The Baldwin switchers were reasonably successful, but their road Diesels were all failures. Oil leaks and other general problems kept them out of service way too often. Their pneumatic controls were incompatible with other Diesels, making MU'ing a big problem that most railroads didn't even attempt to solve. Not that they didn't have ANY good qualities. They were known as good 'luggers', and could keep pulling even when overloaded. They often LOOKED good too, and are popular with railfans and modelers.
Yeppers, there were AS-616's that went-a-logging on the Tillamook branch of the SP, and they were used near Medford as well. I read that the VO-1000's had very good acceleration for switching duties. It's kinda sad in a way, as the last of the AC's were being built at Baldwin, the dismals were being built on the other side of the plant. Gee, you couldn't guess that I favor steam over diesels could you?
That wasn't my experience. When I switched for the Rio Grande, the one Baldwin we had was relegated to industrial switching because it was so gutless. We used FMs and Alcos for lead switching, kicking cars. One time the RR was short of switch engines and gave us the Baldwin for lead switching; it was practically useless. The FMs were great and besides, they sounded like my V-8 Chevy with glass packs.
I wonder if that was because it was the only Baldwin they had. I know an engineer who used to run both Baldwins and FM's (on PC, I think) who said the FM's were horrible and the Baldwins quite good. I don't know enough about either to say anything on my own, but it seems like the impression any engine made depended a lot on how familiar the shop crews were with it.
Cordially yours, Gerard Pawlowski The Sparta Railroad
They also made quite a variety, with different engines. Perhaps some were better than others. Still they were not really competitive with the Alco product, let alone the EMD that eventually overwhelmed everyone ... until GE came along.
Baldwin made their diesels just like they did their steam engines - custom bullt for each railroad. GM and Alco built a standard loco and sold them to the railroads just like automobiles. This is a large part of why compainies like Baldwin aren't around anymore making locos.
-- Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?
THAT is exactly why I find diesels for the most part to be so boring! They are box cars with an engine in them. Baldwin diesels chugged when they ran, GEE SO DID STEAM. Hmmm letsee, Baldwin did 195 4-8-8-2 cab forwards for the SP, and I don't know how many thousands of steamers they built for AT&SF. Yes you are right, custom pretty much says it all.
Baldwin in particular was obsessed with trying to make 'Diesel powered steam engines' ... that is, a Diesel that replaced a steam loco one for one. They completely missed the point that the steam loco was the PROBLEM railroads were trying to get away from. Any Diesel that had the virtues of a steam loco also had many of it's inherent problems, and was NOT what the railrods wanted (even if it was sometimes what THEY asked for).
Alco had similar problems, but to a lesser degree.
GM, not having a railroad background, wasn't as stuck in this same rut. They realized that simpler, smaller, modular, standardized locos were the way to go, and capitalized on it. They offered the railroads what they NEEDED, even if it wasn't what they though they wanted. GM's use of the mechanically simpler and more relaible 2-cycle Diesel also helped at the time.
Only today are INDIVIDUAL Diesels reaching the same power levels at was routine in steam days. It just couldn't be done with the technology of the 40's, 50's, and 60's. The attempt to do so, back then, lead to huge electro-mechanical monstrosities with multiple engines and abominable reliability (Centipedes, U50B & U50C locos, C855's, etc.). Even EMD got sucked into this mess, with the DD-35 and DDA40X models. Even the twin engined passenger Diesels like the EMD E-units were proportionally troublesome. All are long gone, except for museums and a very few still in special service (executive trains, etc.).
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.