Baldwins on US Steel roads

[Tadman]

I notice EJ&E and the other USS-owned belts/terminals had a lot of Baldwin locomotives. Was there any logic behind this (IE gamesmanship or deal making) or was it just the right locomotive at the right price? I ask because I've heard the Big Three, including GM, bought lots of steel from Armco and a few other Detroit/Cleveland/Cinci mills. Possible USS felt they should buy buy locomotives from builders that bought their steel. This type of game isn't unheard of - Ford refused to buy EMD, preferring GE for plant switchers, for quite some time.

[Komachi]

Mayhapse a better topic for the Baldwin forum?

Those-in-the-know, about things Baldwin, should be able to give you a satisfactory answer there.

[EDM5970]

Similar to Tadman's question, I've often wondered about the reason Erie Mining had three pretty much distinct sets of power out at Hoyt Lakes. The F-9s handled the road trains, S-12s handled the switching, and the RS-11s and Centuries were the mine engines.

It seems to me that the RS-11s and Centuries, set up with dynamics and Orinocco air, could have handled all three jobs, although spotting a 96 car train for loading might have been a stretch for a single Alco, 752 motors and all. It would have kept things in the shop and storeroom a bit simpler.

Or was it politics and keeping the big steel customers happy? Don't offend General Motors by not having their locomotives haul ore that they would eventually use in Detroit?