Alco PA's and EMD E/F's

[Anonymous]

How did these two compare in reliability, build quality etc?
Since ATSF used both of them they had a chance to compare them, so which proved to be better series of locomotives and why?

[espeefoamer]

EMDs Es/Fs were far more reliable than the ALCo PAs. The PA had the 244 engine,which was rushed into production without proper testing.There were many problems with this engine.Most PAs were gone in the early to mid 60s.Santa Fe and Southern Pacific held on to their PAs a few years longer.Four ex Santa Fe PAs were bought by the Delaware and Hudson in 1967.these were later rebuilt with the later 251 engine and these ended up in Mexico.Two of these are in Mexican railroad museums,and two are back in the USA.One is being painted into Nickel Plate colors in Portland Oregon. the other is supposed to be repainted in Santa Fe colors and sent to the Smithsonian.EMDs E and F units ran into the Amtrak era. A few FL9s are still running in the New York area.

[passengerfan]

A better comparison might be SP since they used postwar PA and E units while AT&SF used prewar E units and postwar PA.
The SP found the PA units to be better in the mountains since they came equipped with Dynamic Brakes and their large traction motors could really perform in the rougher terrain. After just weeks the SP replaced their A-B-B sets of E7s at the head of the SHASTA DAYLIGHTS with Alco PAs in A-B-A sets. The EMD units had problems keeping the hot schedule and the PAs were able to maintain schedule and even make up lost time on many occasions.
There is a report by the Santa Fe on the PA diesels performance going over Raton with the CHIEF that should erase any doubts as to the PA.s abilities.
The PA also required more maintenance than their EMD counterparts. But for roads like the Santa Fe and SP the Alcos proved to be great performers. Santa fe preferred the EMD F unit for passenger service for the simple reason that all wheels were powered. The PA had a better ride as did the E unit with their long wheel base trucks.

[Anonymous]

thanks, and what about those Baldwin sharks? How did they compare to the two?
Since I know so little about old Baldwins, I'd also like to ask, how good were diesel Baldwins in general?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Baldwin diesel locomotives as a whole were maintenance-intensive. The De La Vergne engine was a marine design adapted for railroad use and barely modernized over the years. Westinghouse electrical systems were heavier and could take more abuse than GE and EMD systems but were difficult to repair when they did fail.

Baldwins did most of their best service as yard switchers and in low speed drag freight service, mostly because of the Westinghouse generators and traction motors. PRR was about the only road that used Baldwins in passenger service and they barely lasted on mainline trains before being demoted to helper service (Centipedes) or in suburban service on the New York & Long Branch (Sharks).

[Philcal]

As noted, the 244 engined Alco was really a flop. The 251 engine eliminated many of the problems of the 244, but in the railroad industry the bad news travels fast. In passenger service the EMD E-unit was superb on level ground, but wasn't a climber. The EMD F unit as well as the PA were better in the mountains. The PA was equipped with GE traction motors and electrical systems, and these often proved superior to the EMD electrical systems. EMD E-units also enjoyed an advantage over the PA in that it had two prime movers to the PA's one. An E-unit could experience a failure of one of the prime movers, and still move it's train, albeit at reduced speed. A PA experiencing an engine failure came to a rapid halt.

[PBenham]

The 16/ 244 engine was the PAs real killer! If the PAs had come out with a reliable power plant, who knows? They gave Lehigh Valley and New Haven decent service, but no LV PA ever had to really get down and dirty until they wound up in freight service. NHs PAs were blessed by having one of the best shops for ALCO maintence anywhere! Naturally, good old Pat McGinnis came along and that was the beginning of the end. The closure of the Readville,MA shops was a despiration move by the NH's last pre-bankruptcy management team to save the NH, but like the attempted shutdown of the NH's electrification, it was ill-advised and too late to save the NH from the inevitable!

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

The 16/ 244 engine was the PAs real killer! If the PAs had come out with a reliable power plant, who knows? They gave Lehigh Valley and New Haven decent service, but no LV PA ever had to really get down and dirty until they wound up in freight service. NHs PAs were blessed by having one of the best shops for ALCO maintence anywhere! Naturally, good old Pat McGinnis came along and that was the beginning of the end. The closure of the Readville,MA shops was a despiration move by the NH's last pre-bankruptcy management team to save the NH, but like the attempted shutdown of the NH's electrification, it was ill-advised and too late to save the NH from the inevitable!

True - and the NH didn't have the problems other roads had - the PA-1's served the New Haven reliably.

[West Coast S]

The SP amassed a 67 unit PA fleet, most were the PA-2 versions, They were found superior on mountain districts due to the turbocharger and the GE supplied traction motors were deemed far more forgiving then their EMD counterparts and offered more capacity as well, always a plus were steep grades exist.

SP had nothing but praise for the PA, Their opinion of the E is best not repeated, the E were purchased during a period of try one of each model available, the unpowered idler axle and lack of turbocharger and use of mutliple power plants were the main objections, though the legendary EMD reliability was a major factor.

As to reliability, SP shopped the entire PA fleet between 1957 and 1960, nothing major was done with the electrical system, generators or traction motors, but the power plants recieved stronger cranksafts and piston assemblies, the turbocharges were modified for increased performance and of course the application of Grey and Scarlet. Even before these modifications, failures were uncommon with the PA. Eighteen survived in passenger service until replaced with SDP45's in 1967.

The E units survived until Amtrak and had no major work performed on them

Dave

[daveklepper]

Note however that the PA's and PB's also had one idler axle in each truck like the EMD E's. But the GE electricals at that time were more robust. Built for passenger service, the New Haven used their PA's as duel service locomotives hauling freight at night, but rarely on the Maybrook, mostly on the Shore Line. And they did not have to climb the Hell Gate Bridge grade!

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Note however that the PA's and PB's also had one idler axle in each truck like the EMD E's. But the GE electricals at that time were more robust. Built for passenger service, the New Haven used their PA's as duel service locomotives hauling freight at night, but rarely on the Maybrook, mostly on the Shore Line. And they did not have to climb the Hell Gate Bridge grade!

Ah, sir but they did assault the grade up to Hell Gate prior to the EF4s (a/k/a E33s) arrival in 1963-4, but they still ran to Bay Ridge on local freights into at least 1966! And I'm surprised that Erie Lackawanna fans haven't stood up for the Erie's PAs which also performed well enough that they ran in passenger service into at least 1965, and ran freights out of Marion OH into early 1967. At which time enough new SD45s were on hand to bump older 4-motor Alcos, EMDs and U25Bs to the trains the PAs had been used on. The ELs E8s once they lost their passenger jobs, tried to run freight out of Marion, like the PAs, but they reacted negatively to the demands of the work!

[daveklepper]

During the diesel interlude between the EF-3's and older classes and the EF-4's, the Alcos were rarely used on Hell Gate. Mostly, the freight on the Shore Line at that period was handled by the brand new GP-9's. Sometimes, of course, various classes were multied together. The PA's were used, of course, when insufficient GP-9's were available. My memory is that a typical freight required one EF-3 (again, for my money the best electric locomotive ever built), two or three PA's when they were used, or more frequently two PA's and a GP-9 tacked on, or three GP-9's or two E-33's/EF-4's. But you are right with respect to the Alco's in that no way would two E-9's have done the job, because going up Hell Gate grades, three E-9's would have had about the same tractive effort as three GP-9's. (Not that the GP-9 was a bad locomotive, especially for reliabity. But no replacement for an EF-3.)

In the good Bucky Dumain days, the EF-3's handled the premium freight west of Ceder Hill, New Haven to Bay Ridge and Oak Point, the PA's the Shore Line freights, Ceder Hill to Boston, and the FA's and FB's Maybrook to Ceder Hill. Some through frieghts Maybrook to Boston did use PA's on occasion but mostly FA's and FB's. Those were the great days of the New Haven with the terrific dining car meals, ontime performance, four hour NY-Boston Merchants Limited with five-minute engine change in New Haven, operation of the East Wind from Washington to Maine, and I coulfd go on.....

[PBenham]

Amen Dave, the fate of the EF3s have to be one of the saddest tales in railroading, in so far as equipment is concerned. The New Haven deserved better. But a clean EF4 (E33) was really nice, despite its "brick" nickname, in the orange and white, with large NH in Barnum bold.

[daveklepper]

I am glad an EF4 has been preserved cosmetic-wise and is repainted in New Haven colors. Someday it will be restored with NEC compatible electronics (the stuff gets more compact and reliable as tiime goes on) and will be restored to operation. The new 60Hz-35Hz multitap transformer is the difficult and expensive item. It should be rebuilt using as many electrical componants common with the AE-7. Unlike the GG-1, the technology is basically the same, just more modern, so it is a logical modernization.

A cheap first step would be just to restore as a dc third rail motor with pans locked down for operation on Metro North and/or LIRR tracks, keeping diesel locomotive compatible GE dc traction motors as original. Then the rectifier and transformer and other additonal electronics could be added as funds are raised.

The Jets, the EP-5's, were a good loooking locomotive too, but again not quite a replacement for a passenger EF-3 with boiler.

Getting back to the E-33's and the E-44's, I often wondered why diesel road-switchers could not be designed as esthetically pleasing and these electric versions! Bit the E-33's did look their best as EF-4's in New Haven paint.

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I am glad an EF4 has been preserved cosmetic-wise and is repainted in New Haven colors. Someday it will be restored with NEC compatible electronics (the stuff gets more compact and reliable as tiime goes on) and will be restored to operation. The new 60Hz-35Hz multitap transformer is the difficult and expensive item. It should be rebuilt using as many electrical componants common with the AE-7. Unlike the GG-1, the technology is basically the same, just more modern, so it is a logical modernization.

A cheap first step would be just to restore as a dc third rail motor with pans locked down for operation on Metro North and/or LIRR tracks, keeping diesel locomotive compatible GE dc traction motors as original. Then the rectifier and transformer and other additonal electronics could be added as funds are raised.

The Jets, the EP-5's, were a good loooking locomotive too, but again not quite a replacement for a passenger EF-3 with boiler.

Getting back to the E-33's and the E-44's, I often wondered why diesel road-switchers could not be designed as esthetically pleasing and these electric versions! Bit the E-33's did look their best as EF-4's in New Haven paint.

Thats a pretty fair idea, there! I'd put money into that, if I had any, that is![B)]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The EF-4's and EP-5's, both being rectifier locomotives, do indeed have more modern components than the GG1, but they would still be difficult and expensive to upgrade since you are basically installing a new locomotive inside the old shell.

As far as aesthetics are concerned, the early Dash-8's were not that different from the E33/E44/E50, although I once opined to a friend that a CR B40-8 would look better with a pantograph on top.

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The EF-4's and EP-5's, both being rectifier locomotives, do indeed have more modern components than the GG1, but they would still be difficult and expensive to upgrade since you are basically installing a new locomotive inside the old shell.

As far as aesthetics are concerned, the early Dash-8's were not that different from the E33/E44/E50, although I once opined to a friend that a CR B40-8 would look better with a pantograph on top.

..And it wouldn't upset smoke spotters! (any one old enough to remember them?)