Trains.com

EMDvsAlco

3496 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 166 posts
EMDvsAlco
Posted by upjake on Sunday, October 24, 2010 6:56 PM

Were the first EMD road switchers, namely the geeps, really 'better' locomotives than the Alco road switchers (RS units)?  Or did this have more to do with market dominance issues, etc.?

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA
  • 607 posts
Posted by garyla on Sunday, October 24, 2010 8:21 PM

While GM certainly had an edge in dominance of the market (and in the cost of its labor agreements), It's hard not to appreciate the technical advantages of EMD locomotives.  Most of all, the 567 engine was markedly superior in reliability and cost of maintenance. EMD also got high marks for customer support.

I love those old Alcos, but if I were carried back in time 55 years or so, and appointed the chief mechanical officer of a railroad, I'd be buying my power from the General.  With the benefit of hindsight, it's an easy choice for me.

If I ever met a train I didn't like, I can't remember when it happened!
  • Member since
    May 2007
  • From: Auckland, New Zealand
  • 147 posts
Posted by Steve_F on Monday, October 25, 2010 12:27 AM

This previously posted here may be of interest to you.

 

http://utahrails.net/articles/alco-v-emd.php

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Lexington, S.C.
  • 336 posts
Posted by baberuth73 on Monday, October 25, 2010 8:16 PM

In my heart, Alco reigned supreme. In my head, I know that I am full of it.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Thursday, October 28, 2010 12:01 AM

baberuth73

In my heart, Alco reigned supreme. In my head, I know that I am full of it.

Nicely put!

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,015 posts
Posted by BigJim on Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:59 AM

baberuth73

In my heart, Alco reigned supreme. In my head, I know that I am full of it.

I feel for you man.

Those ALCOS were a bear to work on in the house, but, you can rest easy in that they were one tough engine out on the road.

.

  • Member since
    November 2010
  • 2 posts
Posted by Stemwinder30 on Monday, November 15, 2010 2:55 PM

I appologize for the irrelevence of this, but why were the Centuries (Alco Cs) even worse?

  • Member since
    November 2010
  • 2 posts
Posted by Stemwinder30 on Monday, November 15, 2010 3:00 PM

Where Centuries even worse that the RS Series?

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,474 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Monday, November 22, 2010 8:53 PM

Wait a minute here for some history.  When we entered WW2 a freeze was placed on among other things diesel engine development.  Only models already being produced were allowed as I recall.  In fact, several steam engine designs that called for nickel steel boilers were made with standard steel boilers.  Alco had introduced the RS1 and the RS2 (I think) but Emd had to wait until after the war for the GP7.  Many comments have been written about weak crankshafts in Alcos and the War Production Board wouldn't allow them to improve the material as higher grade steels were severely limited in availability.  It was probably to EMDs advantage that they had several years to prepare for the conversion to GP from F units particularly with the financial backing of GM who made a huge fortune providing weapons for the war  When Dillworth designed the GP7 he is said that he wanted it ugly so it would get hidden away on branchs and backroads where it could prove it's value.  In my opinion, both Alco and Baldwin were never really able to make the switch from their steam programs which EMD never had and had a 100% diesel mentality which Alco did not.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,044 posts
Posted by cx500 on Monday, November 22, 2010 9:46 PM

Uh, let's get history straight.  The Alco RS-2 used the 244 engine, and the "44" part of the designation refers essentially to when it was designed.  It did not appear in production locomotives until 1946, so the War Production Board had nothing to do with the crankshaft problems.  And I think it would be fairer to say that EMD made a serious error when they finally offered the BL2 as their answer to the roadswitchers of the competition.  The "several years" delay before the GP7 was introduced was because of this.  Fortunately for EMD many railroads were still enamored with the modern streamlined image that cab units conveyed and the F-units continued to sell well during this period.

John

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 4,793 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:07 AM

Here in Canada Alco/MLW had the "home advantage" after Alco went out in the US in 69. GE was selling locomotives here, and CN (still a crown corporation) was required to buy from both major builders.

MLW did have a good product in the RS18..up here MLW sold 351 one of them compared to 650 GP9s...not a bad showing  for a relatively  small independent builder who was up against the world's biggest and best at the time.

Unfortunately MLW did run into reliabiity issues with their M series..and there failure to deal with these is what caused their ultimate demise. The railroads up here did give them a fair chance in the market...CP bought M series and favoured those over the SD40 initially. Likewise BC Rail was buying exclusively from MLW until they too ran into issues with the M series.

In fairness, it has been stated that CP's unhappy experience with the M series was to some extent self inflicted as this engines needed the tender loving care they never got from CP. There's some merit to that...CN didn't have those problems with there M series...

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy