Hi,
can anyone explain to me the difference of the Century serie,the RS engines and the S serie (for example S2/S4) from Alco locomotive works?
Christian from Germany!
What are you looking for? Spotting features for telling models apart within a series, such as differences between RS-1 and RS-3? Or the differences between the series themselves?
The RS series were road switchers, typically used for local freight runs. The S series were for switchers, typically used in yards to sort freight cars. Typically is a key word, as there are always atypical circumstances.
Joe
Building on Joe's reply:
The S series was introduced in 1940. And it was a switcher. There were, as noted, numbered sub-groups. From 1 up to 13, if you include Canadian production.
The RS series was introduced in 1941. There was also an RSC series (with A1A trucks) and an RSD series (with C trucks). The first, RS-1, was a switcher body with a "snout" out the back of the cab. A boiler could be placed there for passenger car heating. Also of significance, the locomotive trucks were designed for higher speeds. While switchers didn't change much over the years, the RS locomotives grew quite large. Especially the RSD (RSD-15). The RS series is analogous to the EMD GP series. GP means "general purpose". And so does RS, in this case. Though it does seem unlikely the RSD-15 spent much time doing light switching.
The Century series was introduced about 1963, and displaced the earlier series noted above. It was Alco's 2nd generation diesel. In particular, it had a "sealed carbody". Anyway, the Century series was a top-to-bottom series, meaning that it included switchers (C-415) on up to the giants (C-855).
I will mention that, officially, Alco always used a dash (see above) while EMD did not (GP9, SD50, etc.)
Ed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_Century_Series_locomotives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_S-1_and_S-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_S-2_and_S-4
Steve S
There have been several diesel spotter's guides, and they're all out of print. I think they are really excellent books.
BUT.
You can still find them. I think this would be the most useful of the lot:
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Diesel-Spotters-Including-Industrial/dp/0890240264/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445478876&sr=1-4
The S and RS designations were not used by ALCO. They are railfan designations. ALCO used E followed by a number for the early S and RS locomotives. Later, DL as in Diesel Locomotive followed by a number was used. One example is ALCO specification DL-640 is known as the RS-27. But what can be confusing is that ALCO specification DL-640A is better known as the C424. Another example where the official ALCO designation can be confusing is DL-204, DL-206, DL-208, DL-208A, DL-208B all are known by railfans as FA-1.
ALCO did use the Century Model numbers for advertising but orders were placed using the DL specifications.
And the oddballs - the diesel-hydraulic locos they built for SP were DH-643.
Pre S-1, they didn't have an internal designation, those were the HH600, HH660, HH900, and HH1000 switchers.
I have it even more confusing - on the Reading, the locomotive we call an RS-3 was the railroad's class RS1, and the locomotive we call a GP7 was railroad class RS3.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
DS4-4-1000The S and RS designations were not used by ALCO. They are railfan designations. ALCO used E followed by a number for the early S and RS locomotives. Later, DL as in Diesel Locomotive followed by a number was used. One example is ALCO specification DL-640 is known as the RS-27. But what can be confusing is that ALCO specification DL-640A is better known as the C424. Another example where the official ALCO designation can be confusing is DL-204, DL-206, DL-208, DL-208A, DL-208B all are known by railfans as FA-1. ALCO did use the Century Model numbers for advertising but orders were placed using the DL specifications.
I did not know that. Obviously. Thanks.
I went over to Fallen Flags and looked through the various factory manuals they have posted there. The earliest use of the RS term by Alco appears to be with their RS-3 (Operating manual dated 1950).
The manual for the FA-2 (and related) also uses the appropriate FA term. Also about 1950.
I find it interesting that Alco started using the RS term starting with a designation of "3". That implies they were retro-designating (did I create a new word?). Same for the F's.
But I will assert the RS term, anyway, is not a railfan designation. And the FA, for that matter.
7j43kI went over to Fallen Flags and looked through the various factory manuals they have posted there. The earliest use of the RS term by Alco appears to be with their RS-3 (Operating manual dated 1950). The manual for the FA-2 (and related) also uses the appropriate FA term. Also about 1950
And to add even more confusion the 1952 manual lists the same locomotives as 1600 HP Freight-Passenger Locomotive, 1600 HP 4 motor road switcher, and 1600 HP 6 motor road switcher with no mention of FA 2, RS 3 or RSD 5. Love the consistency!!
I believe the operator manuals were often customized to the railroad the locomotives were being delivered to, so the use of the names may be a specific practice of whatever railroad the manual came from.
Hi ed,
thanks for this overview/explain the Alco history.
Christian!
rrinker I believe the operator manuals were often customized to the railroad the locomotives were being delivered to, so the use of the names may be a specific practice of whatever railroad the manual came from. --Randy
For the two manuals I mentioned, there is nothing there that indicates the manuals were specially made for any particular railroad. Everything implies a generalized book. At least, everything I looked at. There certainly may be others that were customized. I would surely love to see an example.
Looking through the list (and this is great reading material)
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/manual.html
Looks like all the Alco and Baldwin ones are generic (and most of the Alco ones don;t even mention the model numbers, internal or otherwise, of the loco) and some of the EMD and GE ones are railroad specific.
I have an Australian operating manual that is specific to one railroad. It's buried away somewhere at the moment, but it's of a fairly modern lcoco, friend of mine who moved here from Australia gave it to me.
I guess if you were a big enough customer you got a customized instruction manual,
Here's one page out of a handbook that covers all classes of Diesels as of 1949 and there is no mention of any builder's model numbers, only the railroad's classification and numbering series.
This book refers to the Diesel as the "oil engine". There were locomotive instruction cars on the NYC that would travel the system and provide classes for maintenance and operating crews.
Regards, Ed
The RCT&HS has one of those training cars in its collection. Neat stuff.
7j43k I find it interesting that Alco started using the RS term starting with a designation of "3". That implies they were retro-designating (did I create a new word?). Same for the F's. But I will assert the RS term, anyway, is not a railfan designation. And the FA, for that matter.
I think it's more a case of railfan lingo eventually being picked up by Alco around 1950. IIRC the RS-11 was called a "DL-600" by Alco. Since the RS-1 and RS-2 had come out earlier, calling the new engines RS-3s made perfect sense.
EMD's first F-units were the FTs, which were in effect the F-1 model. After WW2 they planned on offering an F-2 with higher horsepower, but were unable to get the parts so the F-2 had the same 1350 HP as the FT, but in a new body. Within a year the parts were available, and the updated loco was the F-3. These were GM/EMD designations, not railfan ones.
BTW an interesting thing is that once EMD updated the F or GP series, they quit making the earlier ones. So if you ordered a GP-7 towards the end of it's production run, you might end up getting new GP-9s instead. However, Alco kept making earlier models, so a railroad could still buy RS-1s even after RS-11s came along.
wjstixI think it's more a case of railfan lingo eventually being picked up by Alco around 1950.
If that's the case, someone had better cite some historical facts.
I cannot imagine Alco picking up lingo from railfans in 1950. Nope, just cannot. I cannot see Alco having the inclination to LISTEN to railfans. Nor can I see that there were even that many encounters between Alco management and/or employees, and railfans.
RAILFAN (touring Alco plant): Hey dude. That's a real pretty scheme you guys put on that RS-2
EMPLOYEE: What?
RAILFAN: That RS-2, over there.
EMPLOYEE: WHAT?
RAILFAN: We in the railfan community. We call that thing over there an RS-2.
EMPLOYEE: Really. That's interesting. 'Cause we just call it our 1500 HP road switcher. 'Cause that's what it is.
RAILFAN: Nope. It's an RS-2. You can tell. See, no big cab roof overhang.
EMPLOYEE: And that matters how?
RAILFAN: That's how you can tell it from an RS-1.
EMPLOYEE: Well, it's been a real pleasure talking to you. Our tour is over. And thanks for dropping by to visit Alco. I hope you enjoyed your visit.
EMPLOYEE skulks over to stairs up to management level.
Since the RS-1 and RS-2 had come out earlier, calling the new engines RS-3s made perfect sense.
That is what I said. But the question is whether Alco called the two earlier ones RS-1's and RS-2's BEFORE they made the RS-3, or whether they realized that when they'd made three versions of a road switcher, they had better come up with a different differentiation than just the horsepower.
Or maybe they looked over at EMD's model designation and thought they had better do the same, 'cause EMD was outselling them.
You will find lots of info listed in the thread but there were also different engines in the locomotives The S-1, S-2 and RS-1 had the 539 engine. The RS2 and 3 and RSD-5 had the 244 diesel engine, and the century engines had the 251 type.