This thread complements the recent Alco, EMD and GE export threads.
Baldwin exports were I think fewer in number than from the above three manufacturers. And of the special export models, the metre-gauge AS-616E road-switcher built for Brasil, and the broad gauge RF-615E cab unit built for Argentina, have had reasonable coverage in the literature.
Beyond that, one must look to the products of Baldwin licensee Cockerill of Belgium to find later versions of what might be called the Baldwin concept, including the 608 diesel engine. As well as building locomotives for SNCB, Belgium, Cockerill also built for several overseas railroads.
An early Cockerill export, in 1954, was a Cape-gauge C-C end-cab road-switcher for the Matadi-Leopoldville railroad in what was then the Belgian Congo. This was clearly derived from the Baldwin AS-616E, and as far as I know, Cockerill referred to it as an AS-616E. It looks as if it were intended to run cab-forward.
The 608SC engine was licence-built by Cockerill, and the electrical equipment was supplied by ACEC of Belgium, who was a Westinghouse licensee. ACEC was perhaps better known as a supplier (and further developer of) of Westinghouse-type equipment for Belgian-built PCC streetcars. It also took Westinghouse’s late ideas on 25 Hz single-phase commutator traction motors and segued them into the 50 Hz field when industrial frequency electrification was embryonic.
The trucks look to be essentially the same as were used on the AS-616E. That is, trimount with a single swing-bolster and outside equalized.
So the Matadi-Leopoldville locomotive was very “Baldwin”, inclusive of pneumatic throttle (and dynamic brake) control.
Another notable Cockerill export model was developed for Argentina, evidently because with the closure of Baldwin’s own production, no more of the RF-615E were available. The result was the 2R-616E, a broad-gauge, C-C double-ended cab unit whose body style reflected European practice of the time. I imagine that this would have been able to work in MU with the RF-615E, but I do not know for sure.
The Matadi-Leopoldville railway placed a repeat order on Cockerill for locomotives that were essentially similar to its first batch, and these were delivered in 1959.
A major difference though, was that the second batch were cab units, of the Cockerill R-616R model, not road-switchers. Opinion seemed to be divided as to which body style was better in tropical conditions. One view was that hood units had the advantage that any outdoor terminal inspections and adjustments could be done in a (relatively) cool, outdoor environment; the obverse of that was the cab units provided a dry environment.
As well as the 1954 Cockerill road switchers, Matadi-Leopoldville had two batches of GE shovel-nose cab units, the first from GE in 1951 and the second licence-builds from Baume & Marpent, Belgium, in 1954. So one might assume that having tried both hood and cab units, it preferred the latter type.
The SNCB Belgium 210 class, built by Baldwin licensee Cockerill, was mentioned in the thread “Why did BLH drop the Hamilton engine?”, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=163802.
This was fitted with the Cockerill-Hamilton TH895SA engine. As mentioned in the references thread, Cockerill’s use of pneumatic throttle control with this engine was an apparent departure from established BLH, and before that, Lima-Hamilton practice.
At SNCB’s request, the cab design of the 210 class was the same as that used for the contemporary 200 class, a C-C unit powered by the Cockerill-BLH 608 engine, and the 211 class, which was the diesel-hydraulic counterpart to the 210 class. Also at SNCB’s request, the trucks were of the SLM (Swiss Locomotive Works) type, built under licence by Cockerill.
Here is the SNCB Cockerill-Baldwin 200 class C-C unit:
And here is its Cockerill-BLH 608A engine:
Just visible in the picture, about a third of the way in from the left, is the Woodward UG8 governor and its controlling pneumatic cylinder and linkage.
In the 200 class, the engine output was stepped up to 2150 hp (gross) at 650 rev/min. If one works on the assumption that the Baldwin 8-cylinder engine was intended to do the same job as the Alco 12-251 and GE FDL-12 models, then it was a match because both of those were at 2150 hp (gross) at that time, and further upratings were still a few years out. (On the other hand, Alco had just taken its 6-251 up to 1350 hp (gross), mostly I think because it did not then have an 8-cylinder variant but still needed to compete with the GE 7FDL-8. That Alco per-cylinder uprating was a harbinger of things to come and probably where the Baldwin 600 series engine could not go.)
I haven’t done a rigorous check, but the SNCB 200 class does seem to have been the last new design locomotive application for the BLH 600-series engine, and at the highest per-cylinder rating used in a locomotive.
Thus the 200 and the 210 formed a homologous pair, one with the “big” Baldwin in-line “eight” and the other with the smaller Lima-Hamilton in-line “eight”. A logical question is why was not the Baldwin 606 engine used in the smaller locomotive, which choice would have allowed even more commonality between the two. My guess is that its weight would have been against it, as it was likely 3 tons or so heavier than the Lima-Hamilton TH895.
They had a bolster mounted on flexicoils, but the flexicoils in turn were not mounted directly on the truck frame, but rather on longitudinal pendulum-hung suspension bars.
The rationale for these was given in the descriptive article in ‘Diesel Railway Traction” for 1962 March:
“The three-axle bogie is of non-compensated type with primary and secondary suspensions by helical springs, and with lateral movement between bogie and bolster absorbed by the helical springs of the secondary suspension. The design was evolved by Cockerill to simulate the Flexicoil bogies in the Co-Co locomotives of S.N.C.B. classes 202, 203 and 204, but to eliminate points of criticism which had arisen in the five years' operation of these bogies. To maintain standardisation as far as practicable, the wheel-and-axle sets, axleboxes, axlebox springs, and certain other bogie and brake details in the new type 200 locomotives are interchangeable with those of the three classes mentioned above, but the bogies as a whole are not interchangeable.”
The 202, 203 and 204 classes were the AFB-EMD AA16 units built from 1955 onwards. So one might say that an element of EMD practice had been taken into the Cockerill-Baldwin lexicon.
Cockerill’s apparent default position with cab units was to use flattish fronts rather than nose-ends, as is evident from the models supplied to the Congo and to Argentina, a shown in earlier postings in this thread. In the Argentina case, the Cockerill order apparently stemmed from an original Argentine Railways (EFEA) plan to acquire more of the Baldwin RF615E type, this being frustrated by Baldwin’s exit from the business. It would appear that EFEA did not insist upon the retention of the RF615E nose end for the Cockerill replacement design.
Cockerill’s first build for SNCB, the 201 class of 1955, also had flat fronts.
Evidently, having experienced both the Cockerill flat-fronted and AFB-EMD nose-ended body styles, SNCB decided that it wanted something in-between for its second wave of mainline diesel locomotive acquisitions, hence the angular, vestigial nose design seen on the Cockerill-built 200 and 210 classes, and a very similar one on the BN-EMD classes, as noted in the ‘EMD Export Locomotives’ thread, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=160297.
A Cockerill-Baldwin export that did have nose-end body style was the Cape gauge 2R617E model (with BLH 608A engine) built for Sudan Railways (SR) as its 1200 class from late 1961.
Apparently this was a customer requirement that had come about because SR’s first batch of mainline diesel-electric locomotives, supplied by English Electric (EE) in 1959-60, had EE’s characteristic nose-end body style. EE had gotten the first order ahead of Cockerill partly because it offered quick delivery by using a design that was modified somewhat from a locomotive it had built for KTM Malayan Railways in 1957. When SR wanted a second batch before the first had all been delivered, Cockerill was in a position to offer quick supply. Its original offer had been a flat-fronted design, but it was required to modify it to look more like the EE design, SR’s 1000 class. Hence the vestigial nose ends, which looked more decorative than functional. Perhaps that was the easiest way to meet the customer requirement; adopting say the nose-end design from the Baldwin RF615E would have been a more difficult change.
Other features of the SR 1200 that may have been derived from the EE-built 1000 class are certain aspects of the trucks, and the braking system.
The SR 1200 had cast frame, single-swing bolster trimount trucks that were broadly similar to what it had used on the AS616 and R616R models supplied to OTRACO, Congo, and on the 2R616E model supplied to EFEA Argentina. Also, Baldwin itself had used such trucks on its AS616E export model supplied to Brasilian operators. However, a point of difference was that on the SR locomotive, underslung equalizing beams were used, whereas on all of the others, outside drop-type beams had been used. The SR 1000 class had had underslung equalizers, according to the by then established EE norm, although EE had used a double-swing bolster truck with centre-pivot. So one suspects that it was the EE precedent that had led SR to specify underslung equalizers. An oddity of the SR 1200 trucks that did not follow an EE precedent is that they were mounted with their pivots inboard, rather than outboard as was more normal for the trimount type and as had been used elsewhere by Cockerill.
Back then, SR was a vacuum-braked road, so naturally its locomotives were equipped for train vacuum braking. But the SR 1200 also had vacuum brakes on the locomotive, using the Gresham & Craven (G&C) augmented two-pipe system, which is also what the SR 1000 had. Cockerill’s apparent default was an air-on-locomotive, vacuum-for-train combination as used on the above-mentioned Congo and Argentinean locomotives. So again one suspects the EE precedent. And on the 1000 class, that braking system might have been part of the package, as it were, that facilitated quick delivery, as the Malayan prototype upon which the 1000 was based had that braking system. In that case, the choice might have been influenced by the UK Crown Agents, who were involved, as they were in many British “colonial” transactions of the time, seemed to have preferred the vacuum-on-locomotive/vacuum-for-train combination for vacuum-braked roads. If so, then effectively they had a reach well beyond what was intended. Possibly too Harry Gresham had the ear of the Crown Agents and was able to “sell” his augmented vacuum brake system, which was described by one observer as a solution looking for a problem.
As well, history seems to have repeated itself. In 1964 SR obtained two prototype medium-power locomotives from Hitachi as its 1400 class. These were members of a Hitachi group, built late 1950s to early 1970s, powered by the MAN 12-cylinder 22/30 medium-speed engine. The group was quite diverse, but the SR 1400 was, in appearance terms, very much an outlier, being a nose-ended cab unit, having trucks with underslung equalizers, and G&C augmented vacuum brakes.
Anyway, the SR 1200 was a Baldwin license-build that incorporated some very un-Baldwin features, to some extent possibly by happenstance.
Eligible for inclusion in this thread I think are the Whitcomb exports. As well as locomotives built in the USA and exported, also included licence-built locomotives, notable amongst which were the 150 members of the Netherlands Railways (NS) 2200 and 2300 classes of the late 1950s.
The contractor for the first batch of 100 was Heemaf of the Netherlands, who also built the electrical equipment under Westinghouse licence. The mechanical parts, built under Baldwin licence, were subcontracted to Allan of the Netherlands. (I am not sure who of Heemaf and Allan actually held the Baldwin licence.) The Superior 40C-LX-8 engines were built by Stork of the Netherlands, who obtained a licence from Superior for the purpose. Stork was an established builder of marine engines, who eventually was absorbed into the Wärtsilä group.
The second batch of 50 were supplied by Schneider of France, who built the mechanical parts under Baldwin licence, the electrical equipment under Westinghouse licence, and 40 of the engines under Superior licence, the other 10 coming from Stork.
Appearance-wise, the NS locomotives were somewhat like the 75 C-C units supplied by Whitcomb to Argentina from 1949.
An interesting aspect is that in the relatively small area represented by Benelux could be found examples of Baldwin licence-built locomotives with three different types of 8-cylinder in-line engines, namely Baldwin, Superior and Hamilton. And both Westinghouse pneumatic and Wemco electric throttles were represented.
Superior! Now that's a brand of engine one doesn't hear much about in a locomotive context! Ingalls Shipbuilding, immediately after WW II, tried to become a locomotive builder using Superior engines: one demonstrator was all they built. Otherwise, a variety of strange early, small, units, the occasional re-engining project... and a Whitcomb line of export diesels. http://www.oocities.org/wbd641/SuperiorDiesels2.html has a bit of information but is lacking the pictures it originnly had (it came up from some web-archive site). But perhaps Will Davis (who I think originally posted it, could tell us more.
... You can see Whitcomb's problem. They wanted to become a serious contender in the large-locomotive business, and for this they needed diesel engines. Developing their own was not feasible: developing a new diesel engine from scratch takes time and deep pockets. So they had to buy. As an American company, their only real options were engines supplied by American engine builders. So... Cummins and Caterpillar are possibilities, and Whitcomb did use Caterpillar engines on some units. But these are "high speed" diesels, and most railroads wanted "medium speed" engines on all but the smallest units, so... General Motors (EMD), Alco, Baldwin, Fairbanks-Morse, and General Machinery (a.k.a. Hamilton) all had medium speed diesel engine designs that could be used in locomotives, but all would probably have been reluctant to help another company become a serious competitor in the locomotive business. (Though I think -- perhaps because of a corporate connection, since W. became a BLH subsidiary -- that Whitcomb built a few units using Baldwin's De la Vergne engine.) That leaves us with... Superior and Cooper-Bessemer come to mind.
Yes, I imagine that for would-be line-service locomotive builders, suitable medium-speed engine choices from as yet “uncommitted” builders still available in the 1940s were not very many.
Whitcomb used the Superior LX engine, which had 8½” x 10½” cylinders, and ran at 1100 rev/min. So it was a bit smaller, and ran a bit faster than the Hamilton engine. Ingalls used a larger Superior engine, with 12½” x 15” cylinders, which ran at 660 rev/min. I haven’t seen a model number for it, but it was of dry-block, bedplate design. So it had fractionally smaller cylinders than the Baldwin 600-series engine, which was also of bedplate design but I think was wet-block.
Given that Whitcomb had been a division of Baldwin since 1940, I wonder if it was confined to offering locomotives that did not conflict to any great extent with Baldwin’s own offerings.
One of Whitcomb’s export designs was a twin-engined centre-cab unit, powered by Superior 6-cylinder 8½” x 10½” engines, each producing 675 hp at 1100 rev/min. It was built in both A1A-A1A and C-C versions, and had a nominal weight of 104 short tons, although actual weights varied.
Customers for this model included CP Portugal (A1A-A1A, broad gauge); Dakar-Niger (C-C, metre gauge); BCK Congo (A1A-A1A, also reported as C-C, Cape gauge, engine model reported as 40-ALX-6.); and Congo-Ocean (A1A-A1A, Cape gauge).
They looked rather cumbersome, and for the African roads at least they had rather high axle loadings by the standards of the day. I should not be surprised if they had rigid-bolster trucks, which would not have helped with tracking and riding.
Whitcomb’s single-engined end-cab line-service model appears to have been used in Argentina and Cameroun. In the Argentina case, the C-C wheel arrangement was used, with the 8-cylinder Superior engine derated from 900 to 675 hp. The Cameroun units, reported as being both A1A-A1A and C-C, were quoted as 675 hp. So whether they had 6-cylinder engines or derated 8-cylinder engines is unknown. However, the weight difference favours the 6-cylinder option. The Argentinean locomotives were stated to be 75 tonnes, as compared with 66 tons (which could be long tons or metric tons (tonnes)) for the Cameroun case.