The Thread about Center Cab diesels caused me to wonder why did the double ended (2 cabs) fail to make it in the USA?
About 1947 Baldwin made their DRX-2-2-2000 which was sold and used by the Central of New Jersey. There were less than 25 of this type manufactured by Baldwin and the seem to have been scrapped by 1957/1958 (?). CNJ used them in their Commuter service. I have only found a couple of links to photos (on the Internet) of this type:
To continue: Why did this type of power fail to make it beyond this pone type?
It has been noted by others that the Baldwin Diesels were powerful and bears to put traction on the rails. Why would other Lines not even try them?
The double ended type seems to have found a home all over the world…EXCEPT in the USA. In fact, they are being made here (USA) for export overseas. (Freightliner/UK)
Many are used in Australia, resemble EMDs Es and F’s, except they have cabs on both ends?
Seems like a type that would have served well here, as well.
Anyone have any ideas as to why they (Double-ended Diesel locomotives), seemed to be avoided in North America?
Personal opinion only. European and other overseas railroads tend to light duty by US standards, that is the trains, both freight and passenger, were lighter. That being the case a single unit could handle them. That being the case a double ended unit made sense in that it avoided having to turn the unit, so wyes and turntables could be removed.
In the US, by contrast, vitrually all trains were heavy enough to require two to four units, both freight and passenger. Thus a pair of A units back to back gave the functionality of a double cab unit without the extra cost and complexity of a second cab in each unit.
The roadswitcher configuration allowed good visibility in either direction with only one cab. They could be run as a single unit or MU to build up whatever power was required. Here the carriers were choosing flexability, even at the cost of redundant cabs in MU configurations greater than two.
I do not know who said that but in my limited experience the view down the long hood of a geep was better that that down the boiler of anything bigger than a 2-8-0.
Without being is position to KNOW, I suspect the reason is the incremental cost of a additional operating cab.
With the desire of my carrier’s operating management to operate single locomotive trains when at all possible, I find this practice actually decreases locomotive utilization as many of these single locomotive trains terminate at locations that do not have a locomotive turning facility - thus the locomotive cannot originate a train in the reverse direction from that point.
With today’s Wide Body locomotive cabs, vision to the rear of the locomotive is next to non-existent except for having one’s head outside the cab side window; furthermore, our Wide Body locomotives do not have ditch lights on their non-cab end, and are thus restricted to a maximum of 20 MPH over road crossings at grade.
Again, the major reason was the increasing size of cars so that even a steeple cab did not give an sight advantage to anyone in the cab. Plus you needed two people in the cab to get signals from the ground in many instances. Yes, in yards and branch lines, early on, this was ok. But by the time the mid 60’s rolled around it was a given that cars were going to get bigger so no use manufacturing a unit that would be so restricted or useless, stay with a universally acceptec concept.
Looking thru the Second Diesel Spotters Guide it’s evident that the preference for single cab diesels was well established in the US before the Baldwin double-enders. In the mid 1920s the first production diesel switchers were boxcabs. By about 1930 the switchers were a single cab, hood style. I can imagine the engineer of a switcher having to either change ends of a boxcab, or stick his head out the window with frequent changes in direction. The first road diesels were also boxcabs, but as been mentioned by others, the size of trains soon led to multiple units, and the boxcabs evolved into single cab streamlined E units and others. Meanwhile the switchers grew into roadswitchers. In the early diesel days, there were plenty of turning facilities for those running as single units. If you already had those facilities, you could run your off-the-shelf engines, rather than buy single purpose units. Soon enough, push-pull operation made the point moot for passenger trains.
Keep in mind the double enders made for the Jersey Central were kind of a special use locomotive, that is commuter service only, and at the end of a run they could be run around the consist, coupled up again, and back on their merry way. CNJ used their Camelbacks in the same manner, and also some tank engines of various wheel configurations. As a matter of fact CNJ had a 4-6-4 before the New York Central did, even if it was a 4-6-4T. Baldwin was the only builder willing to custom make such a unit. Unfortunately, they had a serious design flaw, the cooling system would leak onto the electrical system. Not good. As a matter of fact when the CNJ was retiring the Baldwins (otherwise known as “Jersey Januses” they couldn’t find any buyers for them, except scrap dealers. Too bad.
BaltACD wrote the following post on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
"…Without being is position to KNOW, I suspect the reason is the incremental cost of a additional operating cab.
With the desire of my carrier’s operating management to operate single locomotive trains when at all possible, I find this practice actually decreases locomotive utilization as many of these single locomotive trains terminate at locations that do not have a locomotive turning facility - thus the locomotive cannot originate a train in the reverse direction from that point…"
My comments concerning this question are current day - not historical.
Considering the pulling power of today’s AC locomotives, there are many applications for single engine operation - IF ONLY it could be used on the back haul.
In the steam engine days a locomotive operating in one direction was the norm and Wye’s, Balloon Tracks or turntables were installed at most all critical locations. With the ‘Plant Rationalization’ craze of the 80’s & early 90’s - ANYTHING that looked like it wasn’t ‘productive’ was scrapped and all the track, ties, ballast and fasteners either recycled or scrapped and most all of those turning facilities fit the description of being unproductive.
As I look at the Class 66 locomotive (EMD JT42CWR) on my computer’s wallpaper, I can see that the tight loading gauge precludes a road-switcher design and makes double cabs virtually a necessity. Many of the current Australian locomotives (which run in a larger loading gauge) are single-cab hood designs so they don’t view double cabs as all that necessary anymore.
Just my 2 cents: the dual cab diesel-electric was best suited for short haul passenger trains and by the late 1950’s the railroads were realizing they wanted out of the passenger business. Since then anything built with dual cabs for domestic use has been a passenger electric: E60CP, E60CH, AEM-7, ALP-44, ALP-46, HHP-8…
Were not some of the first A-B-A and A-B-B-A units drawbar connected? I thought that was why some had road numbers with letters (ie. 51A, 51B, 51C, for an A-B-A) If so, then one could say the railroads were buying “articulated” double cab locomotives.
The only drawbar-connected road diesels of which I’m aware are most FTA-FTB sets, possibly some 3-unit FT sets and the diesels on UP’s early streamliners.
If memory serves the DL&W did broach the subject of a dual cab E-unit with EMD but wound up going with the FM Trainmaster instead for suburban non-electrified service. I don’t have the particulars at hand but one would guess cost played a major factor in the decision.
The driving force behind drawbar connection of early multiple-unit diesels was the Union agreements that required a locomotive crew in each separate locomotive. The railroads could, and did, call the drawbar connected sets a single locomotive, to be run by a single crew. If they had been coupler connected, the Brotherhoods would have insisted on a cab, and crew, on each unit.
According to a story I was told, when the FT demonstrator ran on the N&W one criticism, leveled by the Road Foreman of Engines, was that it had two control stations…
Not enough out and back traffic. Push pull in the US First road units were drawbarred doubles - FTs. Cost for redundent purpose Most electrics were double cabbed Tonnage requiring multiple engines from day one
Aside from the points mentioned above (multiple unit consists and incremental costs of an extra cab especially) one factor not mentioned is length of haul. Because American hauls are usually much, much longer than European ones, there’s less time lost as a percent of a run due to turning, which is already a small amount of time.