Can an Alco loco be consisted with an EMD in the real world?
Unfortunetly I don’t have it with me, but I have a train spotters guide that has a cover photo of a MU consist that has an SD70MAC leading, a B39-8E in the middle, and a GP50 tailing. That’s a GE 6 axle, GE 4 axle, and EMD 4 axle. MU hoses make it all possible. I’m either the first or one of the first posters so I will leave room for others to chime in and tell you more specifics. That and besides the air line for brakes I don’t know much of how it goes.
Sure, just don’t try it with a Baldwin.
Yes. Southern Pacific used to consist their Alco Passenger PA’s with EMD E-units regularly on trains like the SHASTA DAYLIGHT and SUNSET LIMITED and CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
And I certainly remember Alco and EMD units intermingled running freights over Donner Pass.
Tom
It was quite frequent to mix power, Baldwin would be the exception owing to their use of the air throttle and mu receptacle variences, yet several roads rewired their Baldwins for compatability to EMD/Alco products. SP for example would rountinely MU their small fleet of Alco RS 32’s with similar performance rated EMD GP nines, SP ordered their Alco’s with the intent of mixing.
Dave
Yes, as mentioned in the above responses. Nevertheless, locomotives could only be MU’d if they had MU connections. Most early switchers and some roadswitchers, and often the front ends of A units, didn’t come originally equipped with MU connections. Also, locomotives of similar running qualities were best MU’d to each other, particularly in regards to the gearing. Cabless units always came with MU connections for the obvious reason.
Mark
Generally yes. Both units have to have MU and compatible MU. In the early days of diesels, some models had slightly different plugs. But by the late 50’s pretty much anything would mate with anything else (even late model Baldwins).
IIRC there used to be a Baldwin H14-44 mu’ed to a RS3 in the London CN yards. Mind, this was back in the early 70’s. And yes, if one looks into enough mags of that era I’d think there would be pix of that as well.
As for the other makes, there still are instances where one can see this going on----
Baldwin engines were converted to the same MU system as all other manufacturers used and were consisted with all makes.
Thanks to everyone for their replies. I appreciate it.
When the war production board allocated Baldwin VO1000’s to the Western Pacific they were without MU. When being delivered dead in transit in three unit sets, an enterprising WP roadmaster decided they were just the ticket for moving a westbound manifest that was awaiting power, how to do this? The on board Baldwin representive purchased several garden hoses from the local hardware store and linked the air throttles!
Dave
Modeling the mighty SP 3/16 to the foot
The H14-44 was probably a Fairbanks-Morse, not a Baldwin.
Yes and it was done quite regularly.
Example:
PICKY! PICKY! PICKY!
Every book I have lists an SD70MAC as an EMD 6 axle unit.
GM, GE, ALCO, and F-M all used electrical controls and were, therefore, compatible in Multiple Unit configurations. Baldwin, on the other hand, used pneumatic controls and this did not allow for Multiple Unit operation except, of course, with other Baldwin units. I read something one time inferring that this was because of Baldwin’s reliance on the De La Vergne engine, a company which they folded into their organization in 1931. Remember that in the early-'30s it was expected that the future diesel locomotive field would belong to Baldwin and ALCO who had been the top steam locomotive producers. I’m not sure that anyone in the board rooms of those companies ever really gave much thought that a need would ever arise for Multiple Unit configuration. There was one company however, who did . . . . . . . . . . EMC/EMD whose introduction in about 1935 of their SC/SW/NC/NW immediately dislodged ALCO and Baldwin from their #! and #2 positions and the introduction of their FT model in 1939 tolled the bell for pneumatic throttles. Baldwin should have been listening but their persistance in marketing those pneumatic throttles spelled eventual doom for the company as a diesel locomotive builder.
I don’t know whether Baldwin attempted to rectify their marketing mistake of the '40s in their later production or not–It may be true; I just don’t know. I do kno
Thanks for the correction—where my brain went we have NO idea[B)][swg][swg]
I’dja…well…[:I][oops] My book usually says any SD is a EMD too, just not the day I wrote that post. Mah bad. I owe you a beer. Maybe it’ll be a beer from the brewery I plan to have on my layout. It’ll be the best in state (when not compared to Schlitz, Hamm’s, Pabst, Old Style, Miller)