CPM500 Did anyone consider the difficulty of EMD making major changes in the design of a complicated, engineered product (Alco passenger locomotive) wihout the assistance of the OEM ? By the time ATSF 51 and mates were re-engined, a much improved Alco 16-244 engine was available for change-out . Did anyone consider that the EMD job ignored a whole host of design and maintenance challenges present within the original design ? The GE upgrade program involved stripping the locos down to the chassis and assembling a greatly modified (and improved) Alco passenger locomotive. The was a whole host of politics involved with this locomotive class on the ATSF.
efftenxrfeStriking me was a, way back, reference to Christine, the 51 PA-B-A set. re-engined for, or by, SFe.
Christine was the repowered Rock Island DL-109.
I knew a guy who was a Milwaukee Road mechanic. He would say that the GE/Westinghouse gear was considered a bit better than EMDs. To that end, he said a number of times that take ALCo running gear and mate it with EMD engines/generators and 'you'd have a perfect engine.'To that end a number of railroad's mechanics and engineering departments at the time felt the same, hence a lot of experiments along those lines. The cab units created unique problems getting things to fit. Hood units were, for the most part easier, the KCS, Katy, C&NW amoung others did a lot of repowering Baldwins and ALCos with EMD prime movers and generators. Many lasted for many years past their non-repowered namesakes.
I just took a look at this, the whole thing: impressive erudite stuff.
Striking me was a, way back, reference to Christine, the 51 PA-B-A set. re-engined for, or by, SFe.
The respondent used 51LAB to identify it.
A 3 unit engine, cab unit on each end, the SFe's policy was to designate the last unit as "number" then C.
That makes the last unit of the engine the 51C.
So that "noble" PA1 was further castigated and was not the 51LAC but, misidentified as the 51LAB.
From what I saw, the last unit of SFe multi-unit cab type (covered wagon) engines was uniformly designated with "C".
Another reasonable possibility to explain why the Central's experiment wasn't repeated, beyond perhaps dissatisfaction with the final product after repowering, is the cost of the rebuilding itself.
Perhaps it simply cost too much in the end after a prototype was finished to justify further examples. Especially since the mid 1950's is when the postwar optimism around passenger travel had all but evaporated on many roads (Particularly on the Central where they took an about face on passenger travel right about the time this experiment occurred).
While I agree with the above posting that Alco's engineering and design updates may have forestalled additional re-powerings, I would also opine that many of the re-powerings in the 1950's created their own batch of operating problems. EMD and EJ&E had some major issues in trying to match a 567 engine with the original Westinghouse main generator when the centercabs were re-powered. The generator did not handle the higher RPM's of the 567 engine very well and it was difficult to maintain lube oil pressure on the 567 at the lower RPM's tolerated by the generator. Eventually, the issue was worked out and the centercabs lasted into the early 1970's.
The goal of the re-powerings was to lower operating costs, I'm not sure that they were all that successful in that regard.
Perhaps, I was just speculating after all.
And I've also seen your suggestion noted more than once over the years for why Santa Fe didn't continue this experiment. But judging by an earlier comment in this thread, it also sounds like Alco around that time did some updating and redesign work that SP and ATSF took advantage of, which helped prolong both fleets. Surely that cheaper alternative to improve reliability and presumably extend the time between heavy overhauls was also a factor in stopping further repowerings of Santa Fe's large PA fleet after their mid 50's experiment (Even the selection of the units repowered seems to hint that Santa Fe was trying to send Alco a message in the hope of a cheaper rebuilding alternative for the rest of the fleet).
A more reliable and economical 1,750 HP locomotive has to be more attractive than one that is pushing a few hundred more horsepower, breaking regularly, and is costing a small fortune to maintain. Plus, Santa Fe had a large fleet of F units that were their premier passenger power which also casts a bit of skepticism over Santa Fe's displeasure with the lower horsepower rating of their PA experiments being the primary reason they weren't repeated.
It's entirely believable for the Central where 2,000-2,250 HP was their passenger standard, but I've just never seen it stated for why the repowered PB-1 stayed a species of 1. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if ongoing support from Alco also helped to a degree here in the fleet staying Alco powered until train-offs in the 60's caught up with them.
Leo_AmesI suspect that Alco got the message like FM had earlier, preventing further repeats as the builder addressed some issues the Central was having...
As I recall, the 'message' the Central actually got was that having F-unit horsepower in a 2000-hp passenger-unit carbody was a pathetic use of capital. (And the Central recognized the advantage of the PA having high horsepower from a single prime mover as early as Kiefer's report in 1947, so they perhaps of all railroads should have recognized the shortcoming!) Didn't we have a thread on this a year or so ago that mentioned the shortcomings?
Might have been interesting to see the result of using a second-generation turbocharged 567 (with comparable horsepower to that of a late PA) ... but I suspect by the time that would have become possible, the use of that engine in an all-axles-motored chassis rather than A-1-A, and optimized for freight rather than passenger, would be perceived as making more sense.
jsphoto NYC re-engined a PB unit with an EMD engine. Trains had an article on it years back.
NYC re-engined a PB unit with an EMD engine. Trains had an article on it years back.
Yep, the 4302. She got a 16-567C in November 1955 at Collingwood.
Trains ran a picture in the news section of her shortly afterwards, but failed to include the mention about her repowering (Despite the photographer's description including that detail and the overhead shot showing the changed stacks).
They rectified that oversight over 30 years later and ran the picture again, this time with that important detail that was the reason for the submission the first time around, noted.
I suspect that Alco got the message like FM had earlier, preventing further repeats as the builder addressed some issues the Central was having ( FM was shocked when Central started repowering nearly new C-Liner's with 567C's... not long afterwards FM finally largely solved the piston issues they were having and the balance of NYC's FM fleet kept their OP's and mostly outlived the repowered EMD's).
ndbprrMost railroads found the costs to convert early diesels to one manufacturers standards totaly unjustifable economically. Changes and upgrades were happening too quickly
The biggest reason that repowering died out so quickly is that the IRS changed the rules on how the repowered locomotives were treated tax wise. Prior to the change the cost of repowering was considered an expense and the entire cost could be deducted in the year the locomotive was placed back into service. After the IRS changed the rule the cost of the repowering was considered a capital improvement and had to be amortized over the expected life of the locomotive. This made a repowered locomotive much less attractive financially.
There was some repowering done after the accounting change, most notably the PC/CR/AMT DeWitt RS3s but that was done because the work was doen in house using parts on hand. And PC did not have the cash to spare for new locomotives so the DeWitt RS3m was a better solution for them.
The ex-ATSF PA's (plus an ex-NH PA for parts) that went to D&H had 244 engines inside when they were purchased by D&H. They were later sent to M-K in Boise for rebuilding and got 251 engines at that time.
The PAs were as-built until after the Adirondack was introduced. D&H sent them to M-K ftwo at a time for reengining as "PA-4s", using in their place a pair of ex-B&M RS3's that were traded for by D&H because they still had their steam generators. After the turbos came to the Adirondack MBTA leased the PAs from 1977 to 1979.
The decision to replace the PAs with turbos was a funny marketing decision by Amtrak and New York state. At the time CN had the United Aircraft turbos running between Montreal and Toronto, eventually acquiring all of the UA sets. New York's turbos arrived from Rohr in late 1974 and almost immediately attracted enough new riders tomake them too small for some of the planned services. The Adirondack was thought to be both the right size and the turbos marketable to Canadians. D&H had also been complaining about the care their equipment was getting at Mott Haven.
mmm1000 Does anybody know what engines were in the 4 PAs that D$H got from AT&SF, or for that matter any use of EMD 567s to re-engine Alco PAs, or any other Alco. I know about the Beep, i'm interested in other examples. Thanks
Does anybody know what engines were in the 4 PAs that D$H got from AT&SF, or for that matter any use of EMD 567s to re-engine Alco PAs, or any other Alco. I know about the Beep, i'm interested in other examples.
Thanks
Part of the rebuild at MK was to reduce the air pollution from the units.
I do not remember if the 2 units when they went from Mexico to Portland had engines in them or not. Doyle McCormick has put a 251 from a M420 into it and I think he has another for the other unit(don't quote me on that as I am not sure).
Rgds IGN
"...how fast they decayed as soon as they were no longer being actively serviced..." Do you suppose there was cheap, REALLY cheap paint involved?
The Morning Sun book "Trackside Around New York City 1947-1968 With Bob Malinoski" has a very interesting photo spread of some former NYO&W FT's stored in the Erie Croxton yard. It's shocking how the paint decayed in only a few years. Of course, the paint available back in the 40's and 50's wasn't anywhere near as good as what's available now. Still, it reminds me of the TV show "Life After People."
Ah yes, the PCB's in the transformer cooling oil scare. In the end "they" had an Emily Litella Moment: "Never Mind!" It really didn't matter though, by the end of their lives many of the GG1's were developing frame cracks in addition to other troubles. It was time for them to go, they had no more to give.
The sad thing is there's little to no chance of seeing a GG1 run again, no matter how well one is restored.
I wasn't referring at all to their being 'run to death' -- although I can't even watch the 'last days of the GG1s' videos any more because I can see how old they were fast becoming.
I was referring to how fast they decayed as soon as they were no longer being actively serviced. Particularly locomotives like 4876 when she was in storage in the Public Service yard near Overpeck Creek. Reminded me at the time about a Trains Magazine report -- I think it involved Q2s -- that told how the boiler steel corroded more than 3/4" when exposed to rain seepage for only a year or so.
I never had exposure to the culture at Wilmington, where they kept all those Gs running so well right up to the end. But as soon as the caring touch was absent...
Now, ordinary automobiles can sit in scrapyards for quite some time, and no few kinds of locomotives can sit in the weeds for long periods of time, without becoming as bad as the Gs got to be. And this, I think, was largely before the chlorinated-biphenyl boondoggle led to the transformer butchery.
Ask Jack Neiss about what it was like to run them -- pro and con. I too was astounded at how little room there was in the cab, and how much work it took to get there around the bracing. Another thing was how far the track appeared to be removed from where you thought the centerline of the locomotive was...
Overmod, no doubt the GG1s were literally run to death. Still, a service life of nearly 50 years for the type is pretty darn impressive anyway you look at it.
"Classic Trains" had a big GG1 issue not long ago as well. Interestingly, a former GG1 engineer, one of the last to run them, said that as modern looking as they were on the outside, they were fairly primitive on the inside, compared to later locomotives. Dark, dank, and downright spooky at times. At the end they also picked up quite a bit of road dust and deposited it all over the inside.
For all that, having grown up along the Pennsy during the GG1 era he did get a kick out of running them.
Not only the PAs but the DL-109/110s had their share of problems. Larry Brasher has almost nothing good to say about ATSF 50 at all -- but it's sure amusing to read about the situation!
The re-engined PAs were tried in the same EL commuter service that E units held down so well in the '70s. As I understood it, the electrics were nowhere near adequate for the required acceleration rates and loads -- there were severe electrical fires, and that was pretty much that. (This was well after the M-K re-engining with 251s...)
PAs are not the only classic locomotives to show shocking quality degrade in the absence of constant attention... consider the GG1s.
RME
About a year or so ago "Classic Trains" published the big ALCO PA issue. Re-engining was addressed and in a nutshell re-engined or not, the poor old PA's just didn't age very well, nowhere near as well as EMD's E and F units, although ALCO's FA's were pretty age-resistant.
In the Morning Sun book "Trackside Along the Erie and its Connections" by Jim Kostibos, Mr. Kostibos, a former Erie engineers says he hated the PA's. Mr. K called them "uncomfortable pieces of junk" and the most important accessory you needed for a PA by the '50s was a fire extinguisher.
Too bad, the PA was one beautiful locomotive otherwise.
The CF7's, and this is hopefully verified, had miserable control lever locations as did all E, F, PA, FA.......and on and on....for backing which was needed usually for pick-ups and putting a train together.
The 251 and the OP from FM are still out there with basics that haven't changed much from the '30's for the OP's and the '50's for the 251's.
!2-cylinder 251's went into the 4 PA's, previously 244 16 cyl. locomotives. They're also in ice-breakers and...tugs, towboats....
ATSF CRSD-20'S (RSD-15m's), all 3 were hump engines geared to slugs for Barstow, were all re-engined with 16-645's...circa 1974-76 at SanBdno.....an awful lot of SD26's ((SD24m's) followed suit San Bernardino with 645 D3's in 'em. Did well as low speed mountain engines.
There were to be more 1460 Class BEEPs (fodder for 40), but that idea was dropped after the pilot project in 1970 at Cleburne with a 567C engine. (SF30B #7200 was also a similar orphan....it worked, BUT...Hello CF7's in 1970 at Cleburne starting with the wagontops and 2649) CF7's did well in most branchline & switching applications where you didn't need the turbo or d/b's...
CPM500CR(PC) did a whole bunch of RS-3's with surplus 12-567s. AMTK did a handful.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ATSF had a 3-unit set (PA1/PB1/PA1) re-powered with 567's.
MKT and MP RS3's and RI RS2's were also re-powered with 567's.
As an aside, some of the 244 engines from RI's re-powered FA1's were recycled into RI's NW1's.
Interestingly enough, 51A-B-L are discussed in Vernon Smith's One Man's Locomotives, in some detail. If there is interest, I will paraphrase what he said about them.
See: Diesel Locomotives: The First Fifty Years A Guide to diesels built before 1972 by Louis A. Marre
It is Railroac Reference Series No. 10.
Numerous rebuild and repower programs from the 40's and 50's are listed at the back of the book. Many were repowering projects that removed the original prime mover and installed a 567 EMD engine. Other common projects removed the turbocharger and used the roots-blown intake. Others de-rate the prime mover to reduce wear and tear on the engine.
Included on this list are a PA-1 and PB-1 converted to 16-567C in 1954 and rated at 1750HP. It appears that they only did this once.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.