What can you tell me about a BL2 engine, when was it made, guessing the late 50’s. I bought one NIB off E-stupid at a pretty low prices. Not sure to say it is ugly or just driffrent looking. If it was PINK and had Tail Fins Evles would have owned one.[:)]
Main goal was to gut the good stuff and kit bash a old BB but I will give it a chances. Heck the motor, flywheels are worth what I paid for it.
Lets see. EMD BL2 locomotive 1500 hp produced from 1948-1949. Had the same guts as an F3, a normal 567B prime mover. Approximately 60 of them made total. There were two models one freight only and one passenger (which I did not know!). The original design was supposed to give the engineer better visability for switching trains than an F unit did.
Source “The second diesel spotters guide” by Pinkepank.
I thought the Proto-2000s came with an information card about the prototype locomotive?
They obviously weren’t real successful. In my opinion the second ugliest diesel ever made, second only to the Baldwin babyface.
Always liked the look of the BL2. Yours is especially nice in Monon colors. I think they have alot of character. Kindof the ugly duckling.
And those who dont know alot about trains seem to notice that they are different. Always got comments when I ran mine for friends or family. “Whats that one?”
Just a diffferent body style… imagine what would have happened if they had gone that way instead of to hood units? What would SD60s and later have come out like.
The BL2 was a orphan locomotive.You see EMD’s design engineers did not like it,the sales department did not like and above all the railroads did not like it…
So,it was soon dropped and replace with Dick Dilworths “ugly duckling” GP7.
Long time Train magazine’s editor David P.Morgan once described the BL2 as a cross between a cab unit and a Bordon’s Milk car.I concur with that description
The BL2 suffered the same fate as the Cab unit did when it came to switching cars…The engineer could not see the switchmen on the ground or riding the foot boards and that is what basically doom the BL2 as a road switcher…
Why EMD design this unit remains a mystery to this day since the road switcher conception wasn’t anything new to railroading…After all ALCO had 3 types of Road switchers on the market in 1948 the RS1 and RS2/RSC2.
EMD’s NW5 was a better choice for a road switcher over the BL2. After all the engineer had good vision from the cab compared to the vision from the cab of the ill fated BL2.
The BL2 was an attempt to adapt the cab carbody into a switching/ branchline world. Some BL2’s had a s/g for a passenger train. You may find pictures of a short Monon train pulled by a BL2/F3 combo. The C&O in Michigan had some BL2 passenger runs.
The fatal flaw is the weaker carbody. BL2’s can’t be used as trailing units, the forces pull them apart. The Monon model may be the same # as the unit at the Kentucky RR museum. Worth a visit to find out!
The LL models are very nice. The Nscale ones started LL on the split frame design- good pullers & performance similar to Atlas or Kato.
The BL1/BL2 was EMD’s first halting excursion into the world of road switchers. I have seen many photos of them - being rare they have tended to attract an inordinate amount of attention over the years - but have never encountered one in the real world. Like the H2 Hummer and this little box from Toyota/Scion they were just ugly enough to be “cute”, a word which should never be used in model railroading.
Curiously, however, this past weeks episode of Trains and Locomotives on RFDTV had a featured segment on Cass Scenic and there was some film of a C&O lettered BL2 hauling a photo-op freight on the Greenbrier line shot before the 1985 wipe-out by floodwaters. That was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time I have ever seen the BL2 in actual moving operation.
According to what I remember being published on this issue, the unit was a failure for two reasons: 1) the offset characteristics of the truss-supported body made it very expensive to construct, and 2) the design of the body did not give much better rearward visibility than the F3 which provided the operational mechanism for the beast and which was its contemporary on the assembly line. Wdlgln005 addresses a third issue, that of structural weakness. I have never seen that issue addressed and I fail to comprehend its import because the unit was, in essence, an F3 with a weird appearance carbody.
The BL design was one that even its mother (EMD) didn’t love very much, considering how quickly it was transmogrified into the GP7 and the relative popularity and longevity of the two designs. About the only thing the BL had going for it was the impossibility of snow buildup on the walkways it didn’t have.
The source I quoted above also indicates that a second design goal was that their appearance would be “attractive on suburban and local passenger trains”. Streamlining was still a big deal back then, although definitely not the craze that it had in the 1930s.
I don’t consider the Scion to be ugly. I think “stupid looking” is a much better description. Ugly is what I call that Pontiac Aztek.
Hey thanks for all the answers folks. I will post some PIC when I get it. Main reason I went for it besides the prices all I have in the way of 4 wheel truck engines (not count the side line LL engines) is a pair of F-7’s A and B units both powered.
Like I said, not sure if it is ugly, but sure is driffent looking.
PA Belt, you have any other OIC you could post? If I part it out would you like the body?
EMD’s diesel program was well underway in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, thanks to the success of the company’s FT demonstrations across the country. While the F units in production were great for moving trains over the railroad, their full-width carbody made it difficult for locomotive crews to see to the rear of the locomotive. The F-units also lacked anywhere for a brakeman or switchman to stand and ride short distances while performing switching duties. The F-units did have grab irons and stirrup steps, but these features didn’t do any good in tight clearances.
Since the engine inside the locomotive’s hood didn’t take up the full carbody width, it seemed only logical that the hood could be “cut away” a bit to allow the crew to see and ride safely. This wasn’t an entirely new idea either, as the PRR’s GG1 fleet, which featured large cutout sections in its hoods, had been in service since 1934.
Another problem facing EMD was that ALCo was making inroads into a market that EMD would have liked to keep to themselves; ALCO’s RS series switchers were starting to take over many of the tasks that EMD wanted to fulfill with their own locomotives.
EMD’s designers and engineers set to work and came up with the carbody reminiscent of the GG1 with mechanics that contained the technical knowledge they had learned with the company’s F-unit series. Starting from an F3, the product of their efforts became the BL1 demonstrator. The BL in the locomotive’s model name officially stood for “Branch Line”, indicating that EMD felt the locomotive was best suited for light traffic and frequent switching chores.
The BL1 and BL2 differed only in mechanical details, and only one BL1 was built. 58 more BL2s were built and sold to a few railroads, primarily in the eastern and midwestern United States.
This model of locomotive was sold for both freight and passenger service and the locomotive’s intended purpose could be easily identified by the presence or absence of an exh
What I quoted came from Max Ephraim in Classic Trains"GM Geep in Action" video.
Mr.Ephraim was a GM locomotive designer and added first hand knowledge to the video about the BL2 and the geeps according to him nobody liked the BL2 including the design engineers and the sales department and he didn’t know why they bothered with it.
Just wanted to mildly correct you on this. It was painted for Western Maryland.
The BL2, nicknamed “Bluto” (for it’s overweight and bulky appearence, like Bluto on Popeye the Sailor cartoons, and because of: BL, and BLuto) on my layout has to be my favorite diesel of all time.
I recently have done a research project on the diesels of the Cass Scenic Railroad. To me, they are more interiesting than the Shay’s, Heisler, and Climax.
The BL2 was used as WM #82. Later, it was renumbered 7182. Late in it’s life, it was paired with slug 138-T, and was used in the Hagerstown, MD yard.
After the Chessie System take over, it was renumbered 7172. It was donated by Chessie to Cass in 1983. In 1983-1985, it was used as power for the Greenbrier River excursions, with 'Big Shay" 6, and other Shays.
It was known for all of it’s rust.
After the flood ceased the use of the line, it was put into storage. After a ex-South Branch Valley Railroad MRS-1 proved to be too hard on track, the BL2 was used as a shop goat starting around 1989.
In 1992, it broke down, and was sent to the South Branch Valley railroad. In 1995, it was sold to them.
It was returned to operating condition in 95’, as yard power.
It was then sold to the West Virginia Central Railrad for possible use. The engine was completly restored, and was placed into service in 2000. It operates today.
The earlier reference to David P. Morgan’s description, “A cross between a cab unit and a Borden milk car,” fits my sentiments exactly.
Believe it or not, there was another locomotive with a very similar appearance! Some time in the '30’s, the South Manchuria Railway had a 4-6-4T, streamstyled by Raymond Loewy, that bore more than a passing resemblance. (Loewy designed the carbody of the GG-1. He should have quit while he was ahead!)
