Why some locomotives are sold for scrap and some are still around?

[gabe]

Thank you,

That makes sense. I didn't know that Alcos and GEs were that much cheaper, and it hadn't occurred to me that GE was willing to run its locomotive division without a profit when it first started.

I also appreciate the CAT/John Deere analogy. I have a good friend who works as an exec at CAT and I e-mailed him asking him if his experience coresponded with your analogy and he said totally. His e-mail back to me echoed many of the things you mentioned even though I did not include them in my initial e-mail.

Gabe

[oltmannd]

Funny thing, though, when GE made it's last round of improvements to the Dash 7 line - the eddy current fan clutch and separate DB hatch, I started thinking, "Wow, this is getting to be quite a bit like an.....Alco Century!"

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I agree, keep your job as round house foreman.

Think I'll keep my "inside" job, though. I don't have to worry about that GP9 spitting oil on my car!

[Anonymous]

Let me throw in a couple of thoughts in here about the ALCO verses the EMD. First of all when you talk about the reliability of engine (locomotive) you have to take into consideration more than just the engine. The engine is a big part but it is not every thing. Keep in mind the GE made all the electrical components for the ALCO. Is there a connection here? Roughly seven years after the demise of ALCO, GE hits the market with their first U Boats. Connection? Don’t know.

Secondly let me talk about the Train-Master with used a Fairbanks-Morse 38D-8-1/8 engine. In marine and stationary service this is one of the finest engine ever built (I might add that I work on this engine in the Navy for 3-1/2 years and they were a strong reliable engine “in marine (submarine) use.” The engine was designed in the 30’s and still in service today. You will find them in small power plants; they are still in service in the Nuclear Submarine as auxiliary engine, still used in marine service in basically the same engine. For an engine the have lasted over 70 year is a testament to what kind of engine it.
In the talking with some of the old timers who ran these engine most will tell you that they were a dirty engine and leaked a lot of oil. I will give that one to the 39D-8-1/8 the coffin cover need a lot of attention to get them to stop leaking. In the Navy this was not a problem since you have a person watching 24 hour out of the day. If I had to guess why the Railroad didn’t like these engines I would say the main problem is that the vertical drive unit that synchronized the timing of the upper and lower cranks. For those who do not know about these engine is that a 10 cylinder engine, had 20 pistons and two crankshafts and the pistons move towards the center of the cylinder. Thus no heads, no valves and camshaft assemble. What happen in train engine that doesn’t happen in marine service is that you have the engine fully loaded and the next minute it at zero load. So in train service the load to the engine is always changing. This is hard on the vertical drives that have a spring pack that take up a few degrees of slack on the cranks. The vertical drive are not hard to change out but since none of the other engine have these here is addition parts, now we have to stock more parts and specialized training and knowledge.

In my opinion what make EMD such a successful is that they a bulletproof drive system and when they did go down the part availability was easy and ready available. Keep this in mine in all thing “If the question is why, then answer is money.” Why are a lot of the SD70MAC still around (at least on the BNSF) that have long over due for replacement, the answer is money. The is a engine that have served them well with well over a million miles of service. Why are they replacing them with AC4400, well I don’t know the real answer but I bet that money is a good answer. Why is ALCO of business and there engines are no longer in service, you bet you can go back to the answer of MONEY.

Bob Berry

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I agree, keep your job as round house foreman.

Think I'll keep my "inside" job, though. I don't have to worry about that GP9 spitting oil on my car!

It's the fairbanks I would park my car away from... way away
Randy

[Anonymous]

I was told a while ago that the reason that the GG1's were scrapped is that after millions of miles the truck carriages eventually developed cracks

[Randy Stahl]

Don't forget that G.E. designed the electrical systems for ALCO. G.E was able to raise the prices on the equipment to the point that it wasn't feasable to build an affordable locomotive. G.E. benefitted from ALCO especially in R&D. Westinghouse partnered up with Baldwin and Fairbanks. I must admit those Westinghouse traction motors were tough !
Randy

[espeefoamer]

I read somewhere,(forget where)that the head of the mechanical department of a railroad commented that the perfect locomotive would have an EMD engine and GE electrical equipment.

[Overmod]

My understanding (from 30-odd years ago):

It was GE's entry into the locomotive business that prompted Alco's exit -- as indicated, Alco was relying on GE for electrical components. Someone in Trains in the late '60s indicated that there was a direct connection between GE's deciding to make road locomotives with the Cooper-Bessemer engines and Alco's decision to cease production.

The stated reason to retire GG1s from NEC service was because of 'crystallization' (not quite the same thing as cracking, but it leads more or less directly to it) in the main underframes (we don't call 'em "carriages" 'round these parts). Argument at the time was that nobody had the required size of furnace necessary to heat the underframes sufficiently to redissolve the grain boundaries and developed stresses. Since the development of the World Wide Web, I've found several facilities... and a couple of equipment manufacturers... who could have made this operation possible.

But... what you'd have after rebuilding the frames would still have been a 25Hz locomotive with only 4400 continuous hp, albeit an *extremely* good one. The numbers we were looking at, at the time, called for about $1.5M per locomotive for mechanical rebuilding. The AEM-7s looked like a better solution.

The decision to phase out the freight Gs was different, and hinged much more on flexibility than it did catastrophic breakdown. Note that the E44s... thirty years newer and with much more sophisticated electrical gear... didn't last any longer. Diesels represented a much better way to run freight than the old electrification... and the 'new' electrification, at the time, was going to be a higher voltage at 60Hz, with the economics of electric 'motor' rebuilding being essentially nonexistent (likewise the effective resale value of the locomotives to an equipment trustee!)

Of course I'm still pissed they closed down the Atglen & Susquehanna! I liked my world better when it was under cat. (Mookie, take note!)

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dlagrua

I was told a while ago that the reason that the GG1's were scrapped is that after millions of miles the truck carriages eventually developed cracks

Unfortunately the GG1s had another problem in addition to their heavy weight. They were leaking "PCP" from their transformers which is an environmental hazard. This sealed their future, as there were groups that were advocating that it was cheaper for Amtrak to rebuild the best GG1s for continued service and not buy an entire fleet of replacement locomotives. What added a little weight to this was that the GG1 actually outperformed their replacement: The E60CP!

Of course the remaining Gs went to New Jersey Transit for a while and bowed out in the early 80s.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Uh, it might be a bit more personal at times than you think. Conrail lost a bunch (100?) of GP38s they had planned to buy out at lease end to EMD who was trying to build a lease fleet at the time. Even though EMD out bid CR fair and square, this left CR in such a bad position that they "punshed" EMD by going all GE for a few years. The new loco orders in 90, 91 and 92 were all GE. Since it was pretty much a toss-up on price between C40s and SD60s, it didn't "cost " the RR much to do this.

It was not a coincidence!

Interesting. I always wondered why CR got rid of those GP38s so early...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

So the EMD rolls first. And then???

Scrap is WAAAAY UP! Next we call for the torch and go to VEGAS!!

LOL...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

So the EMD rolls first. And then???

Scrap is WAAAAY UP! Next we call for the torch and go to VEGAS!!

LOL...

LC

OK, sorry, was just going for a quick laugh...

LC

[M636C]

My Christmas Holidays were delayed by a week, (my posting was extended until the end of February, break starting next week) so I'm still at work and missing a thread I want to get into!

I've been looking for an excuse to point out that a couple more Alco units entered traffic on the Australian East Coast last month after years of storage. These are two DL541s, 1800HP 12-251C powered hood units. Others are gradually appearing - three other DL541s that had faded out in ARG service have been leased for track maintenance work. The flow of Federal funding for rail (I mentioned this on the Open Access thread)has started and MoW trains need power.

The 251 is a pretty tough engine, and like the EMD 645 has a welded block. Major spares are available (from Fairbanks Morse, ironically). These are more expensive than EMD spares, but the Alco has one thing in its favour - it has fuel consumption figures not very different from current locomotives. You wouldn't think so watching the unburnt fuel come out the stack on throttling up, but this lasts only seconds -try to photograph it if you don't believe me!

A group of similarly powered DL500 cab units are still in service, although some of these haven't been maintained well lately and a number have dropped out of service.

In Australia, there are still maybe one hundred 1800HP to 2000HP Alcos still around. Many of these were sold off by the government systems in the early 1990s when traffic was falling and new EMD units arrived. Many were kept by small operations against the time that privatisatiom would raise traffic and demand for locomotives.

But the older EMDs were largely kept by the major operators, and they too are in use in the current expanding climate.

The real sign that demand is there is the recalling of most of the surviving 1800 HP English Electric locomotives. These had been limited to minor switching work with most in storage, but five or six are now working MoW trains. The EE 12CSVT is a 10" x 12" four stroke engine, a bit like an Alco but a little more complex, but still strong and economical to run. Parts are still available. There has been a minor comeback of 3'6" gauge 1800 HP EE units in WA and Queensland due to Pacific National's entry into Queensland, and ARG's track upgrading in WA.

These older units are filling a gap caused by increasing traffic. It won't go on forever, because new units are needed, but there will be a delay before they arrive - and some of them haven't been ordered yet as the major operators work out their needs.

Peter

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bob Berry

Let me throw in a couple of thoughts in here about the ALCO verses the EMD. First of all when you talk about the reliability of engine (locomotive) you have to take into consideration more than just the engine. The engine is a big part but it is not every thing. Keep in mind the GE made all the electrical components for the ALCO. Is there a connection here? Roughly seven years after the demise of ALCO, GE hits the market with their first U Boats. Connection? Don’t know.

Secondly let me talk about the Train-Master with used a Fairbanks-Morse 38D-8-1/8 engine. In marine and stationary service this is one of the finest engine ever built (I might add that I work on this engine in the Navy for 3-1/2 years and they were a strong reliable engine “in marine (submarine) use.” The engine was designed in the 30’s and still in service today. You will find them in small power plants; they are still in service in the Nuclear Submarine as auxiliary engine, still used in marine service in basically the same engine. For an engine the have lasted over 70 year is a testament to what kind of engine it.
In the talking with some of the old timers who ran these engine most will tell you that they were a dirty engine and leaked a lot of oil. I will give that one to the 39D-8-1/8 the coffin cover need a lot of attention to get them to stop leaking. In the Navy this was not a problem since you have a person watching 24 hour out of the day. If I had to guess why the Railroad didn’t like these engines I would say the main problem is that the vertical drive unit that synchronized the timing of the upper and lower cranks. For those who do not know about these engine is that a 10 cylinder engine, had 20 pistons and two crankshafts and the pistons move towards the center of the cylinder. Thus no heads, no valves and camshaft assemble. What happen in train engine that doesn’t happen in marine service is that you have the engine fully loaded and the next minute it at zero load. So in train service the load to the engine is always changing. This is hard on the vertical drives that have a spring pack that take up a few degrees of slack on the cranks. The vertical drive are not hard to change out but since none of the other engine have these here is addition parts, now we have to stock more parts and specialized training and knowledge.

In my opinion what make EMD such a successful is that they a bulletproof drive system and when they did go down the part availability was easy and ready available. Keep this in mine in all thing “If the question is why, then answer is money.” Why are a lot of the SD70MAC still around (at least on the BNSF) that have long over due for replacement, the answer is money. The is a engine that have served them well with well over a million miles of service. Why are they replacing them with AC4400, well I don’t know the real answer but I bet that money is a good answer. Why is ALCO of business and there engines are no longer in service, you bet you can go back to the answer of MONEY.

Bob Berry

I happen to agree w/ ya 100% on this issue. Many people judge a locomotive for the prime mover only and how much horsepower it has. This is true but, they must look at the bigger picture. They have to take into concideration how effectively, truning force is transfered to the generator/alternator, then transfered to the traction motors. They must look at the traction motors and generator themselves. Is it junk?? Could the engine be effecient and the traction motors junk?/ Steering and suspension is also an issue when it comes to reliable, effecient locomotives.

As for the FM 38D-8-1/8 I agree I though that was and still is an excellent diesel in terms of marine and power generation. I also hear that it has applications in the mining industry. Yes it has had some problems but, that engine shouldn't be written off the market. The design of the engine was ahead of it's time with the twin crackshaft, and unique piston design, elimanting the use of conventional cam, and heads. It's a very fasinating diesel to me. Some diesel engines are better at doing certain things; like the 20 cyl 710GB is really excellent in locomotive power application.

Bob Berry,
You were a submariner?? I love submarines. We should talk.

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45
Unfortunately the GG1s had another problem in addition to their heavy weight. They were leaking "PCP" from their transformers which is an environmental hazard.

No way! They were leaking Angel Dust!!?? All this time I thought they were leaking polychlorinated biphenyls...

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill
GE can afford to run the locomotive division as a non-profit for quite some time, as the rest of the corporation has deep pockets.

Dear Mr. Hemphill,

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but inasmuch as you have extensive knowledge beyond mine of industrial history:

Has GE employed this strategy in other aspects of their business ventures (i.e. manufacturing, electronics, switch gear, aircraft engines, &c, &c)? GE has not only deep pockets, but they have wide perspectives (somewhat reminiscient of your earlier invocation of Mr. Stalin's quote.)

Many thanks in advance,
Michael Loik

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

So the EMD rolls first. And then???

Scrap is WAAAAY UP! Next we call for the torch and go to VEGAS!!

LOL...

LC

OK, sorry, was just going for a quick laugh...

LC

LC,

No way! It's OK! You're on to a good thing!!! UP's tracks are only several feet away from many casinos! It would probably be easy to torch apart a few tons of sheet metal and other alloys and drag it onto the floor. Afterall, they used to have assayers right there to cash in on the diggings...

OK, Oceans (what is this now?) Thirteen!?

Who's with us?

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mloik

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45
Unfortunately the GG1s had another problem in addition to their heavy weight. They were leaking "PCP" from their transformers which is an environmental hazard.

No way! They were leaking Angel Dust!!?? All this time I thought they were leaking polychlorinated biphenyls...

Mloik![8D]

Good Googy Moogy! Yep, it was actually PCBs....[:p]...............I just have to say....................
YOU GOT ME GOOD ON THAT ONE!! [(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][tup]

[broncoman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

A marine or stationary engine is by definition operating inside the engine shop all the time -- it sits in a room with an overhead crane, a toolbench full of tools, a storeroom full of parts, and the machinist watching its every little hiccup. The locomotive is out roaming around the countryside. That right there is an enormous difference.

You'll find a parallel story in earthmoving and farm equipment. Caterpillar and Deere built an engine that would run all day in horrible conditions with minimal maintenance, while the other makers either built an engine that required lots of maintenance, or couldn't hack the job. Allis-Chalmers ruined a damn good earthmover business by using the wrong diesel in its tracked machines, the Detroit Diesel. It was a fine diesel in other applications, like city buses, but in earthmovers it ripped out final drives with abandon because it had to run at maximum rpm to do any useful work. Caterpillar's diesel would chug along and when the going got tough the operator had plenty of time to push in the clutch and back off. The A-C would in the same conditions suddenly stall and tear out the final drive. That made A-C owners REALLY unhappy. By the time Allis switched to Buda and later Cummins it was too late; their late machines were excellent competitors to Cat, but by then A-Cs market share was so small because of the bad reputation it had that the business was unsustainable.

Mark,
I am curious if the Caterpillar history/business model information is something that you find interesting. If so maybe you could shed a little light on something. There is a company called Kootenay Manufacturing (KMC) that bought a company called FMC which made a steel tracked vehicle for use in WWII as a personel transport (so I have been told). This machine (KMC) is used in many odd and rough environments Logging, Mining etc. It uses a 6V-53 non turbo. I have had a chance to watch one at work and the opportunity to work on it. In many ways it puts a Cat of equivalent size (D4-D6) and a couple sizes up to shame in its speed, power, and smoothness while operating. Did A-C not package it right?
This brings me to my train related question. How is it that Caterpiller can do so well at production of equipment and engines for the needs of their targeted market, and they have seemed to failed at producing an engine for the loco market? Or are they good like say in a MK5000C. Has anyone else worked on one?

Dave

[ericsp]

Kootenay Tractor purchased the rights to manufacture, market, and service this tractor (http://www.kmc-kootrac.com/companyprofile.html). FMC is still around (http://www.fmc.com/), although they have closed or sold off many divisions over the decades. The divisions I can think of off the top of my head are freight cars, fire engines, pumps, and military equipment. They have also spun off FMC Technologies which makes energy system equipment, airport equipment, and food processing equipment.

[Anonymous]

FMC = Better living through chemistry these days.

They also made some military vehicles and armaments in the past...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

QUOTE: Originally posted by dlagrua

I was told a while ago that the reason that the GG1's were scrapped is that after millions of miles the truck carriages eventually developed cracks

Unfortunately the GG1s had another problem in addition to their heavy weight. They were leaking "PCP" from their transformers which is an environmental hazard. This sealed their future, as there were groups that were advocating that it was cheaper for Amtrak to rebuild the best GG1s for continued service and not buy an entire fleet of replacement locomotives. What added a little weight to this was that the GG1 actually outperformed their replacement: The E60CP!

Of course the remaining Gs went to New Jersey Transit for a while and bowed out in the early 80s.

Dont forget one GG-1 actually survived a full basement drop into the station (Congressional??) and was pulled back onto the rails and ran some more.

I wonder if we ever will see another electric engine with the very "You cant break this" strength of the GG1.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

FMC = Better living through chemistry these days.

They also made some military vehicles and armaments in the past...

LC

Here is what happened to that division.
http://www.uniteddefense.com/co/history.htm

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

QUOTE: Originally posted by dlagrua

I was told a while ago that the reason that the GG1's were scrapped is that after millions of miles the truck carriages eventually developed cracks

Unfortunately the GG1s had another problem in addition to their heavy weight. They were leaking "PCP" from their transformers which is an environmental hazard. This sealed their future, as there were groups that were advocating that it was cheaper for Amtrak to rebuild the best GG1s for continued service and not buy an entire fleet of replacement locomotives. What added a little weight to this was that the GG1 actually outperformed their replacement: The E60CP!

Of course the remaining Gs went to New Jersey Transit for a while and bowed out in the early 80s.

Dont forget one GG-1 actually survived a full basement drop into the station (Congressional??) and was pulled back onto the rails and ran some more.

I wonder if we ever will see another electric engine with the very "You cant break this" strength of the GG1.

That GG1 wasn't exactly pulled back onto the rails and run. It was cut into large pieces,hauled to Altoona,and rebuilt at the Juniata shops.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the update, It was much appreciated.

[broncoman]

That's the correct sight Mark, but the newer units have varied a little from the older ones which are a little closer to being something you would see on a battlefield in WWII. One thing I hadn't considered was that the KMC's have a torque converter based drive not a direct drive which I am sure A-C had. The KMC units may look lightweight but I have seen them clear rocks, stumps, landslide debris, that a D5H was unable to clear.
I understand what you are saying about CAT in the locomotive market. Do you happen to know if GE queried any of the American diesel manufacturers such as CAT when they were shopping for a 6000HP engine?

Dave
Thanks for the tip on the book.

[bfsfabs]

Mark,

Thanks for the clue on the "Yellow Steel" book. Gonna go lookin' for it right now.

Track riders or track layers, both are fascinating machinery. Steam or diesel.