Nostalgia & History > PRR Centipede, 'nuff said

Info I have says PRR #5827 is at East Juniata Yard by Bill Volkmer, no date.

---

Great piece of history. The retired steam locomotive in the background lasted a total of many years more than the Centipede!
Bob

A simply amazing hunk o' metal!

Lance

the PRR SAL and NDM were the only railroads to purchase these multi axle units ... the PRR units were semi permanently coupled ... the others were single units ...

Posted from Android

How in the world did the SAL get mixed up with these things?! Were they looking at lighter loadings or something?
SR

NdeM loved theirs, ran into the sixties.

Out

Here's an NDM version, Alan Miller collection

N.B. from Alan Miller ... Jim Zwernemann photo..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/15 12:45 by valmont.

---

Although I note the picture is credited to the Miller collection, I suspect this picture may actually have been taken by the late Ken Crist. Is this a possibility?

Yes sir lighter axle loadings(on the Seaboard) so the literature says.........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/15 10:36 by jcrun0mp7.

Okay, that's about the only thing that makes sense (barely).
SR

How 'bout a nice sensible SD-7? Just say'n

BillMarvel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although I note the picture is credited to the
> Miller collection, I suspect this picture may
> actually have been taken by the late Ken Crist. Is
> this a possibility?

Could be, bet Alan will know .... I'll see

How many traction motors and powered axles did these support?

They were a 2-D+D-2, eight powered axles. They had a pair of 608SC prime movers, 3000
total hp and about 125,000# of tractive effort. The NdeM had Baldwins and liked the
units because of familiarity and the fact that they could easily keep them running. The
Westinghouse 370 traction motors would take a lot of abuse.

Out

I'm new to TO and new to centipedes. Where did they carry the fuel?

from Alan Miller, the NDM Centipede is a Jim Zwernemann photo..

I believe the tanks were built into the frames.

It's good fun to read former Baldwin man John F. Kirkland's defense of these beasts in his Diesel Builders Vol. 3 - Baldwin. If you are familiar with the TRAINS issue on Centipedes, you know exactly what he's defending against. Issues like frequent derailments and jack-knifing in pusher service (service for which it was not designed, says Kirkland), going through lots of brake shoes in that service as they lacked dynamics and would have to roll back down the hill with brakes on (dynamics were offered but PRR declined, says John). He doesn't address the issues of frequent liquid leaks inside or burning out traction motors because when the big trucks angled on a curve, cooling air blew down to the ballast instead of into the motors. You were a good company man to the end, John Kirkland. RIP.

Those unfamiliar with the Centipedes should know that the first one was built on the running gear of a locomotive Baldwin was developing which would have had 8 750 HP V8 diesels in modular "power packs" that never got beyond the test stage and never had all the engines installed. The idea was to put 6000 HP in a single unit to avoid rumored union demands for an engineer aboard each unit in MU consists, the same reason ATSF rearranged their FS units (coupler equipped FT's) into ABBB from ABBA. But the carriers worked things out with the union and the attractiveness of a 6000 HP machine went away.

So 6000 HP per pair until PRR removed the turbos then 5000 hp total.

The fuel was carried in tanks fabricated inside the car body, the bulkhead seams would flex with the car body resulting in chronic leaking, their cooling system piping was difficult to access internally as well. My understanding was the PRR's suffered terribly in helper service on the Middle Division for the aforementioned eating up brake shoes as well as selectively cooking traction motors at slow speed on the sharper curves where the blower bellows inside the very long car body would swing away from the vent ports on the trucks sufficiently to overheat the otherwise sturdy motors.
NdeM's fourteen were (like the PRR and SAL's) purchased as passenger engines too and similarly failed at it and put into storage, two were scrapped but the rest eventually sent back to Eddystone where they were rebuilt to 3200 hp, had their SG's and MU removed and returned to service as helpers and secondary road engine service. Three of them lasted until the early seventies. I credit their longevity to Baldwin addressing some of their internal issues upon rebuilding, and their motive power contractor Taller Engineering for their maintenance, always seemed to me that in the sixties and seventies NdeM had a knack for squeezing every last drop out of their locomotives before retiring them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/15 20:21 by Atlpete.