B&M GP38-2 #200 / #212

I saw this http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... id=1892859 and realized it looks almost exactly like BM 200 did in bicentennial paint. Were the 200 and 7776 done at the same time by the same people or were they modeled after one another or are the similarities just coincidental?

Several years ago, there was a discussion about this on NERAIL (the e-mail list, not the photo site). It was a long time ago so I can't remember the details, but I think someone said that the B&M locomotive was done first and that Conrail essentially copied it. I'm quite certain they weren't painted in the same shop by the same people. There might have also been a discussion on the BM_RR group on Yahoo. I wish I could remember.

Maybe Mr. Hutchinson will know!

well it certainty cant be coincidental!
there is no way those two schemes were developed independently of each other,
one had to be the copy, clearly based on the first one..

BM 200
http://www.trainweb.org/trains/GP38-2/BM200A.html

CR 7776
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=1892859

If B&M was first, why would Conrail bother with such a blatant copy?
they couldn't come up with anything on their own? odd..

Scot

B & M 200 probably came first as B & M was in existence before all the BiCentennial events were going on. Some began in 1975 and ran through 1976. Conrail did not begin operations until 1976, I think April 1. B & M 200 was originally 212 as the series was initially numbered 201-212. The engines were leased so approval had to come from the leasing outfit to renumbered #212.

B&M 200 was indeed the former 212, that's why so few photos exist of the 212. I was working in East Deerfield in 1975 with an amatuer artist and full-time Yard Clerk named John Vasquez whose claim to fame was that he designed the paint sceme for the 200, so I'm sure Conrail just copied it.

I figured one was copied from the other. Thanks for the link to BM 200 Scot. Seeing them both at the same time you can pick out the differences, black underframe vs. blue, blue box behind the cab vs. red...

If the comment on the CR 7776 picture is true, it would make sense to copy, its a relatively simple scheme and would be easy enough for some "rouge" shop forces to crank out.

B&M needed approval from the leaser to renumber 212 to 200? that seems super trivial...
As a side note, a question for Hutch, or anyone else who may be able to answer. Why did the GP38-2's come numbered 201-212 when other orders that I can find came numbered from the "0" up (the 40-2's were 300-317, the 18's were 1750-1755, the 9's were 1700-1749...)? Just seems like the broke their established numbering protocol on the GP38-2's.

*Edit, thanks for the answer Hutch!

Hopefully this isn't viewed as stepping on Dave, but think HP. The 38s were 2000 HP and the 40s were 3000 HP, following -- with one less place -- the general pattern of the 1500s, 1700s, and 1800s in identifying HP with the units' initial numbers. Yep, the original 1750 series is a 50-HP hiccup in the pattern.

Rank speculation on why 201-212 instead of 200-211 -
Perhaps when the GP38s were ordered in 1973 the bicentennial value of the number 200 was already being contemplated, and the number deliberately left open to allow for the maximum flexibility in assigning it to a then undetermined engine...

as an aside, a number of years ago, before the model train manufacturers got good at applying every known paint scheme on every model, a small outfit called Bev-Bel did short run premium paint schemes of certain models. They did one in N scale of a B&M GP38 in as-delivered scheme. Which number do you suppose they chose, 212 of course. While interesting, as 212 only existed from 1973-1975, the number greatly limits the scenes that it can "rightly" be placed in !

jaymac wrote:Hopefully this isn't viewed as stepping on Dave, but think HP. The 38s were 2000 HP and the 40s were 3000 HP, following -- with one less place -- the general pattern of the 1500s, 1700s, and 1800s in identifying HP with the units' initial numbers. Yep, the original 1750 series is a 50-HP hiccup in the pattern.

I was always under the impression numbering was done in some relation to the HP rating on units. And for the 50HP hiccup, even GE seemed at a loss, how do you sell a unit with 2250HP? Can't call it a B22.5-7 :D so they just called it a B23...

-Eliphaz, that makes sense.

When was the 212 renumbered 200? When was it repainted back into the standard scheme? Was the standard scheme in which it was repainted the blue dip, or the 300 scheme?

Thanks,

Spike

The earliest shot I have of 200 was taken March 27,1975, and I shot a picture of it on December 30,1979, just days from the paint shop with the "blue dip"paint job. It never got the "300" scheme, but it appeared in the "Guilford Gray" sometime around mid January 1988 while still retaining the dark blue number indicators.

If you guys want, I can post a couple of photos.

Any pictures you'd like to post would be greatly appreciated, sir!

Thank you for this topic. Very informative. Only being a passive B&M fan, I find topics like this very interesting.

200a.jpg[/attachment]