Baldwin Diesel Good "Lugging" Reputation

Almost universally, as far as I have read, railroad men have spoken admirably about the “great lugging ability” of Baldwin diesels. But I have never understood the “why”. With only 8 cylinder in-line engines (and with ALCO V-12’s and EMD V-16’s, not lugging nearly as well), does anyone have knowledge or thoughts as to why Baldwins pulled slow but so hard? I have read the Dolzall’s book on Baldwin Diesels and neither address that question. Thanks.

More knowledgeable individuals around here will hopefully pop in later and elaborate, but in the meantime I can tell you that a significant reason is Westinghouse and GE electrical gear.

The somewhat overbuilt traction motors used by the minority builders could be pushed harder since they could tolerate a lot more abuse than EMD’s own, thanks to having a lot more copper in the windings and so on. EMD’s electrical systems of similar vintage were also sometimes slower to load than the competition, which is important if you’re an engineer having to switch with one.

So you’d find FM’s, Baldwin’s, Lima’s, and Alco’s in what often seemed to be some of the harshest assignments where heavy and sustained slow speed lugging was important, taking advantage of a major virtue of them compared to EMD’s designs.

EMD’s traction gear was lighter built and designed for the average job, and would quickly fail if abused similarly. The competitor’s was overbuilt for most assignments, more expensive to purchase, and when a traction motor needed to be rewound, more expensive to do than an EMD motor (Albeit with a frequency less than an EMD).

EMD’s of course could still respectably handle such jobs as long as the ratings for the motors were respected, but it was one of the few areas where the products of the minority builders had an advantage over La Grange.

See what you get when you use the word “hexapole” in Community Search; we have had some discussions on the subject of Westinghouse equipment, particularly traction-motor design, over the years.

The generators likewise were designed for full amperage at lower rpm (peak you’ll recall being 625rpm).

I have told the story here a couple of times that was related by R.J. Russell, a Metroliner engineer in the early '70s who had run the BP-20s in commuter service. What I recall him saying was that it was common to see the ammeter ‘peg’ at something over 2000A for up to a minute or so after each start and then come sagging down… lather, rinse, repeat to Long Branch or Bay Head and then back. This may put the comments about these Baldwins having to be operated in pairs because of ‘reliability’ concerns in some perspective… and remember these were retired from service more through motive-power rationalization planning (and a surplus of available E units as long-distance passenger service imploded).

This also puts teeth in Louis Newton’s observation about one reason for the N&W TE-1’s retirement being substantial traction-motor damage. You can read this in Rails Remembered, volume 4 (Tale of a Turbine) – pay careful attention as you read to the consequences of generator drop damage. There are detailed pictures in the NWHS archives of the turbine impact damage from the ‘little mistake’ they had switching; I wouldn’t be surprised to find documentation of the traction-motor damage Newton described there too.

The GE counterpart included the rightly-famous 752. Fortunately we have had a couple of posts from knowledgeable authorities on detail-design improvements on GE ocomotive

I can attest to he lugging ability of the Baldwins. I was in the SP’s Santa Clara, California tower and the operator and I were amazed as a Baldwin H12-44 switcher pulled 150 cars out of the bowl yard as he switched them on to the east bay line headed to Oakland. The train was going no more than a couple of miles per hour as he pulled the train, smoke pouring out of the stack. The engineer reversed the move and shoved the cars back onto another track. To this day I still cannot beleive how well that little lugged. That is why they are my favorite switcher.

H12-44 is an FM model. Could you have meant something else?

SP had a fair amount of S-12’s and was ready to place another order when Baldwin quit.

To my knowledge all the SP H12-44s had the same Westinghouse 362-Ds as their S12s, and would presumably have the same lugging characteristics…

Correct. But he referred to it as a “Baldwin” so I was just asking if he may have meant another model.

Lehigh Valley veteran Mike Bednar wrote an article several years ago about the Lehigh Valley’s Baldwin switchers. He said they were very popular with the crews, who were sad to see them go when the Valley rationalized their switching power with EMD products.

http://baldwindiesels.railfan.net/sms/index.html

Currently, SMS Rail Services in New Jersey has an interesting stable of Baldwin diesels they use in everyday services. As I understand it they do enjoy showing them off IF you make prior arrangement for a visit, don’t just show up and expect a tour.

Is that different from the ‘burly Baldwin brutes’ section in A Railroad Life volume 2? If it’s a Web article I’d love to read it… despite loving all things Bednar I haven’t yet invested in the John Pechulis Media DVDs or the books.

No, it was from an article in TRP (Trains and Railroads of the Past) magazine. It’s been several years so I don’t remember which issue.

I’ve got several of those Pechulis videos, the Jersey Central series, and the quality it first-rate! Astounding actually, Mr. Pechulis takes 8mm films and when he’s done with them you’d swear they were shot on 16mm!

The branchline that ran through my hometown when I was growing up generally used a single Baldwin VO-1000 or DRS 6-6-1500, or a single FM H-10-44 or H-12-44, on their freight trains. When they changed over to EMD switchers (SW-1200s and SW-1500s) they always used two for the same size trains.

Thank you; that’s something I never thought of. I’m always thinking prime mover on these type things.

Thanks; the answer theme appears to be traction motor differences vs prime mover.

Yes, the way CalDreamer described it, it was definately an FM. SP rostered a fair number of FM’s particularly Trainmasters for passenger service.

Perhaps you meant to say Baldwin S-12? As others have pointed out the H12-44 was an FM product, and from all I read they were great “luggers” as well (with one of a kind blue-white exhaust).

Well, there you go; another great “lugging” story for Baldwin. :slight_smile:

Just look no further than the EJ&E and their center cab Baldwin engines. When they were sent to EMD to be reengined with new diesel engines EMD wanted to change the electrical systems including the traction motors. The railroad said touch that and we would see you in court. What one of those centercabs could drag took 2 sd38s to do

The problem with the J’s re-powered centercabs was matching a 567 engine running at 950 RPM with a Westinghouse generator designed for a De La Vergne engine running at 625 RPM. No wonder that EMD wanted to replace the electricals.

The issue is so easily rectified by reduction gears that I conclude there were compelling engineering reasons it was left. I would also be interested to know why the Westinghouse motors could not be used with an EMD generator (which would be easier to adapt to load regulation and an EMD spec engine governor). I suspect this was a railroad-specified thing: reuse all the parts you can, and ‘a generator might be a generator’ to people inexperienced in diesel-electric technology…