I believe that Baldwin diesels had a unique-to-Baldwin Mu-ing system… compressed air worked I believe (???). (I think that this was intended to “force” Baldwin users to buy more Baldwins but it backfired and forced Baldwin out of business…)
My questions are:-
were MU connections on Baldwins relatively rare?
did they look the same as “regular” MU connections or very different?
did roads with Baldwins run then in tandem (crew in each cab) either if they lacked connections or if they ran them with GMs or Alcos?
Did any of the Baldwins get some sort of conversion pack to make them compatible with other diesels?
One related thing to remember is that by the 1960’s, many railroads had begun to convert their Baldwin diesels with EMD engines inside. Generally speaking, any Baldwin that wasn’t re-motored had been retired by around 1970. I’d assume the m.u. problems were a big part of the cause of that. IIRC Baldwin’s throttle also worked very differently than other diesels, didn’t have the standard 8-notches but had I think 32??
MU-connections were an option, so it depended on a particular railroad’s buying decisions as to whether they were common or not. On the Southern Pacific, few if any switchers had MU while some road switchers did, particularly those purchased to run with cabless units.
The original Baldwin MU connections were five in number, vertically aligned at the ends of the locomotive frame. Veeerrrry distinctive.
I don’t recall ever seeing photographic or other evidence that SP ran Baldwin units coupled to other manufacturers’ locomotives in operation.
Baldwin did offer standard MU on all models as an extra cost option, thus it was possible to operate with those of other builders. Baldwin was infamous for their list of options, roller bearings, MU options, light packages and choice of electrical suppliers and traction motors, even the frame design could be optioned and ballasted to the customers need.
They didn’t get 'em all. There’s SMS Rail, operates with Baldwins around Bridgeport, NJ.
An ex-NYC employee told me the Central wasn’t fond of Baldwins, although there were a couple stationed around Chicago. Edson’s NYC diesel book shows BLW model RS-12 originally used in commuter service with steam generator and MU control on #2 end only.
The Baldwins were known for slow-speed lugging power. If you’re modeling them, that’s how I’d put them to use, rather than high-speed freights. Baldwin also sold switchers and center-cab transfer units - more slow-speed assignments without much call for MU with other products.
The SP used Baldwins for switching, transfer, and branchline duties although they were seen on the mainlines with trains on their way to/from branchline runs. (Most branchline trains didn’t start or terminate at the mainline/branchline junctions.)
NOPE…most road units had them…and some regular switchers too, but some roads like PRR had them on only one end.
Nope…Baldwind had an MU socket that looked very similar to EMD, Alco, FM…but its the numbers of pins that makes a difference. EMD,etc have 27 pins…Baldwins did not. Plus, they were configured differently.
3.They would HAVE to if it didn’t have MU…and NO, they could NOT be mu’ed with other makes like EMD Alco, FM…as Baldwin had an air throttle. This is what the 3 or more air hoses usually mounted around the drop step are for. There was also an MU connector that had mainly lighting connections.
Alco had a similar system of hoses, but later made them compatible with GM, etc. There were some Baldwins that DID have a conventional MU system that were able to MU with other makes. I believe some of Readings Baldwin were equipped like this.
Not that I know of, since Baldwins used air to control throttle position, unlike GM and others that used the electrical connection (MU plug) to do this. Keep in mind that on GM, GE.etc, the MU connector has pins for the throttle, and generator field setting. as well as headlight controls. The hoses beside the coupler actually connect the engines together to equalize the main reservoir so that all engines contribute to the air supply, as well as applying and releasing the Independent (engine only) brakes.
It wasn’t a case of blocking sales. Diesels were so new there were no standards and the Baldwin system eventually lost. Even within EMD there were problems. F7 and F3 engines had compatability issues. Initialy most railroads only used identical models together and some used drawbars so they were permanently connected.
No rarer than MU on any other type of engine. There were also different electrical MU systems in that era too, each with a different number and pattern of pins in the plug that were not compatible.
Baldwin also offered the standard electrical MU as an option. The last order of AS16’s built for the RDG/PRSL had electrical MU and could MU with any of the RDG’s other EMD or Alco engines.
They didn’t run them in combination with other maker’s units (except as manned helpers, which would have a crew anyway).
No but later built Baldwins had elctrical MU which were compatible with other makes and when some Baldwins were rebuilt with non-BLW engines (as in the MKT re-builds) we rebuilt with electrical MU. At the beginning of diesel operations it was very comon for railroads to operate solid sets of the same make and NOT mix and match builders. For example many F type A units did not have MU capability on the nose when delivered.
Baldwin used pneumatic ( air ) mu as their standard. Unfortunately all the other manufacturers used electrical so Baldwin was the odd man out in mu’ing locomotives. The PRR did have rebuilt by Alco in 1959 3 Baldwin Sharks 2 A’s and a B with Alco 251 prime movers , Alco coolong fan and electrical mu. The rebuilding was too expensive and only these 3 were rebuilt. They were seen mu’ ed with EMD’s and Alco in their rebuilt career. ------------ Ken McCorry
Remember too that the “building block” idea - mixing and matching engines to get the horsepower you needed to pull the train - didn’t exist when diesels first were produced. Railroads bought diesels the way they bought steam engines, for specific jobs. If you had a train that normally used a Mallet of around 4000 hp, you might buy three 1500 hp diesels to run together and pull the train. So it didn’t matter that much at first that Baldwins could only connect with other Baldwins, as if they needed more than one on the train, they probably would have bought several too.
Also, many railroads bought diesels specifically to run by themselves, especially on stub-end branchlines where a diesel could pull the train and not need a turntable like steam did.
