of Seaboard’s Centipedes operating in multiple with EMD and Alco locomotives, so I expect Seaboard spent the extra $19,000 per unit.
“There is no evidence I’ve seen that Lima-Hamilton was about to overtake Baldwin Locomotive Works in sales. Where does that assumption come from? I’m aware of only one order that was on the books and which was transferred from Lima-Hamilton to BLH Eddystone, which was an order for 1200 HP road switchers for the New York Central.”
That “assumption” that Lima-Hamilton was about to overtake Baldwin Locomotives Works in sales comes from Jerry A. Pinkepank . Lima had picked up enough orders for 1951 that had they all been constructed, they would’ve surpassed Baldwin in sales that year. But many of those orders were cancelled as a result of the merger like a 60 unit order from Southern Pacific since few wanted to purchase locomotives that were guaranteed to be orphans. Furthermore, Lima produced locomotives well into 1951 with the last unit produced not being until September of 1951 when production of existing orders that hadn’t been cancelled or transferred to Baldwin ended.
They had far more orders on the books than just a NYC order for additional LRS-1200’s when merger happened the previous December. Instead, it appears that only 63 Lima designed locomotives were outshopped in 1951 with most cancelled or switched to Baldwin equivalents like PRR’s order for RT-624’s in place of additional Lima transfer units.
"It is not true that Lima’s staff was relegated to construction projects. According to Kirkland, after the Lima-Hamilton and Austin-Western mergers were completed, it was the original owners of those two companies that ended up with working control of the entire corporation. (This from his book on Baldwin.) In another instance (his volume on F-M and Lima-Hamilton) Kirkland points out that the actual decision to kill the Hamilton pattern T69SA / T89SA locomotive engines was made by Fred J. Geittman, who had originally designed
RIght you are! - I’ve seen this as well. The $19K was for dynamic brake; there would have been a different and separate charge for electric throttle. I’m not sure how much that would have been. (I have somewhere here an official sales proposal from B-L-H to L&N for road switchers, and although the date is somewhat later it would be interesting to know if they quoted a price for electric throttle. I’ll look for that.)
I know for a fact that the first unit, SAL 4500 had an air throttle (Westinghouse CE-100) because it’s clearly shown in trade materials and press releases of the day. But it’s certainly true that the rest were either delivered with electric throttles or modified to incorporate them. It would be interesting to see if photos of 4500 in multiple with EMD’s or ALCO’s exist to see if it got modified as well, although I’d bet it did.
-Will Davis
Seaboard rewired their fleet of Centipedes in the process of trying to cure their faults and to standardize their electrical systems. And the 4500 lasted into the 1960’s until the Centipede era ended on the Seaboard and actually outlived several younger sisters by four years. So I imagine she too could MU with EMD’s and Alco’s.
I’ve found pictures of 4 or 5 of them leading a consist of locomotives from other manufacturers and presumably MU’ed to them after looking around. But of those that I could identify a number on, none of them were the 4500 and they were all higher numbered members of their class. I think the 4508 was the lowest numbered one I found a photo of MU’ed to EMD’s and/or Alco’s.