I know this is a strange question but some retired railroaders I know say that ALCOs/MLWs were scrap. But the Ontario Southland Railway has some and I know quite a few other shortline railroads own them. Don't get me wrong, I like those locomotives but why would they keep ALCOs on the roster if they're were trouble to their original owners?
Lone Geep
\
Not an expert, but I suspect ALCOs weren't as bad as a lot of people think they were. Several months back "Trains" ran an article on Don Colangelo, the master mechanic of the Delaware-Lackawanna Railroad. D-L runs quite a few ALCOs and quite sucessfully. Mr. Colangelo who's been called "The ALCO Doctor" says concerning the ALCOs reputation "Anything's a piece of junk if you don't take care of it."
The Alco 'Century' series were not bad engines - The older '244' powered engines were what sunk Alco's reputation. Alco basically fixed the early problems by the time(1956) that the RS11 came out with the new '251' power plant, but the 'end of dieselization' and a recession right after that sort of left little new market to exploit.
Parts are available from FM(they picked up the business), but they are expensive. As EPA regulations get tighter, there will be little chance of re-powering these locomotives. Take you pictures while you have a chance. I remember chasing Alco's on the C&NW 'Huron' line in the 70's. Within a few years they were gone. We then spent our time chasing GB&W's Alco fleet - they are now gone as well. We still have the lines out east that you mentioned, plus Minnesota Commercial and the Arkansas & Missouri - Wait any longer and you will be looking at museum operations.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Alco designs lasted much longer in Canada, where MLW built licensed and upgraded versions of the Century series and 251 engines well into the 1980's. I could speculate that they were helped by the fact that GE was essentially blocked from competing in Canada until the 90's but it wouldn't change the fact that the Centuries were, for the most part,well built machines..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Generally, the most inexpensive locomotive you can operate is the one you already own. New(er) are more expensive to purchase for carriers that are cash strapped.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I was just pondering this very question yesterday. It sure seems odd that there are more six axle Centurys/M-Lines running than all of the extant six axle U series/Dash 7 and C39-8's combined. Ditto for four axle Centurys comapred to four axle U boats and Dash 7's. Surely it can't all be attributed to nostalgia. In hindsight, it would appear Alco had the superior product, so what really happened? Financing? After sale support, and lack thereof? A truly bad reputation left by the 244? All of the above? Like I said, it seems that Alco bested GE in the end in terms of longevity (read: durability). I've heard that all Dash 7's died rather abruptly (between 2002 and 2010) because GE ended parts support--wonder if that's true?
It also helps that the 251 engine line is still supported by Fairbanks Morse. There are still OEM parts and technical support for operators of 251 powered locomotives:
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/locomotive/
From what I recall reading, Alco had some trouble early on with reliability issues. Eventually they got them straightened out and produced a good product, but by that time they kinda had a bad reputation at least with some folks. Plus by the 1950's railroads were realizing that buying diesels from 3 or 4 different builders wasn't a great idea. When they looked to standardize on one builder, the reliability of early EMD engines gave them an edge on later purchases.
p.s. I wonder what percentage of today's freight diesels are ALCO or MLW?? I suspect it's very very small. It may be a little like steam engines c.1962 - people loved them, so railfan mags gave a lot of space to pics and stories of the steam engines stil around, even though they were only maybe 1% of all US engines at the time. People love to photograph and discuss the Alco's still in use, but how many are there really??
The problem ALCOs suffered on most class one railroads is that the maintenance departments were set up to maintain EMDs. The details of how you maintain an ALCO is different than maintaining an EMD. But unfortunately most shops used the EMD procedures on all locomotives to the other builders detriment.
One example of this happening in reverse was on the SP. For many years SP used FM Trainmasters on the San Francisco Commuter Trains and also used many FM switchers in the area. The local shops became experts on FM repairs. When SP retired the Trainmasters and replaced them with GP40Ps and SD45Ps the shops maintained the EMDs using the FM procedures. As could be expected the EMDs suffered numerous problems until the maintenance personnel were retrained to use EMD procedures.
That goes a long way in explaining why minority builder locomotives were often clustered in one operating area. SP kept its FM's in the Bay area, N&W kept its FM's on the former VGN lines, C&NW eventually assigned its Alco's north of Green Bay and Cincinnati hosted L-H power from several roads in the early 1960's.
In addition to the points mentioned above, I can add one observation made by a couple mechanics that have kept some of the various beasts rolling.
To paraphrase the one shop guy, "EMD shoves a big chunk of metal into La Grange and machines a locomotive out of it. Alco and Baldwin parked wheels and assembled a million parts on top of them into a locomotive. GE is somewhere between the two."Alco, Baldwin, and to some extent earlier GE's had a reputation for being easier to maintain, if you knew what you were doing, than EMD and FM. Spares are also readily out there from aftermarket and junk providers, whereas a lot of EMD parts have been and remain proprietary--think being able to get parts cheaper from your auto parts store than from the dealer at dealer prices. EMDs are/were largely two-stroke diesels, much more complex than the four-stroke engines of Alco, GE, etc.
Consider a farm truck or local-driving truck. You have a choice between an old 1985 Ford, Dodge, or GM truck for $1,000 where all the parts are still available from transmission, auto parts, etc. stores, or you get that 2005 Ford/Nissan/Toyota.GM/whatever used for $10,000, and have to worry about the onboard computers, new emissions equipment, air bags, seat heaters, power windows, etc. Come on, you're just gonna haul hay and firewood around now and then, not drive halfway across the country once a month. What are you gonna get?
I have also heard that the Alco/MLW locomotives use less fuel than a GMD/EMD of the same power rating.
I volunteer for the Waterloo Central Railway in St. Jacobs Ontario and we have just acquired an Alco S3 from the National Research Council in Ottawa. We are getting a variety of issues sorted and hope to have it in regular service sometime in the spring. I know in some short runs we have done it far outpulls our GE 70 ton diesel. Not sure about comparisons with our MLW 0-6-0 yet which has just come out of a restoration and done some commissioning/photo runs.
One of the things I've read over the years is that Alco's used a lot less fuel for the same work as either an EMD or GE. That has been one of their strong points in the used market. What I saw written is that if you maintained Alco's they were good engines. If I remember correctly Alco used a 12 cylinder engine with turbochargers against EMD's 16 or 20 cylinder engines.
The last of the Century series(C-430, C630, C636, and MLW'S) also had Hi Adhesion trucks that were several years ahead of either EMD or GE.
One or the worst things about Alco's was the reputation for emitting big clouds of black smoke(the problem was worse if the locomotive was not maintained).
Rgds IGN
jumper I volunteer for the Waterloo Central Railway in St. Jacobs Ontario and we have just acquired an Alco S3 from the National Research Council in Ottawa. We are getting a variety of issues sorted and hope to have it in regular service sometime in the spring. I know in some short runs we have done it far outpulls our GE 70 ton diesel.
I volunteer for the Waterloo Central Railway in St. Jacobs Ontario and we have just acquired an Alco S3 from the National Research Council in Ottawa. We are getting a variety of issues sorted and hope to have it in regular service sometime in the spring. I know in some short runs we have done it far outpulls our GE 70 ton diesel.
Actually, I've cleaned out that locomotive's electrical cabinet twice!
I've rode behind Alcos on the A&M in AR and I now know why they are called the steam engine of diesels. It was part of a private charter by Southern Appalachia RR Museum and when the director called for more some on the photo runbys, he got it.
I have friends who do volunteer work with that RR and the Alcos just keep ticking along. And I've seen pictures that others have taken of Alcos at work all over the US and many times, they are really smoking.
Long live Alcos.
CSSHEGEWISCH That goes a long way in explaining why minority builder locomotives were often clustered in one operating area. SP kept its FM's in the Bay area, N&W kept its FM's on the former VGN lines, C&NW eventually assigned its Alco's north of Green Bay and Cincinnati hosted L-H power from several roads in the early 1960's.
...and all the Baldwins are now in Paulsboro, NJ!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sunnyland I've rode behind Alcos on the A&M in AR and I now know why they are called the steam engine of diesels. It was part of a private charter by Southern Appalachia RR Museum and when the director called for more some on the photo runbys, he got it. I have friends who do volunteer work with that RR and the Alcos just keep ticking along. And I've seen pictures that others have taken of Alcos at work all over the US and many times, they are really smoking. Long live Alcos.
The ALCO products are still available, both as used parts, as re-manufactured parts, and in some cases, new parts. Do an Internet Search for "ALCO Engine parts". 251 parts are still out there, in all forms. ALCO is now a property of Fairbanks-Morse as of the early 1990's.
I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet and I am not sure if there are any 251's or ALCO locomotives in California at this time, but if they are, they are on a short list to be done away with... CARB, and the State of California have enacted and placed effective enforcement on Diesel Engines and their exhaust. Apparently, in 1998 (?) they found research that labeled Diesel Fumes(smoke) as a Toxic Product and Carcinogen. 2013 is the year they are going to force out older engines and trucks. You can bet older railroad diesels will probably get the same enforcement parameters, as well.
Here is a link to start with: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic_contaminants/html/Diesel%20Exhaust.htm
and this as well: http://www.etrucker.com/ccj/be-ready-calif-starts-enforcing-new-regs-in-january
g&gfan I have also heard that the Alco/MLW locomotives use less fuel than a GMD/EMD of the same power rating.
I was told the same by mechanics from Ontario Southland Railway.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
I have read a paper from Indian Railways (they still have in widespread use broad gauge 251-engined ALCos), where they claimed fuel consumption of around 160 grams / kW, compared to modern diesels which burned 200+ grams/kW. This was achieved on V16 engines with lowered horsepower (I think they got around 2700hp out of each motor).
The notorious "ALCo smoke" when accelerating the engine happened most often in inadequately maintained locomotives, and a major reason was the delay of the turbo behind the rich fuel mix that entered the engine cylinders (not enough oxygen). When the turbo got up to speed, the smoke stopped.
This happened rarely with modern and fast-accelerating turbos.
N.F.
Here's a sample from Western New York and Pennsylvania. Engineer Dumbuff gives a smokey salute at Watts Flats, NY
Wow! I can see why ALCOs were called "honorary steam engines"!
Seriously, I read an article a while back about the Grand Canyon Railway. While the steam engines get the publicity, the 'road also owns two ALCO FA's. They love the things, the Chief Mechanical Officer calling them practically "bulletproof". And there's the Napa Valley Wine Train that runs behind FA's as well.
The only really, really bad thing I've read recently about ALCOs was in the Morning Sun book "Trackside along the Erie and Connections" by Jim Kostibos, a veteran Erie engineer. Mr. Kostibos HATED the PA model, calling them "uncomfortable pieces of junk." He did like the RS series ALCOs however, calling them "fun to run".
By the way, the Kostibos book is a lot of fun, I recommend it highly.
What you're say here reminds me of what I once read in Karl Zimmerman's book about the California Zephyr. In it he said that Alcos never performed well on that train and he attributed that to the Denver and Rio Grande Western being in the EMD camp. Evetually EMD Fs took over on the CZ.
ALCo 16-251 based locos were manufactured under license in India till March 2012 from early 60s. They are robust and proven machines.
Firelock76 Wow! I can see why ALCOs were called "honorary steam engines"! Seriously, I read an article a while back about the Grand Canyon Railway. While the steam engines get the publicity, the 'road also owns two ALCO FA's. They love the things, the Chief Mechanical Officer calling them practically "bulletproof". And there's the Napa Valley Wine Train that runs behind FA's as well. The only really, really bad thing I've read recently about ALCOs was in the Morning Sun book "Trackside along the Erie and Connections" by Jim Kostibos, a veteran Erie engineer. Mr. Kostibos HATED the PA model, calling them "uncomfortable pieces of junk." He did like the RS series ALCOs however, calling them "fun to run"....
The only really, really bad thing I've read recently about ALCOs was in the Morning Sun book "Trackside along the Erie and Connections" by Jim Kostibos, a veteran Erie engineer. Mr. Kostibos HATED the PA model, calling them "uncomfortable pieces of junk." He did like the RS series ALCOs however, calling them "fun to run"....
The Napa and GCR FA are FPA4 locomotives with V12 251 engines; the Erie PA's had V16 244 engines; as noted above the 251 is a great engine, the 244 was not.
Ah yes, the 244 engine. I read the problem with the 244 was ALCO's rush to get a diesel road engine immediately onto the post war market. They didn't "wring out" and "torture test" the 244 enough to find all the possible bugs and remove them.
Well, they weren't the first to rush a new product onto the market too quickly. They certainly wouldn't be the last either. What's that one of the other posters says?
"Learn from other peoples mistakes, you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself."
As an EXPORAIL volunteer, we do operate a number of older Alco's (MLW's). one thing about a 251, you can always count on it to fire up even after a long period of sitting in the yard. Fill the water, batteries et all, pre-oil the engine and just crank it up! The big cloud of smoke usually happens when you notch the engine too fast for the turbo to spool up.
ALCO seemed to be more on the reactive side of things when it came to field issues...vs. EMD and GE. Perhaps finances limited ALCO's ability to field test locomotives and component sets.
The 16-251 with single pipe exhaust manifold tends to generate more acceleration smoke as compared to the 12 cyl. w/multiple pipe manifold. Some of the 16 cyl engines were equipped with dashpots in the fuel linkage-which I suspect were removed in short order.
The turbos used with these engines (520,720,165) are now rather ancient compared to the technology available today.
Sorry I don't have time to respond in more detail right now, the best I can do is add a link that has been posted here before; Alco versus EMD... A very interesting side that most of us don't give much thought to.
http://utahrails.net/articles/alco-v-emd.php
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.