Physiotomy of Sharks: An Update

[Hornwrecker]

The last sharks ran on the Michigan Northern, and briefly on the E&LS and are now stored in the Escanaba and Lake Superior enginehouse.  Story about their last days:

http://baldwindiesels.railfan.net/mign/index.html

[Hornwrecker]

Looking around that Baldwin site, there's a photo of a BF-15, in color, that seems to show the longer nose.

http://baldwindiesels.railfan.net/prr/prr9570.jpg

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Hornwrecker,
Very interesting. It would be great to see both units back on the road again.
Regards
Al

[Philip H]

The last sharks ran on the Michigan Northern, and briefly on the E&LS and are now stored in the Escanaba and Lake Superior enginehouse.  Story about their last days:

http://baldwindiesels.railfan.net/mign/index.html

That's it.  And as my fellow members of the E&LS Yahoo group will attest, they are stored inside because someone of the . . . questionable nature . . . tried to make off with builders plates, etc once they went to the deadline.  I haven't tested it personally, but the E&LS is not railfan freindly around its facilities as a result.  So, I'm not sure what condition these units are in.

[kelticsylk]

First off...I found two side shots of both types of freight sharks so I threw them together for comparison. Forgive the mirror image of the MGA  (ex NYC) unit. It was facing the wrong direction. RF-16 above, DR-4-4-15 below. I checked the PRR roster and #9591 is one of the 1949 batch of sharks. This makes it a definite "first gen" shark and the last of the unmodified DR-4-4-15 units.

The noses are definitely different in these views. I think I have it figured out. "Diesels of Eddystone" states that the cab was moved forward a foot in the last run of DR-4-4-15 units to accommodate the generator relocation. I think these locomotives are a foot shorter, just like the RF-16.

I'm thinking the cabs were moved forward but not literally. I think they took that foot difference out of the nose. The engine room would probably have had to stay the same length.

So the Model Railroader drawing is correct overall even though they got the details wrong. Then again, the first sharknose DR-4-4-15 may have had the BP20 style vents. Does anybody have a picture or any info on that particular locomotive?

Al,
I've had better luck with the ER units. My ER sharks (usually in a set of 3 or 4) pull my longest trains effectively at a scale speed of 10 mph. They are noisy, but to me they sound like growling diesel locomotives.

Frank

[daniel_leavitt2000]

It looks like they flattened out the windshield too. The 1949 variety are definitely more attractive.

[Lemosteam]

I think it is the image making it appear that way.  If you look at the center pillar between the glass they look the same angle from the vertical edge of the door to me.

[kelticsylk]

John,
I agree with you, the windshield pillars are at the same angle. Still it appears to me that there is a noticeable difference and the drawings seem to confirm that...

I overlayed the two plans and lined them up at the windshield. The lighter lines are the RF-16. Not only the nose, but also the cab appears longer on the DR-4-4-15 (darker lines).

I'm convinced enough that I would model my BF15's and BP20's with the same nose. Can't use RF16's They came on the property in 1951, too "recent" for the Allegheny Eastern.

Frank

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Hi  Folks,

It will be great to get the book when it arrives and go through it.

The coupled length of these units is reported as 54' 4 1/2"  for the first series BF-15 and 54' 8" for the second series BF-15a.  The coupled length of the BF-16s was 54'8" the same as the second series BF-15s.

The coupled lengths do not vary much, 3 1/2", so the major changes must have appeared in the body especially in the location of the cab. If we can come up with better overall plans that would be a help.
Oh well that is the way it is in the very slow lane.

Frank,

They are sharks and I do not really care when they came on roster just so long as they did. See my handle (SPSNF).
Regards
Al

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Frank,
Just looking at the comparison photo of the two locos and there is also a very clear difference in the side window arrangement of the cab. The doors also look different.

This is the other BP20 shell I was trying to find. It came from Jim's Shells and is currently with Marc Haas. Ther URL for this site is:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~jimngage/Marc/

The BP20 can be found on the model page and is the third photo down.
Regards

Al

[kelticsylk]

You know, the one thing I'd like in this world is a fairly high definition shot of the rear of a BLW cab unit; I've only seen one, and that was being scrapped so all the interesting bits had been removed.

Oddly, I've only sen side on shots of B units by themselves.

I'm pretty sure I have seen a photo of a shark from the rear. I'll try to find it.

Frank

[kelticsylk]

Al,
I took a look at that site you suggested. That looks a helluva lot better than the Ken Ray shell.

The curved drip rail is one of the ways you can identify the DR-4-4-15. It's the same on the DR-6-4-20 (PRR BP20) which is another reason I think the cabs are the same. The RF-16's all have a squared off drip rail and the cab side windows are different. Most of the photos I've seen of the RF-16 (NYC, D&, B&O and PRR) show that rounded rectangle window on the door.  It seems the DR-4-4-15 had just a plain old door window.

[kelticsylk]

With only one shark available in N scale. Does any of this matter?

Chris,
Actually no, it really doesn't matter. I would just like an older set of sharks for my layout. I have a set of 4 ER freight sharks, but they are all models of the RF-16. They didn't exist yet in period I'm modeling on my layout (1948 or thereabouts). This was when the Baldwin passenger sharks and centipedes were still operating over the mainline and not demoted to branchlines or helpers. Even the T1 steam locomotive was still a contender for mainline traffic. It's just a preference. The N scale PRR modelers have to kitbash or scratch a lot of their steam motive power because it's not commercially available. It's the same way for the early diesels, especially Baldwin products.

Either way, my grandkids won't care a lick. They just like to see the trains run.

Frank

[Hornwrecker]

I'm pretty sure I have seen a photo of a shark from the rear. I'll try to find it.

Frank

Maybe in Pennsy Power II, comparing the a$$ ends of a shark and an F unit?  I'll look through it tomorrow.  I know I've seen that small "waist" with the thick EMD one, comparison photo somewhere.  Maybe and old Trains mag?

I've been searching for photos of the first few of BF-15s, but have come up with nada, so far.

[kelticsylk]

Some more info. I went through my library and found these photos of the rear (sort of) of a freight shark...

The Monongahela unit is a RF-16. I believe the Pennsy B unit is a BF15 (Baldwin DR-4-4-15)

I also found a more detailed drawing of the BP20, this one from RMC July 1968. I put all the various views on one page...

I have a larger copy if anyone wants one.

Finally, from "Diesels of Eddystone" this info...
The Elgin, Joliet & Eastern units, the only surviving sharks, were originally Baldwin #6001 a pair of DR-4-4-15 demonstrators, not NYC RF-16 units. This makes the EJ&E units the rarest of the rare.

The second order of Pennsy sharks in April 1950 were redesigned DR-4-4-15's Panel type air filters replaced air intake louvers (does that mean the MR drawing is correct?). The A-units were lengthened to 54' -8", the B-units 53' - 2". The nose of the unit was shortened by 1' to add 1' to the engine compartment. The extra foot allowed better access to the electrical cabinet. A thicker exterior frame sill was added to the fabricated frame. Pennsy #9007A was the first of the modified DR-4-4-15's, 9707B was the last. The design changes of these units were incorporated into the RF-16 introduced in July of 1950 and sold to the Baltimore & Ohio.