Railroad Forums 

  • Baldwin Locomotive Control Systems

  • Discussion related to Baldwin Locomotive Works, Lima Locomotive Works, Lima-Hamilton Corporation, and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton.
Discussion related to Baldwin Locomotive Works, Lima Locomotive Works, Lima-Hamilton Corporation, and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton.

Moderator: lumpy72

 #1618055  by Pneudyne
 
In this post in the Fairbanks-Morse Control Systems thread:

https://www.railroad.net/post1618048.html#p1618048

I said:

“Baldwin also used the same actuator a 60 lbf/in² maximum nominal pressure, but that is something for the Baldwin forum.”

Accordingly, here is some background information on the Baldwin case. This diagram is taken from AIEE paper 47-36, “A 3,000 Horsepower Diesel-Electric Locomotive for the Seaboard Air Line Railway” (1).

from AIEE 47-36 p.218.png
from AIEE 47-36 p.218.png (122.7 KiB) Viewed 520 times



It shows that at the time, Baldwin used the Wabco diaphragm-type governor actuator with a nominal maximum pressure of 60 lbf/in². It also shows that the Baldwin engine operated at minimum speed for the first part of the throttle action, in the 7 to 21 lbf/in² pressure range. In that range, main generator excitation was steadily increased by compression of the carbonstat exciter field regulator. Then in the 21 to 60 lbf/in² pressure range, engine speed was steadily increased to maximum.

The load control system was shown in another diagram in that paper:

from AIEE 47-36 p.217.png
from AIEE 47-36 p.217.png (29.62 KiB) Viewed 520 times


It may be seen that in this case, the load control system detected overload, with a single point (nominal maximum rack) being used for all engine speeds. On the other hand, “conventional” load control systems detected underload as well as overload. Given that the Baldwin 608H engine had a flat torque curve, the single point load control was probably appropriate. At minimum engine speed, there would have been a single constant power curve that was applicable to all throttle handle settings within the 7 to 21 lbf/in² range, with the lower end main generator curves probably not touching it.

The master controller type was not stated in the AIEE paper, but probably it was the CE100. This diagram from McGowan (2) shows what looks like the CE100:

from McGowan p.224.png
from McGowan p.224.png (214.08 KiB) Viewed 520 times


A difference here is that the carbonstat actuator was also shown as the Wabco diaphragm unit, whereas in the SAL case it looks to have been a piston-type unit.

How Baldwin arranged load control when it came to use the Woodward PG governor is unknown. It might have adopted conventional load control. But on the other hand, it is known that the PG has been used by another builder as part of an overload only load control system.



(1) D.R. Staples, T.L. Weybrew, C.A. Atwell; A 3,000 Horsepower Diesel-Electric Locomotive for the Seaboard Air Line Railway; AIEE paper 47-36; 1947 January.

(1) George F. McGowan; Diesel-Electric Locomotive Handbook – Electrical Equipment; Simmons-Boardman, 1951.



Cheers,
 #1621511  by Typewriters
 
Pneudyne wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:32 pm In this post in the Fairbanks-Morse Control Systems thread:

https://www.railroad.net/post1618048.html#p1618048

I said:

“Baldwin also used the same actuator a 60 lbf/in² maximum nominal pressure, but that is something for the Baldwin forum.”

Accordingly, here is some background information on the Baldwin case. This diagram is taken from AIEE paper 47-36, “A 3,000 Horsepower Diesel-Electric Locomotive for the Seaboard Air Line Railway” (1).


from AIEE 47-36 p.218.png




It shows that at the time, Baldwin used the Wabco diaphragm-type governor actuator with a nominal maximum pressure of 60 lbf/in². It also shows that the Baldwin engine operated at minimum speed for the first part of the throttle action, in the 7 to 21 lbf/in² pressure range. In that range, main generator excitation was steadily increased by compression of the carbonstat exciter field regulator. Then in the 21 to 60 lbf/in² pressure range, engine speed was steadily increased to maximum.

The load control system was shown in another diagram in that paper:


from AIEE 47-36 p.217.png



It may be seen that in this case, the load control system detected overload, with a single point (nominal maximum rack) being used for all engine speeds. On the other hand, “conventional” load control systems detected underload as well as overload. Given that the Baldwin 608H engine had a flat torque curve, the single point load control was probably appropriate. At minimum engine speed, there would have been a single constant power curve that was applicable to all throttle handle settings within the 7 to 21 lbf/in² range, with the lower end main generator curves probably not touching it.

The master controller type was not stated in the AIEE paper, but probably it was the CE100. This diagram from McGowan (2) shows what looks like the CE100:


from McGowan p.224.png



A difference here is that the carbonstat actuator was also shown as the Wabco diaphragm unit, whereas in the SAL case it looks to have been a piston-type unit.

How Baldwin arranged load control when it came to use the Woodward PG governor is unknown. It might have adopted conventional load control. But on the other hand, it is known that the PG has been used by another builder as part of an overload only load control system.



(1) D.R. Staples, T.L. Weybrew, C.A. Atwell; A 3,000 Horsepower Diesel-Electric Locomotive for the Seaboard Air Line Railway; AIEE paper 47-36; 1947 January.

(1) George F. McGowan; Diesel-Electric Locomotive Handbook – Electrical Equipment; Simmons-Boardman, 1951.



Cheers,
Yes, once the PG replaced the UG8, vane motor driven rheostatic load control became the norm.
 #1623508  by Pneudyne
 
From Will Davis’ comments in the “BALDWIN / BLH DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE MANUALS - A DISCUSSION” thread (https://www.railroad.net/baldwin-blh-di ... 75528.html, ), it would appear that in its re-engineering to use GE electrical equipment, BLW covered all of the bases in terms of backward MU compatibility with existing BLW locomotives. The following chart is an attempt to map out the various cases that were involved.
(58.64 KiB) Downloaded 73 times


Much of this overlaps what Fairbanks-Morse did, perhaps ahead of BLH – I am not sure about the relative timing. But the CE-100 dynamic braking case would have been something outside of the F-M ambit.


Cheers,