When I compare locomotive manufacturer's histories with diesel engine developement history, I find some common names, and speculate that in the 1920's and 1930's, there must have been a lot of shanghaiing - er - recruitment of talent going on. There in fact was a huge talent grab from interests in all applications of the diesel engine.
I also wonder why all of the builders maintained the companies they purchased as separate entities for so long, even after they had been absorbed in every other way.
It's obvious that any engine design should be made as versatile as possible to be competitive in as many markets as possible. This driving force was already present among diesel engine manufacturers well before being puchased by a given locomotive manufacturer. Engine designs used like the Cooper-Bessemer, or the De Lavergne, had already been through many iterations.
I believe that there is a lot of evidence that the builders were hardly lax at all in the quest to build competitive diesel locomotives, and in fact the history as we know it only reflects the comparitive resaults many concurent efforts.
carnej1 Regarding the C628, I have never read anything that suggested that it's axle loading was significantly heavier than other CC units of similiar size/HP... Monon did have troubles with their fleet but I doubt that SD35s or U25/28Cs would have performed any better. Monon also purchased the 6 motored Centuries for a unit coal train service that never materialized, they may have been willing to spend capital to upgrade trackage if it had... In the case of D&H is their any evidence to suggest that their other 6 motored road units (U33Cs, U30Cs, SD45s, and for that matter, C630s) were any easier on the track?
Regarding the C628, I have never read anything that suggested that it's axle loading was significantly heavier than other CC units of similiar size/HP...
Monon did have troubles with their fleet but I doubt that SD35s or U25/28Cs would have performed any better. Monon also purchased the 6 motored Centuries for a unit coal train service that never materialized, they may have been willing to spend capital to upgrade trackage if it had...
In the case of D&H is their any evidence to suggest that their other 6 motored road units (U33Cs, U30Cs, SD45s, and for that matter, C630s) were any easier on the track?
More than one source, both online, and in the printed books, has stated the Alco Century 628's were hard on track on Monon, D&H, and parts of LV. It is actually pretty well documented. The Alco trimount truck had an uneven axle spacing (due to the arrangement of brakes, etc.)--whereas comparable EMD and GE locomotives had an even axle spacing. The uneven axle spacing by itself will provide problems with imbalanced dynamic loading of the rail.
D&H had such bad problems with the big Alcos tearing up track that their operating territory was restricted to pretty much just the mainlines--they also pushed them off onto LV rails as run-through power when possible.
Other writers have commented that the Alco sales staff sold engines like the big C628's to roads where they simply would be a poor fit--because of the axle loadings, etc. Monon replaced the C628's with C420's and was happier with the performance.
It is worth noting that by about 1978, D&H did send all their SD45's, U30C's, and C628's to Mexico on long term lease. So perhaps there were also problems with the other big engines as well--but I believe the C628's were generally considered to be the worst offenders.
In the case of D&H, LV, and other northeastern roads, the track structure was weakened by many years of deferred maintenance. If you watch the videos of the 70's you will see the big engines rocking and swaying all over the place on the decrepit track, passing through weed and tree filled yards that once held lots of anthracite hoppers. Both scary and very sad at the same time to watch. Those videos are why I stick to modeling railroads in the southwest, and not the northeast where I've lived my whole life. Though I can love the paint schemes of some of the northeastern railroads, and their motive power rosters, watching those videos made me want to immediately rid myself of anything associated with the pre-Conrail roads.
John
UP 4-12-2 Not just the 244, but also the turbocharger problems! Roads like SP and Santa Fe, both of whom had large fleets of PA's, just replaced those troubled 244 crankshafts more often till Alco came out with new/improved versions. Also, SP and Santa Fe incorporated the improved turbocharger when it became available (visible as the exhaust stack on the roof being rotated 90-degrees from its original as-built placement). An improved, I believe even catalogued, Alco PA with the 251 engine would have been a solid passenger locomotive. But the PA's reputation as a maintenance "problem child" combined with declining passenger ridership combined to spell the end of the PA's--and none were built. It's not as simple as just blaming the 244 engine. I think the real problems started during WWII when EMD was allowed to continue building diesels and the other guys were not--plus the pride or arrogance associated with building the ultimate steam power. After the war, it was catch up--but too little too late. Alco also sold diesel units that didn't fit certain railroads track structure (C628--too heavy axle loadings for roads like Monon and D&H and parts of LV)...the service record after the sale, and other issues all combined to do them in. John
Not just the 244, but also the turbocharger problems!
Roads like SP and Santa Fe, both of whom had large fleets of PA's, just replaced those troubled 244 crankshafts more often till Alco came out with new/improved versions.
Also, SP and Santa Fe incorporated the improved turbocharger when it became available (visible as the exhaust stack on the roof being rotated 90-degrees from its original as-built placement).
An improved, I believe even catalogued, Alco PA with the 251 engine would have been a solid passenger locomotive. But the PA's reputation as a maintenance "problem child" combined with declining passenger ridership combined to spell the end of the PA's--and none were built.
It's not as simple as just blaming the 244 engine. I think the real problems started during WWII when EMD was allowed to continue building diesels and the other guys were not--plus the pride or arrogance associated with building the ultimate steam power. After the war, it was catch up--but too little too late. Alco also sold diesel units that didn't fit certain railroads track structure (C628--too heavy axle loadings for roads like Monon and D&H and parts of LV)...the service record after the sale, and other issues all combined to do them in.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Speaking from expierance, i cut my mechanicing(sp) teeth on a 192 model alco. the entire design of the "machine" is why they went out of business. very complicated wiring for its day, a horrible engine design that leaked water at every seal, a cylinder head that had a steel on steel sealing surface ( i know not the only one) and blew exhaust everywhere including the stack.. the EMD principle seemed to be "simple" period. The wiring on a compariable unit was much easier to repair and trouble shoot (albeit the GE TM's were of superior quality) the engines just ran, and any simpleton could maintain them, and well. 8-10 hours to change a cylinder on a 539 engine, vs 2-3 for a 567,645 or 710 engine. IIRC only 28 bolts/nuts total. EMD just built a better machine, and made it SIMPLE. which is what railroads needed then and could really use now. my two cents.
One advantage that EMD had over Alco and Baldwin was that the 567 engine was used on many USN ships during WW2. Since engine reliability and maintainability is probably even more important in a war zone than on a railroad, EMD got a lot more leeway in devoting engineering resources to the 567 than Alco or Baldwin were allowed to with their respective engines.
Another factor that didn't help Alco was service after the sale. EMD was faster with the fixes than the other builders when problems occurred.
I don't think that the multiple locations was a real issue. After all, EMD built a plant in London, Ontario to serve the Canadian market and CLC was licensed by both Baldwin and FM for the same reason.
There are a lot more contributing factors involved in ALCOs demise. The 244 reliability was probably a contributing factor. You must also look at the big picture. At the time of diesel development the government placed restrictions on the research and development of all locomotives. ALCO was prohibited in developing its diesel locos and forced to build steam locos under USRA regulations. EMD was allowed to keep building diesels right along.
ALCO being a steam loco manufacture had to commit a vast amount of resources to the steam loco buyers and repair parts were still needed past the end of steam on class 1 RRs. EMD had no other drain on its resources.
The economic down turn of the depression era was tough on a lot of companies. Some failed right away while others suffered and never fully recovered.
The battle with GE and its electrical equipment was another factor to consider. GE did not want Westinghouse to be the only supplier but never helped the builders in any way. GE starting its own locomotive building was a blow to all the minor loco builders.
Perhaps the greatest reason for ALCOs demise is the diverse locations. If they could have consolidated all the manufacturing in one location internal costs could have been saved. The most modern facility was Montreal Locomotive works. Having several manufacturing facilities in different parts of the country building the same types of capital equipment is more costly than having all manufacturing in a consolidated area. Tariffs on imported goods from other countries was prohibiting ALCO to supply locomotives from Montreal to the US carriers.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Most of the 244's problems, I am led to believe, are usually attributed to its dry-block construction; the 251 which went into production in (about) 1956 was, apparently, a very efficient engine yet its introduction was not enough to pull ALCO out of the doldrums and it was eventually driven into extinction.
Some of the companies post-244 offerings were impressive but they did not make a significant impact on the market. Had the 244 really soured the railroads on ALCO's product or were there other problems with its offerings?
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.