I have heard both good and bad on Alco diesels. I never had very much experience with them growing up in the south. The south was EMD territory for the most part. Were these engines fundamentally flawed or were the shop forces not used to dealing with them? Could it have been that Alco did not support their product as well as EMD and GE did? Was there an effort to get rid of them after Alco went out of bussiness because of a lack of customer support? I have heard that Alcos were better pullers than EMD, but they did not run as fast. Any truth to this?
Thanks in Advance,
George
overall (George);
Not sure how old you are, but the history of ALCO [American Locomotive Co] is written with a number of interesting stories.
One place to start is the obvious reference to the site at Wikipedia. I know they have some problems, but this report seems to be pretty complete in its details. It is an interesting tale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Locomotive_Company
My suggestion is to start here and investigate, further with some of the links within. ALCO was very successful, and its demise was, IMHO, as much political as it was quality of their products or corporate decisions. Not to mention the business manoevers ( surrounding its early partnership) with GE, and somewhat with EMD. Its reputaton for quality and dependability took some hits, and helped tarnish its image.
ALCO is still around in areas ( Stationary engines/Marine Engines), and in a number of foreign countries, their products soldier on.
First, in the era you are speaking of Alco and GE were working together to produce the Alco/GE line of diesels. The main problem Alco/GE had was a lag time before the turbocharger kicked in producing huge plumes of smoke from accumulated gases. There were problems with the 251 engine which were eventually worked out. GE had worked on its own diesel locomotives before joining with Alco and went its own way again after Alco faltered. Early Fairbanks Morese cab units were built by GE at Erie before FM tooled up for the TM series building in Beloit, WI. GE maintained an export product right along and just enlarged it after the Alco break up.
I have heard mixed reactions about EMD vs Alco. The Delaware and Hudson was loyal to its online locomotive builder until the Dereco years. Even then, a token couple of EMD SD45's were quickly swapped out with sister Dereco EL for several GE units. Other roads were equal or 1/3 Alco buyers as EMD flooded the market with pick your need diesels. Some said EMDs were superiour over all but Alco and GE were better luggers at slow speeds. Others didn't care about the slow speed pulling but wanted the high speed handling for freight or passengers. Apparently EMD got up to speed faster but all performed well once up there. I have a feeling there is going to be more personal preferances gleaned from experiences rather than side by side performance charts in these answers.
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.
Depends on the model and engine. The RS-11 and RS-18 were considered very good locomotives. Some in fact are still in service today. It appears that the reliability problems were largely confined to the larger high horsepower locomotives.
To answer your question, we're they better pullers, Canadian Pacific had originally place their M630 locomotives in service in BC because they were considered better pullers than the SD40. However, subsequent reliability issues sent the M630 back east and for the most part you didn't see Alco/MLW products west of Alberta after about 1980.
Some railroads, like Spokane, Portland, and Seattle and BC Rail purchased predominantly Alco products...they must have had reason to beleive that they were the better locomotive although BC Rail did purchase SD40-2s toward the end, probably because they too we're experiencing problems with the M630.
I've read that the reliability issues with the M630/M636 we're confined to a few railroads. CN didn't have those isses as mucha s CP did, and Quebec Cartier ran their M630/M636 locomotives until 2003...so they must have been reliable for them.
The first LIRR diesel locomotives were F-M C-Liners (passenger) and Trainmasters (freight).
The second generation diesels were all Alco products, most were Century-420s (?) run long hood forward and some RS-3s for freight which also saw some service on short passenger trains in the summer time when steam was not needed to heat the cars.
The third generation diesels were EMD GP38s, and these did run short hood froward. Most of the big Alcos were leased units, and went back to the leasor at the end of the lease, but the last four ALCO units came onto the property after the LIRR was taken over by the state, and these were purchased units that remained in freight service after the 38s arrived.
Around the same time the M1 type MU cars took over the electric service, and the older electric cars, some as recent as 1964 were gutted of their traction motors and were moved to diesel territory to run behind the 38s. Since they had MU cabling in place it was a simple matter to run them in push-pull service, and the LIRR acquired a number of F7 and PA2 and similar locomotives, fixing them up as HEP/Cab units.
The fourth generation of LIRR Diesels are the DE-30 series, which are in service now, but which I have never had the pleasure of knowing, since I had moved to North Dakota by that time. These pull C3 double deck / single level (tunnel capable) push pull cars with purpose built cab cars. These (dual mode) engines and cars can access NYP without problem, but will be unable to access the "new" tunnel to Grand Central Terminal. That "new tunnel" was built 40 years ago as part of a subway expansion project, the upper level having carried subway train all of this time, the lower level was left as a lady in waiting... Waiting to decide what to build there and waiting for money to appear.
The new LIRR locomotives and C3 cars were not built with this tunnel in mind.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
George,
Alco's post war diesels featured a new 244 series prime mover with a GE air-cooled turbocharger. Between oil lubrication issues with the 244 and just as bad problems with the turbo, Alco/GE engines got a bad reputation just as dieselization really took off. The 244 issues were resolved, and GE replaced the air-cooled turbo with a water cooled model. By 1956, the Alco/GE partnership has broken down(Alco still was using GE electricals) and Alco introduced a now model 251 prime mover. This power plant was quite good, and GE introduced the 1800 hp RS11 and RSD12 locomotives.
The problem for Alco was that most railroads had already dieselized(and EMD took advantage of the situation Alco had been stuck in). By 1958, there was a mild recession in the US, and even EMD was not seeing massive orders due to lack of demand. Alco's product timing had missed the mark.
In 1960's, Alco released the 'Century' line of locomotives, but former partner GE also released their 'Universal' line of domestic locomotives. GE rapidly passed Alco as the #2 builder in North America, and by the late 60's - Alco quit the locomotive business. License copies were still being built in Canada by MLW, but even they finally quit production.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
The Century Series and subsequent MLW M-Series units had a lot of promise, introduced a few innovative design features now found as standard equipment on diesels today, and in some cases actually did perform well--for certain roads that possessed suitable track and traffic/tonnage/speed characteristics, etc. that were a good fit for Alco power. A precious few roads still love the C-420's as intermediate horsepower units for all kinds of service--they may have been the best engines of the Century Series in longevity and durability.
In short, Alco locomotives were not necessarily bad locomotives per se, just not good enough to be a consistent number two builder in a market that could only support two manufacturers (#2 to keep #1 honest). As discussed and well documented in several past issues of Trains magazine, Alco was doomed the day they became perceived in the public eye as not being as good as GE--a much larger company with the resources and reputation to match.
It depends upon whom you are talking to, and about what locomotive models per se, but that point where GE surpassed Alco in perceived diesel quality likely occurred somewhere between 1961 and 1965. By about 1966, the handwriting was pretty much on the wall--Alco was done but refusing to acknowledge the fact.
John
I think, too, EMD was able to standardize parts over more models than Alco or anybody else did...thus it allowed for a cheaper parts purchase and mechanics' able to work on more different models without having to learn more.
Thanks to all for the replies. It all makes sense now. GE could call on engineering expertise from all over the world and they could overpower Alco and even the mighty GM-EMD after a while.
But it wasn't all engineering...a lot of it was marketing, too.
To my knowledge there are two railroads today that are totally ALCO - Genesee Valley Transportation (actually several railroads under the GVT umbrella) and Arkansas and Missouri.
To be fair, one of GVT's lines, Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern has a couple of centercab GE's they inherited, but their prime motive power is still all ALCO.
A number of GVT's ALCOs are former EL, by way of BC Rail. Look for the 245* locomotives.
Adirondack Scenic now has two RS18u's (MLW's version of the RS11). Aside from a turbo problem with one that's been resolved, both are running great. I've run both of them. It looks like we'll have the RS3 back on line this year, too.
Sometimes they do look like they think they're steam locomotives, though...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
My understanding is that if the Alco/MLW units were given routine preventative maintenance, the owners were very happy with them. The GE electrical system was more robust than EMD's. While working they were more effective at hauling tonnage but needed that little extra TLC. Unfortunately the Alco's were also dirtier to work on, so maintenance was all too often skimped by the shop forces.
As others mentioned, the well publicized problems with the 244 prime mover meant Alco lost market share in the early 1950s and became a minority builder. By the time the 251 prime mover was introduced the steam to diesel transition was aprroaching the end and sales were more limited. I think some retirements of Alcos were driven by the desire to simplify parts inventory in the shops by eliminating what was only a small fraction of the fleet.
The C-636 (and M-636) may have pushed the 251 engine beyond its limits and not been particularly good locomotives, but the same is also true of EMD's GP35 and SD50 with the 567 and 645 engines respectively.
Some models of every manufacturer were indeed bad locomotives, but most had real success stories. Alco's RS-11/RS-18 in particular was probably better than the GP9 in many respects, but it came too late to gain its deserved role.
Each August during the early 1970s my family would rent a cabin at Lake Grinnell which was less than 50 yards from the Belvidere, N.J. Division of the Lehigh and Hudson River Railroad. The L&HR was a profitable bridge line for most of its 116 year existence. It relied on Baldwin for its steam locomotives, but after dieselization in 1950 it was a loyal Alco customer until it was folded into Conrail in 1976. From 1963-1966 the L&HR purchased nine Alco C-420 units. Three of these units would pull 100 or more car consists short nose first at 45 mph past our cabin as my brothers and I furiously tried to count the freight cars. Those locomotives were meticulously maintained and served the L&HR reliably and well.
Sometimes a company produces a good product, but the market for it is insufficient to be profitable. Other times a good product is marketed poorly. From what I understand Alco got a late start producing diesels partly because it was a premier builder of steam and also because during World War II, the federal government insisted that it continue making steam rather than beginning the R&D necessary for a smooth transition to diesel. I am sure there were other contributing factors that brought about its decline. Many of the premier overnight passenger varnish was powered by EMD diesel locomotives and that alone would have been a difficult marketing problem to overcome.
As documented quite well in previous issues of Trains Magazine, we cannot "blame" the federal government for Alco's demise.
Instead, the Alco middle and upper management somewhat arrogantly believed that steam would continue to be king--as born out in some of the postwar advertisements they ran--and that diesels would only ever be "niche" performers. Alco's demise is largely due to upper management's lethargy and downright inability to embrace change when necessary to do so. They mistakenly believed that late WW2 orders for big articulateds and northerns meant that a market still existed for those engines, when in fact those orders only came because diesels were unavailable. Both B&O and Union Pacific, as well as others, only ordered their final steam classes because diesels were not available at that time. Otherwise, the EM-1's and last group of big boys would never have been built...
The things that distinguished Alco, GE, EMD, Baldwin, FM, etc. locos went beyond just which loco was "better." One of the definitive analyses of the entire business is the book "From Steam To Diesel" by Albert Churella, which examines not only the steam-to-diesel transition but the businesses of the loco manufacturers and why EMD and GE came out on top while Alco, Baldwin, etc. foundered and eventually went away in the North American market. Factors such as locomotive financing terms, trade-in terms, and the railroads' inventory processes for parts played just as strong a role as whether an RS3 or GP7 or DS4-4-1500 could pull better.
Unfortunately, this excellent book, more a business-school textbook than a railfan analysis, is out of print and highly coveted--on Amazon, used copies are offered at three-figure prices.
Marketing and financing programs were not as slick as today, that is for sure. But the other factor was the reluctance of railroads to want to have to stock so many different parts for each manufacturer and model of each manufacturer. The market, in this case, worked toward EMD and then ALCO/GE, then EMD and GE as time went on. Unless you were a short line with only one or two locomotives, thus most likely one manufacturer, stocking was so much and having to train mechanics was too much.
Somewhere I have read a paper that advocates Alco's basic problem was the in corporate culture. The Alco heritage was steam locomotives produced in very limited production runs, each model designed to the needs and preferences of a single customer. The contrast with EMD is that at its heart as a division of GM, EMD was a marketing driven company whose products were standardized to the point that about the only customer choice was the paint job. The engineering mindset of Alco's leaders did not/could not adapt to the fundamental change in the marketplace.
While Alco locomotives might have been powerful and reliable when brand new out of the shops , they were completely the opposite after a few year on the road day and night. As a retired locomotive in Australia where the New South Wales Government Railways in the 1980,s were still filling loco orders with Alcos in the form of 80 class, while all other railways in the country were actively filling orders with EMD locos.
Hence by the 1990,s they were still in mainline service on the state network by which time they had become unreliable dirty smelly oil belching mechanical monstrosities. to shut the loco down I would open the engine room door and carefully reach around to the shut-down button while being careful not to touch any part of the interior for fear of getting engine oil on my shirt.
The same applied to start one up, I would not enter the engine-room unless it was absolutely necessary and then in the mid 1990.s we began receiving GE,s, what a dream clean machine.
Alco,s yes, make great artificial reefs
I am also a Locomotive Driver (Engineer) in Australia and yes we too have EMD only people here, I was brought up on ALCo's in South Australia and they were a very reliable machine. I would also mention the Iron Ore Railways in the Northwest of Australia that were 100% ALCo powered for many years and they had all of the large century models. They were only replaced by mostly GE locos when they were no longer available new. Certainly I could not fault the performance of our ALCo locos, many of which are still in service today.
LNER4472 The things that distinguished Alco, GE, EMD, Baldwin, FM, etc. locos went beyond just which loco was "better." One of the definitive analyses of the entire business is the book "From Steam To Diesel" by Albert Churella, which examines not only the steam-to-diesel transition but the businesses of the loco manufacturers and why EMD and GE came out on top while Alco, Baldwin, etc. foundered and eventually went away in the North American market. Factors such as locomotive financing terms, trade-in terms, and the railroads' inventory processes for parts played just as strong a role as whether an RS3 or GP7 or DS4-4-1500 could pull better. Unfortunately, this excellent book, more a business-school textbook than a railfan analysis, is out of print and highly coveted--on Amazon, used copies are offered at three-figure prices.
I also had the pleasure of reading that book, and recommend it highly as well. If you appreciate the business-history side of railroads, it's worth the time.
You can read it (or at least some of it) on line here:
http://utahrails.net/articles/alco-v-emd.php
This piece does not say that ALco had a "bad" locomotive but that its corporate culture was not good enough to sustain a good product. There are many who swear by Alco and many who swear at. Alco did provide some great power duirng the steam era and some good power durng the diesel years. So, to answer the quesiton about locomotives, pick a year, pick a model, pick a railroad, pick a MM, an pick a fireman, and pick an engineer: you'll get a differing viewpoint from each.
Different viewpoints indeed! I've just finished reading a book called "Trackside along the Erie Railroad and its Connections" by Jim Kostibos, a veteran Erie engineer who retired from NJ Transit in 2000. He liked the RS series ALCO diesels, said they were fun to run and "as close as you could get to running a steam engine and still be running a diesel." He HATED the PA series diesels however, calling them 'uncomfortable pieces of junk!" Sorry ALCO fans, his words, not mine!
henry6 This piece does not say that ALco had a "bad" locomotive but that its corporate culture was not good enough to sustain a good product. There are many who swear by Alco and many who swear at. Alco did provide some great power duirng the steam era and some good power durng the diesel years. So, to answer the quesiton about locomotives, pick a year, pick a model, pick a railroad, pick a MM, an pick a fireman, and pick an engineer: you'll get a differing viewpoint from each.
In today's technology world it looks like we are seeing the same implosion occurr with RIM, the creator of the Blackberry as it tries to compete in the Iphone marketplace.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Jack Welsh, formerly head of GE, used to say you've got to be first or second in any given maket to be able to survive in that market..i.e. there's no room for a third place contender. Alco was in third place.
Ulrich Jack Welsh, formerly head of GE, used to say you've got to be first or second in any given maket to be able to survive in that market..i.e. there's no room for a third place contender. Alco was in third place.
ALCO was actually 1st. But did not realize the significance and did not follow through.
Alco FELL to third place. Under steam, it was the leader. With diesels, it was teamed up with GE until GE pulled the plug. EMD became number one because of great marketing but also because the Federal Government put a hold on diesel development during WWII while allowing EMD to proceed with contracts in hand. GE had been making diesels on its own, mostly industrial types, then joined with Alco before going back on its own.
I still like Alcos..even though they were a tree huggers's worst nightmare..
as a macheniest on at&sf I worked on some alcos some were really nasty & some were not we had rsd 15 the worst rsd 7 (turbo eaters) rsd 5 & 4 (really great road switchers per my dad who was a yard engineer) we also had pa s they also had an appatite for turbos seemed like the alco turbo was not big enough for more than 1600 to 1800 hp the 3 4 5 s all did well but pa s were 2000 hp & rsd 7 s were at 2400 hp all in all they spent to much time in the shop and used up too much money on parts
dirtyhandsas a macheniest on at&sf I worked on some alcos some were really nasty & some were not we had rsd 15 the worst rsd 7 (turbo eaters) rsd 5 & 4 (really great road switchers per my dad who was a yard engineer) we also had pa s they also had an appatite for turbos seemed like the alco turbo was not big enough for more than 1600 to 1800 hp the 3 4 5 s all did well but pa s were 2000 hp & rsd 7 s were at 2400 hp all in all they spent to much time in the shop and used up too much money on parts
I thought the PA's got their 2000 HP from two prime movers of 1000 HP each.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.