In some ways, the SNCB type 211, falling as it did into the “Baldwin export” category, can be seen as a post facto realization of Baldwin’s 1950s ambitions to develop diesel-hydraulic line-service locomotives that were generally comparable to the diesel-electric type. This ambition is delineated in the attached article from ‘Diesel Railway Traction’ for 1954 May:
Perhaps ironic though is that the SNCB type 211 had a Voith hydraulic transmission, whereas Baldwin had been a Mekydro licensee.
Even back in 1954, Baldwin had stated that mixed MU operations between diesel-hydraulic and diesel-electric locomotives was desirable. But as best as I can determine, the SNCB 211 was not MU-compatible with its type 210 diesel-electric counterpart. At least, nothing was said about such capability in the 211 information that I have seen, and it is something that I expect would have been flagged had it been provided. Possibly that was because the 211 was viewed by the SNCB as special-purpose machine, for use on duties where high sustained tractive effort was required, and so would not normally overlap with the 210. Still, had the fleet been larger, the mixed MU capability might have been of value in allowing the 211 to fill-in on 210 rosters without creating any compatibility problems.
The 210 probably had the standard control protocol associated with the Baldwin CE100 master controller, thus allowing it to interwork with the concurrent type 200 and earlier type 201 locomotives, as well as its own kind. I think though that the CE100 control protocol could have been used for diesel-hydraulic locomotives. That it provided a continuously variable throttle addressed the need for diesel-hydraulic locomotives to have finer throttle graduation than was often used for diesel-electrics. And although not pertinent to the type 211 case, its pneumatic rather than electric dynamic brake control made it an easy fit to hydrodynamic brakes. Still, better would have been a control protocol that simultaneously addressed the need of diesel-hydraulic and diesel-electric locomotives. For example such could have accommodated a part-converter-fill initial notch for the diesel-hydraulic case, a facility which the 211 appeared to have had. That this kind of thing was doable is illustrated by the British Rail diesel-electric electropneumatic control protocol, developed as part of the 1955 Pilot Plan. Here a single system accommodated both the English Electric approach of pneumatic throttle control throughout the range and the then Sulzer approach of a few electric starting notches followed by pneumatic throttle control. (Sulzer abandoned this for full pneumatic control before deliveries started, but its protocol was used to some extent by BTH and Brush.)
The SNCB types 211 and 210 formed a diesel-hydraulic and diesel-electric counterpart pair in much the same was as did the British Rail classes 22 and 21, both mentioned in the Alco Diesel-Hydraulic thread. (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=163595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) The SNCB also had a second such pair, the type 212 diesel-electric (mentioned in the EMD Export Locomotives thread (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=160297" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and the type 213 diesel-hydraulic. These may have even a bit closer been closer in details than the above-mentioned pairs. I am looking for sufficient additional information on the 213, and If I find it, I’ll post a commentary in the EMD thread.
Cheers,
Perhaps ironic though is that the SNCB type 211 had a Voith hydraulic transmission, whereas Baldwin had been a Mekydro licensee.
Even back in 1954, Baldwin had stated that mixed MU operations between diesel-hydraulic and diesel-electric locomotives was desirable. But as best as I can determine, the SNCB 211 was not MU-compatible with its type 210 diesel-electric counterpart. At least, nothing was said about such capability in the 211 information that I have seen, and it is something that I expect would have been flagged had it been provided. Possibly that was because the 211 was viewed by the SNCB as special-purpose machine, for use on duties where high sustained tractive effort was required, and so would not normally overlap with the 210. Still, had the fleet been larger, the mixed MU capability might have been of value in allowing the 211 to fill-in on 210 rosters without creating any compatibility problems.
The 210 probably had the standard control protocol associated with the Baldwin CE100 master controller, thus allowing it to interwork with the concurrent type 200 and earlier type 201 locomotives, as well as its own kind. I think though that the CE100 control protocol could have been used for diesel-hydraulic locomotives. That it provided a continuously variable throttle addressed the need for diesel-hydraulic locomotives to have finer throttle graduation than was often used for diesel-electrics. And although not pertinent to the type 211 case, its pneumatic rather than electric dynamic brake control made it an easy fit to hydrodynamic brakes. Still, better would have been a control protocol that simultaneously addressed the need of diesel-hydraulic and diesel-electric locomotives. For example such could have accommodated a part-converter-fill initial notch for the diesel-hydraulic case, a facility which the 211 appeared to have had. That this kind of thing was doable is illustrated by the British Rail diesel-electric electropneumatic control protocol, developed as part of the 1955 Pilot Plan. Here a single system accommodated both the English Electric approach of pneumatic throttle control throughout the range and the then Sulzer approach of a few electric starting notches followed by pneumatic throttle control. (Sulzer abandoned this for full pneumatic control before deliveries started, but its protocol was used to some extent by BTH and Brush.)
The SNCB types 211 and 210 formed a diesel-hydraulic and diesel-electric counterpart pair in much the same was as did the British Rail classes 22 and 21, both mentioned in the Alco Diesel-Hydraulic thread. (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=163595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) The SNCB also had a second such pair, the type 212 diesel-electric (mentioned in the EMD Export Locomotives thread (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=160297" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and the type 213 diesel-hydraulic. These may have even a bit closer been closer in details than the above-mentioned pairs. I am looking for sufficient additional information on the 213, and If I find it, I’ll post a commentary in the EMD thread.
Cheers,
