CSSHEGEWISCH Another problem with postwar Alco's, especially FA1's and RS2's, was that they were also equipped with amplidyne control system from GE, who handled the electricals. This system had a lot of problems and was difficult to maintain properly.
Another problem with postwar Alco's, especially FA1's and RS2's, was that they were also equipped with amplidyne control system from GE, who handled the electricals. This system had a lot of problems and was difficult to maintain properly.
Plus in the late fifties GE introduced their own diesel line and pulled the plug on Alco getting GE supplies.
As someone noted, it is too bad that by the time Alco worked out the problems, their reputation was tarnished and railroads shied away from them to some extent. With a little TLC Alcos could give decades of good service; a few miles away from me the Minnesota Commercial RR is running Alco and MLW engines in daily service and apparently finding them quite reliable.
The ALCO's major problem was that it was a turbocharged engine which had a lag that created bad smoke emisions. I believe it was the 244 engine that was replaced by the 251. And yes, the interchangeability of EMD parts on GP's and F's was a maintenance economic factor. Both manufactureres provided field tech's accompanying each order...I believe it is still a common practice. Marketing between the two at the time was about equal ( remember ALCO had GE as its partner) so it was the product performance that determined the survivors. My first cab ride, after the Lackawanna MU's that is, was the RS2 followed rapidly by the GP7 and the FM Baby Trainmasters. F unit rides cam much later. Did get a PA ride but never an E8. Did get several second generation diesel rides, too, plus the NKP 759. I don't think I could pick a favorite, nor do I want to. But thinking about each certainly is fun!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The B&M has both Alco and EMD road -switchers, but the GP-7 had comonality of parts with the F-3's and F-7's. So a few mongths' experience with the GP-7 workign side-by-side with the RS-3 (or was it the RS-2?) let to purchase of additional GP-7's. Other reasons already sited were important, also.
In part it was better marketing. Alco would deal with the mechanical department like they did in steam days while GM would sell the idea to the folks upstairs with the money. Perhaps more importantly, Alco's 244 prime mover was rushed into production and as I understand it, had a rather fragile crankshaft. Consequently road failures and repair bills were higher. These problems were reduced later. The 251 engine introduced in the mid-50s in later models more or less solved the problem. But by then Alco's reputation had been tarnished in many quarters, and many roads had pretty much completed their dieselisation and were no longer buying anything.
Alcos would respond superbly to a proper preventative maintenance program but all too often this was not the operating philosophy. Shop staff often preferred working on GM diesels and their work quality on an Alco would be questionable, kind of patch it up and get it out of here.
wjstix but GM also had an excellent "outreach" staff (to use a modern term). If you bought GM diesels they would help you any way they could to get things up and running, and if a problem came up GM would send it's people and/or parts to your railroad pronto to get things straightened out.
but GM also had an excellent "outreach" staff (to use a modern term). If you bought GM diesels they would help you any way they could to get things up and running, and if a problem came up GM would send it's people and/or parts to your railroad pronto to get things straightened out.
That was and is called "Customer Service". And it's as important today as it was in 1950!
Mike
From what I've learned, it sounds like not only did GM units tend to be more reliable than Alcos or other builders engines, but GM also had an excellent "outreach" staff (to use a modern term). If you bought GM diesels they would help you any way they could to get things up and running, and if a problem came up GM would send it's people and/or parts to your railroad pronto to get things straightened out. Also GM had a very liberal trade-in policy. Many builders would only accept working engines that had parts they could use. GM would take pretty much any piece of junk as a trade-in just to get the business.
Basically it was the EMD's more reliable engine as opposed to the troubled turbocharged engine in the ALCO RS series. EMD was also selling more road units so switchers were a natural add on especially since the GP7/9 were virtually identical under the hood as was any F7 or later.
I have seen lots of photographs of RS series (especially RS-1) with hood doors open to alleviate overheating problems. Also, the EMD F series were very reliable and GP-7/9s were essentially the same machinery in a different package. (In my personal opinion, give me an Alco any day!)
Hi all,
I saw a post along these lines on the MR forums, and it got me thinking. Was there a particular reason for the EMD GP7/9's commercial success over the ALCO RS series? Given that the RS series came to market first, IIRC, EMD must have had something special to overtake them.
Thanks in advance,
tbdanny
The Location: Forests of the Pacific Northwest, OregonThe Year: 1948The Scale: On30The Blog: http://bvlcorr.tumblr.com
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter