In the mid fifties Pennsy put on one last big push to replace the remainder of its steam fleet with a massive order for diesels. Baldwin (BLH) with its long time and friendly relationship with the Pennsy desperately needed the order for 600+ locomotives. They lost out. Pennsy went with EMD and its Geeps. What would have been if Baldwin did get the order? Would Baldwin have survived to a next generation locomotive. Would the locomotives essentially been all Sharks? It’s projection and revisionist history but what is the likely outcome?
Kind of hard to remember at this distance but Pennsy also bought pretty good quantities from Alco-GE, Fairbanks-Morse and even Lima-Hamilton. Westinghouse’s decision to stop producing locomotive electricals in the mid-1950s meant that Baldwin(-L-H) and FM had to stand in line behind Alco for GE’s output. EMD could promise delivery dates - and meet them - while the others were projecting long lead times. Southern Pacific at one time expected to place a large order for RS11s but Alco was unable to meet SP’s required timing, so the order went to EMD for GP9s. Both Pennsy and SP had Baldwin-GE units, but nowhere near as many as their EMD counterparts.
Another factor that had risen up by the late 1950s was maintenance, with Alco-GE per-mile costs slightly above EMD, and Baldwin and F-M costs double or more. Railroads that had shops that cared for lots of Baldwins or F-Ms had better results since the shop forces knew how to deal with them, but Pennsy’s and NYC’s practice of mixing them in with other makes all over their systems made for expecially bad economics for the minority makes.
Lets go back prior to 1956, the PRR solicited bids for diesel locomotives of which Baldwin was a participant. They lost out to EMD and their GP9. By 1956 the PRR was also facing a financial bind, therefore Baldwins bid in terms of finance, could not compete with EMD’s cheaper and popular locomotive. If they did get the bid this could have resulted in some relief for the struggling builder.
Remember in time, Baldwin had to rely on GE for equipment as Westinghouse left the manufacture of locomotive component building. Who knows for sure, but if Baldwin had improved its finances due to the PRR accepting their bid they may have had a change in fate and became more self reliant as to components needed for diesel manufacturing.
As to them being all sharks, very doubtful. The road/switcher was the popular choice as the GP7 and 9 changed the future of dieseldom. So they would have to become more competitive in that sense and modernize their locomotives to accomodate industry progress. Costs for all railroads was becoming an issue, so for the larger roads such as the PRR or NYC or B&O, etc., it would be an important consideration in what they purchased. EMD at the time was meeting both needs.
If their ol business buddy’s the PRR had awarded the bid maybe Baldwin would not have made the moves to survive like they did in the late 50’s and early 60’s. All of which as you know, failed.
Interesting post there Miningman.
Where is Will Davis when he’s most needed?
I had not realized that Baldwin bid on an order that size, that late. Or that their engine philosophy, even as ‘highly boosted’ as it could be, gave an engine that either in cost or performance would be comparable with contemporary EMD practice … or would be heavier and larger and ‘less modular’ than the EMD building-block approach of the time.
On the other hand, this comes right ‘on the cusp’ of the introduction of second-generation horsepower; it’s only a couple of years later that PRR is testing the six-motor 2400hp Alco in commuter service (of all things!) and finding it potentially valuable there. No Baldwin 600-series engine is, in my opinion, capable of sustained operation in that range, and I doubt that there was much of a perceived future for heavy slow-speed engines by 1956.
On the other hand, it might be very interesting to extrapolate from what Baldwin was designing in 1956 to a different ‘what might have been’ - use of high-speed engines (which Baldwin did have developmental experience with, and had license to build (from Maybach) combined with ‘hydraulic’ transmission of some sort. Now, I suspect that Baldwin would have trouble with this, particularly when trying to incorporate the effect of different wheelwear on adjacent axles or trucks with the characteristics of MU air throttle (or MU to trailing diesels if the ‘compatible’ control system were used) – let alone long-term build quality with pressure hydraulics when Baldwin had trouble with ‘oil and water control’ in much less critical circuits.
As noted, the locomotives wouldn’t have been Sharks, or in a styled carbody of general RF-616E shape (just as Alco noses w
The Baldwin 608A was a fairly decent engine, especially compared to the 608SC. Several of the railroads that bought AS16s or AS616s operated them into the 1970s, comparable to contemporary Alco and FM products. As Overmod points out, there were very few “over-the-road” users using them in the kind of services often assigned to GP9s. Maybe the only use of that kind was on NdeMs re-engined (or at least upgraded) DR8-12-1500/2 centipedes.
Redrye- An entire large fleet of AS16s or AS616s would have had that Pennsy “look” to it.
Not only a good engine, but one that was license-built by Cockerill for quite some time. In a sense it was not as ill-suited for railroad service as EMD folks try to make out, as most locomotives don’t suffer from relatively high engine weight per hp. Here is Will Davis’ discussion of the 600-series engine development
People tend to forget that the Centipede was shorter and, I believe, possibly lighter than the ‘equivalent’ hp in EMD form at the time it was introduced. (This was mentioned in Kiefer’s 1947 report on comparative motive power.) The problem there was all those wheels, and all that weight in one unit, and all those brakeshoes wearing out, that took the whole shebang out of service while stuff was being remediated.
Of course, the Centipede was a high-speed locomotive, and PRR had no particular interest in the things it could do by 1956. On the other hand, it was highly aware of the problems involved with jointed underframes in buff by that point, both on the electrics and the Centipedes. I for one loved both the AS16 and 616, but then again I didn’t have to run them or work on a fleet of them…
Matthew Imbrogno, if he’s still posting here, will know more about how SAL and NdeM changed out or upgraded (wasn’t there substantial block change?) their original engines to 608As.
Out of curiosity, did Baldwin propose a ‘cabless’ option to counter the GP9Bs? Or did those only come into the picture later?
Have read that the AS 616s did not have (or offer) dynamic braking. was this a key flaw in its offering? Also read that if dynamics braking was in the design then it may have persuaded Westinghouse to stay in the game. Any thoughts?
Wives’ tale from boneheads.
Note from PRR: “Employees on class BS16m, and/ or BS16ms, shall not pass by dynamic brake grids on front hood while the locomotive is in dynamic braking.”
SP had a potload with dynamics, at least one of which is still with us.
Here is the ‘business end’ of another example.
McCloud also had RS-12s built with dynamic, and one is at Travel Town, but I digress…
PRESERVED:
Pity we couldn’t have saved 5239 (scrapped as late as 2009!)
Westinghouse made their own decision to exit the rail market – remember, they were telling Baldwin what to do at that point, not the other way round.
Southern Pacific’s AS616 locomotives were equipped with Dynamics. I expect others were also
Thanks for the information re: dynamic brakes, don’t believe everything you read as gospel… Boneheads indeed.
Now, it’s possible that what was meant is that “Baldwin did not originally offer DB as a factory option when the units were introduced” - the surviving demonstrator, I believe, does not have them even though it was apparently labeled by the museum as so equipped (in 2014).
But that would be far from the first time that a locomotive model as introduced lacked features that were provided later – SD40/45-T2 anyone?
OK…very good clarification. Not sure what the average Diesel locomotive cost in the fifties. I’m sure there was a wide range of prices and options. I’m going to guess $250,000 but maybe that’s high. In any case a very substantial order to Baldwin instead of EMD could/would have changed railroad history. Maybe kept GE/Alco together longer or gave GE second thoughts of going it alone. I’m also sure EMD offered an “easy payment plan” thus insuring they get their hooks in. Still it would have been something if the PRR was loyal … That order was much needed at Baldwin to stay relevant. Also these were the days of back room deals, mysterious shenanigans and a great deal of ever changing and growing stress in the whole industry. Makes one wonder what we don’t know about.
Baldwin’s AS-616 demonstrator 1600 ended up on the Duluth South Shore and Atlantic as their 211, later Soo Line 395. It had dynamic brakes, the only unit from the pre- Soo Line rosters that did.
Had Baldwin received a very large order from Pennsy what was the Baldwin answer/offering. Essentially the RF-16 in a different car body?
SP did have 1 DRS6-6-15B and 5 AS616B’s on its roster, I don’t know if that was a special order or if they were catalog items.
By 1956, GE was already offering the Universal line for the export market, it was a matter of time before a domestic version was offered.
As far as the order that Baldwin didn’t get, EMD offered a pretty good lease arrangement on the GP9’s that were ordered. Considering PRR’s financial situation, this may have clinched the deal.
If Baldwin did get that order, I would imagine that it would have been for AS16/AS616’s. Carbody units were already starting to fade out by 1956.
Not RF16 anything. I thought I mentioned already that the age of ‘covered wagon’ carbodies for freight was over by that time. I’d think it would be the moral equivalent of the GP9, the AS16 (similar to the units that were, in fact, sent to PRSL, but without steam generators or passenger gearing). In those days 6-motor units were meant for heavy freight service, and there was no particular problem absorbing the available hp in just four motors with whatever passed for wheelslip detection or compensation in that bygone age. No need for the longer and heavier chassis of A-1-A units for PRR, either.
Personally, I’d like to have seen an analogue of the modern widecab engine, with a modified Shark’s nose (to give a full front platform, or at least an approximation like that of the modified FP45s) and an AS16’s long hood. The 608A engine was narrow enough that you could probably have approximated a Draper taper in a RF16 carbody … if that had been invented in that era.
Not likely that either would be built ‘to a price’, though … and what I know about that order is that it was largely won on price.
I would certainly expect that the ‘compatible’ 8-notch electric control would have been specified, instead of the standard air throttle rather than as an additional control feature, again to minimize overall cost.
Overmod- Yes you did address that question earlier. Was just making sure! So then, an AS 4-16, a four axle and shorter in overall length version of the AS6-16, with a draper taper, a less protrusive snout but a snout nonetheless and a porch up front. Sounds like a Geep killer to me. You should, or your equivalent, have been the head of Baldwin motive power, we may have modern day Baldwins plying the rails today.
Just to be clear: what would have been ordered, and built, would be AS16s with normal hoods, the least expensive thing in the catalogue. No fancy rails like a P5a, no fancy cab window trim like the FMs, probably the ‘simplified’ hoods with the square and not radiused-and-ground-smooth corners that you see on the very late Baldwin road-switchers. Might have been some stylistic features by '56 in common with the Rc-4s, like rectangular ports for twin sealed-beam lights instead of large round lights, with the idea that standardizing on one kind of headlight assembly across models would save money, and an order this large would justify not keeping ‘compatible part numbers’ with existing PRR Baldwins (but would permit sharing the same light and socket p/ns with Geeps)
Might have been interesting to see if Baldwin could have sold “AS-16B” units to PRR in the late '50s to compete with the GP9Bs. (And yes, we do have verified instances of GP9Bs leading on Morrisville turns … on the high-speed part of the Corridor, no less! Think of it as a very, very long hood leading…)
Now I have a very clear picture of what could have been. Not sure if they would turn out to be as reliable as the GP9 but I’m sure Baldwin would have sent a guy out to change lightbulbs, no charge. I’m also quite certain there would have been AS16 B Units as there were for the AS616.
B Unit in the lead eh? Well I have one in PRR on my N scale pike and modules so I’ll try it out at the next meet. See what the guys say! I will refer them to you if I am ridiculed.
I can hear them now…“What the?”