Was there ever a BL1?

oldrk Apr 9, 2011

  1. oldrk

    oldrk TrainBoard Supporter

    3,700
    184
    51
    I have a couple of the LifeLike BL2s in C&O colors. Did EMD ever make a BL1?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. rrjim1

    rrjim1 TrainBoard Member

    821
    12
    15
    The Diesel Spotters Guide states that yes in fact there was 1 manufactured in 1948. I believe the C&EI owned it.
     
  3. DrifterNL

    DrifterNL TrainBoard Member

    317
    0
    15
  4. u18b

    u18b TrainBoard Supporter

    2,180
    155
    40
    BL-1 was the model number applied to the demo unit.
    BL-2 was the model number applied to the production units.

    As shown above, C&EI 200 is the demo unit.

    No one have ever been able to find a difference.
     
  5. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    13,965
    6,903
    183
    The BL series was designed for branchline service, hence the "BL" designation. The concept was for use in road-switcher and short-haul passenger service, competing with the ALCO RS-3. The BL-2 never caught on because it lacked MU capability which limited its usefulness, especially in hilly territory. B&M bought 4 for branchline service, but traded them as soon as possible for GP-7s which had MU capability.
     
  6. nickelplate759

    nickelplate759 TrainBoard Member

    126
    28
    19
    Some BL-2s had MU - maybe it was a retrofit?
     
  7. FloridaBoy

    FloridaBoy TrainBoard Member

    802
    1
    22
    BL-2

    Thanks for the historical information on my favored ugly duckling locos. I always was quite fond of them because they were so unique to the times, and ironic that an intentionally plainer and uglier GP7 was so successful won out.

    I also read somewhere that these locos were a victim of their design, that is, during production, they were more difficult to move around to install components because of frame problems, and those very problems led to problems out in the field, hence their failure. Is that true?

    I believe the sources and experts who have hands on experience to an edited author of research books of which I find errors myself.

    Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman
     
  8. noblerot

    noblerot TrainBoard Member

    47
    2
    15
    Here is one I shot last summer, it still runs weekend excursions up here in PA


    [​IMG]
     
  9. John Moore

    John Moore TrainBoard Supporter

    13,396
    12,182
    183
    According to some sources this was built to compete with the Alco RS-1. Total of 59 were built with 8 being shown on the C&O roster. Does make me wonder though about the design since the NW-5 was built about the same time and was a better loco for branchline freight and passenger service. The NW-5s made it in sevice for about 35 years for thier owners with some seeing 2nd lives with shortlines. Of course the GP-7 put an end to both models and the NW-5 only saw 13 built. Just an opinion but the streamline era probably drove the design. Also found that the BL-1 was the only one that could not be MUed due to I believe the type of throttle used with it. The BL-2 model had a different throttle and could be equipped for MU if the purchasers desired.

    Got to admit though that they were unique looking.
     
  10. up1950s

    up1950s TrainBoard Supporter

    487
    75
    17
    But is the nose on both a casting or fab'ed together ?
     
  11. u18b

    u18b TrainBoard Supporter

    2,180
    155
    40
    The MU capability (or lack there-of) has been commonly cited.

    But The Second Diesel Spotters Guide by Pinkepank, on page EMD-52, he has a photo of the rear of BL-1 in EMD demo paint. It clearly has MU hoses, debunking the idea that the BL-1 was not MU equipped.

    The author further adds that some BL-2 were not MU equipped (Boston & Maine) and were still BL-2s.

    And lastly, the C&EI ownd both the BL-1 and the BL-2 and their guys said there was no difference between the two (although I would give less deference to this statement since engineers and repair guys don't care about the level of rivet counting that we do).

    All this is to say that many people over the years have **tried** their best to find a visual difference between the BL-1 demo unit and the BL-2 and after over 50 years, no one can prove any visual difference.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2011
  12. Robbman

    Robbman TrainBoard Member

    1,141
    0
    27
    The only difference is the frame is made from heavier structural components... and since you can't really see that, there is indeed no visual difference
     
  13. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    The BL2 was also a failure because it was not very practical. It was not possible to walk around the hood, like you can do with RS's. So, it was not very suitable for switching.

    The BL2 had the same engine as the F3 and was also streamlined.

    But successor GP7 was superior.
     
  14. bnsf971

    bnsf971 TrainBoard Member

    671
    15
    24
    Since the photo of the BL1 clearly shows what certainly looks like MU cables, I'd have to say that wasn't it.
    They were horribly labor intensive to build, with all the production work having to be done where the locomotive was, instead of it being able to be lifted and carried anywhere in the factory.
     
  15. Triplex

    Triplex TrainBoard Member

    3,214
    1
    44
    I recall a claim that the BL2's frame strength limited it to three units in MU, but I've seen photos of BL2s operating on BAR in consists of 4-5 units - okay, not all BL2s, but if the frame strength were an issue, it would be in these consists too.
     
  16. u18b

    u18b TrainBoard Supporter

    2,180
    155
    40
    Lots of people say how ugly they are.

    I like them!
     

Share This Page