The article on the BL-2 in the August 1986 of "Mainline Modeler" (by the magazine's editor and publisher, Robert L. Hundman) says:
"A recent article published by the Monon Historical Society notes that frame weakness, however, limited MU flexibility to generally no more than two units in combination. The Monon, to correct the problem, rebuilt one of their locomotives (number 30) with a strengthened frame. It appears that other railroads did not feel the need for this degree of frame rebuild."
Maybe it is relevant that the Monon main line, on its South end, had some very steep grades: if they were using their BL-2 on heavy freights in this area, they may have been stressing the locomotives in a way most other users didn't (speculation on my part).
Railroad Forums
EMD BL1 and BL2
- Discussion of Electro-Motive locomotive products and technology, past and present. Official web site can be found here: http://www.emdiesels.com/.
Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM
The "Mainline Modeler" article I mentioned was reprinted, along with additional pictures, in Hundman Publishing's "EMD's BL2: Diesel Data Series, Book 3."
There is also a very good article on the BL2 (by "Win Cuisinier" -- I think this is a pseudonym for Preston Cook) in the April 1982 issue of "Railroad Model Craftsman" that describes some of the structural peculiarities of the BL2 design. It doesn't have the heavy I-beam frame of a typical roadswitcher, but instead the sort of truss frame cab units have: but with the truss not as deep as on cab units. It's longer than an F-unit (by maybe about 13%-14%), and in order to fit the radiators in a fairly narrow "clerestory" over the engine, the engine-generator set is mounted low: the bottom of the engine sump is below the frame, so the only continuous longitudinal frame members are outboard of the engine. ... In retrospect, it seems like an invitation to frame weakness, but probably this was felt to be acceptable because the "Branch Line" locomotive wasn't intended to see heavy haulage duty in m.u.-lashups: for THAT sort of duty, EMD's customers were expected to buy F-units!
There is also a very good article on the BL2 (by "Win Cuisinier" -- I think this is a pseudonym for Preston Cook) in the April 1982 issue of "Railroad Model Craftsman" that describes some of the structural peculiarities of the BL2 design. It doesn't have the heavy I-beam frame of a typical roadswitcher, but instead the sort of truss frame cab units have: but with the truss not as deep as on cab units. It's longer than an F-unit (by maybe about 13%-14%), and in order to fit the radiators in a fairly narrow "clerestory" over the engine, the engine-generator set is mounted low: the bottom of the engine sump is below the frame, so the only continuous longitudinal frame members are outboard of the engine. ... In retrospect, it seems like an invitation to frame weakness, but probably this was felt to be acceptable because the "Branch Line" locomotive wasn't intended to see heavy haulage duty in m.u.-lashups: for THAT sort of duty, EMD's customers were expected to buy F-units!
EMD F unit had a weak point in the main frame under the air compressor. If the frame was defective, the air compressor would literally dance in place. Have seen this on several units. On 1 occasion a covered wagon ran into a cut of standing cars, (The crew was asleep) the frame buckled under the air compressor. (I am 6' 2"tall and I could walk under the unit hold my arms straight up and just touch the frame.)
Know that this has nothing to do with BL's but you would be surprised know the types of units that have experienced broken main frames.
Know that this has nothing to do with BL's but you would be surprised know the types of units that have experienced broken main frames.
dkgrubb wrote:A very interesting fact about an existing BL2 is the outstanding performance of former Western Maryland BL2 #82, which operates on the former WM, now the West Virginia Central, in Elkins, West Virginia. This locomotive went to the West Virginia State Rail Authority who operated it on the South Branch Valley Railroad, in Moorefield, WV. As with all of their locomotives, they ran the BL2 into the ground, and declared it no longer operational. The SRA was goin to scrap the locomotive, but Mr. John Smith convinced the state to move it to the WVC, the other state owned railroad. The shop men at the SBV said that it would take (i think) $200,000 the repair the BL2 to operation. The WVC mechanics, Tim Cochran and Jack Sanford returned the BL2 to operation with less than $2000. It has been operating ever since. It did go to CSX's Huntington Shops for some work to the trucks and prime mover, though. An interesting fact about it is that compared to the EMD FP7 that the Central operates, it is said that the BL2 outpulls it, no contest, as the passenger unit was built for speed, and the BL2 was built for heavy freight service. The line out of Elkins traverses quite steep grades, as part of the line was actually built for Shay steam locomotives of a logging railroad. More later...(Sam Peer) I happen to very familiar with the BL2 and SBVR operation as a part of my job. You've made some errors in your comments and also sme nearly slanderous remarks about he SBVR Shop people. Let me correct you. First the BL-2 was transferred from Cass Railroad to the South Branch after the 195 flood destroyed the Greenbrier Branch. When the BL-2 arrived on the South Branch nearly half the electric equipment was missing. It leaked oil from about every place imaginable on the desiel engine. In fact, the engine room was not a safe place to walk becasue of oil leaks. Additionally, the BL-2's frame was not sufficient to MU with other units, making it useless on the SBVR. The engine was never run on the SBVR in freight service.
Keith
You are correct in that the engine was taken to the West Virginia Central. I haven't the foggiest how much money they put in repairing the BL-2 but, I can assure you it was more than a $2,000 paint job. Especially, knowing the PSC and FRA railroad safety inspectors and how picky they can be. Additionally, you fail to mention the costs associated with the work that was done on the BL-2 by the Huntington Shops. In speaking to the shop supervisor, he informed me they had not put a price onf renovating the BL-2, thus the $200,000 figure you state is straight out fo your imagination.
Now, as for the SBVR shop people running their power into the ground. You have no idea of what you speak. I imagine since you are little more that a glaze eyed railfan, you know very litttle about real railroading in general and even less about shortline railroading. That is obvious by some of your posts.
I see the SBVR's equipment from time to to time and it is kept in good shape. The vast majority of their equipment is 50's vintage and requires a hugh amount of TLC to keep running. They do that quite well on a very limited budget and under very limiting conditions. As of right now, the SBVR has 6 GP9's, 2 SD9, 1 SD18, and a 80 ton center cab. All are operating except the SD 18 and one GP9, both of which should be up in the near future. Three of the GP 9s are equiped with computers and have autostarts. Soon, all three of the SD's will have auto starts saving thousands of dollars in fuel.
Quite frankly you owe the SBVR personnel an apology for the tenor of your comments. They do not run anything in the ground. Additionally, so far as railroading goes, I would certainly put them up against any company out there today.
Sam Peer--
It wasn't the main point of your comment, but you say
"the BL-2's frame was not sufficient to MU with other units."
Could you elaborate on this? The issue of frame weakness on the BL-2 locomotive came up earlier on this string, and ... facts (and sources for them) would be appreciated.
(I'll confess to being a railfan, and not a professional railroader, which AUTOMATICALLY puts me in your debt: those of us who look at railroading from the sidelines and are fascinated by its history value any information insiders are willing to give us!)
It wasn't the main point of your comment, but you say
"the BL-2's frame was not sufficient to MU with other units."
Could you elaborate on this? The issue of frame weakness on the BL-2 locomotive came up earlier on this string, and ... facts (and sources for them) would be appreciated.
(I'll confess to being a railfan, and not a professional railroader, which AUTOMATICALLY puts me in your debt: those of us who look at railroading from the sidelines and are fascinated by its history value any information insiders are willing to give us!)
With these BL2 locomotives being so incredibly fragile, I am curious how they would ever be able to ship them dead in train. Some railroads prefer to handle dead locomotives next to the power block. Suppose you have three SD40-2 units ahead of the BL2. The applied drawbar force of three operating units between the rear coupler of the 3rd locomotive in the operating lashup and the front coupler of the BL2 which is being hauled dead in the 4th position is going to be nearly identical in most operating situations to what it would be if the BL2 was the fourth unit MU'ed and running under power. So do they have to ship them on the back of the train? If so, I would think you would have to issue special instructions and pick the train very carefully. That's a pretty heavy boxcar to put in back of a block of empties.
Allen Hazen wrote:Sam Peer--(Sam Peer) I don't know what the actual cause was, but I know that concerns existed about the frame if the engine was MUed.
It wasn't the main point of your comment, but you say
"the BL-2's frame was not sufficient to MU with other units."
Could you elaborate on this? The issue of frame weakness on the BL-2 locomotive came up earlier on this string, and ... facts (and sources for them) would be appreciated.
(I'll confess to being a railfan, and not a professional railroader, which AUTOMATICALLY puts me in your debt: those of us who look at railroading from the sidelines and are fascinated by its history value any information insiders are willing to give us!)
Thanks for the reply. My suspicion is that, somewhere, there is an EMD technical piece strongly recommending that one not expose BL-2 to certain sorts of stress. It probably wouldn't be in the operator's manual (hmmm. Maybe it would!), but there must be something EMD provided to railroad mechanical departments when they were thinking of buying locomotives of a given model.
Allen Hazen wrote:Thanks for the reply. My suspicion is that, somewhere, there is an EMD technical piece strongly recommending that one not expose BL-2 to certain sorts of stress. It probably wouldn't be in the operator's manual (hmmm. Maybe it would!), but there must be something EMD provided to railroad mechanical departments when they were thinking of buying locomotives of a given model.Allen,
I would be willing to bet that a railroad complained to EMD about the frame problem. Then EMD may or may not have put out a MI (Maintenance Instruction bulletin or Maintenance Pointer.) This has happened many times on other problems. Sometimes, mechanical departments would work together to solve a problem. (Shop managers would meet accidently for lunch and talk about problems.)
Hello Mr. Peer,
I do apologize for the post which obviously irritated you, and I will take your advice. Let this be my apology which must be due to the South Branch Valley shop force as well. My statement about the locomotives was uncalled for, as this was something that I had only overheard by several people, and not something I had found out for myself first hand. As was stated, I did not recall the actual costs, and what I said was a rough estimate. I will find out the facts I should have more thoroughly researched in the first place, and post them when I get them. Also, you are correct in saying I was not considering the Huntington work, nor the paint job, only the initial start up and activation work. As a "glaze eyed railfan" and a one-time shortline employee, I do appreciate your corrections and I hope my apology is adequate. I never intended to cause any conflict, I was simply trying to "brag" on a great locomotive and the great men who brought her back to life.
Take care,
Keith
I do apologize for the post which obviously irritated you, and I will take your advice. Let this be my apology which must be due to the South Branch Valley shop force as well. My statement about the locomotives was uncalled for, as this was something that I had only overheard by several people, and not something I had found out for myself first hand. As was stated, I did not recall the actual costs, and what I said was a rough estimate. I will find out the facts I should have more thoroughly researched in the first place, and post them when I get them. Also, you are correct in saying I was not considering the Huntington work, nor the paint job, only the initial start up and activation work. As a "glaze eyed railfan" and a one-time shortline employee, I do appreciate your corrections and I hope my apology is adequate. I never intended to cause any conflict, I was simply trying to "brag" on a great locomotive and the great men who brought her back to life.
Take care,
Keith
I'm still curious about the "air throttle" that the BL-1 was allegedly equipped with. Anyone have any real information? Or was the unit just built sans MU?
The air throttle governor (called a "pneumatic hydraulic governor" in EMD publications) was listed in an number of EMD bulletins as being optional for the SW-1, NW-2, and BL locomotives. It uses air pressure applied to a bellows against a return spring and rebalancing linkage, and for locomotive applications it is equipped with a load control pilot valve. Exactly the same type governor was applied to EMD marine engines in installations with controllable pitch propellers manufactured in the same time period. Marine installations with fixed pitch propellers did not require the load control pilot valve, but used the same air control throttle arrangement.
The BL2 predates the modern EMD publication system. At the time it came out the EMD service publications were the General Service Bulletins (GSB) and the Field Service News (FSN). The Pointers did exist, but they were a Parts Department publication. Pointers became a combined parts/service publication taking the place of the FSN in 1953.
The BL2 predates the modern EMD publication system. At the time it came out the EMD service publications were the General Service Bulletins (GSB) and the Field Service News (FSN). The Pointers did exist, but they were a Parts Department publication. Pointers became a combined parts/service publication taking the place of the FSN in 1953.
I hate the BL2's they were the Ugliest EMD ever and they should of never preserved one. I know that they have one at the Kentucky Railway Museum.
AmtrakFan
AmtrakFan