All - While I was looking at Broadway'S BALDWIN CENTIPEDE I googled the BALDWIN Centipede Locomotive and this popped up an article about the centipede the Animal popped up first .. then this one popped up at the very end after a 10 page search It finally popped up. It is the FEBRUARY 1967 Issue of RMC ! Tom
Yes, it was the most powerful loco of the time, but a maintenance and reliability nightmare. Unfortunately, all were scrapped
The Penn had the most. They were drawbar connected in A-A pairs. One unit had the Trainfone antenna. Originally, the Penn ordered them for passenger work, but, typical of Baldwin cab units, they were not reliable. Penn wound up shipping them to Horseshoe Curve whee they worked as helpers (or "snappers", as the Penn men called helpers). They proved satisfactory in this service until most were retired by the early to mid 1960s. Seaboard and N de M's could be run individually. I do not know what Seaboard did with its, but most were gone by the early to mid 1960s. N de M's lasted until the late 1960s. N de M did get the fix that Baldwin developed for the prime movers. It had something to do with the rings or gaskets, but, I forget exactly what it was. The fix made them somewhat more reliable, but, they also were maintenance hungry and headaches. It is funny, but the largest number of complaints about which I have read have been about Baldwin's cab units. They could pull, when they worked, that is. They seemed to spend more time in the shops than working, even more than a FM unit. FMs were notoriously maintenance hungry. I read far fewer complaints about the Baldwin road switchers and very few complaints about the yard switchers. Union Pacific was supposed to buy the two demonstrators, but the sale never happened. Baldwin ended up scrapping those. There are no examples of this one left to-day. There are only two Baldwin cab units left: an A-A pair of RF-16 sharks originally built for the New York Central. They have been sitting for years under tarpaulins somewhere in Michigan. They ran when they were parked, but who knows if they could run again.
The Centipede is one of those locomotives that are so ugly they become cool. The wheel arrangement is strange, and probably why they failed as a locomotive. Baldwin had to have been out of their mind to market the locomotive as a passenger unit. PRR was right in making it a helper, and they probably should have done it from the beginning. PRR already had the BP20, I don't know why they would go back to Baldwin for a completely different locomotive to fill the same role. The number of driven axles screams helper unit, just like an articulated steam locomotive. Why it wasn't a heavy freight locomotive from the beginning seems like a mistake.
After it became apparent to the PRR that the unreliability of the Centipedes would limit their usefulness, the close proximity of Altoona's locomotive shops to the eastern slope made pusher service a natural for the units. It must have been an unforgettable treat for eyes and ears to witness a pair like this work by.
Ya know, I'm pretty sure I have that RMC issue. I remember the article. "Hey boss, maybe if we put the cab on the back, like our steamers, they would work better." Doug
No doubt the PRR made some odd choices in motive power, including expensive steam locomotive development (think S-1 and T-1). Baldwin was a revered PRR on-line customer and this might have played a role in Centipede order placement.
How about the Q1 4-6-4-4 where the front set of cylinders was in front of the drivers but the rear set of cylinders was behind the drivers. Crazy. huh. Doug
Yes, another good example, and like the S1, only one Q1 was built. I just thought of another -- the S2 Turbine, another PRR one off ...... excluding Lionel's production.
They failed because they kept breaking down. The prime mover was VERY bad. It had something to do with the piston rings or head gaskets or something like that; I forget exactly what, now. Baldwin did come up with a fix shortly before it exited the locomotive market, but many railroads simply did not want to spend the money, especially after the things became mechanical orphans. The baby faces and the sharks also suffered from mechanical unreliability. The BP-20s were so unreliable that Penn had them assigned in pairs on the commuter trains in case one broke down. Penn's deferred maintenance did not help, either. I once saw a service photograph of a pair of them and an E-7 on a commuter train. The E-unit had to have its own crew as the Baldwins could not MU with other brands unless the railroad used an adapter; something on which few roads were willing to spend money. Baldwins had pneumatic throttles while all of the others had electric throttles. Some roads did have Baldwins with Westinghouse electric throttles, but that cost extra.
I'm hoping BLI reruns these at some point in the near future. I didn't get any when they were released a few years ago. I don't "need" them for my modern southwestern layout, but they're unique and interesting and would make a nice addition to the collection.
I didn't realize that either until I saw the drawings, nor did I know that the nose was tapered as well.
I got the fictitious UP version from BLI several years ago. I think BLI modeled these units to have the same mechanical issues the prototype centipedes encountered... LOL. They are a nice conversation piece... not a well running loco.
