ALCo PA s

[Anonymous]

You're quite welcome.[:D]

[Anonymous]

I have seen photos of what look like PA's on the Napa Valley Wine Train and also on the Grand Canyon Railroad. I wonder if they have the same sort of maintenance problems everyone keeps talking about?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

I have seen photos of what look like PA's on the Napa Valley Wine Train and also on the Grand Canyon Railroad. I wonder if they have the same sort of maintenance problems everyone keeps talking about?

I am trying to wake up and don't have the time for a long answer here but in short if the railroad maintained the Alco according to the recommended maintaince they were as good as most any other locomotive. The 244 engine did have a problem with a few parts breaking. Alco tried to overcome this problem. The 251 engine had few problems and was very dependable, and also used less fuel than other engines of that time frame.

[passengerfan]

Sorry but the Napa Valley Wine train and the Grand Canyon RR units are MLW FPA4's former CN and Via Rail units. They ride on BB trucks and develop 1,800 hp thye engines are the more reliable 251's instead of the 244. CN operated the units from Sarnia East to the maritimes with Moncton being a major MLW shop for the railroad. Once rode the CN turbo in the winter when the unit was using a single FPA-4 for power and the train was only six minutes off the adverized between Toronto and Montreal.

[Anonymous]

You are quite welcome, jhhtrainsplanes.

I'm just curious as to who agrees with me that all paint schemes look better on a PA.

See you around the forums,
Daniel

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

You are quite welcome, jhhtrainsplanes.

I'm just curious as to who agrees with me that all paint schemes look better on a PA.

See you around the forums,
Daniel

Espeefoamer agrees with you 100%!
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29


I'm just curious as to who agrees with me that all paint schemes look better on a PA.

I certainly do! I think it's downright impossible for any paint scheme to not look good on a PA!

[Anonymous]

I've been seeing stories posted on various internet sites discussing performance comparisons Rio Grande made when shopping for new passenger power for the California Zephyr in the late '40's - EMD F-3's v. Alco PA's. Reportedly, the PA's outperformed the f-3 for the same given horsepower (3 unit PA at 6,000 h.p v. 4 unit F-3 at 6,000 h.p.). Apparently, the Alco's had superior traction motors, compliments of GE.

Does anyone have any other information about comparisons between PA's and EMD's F units or E units? Any books or magazines addressing this topic?

[SSW9389]

I recommend the book Early Diesel Daze by John B. McCall for accounts of testing the new PA-1s and F3s in the Fall of 1946. The PAs were better for both drawbar horsepower and drawbar pull across the speed range up to 100 MPH!

To further reinforce this point Santa Fe backed off from the F3 for a year to let EMD work the bugs out of them. No F3s were purchased by Santa Fe in 1947. The road did buy the Fairbanks-Morse Erie Built set and six sets of PAs in ABA configuration.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mr. Frank

I've been seeing stories posted on various internet sites discussing performance comparisons Rio Grande made when shopping for new passenger power for the California Zephyr in the late '40's - EMD F-3's v. Alco PA's. Reportedly, the PA's outperformed the f-3 for the same given horsepower (3 unit PA at 6,000 h.p v. 4 unit F-3 at 6,000 h.p.). Apparently, the Alco's had superior traction motors, compliments of GE.

Does anyone have any other information about comparisons between PA's and EMD's F units or E units? Any books or magazines addressing this topic?

[Anonymous]

Thanks SSW9389! - Very helpful info! It would be interesting to know how well the F-7 with improved traction motors would compare to the PA1's at lower speeds, both in 6,000 h.p. sets - I believe I read somewhere that generally speaking on the Santa Fe, a 6,000 hp set of PA's could pull one more passenger car at the same speed as a 6,000 hp set of F-7's, which just goes to show that hp ratings are not always precise or universal.

Hate to state the obvious, but that comparison on the Rio Grande also goes to show that greater reliability (of the F-3's or F-7's) can more than offset a competing locomotive's slight performance advantage...This must be why I have never heard of the Santa Fe's PA's pinch hitting for F units the Super Chief (or on other "top of the line" passenger trains, such as for E units on the 20th Century, Broadway Limited, or City of Los Angeles). On the Santa Fe, I've only seen pictures of the PA's on the Grand Canyon, San Francisco Chief (west of Kansas City), the Fast Mail, and San Diegans, and I've read that at one time (probably very briefly in the late 40's or early 50's) they may have occasionally pulled the El Capitan.

If anyone is aware of other books or sources that generally compare steam or diesel locomotive performance tests on various roads, I would really appreciate it - I've read about the N&W A and Y-6b vs. EMD F-7's, NKP Berkshires v. F-7's, UP Big Boys and Challengers vs. EMD GP-9's, etc. I can understand why railroads do not like to release their performance comparisons of the latest EMD vs. GE locomotives, but it also seems that there is not a lot of info comparing locomotives which have long since been retired (F and E units v. PA's or FA's).

[Anonymous]

Dear Mr. Frank,
I know that PA's could be found on the Chief (for years the number one train, and even at the end only number two), and it is my opinion that in all the Super Chief's the Santa Fe ran, a PA pulled at least one. Also, I would submit that the PA's found there way onto the Santa Fe's lower trains in part because those were the trains which had old heavyweight cars, and so needed the PA's.

See you around the forums,
Daniel

[Anonymous]

Mr. Frank--

RE: your question regarding PAs on top-end trains

Among others:

Katy-Frisco's Texas Special (#1 train) also got the Katy PAs occasionally, although they tried to reserve them for the mostly-HW Katy Flyer and Bluebonnet, both of which made more stops and needed the quick acceleration and heavy-haul capability more. The MP/T&P/IGN used their big fleet of PAs on the Eagle fleet all the time.

TNO operated a big fleet of PAs on such trains as the Sunbeam/Hustler ("TX Daylight") DAL-HOU speedsters (probably fastest avg speed on the SP system), the Sunset (#1 LD train) E of ELP, Argonaut, etc.

NKP used PAs exclusively on their top-end pax trains.

The GCSF normally scheduled uses of PAs on the TX trains (including Tx Chief, CA Special, Angelo) were in heavily ATS territory where they routinely made 90 for long stretches with generally lightweight consists. TX Chief schedule was generally on a par with the Super's-not to be considered a secondary operation.

See some of the earlier posts this string for more info.

Hope this is useful.

[agentatascadero]

On the SP PA's bumped E's from the Cascade and Overland routes because of their superior ability to pull the grades. On the D&RGW F's bumped PA's from the CZ, go figure. I am not aware that PA's ever led the Argonaut, diesel power was passenger geared F's in black widow paint. I've seen many instances on SP where E's and PA's were mixed in the same consist. I'd rather see a PA, but listen to an E, but none of these stinkers compares to STEAM.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

While both NKP and LV used PA's exclusively in their passenger service, it would be a bit of a stretch to consider either of their passenger services to be top-line in the sense of ATSF or B&O.

It's interesting to note that L&N, which had a sizable fleet of 244-engined power, never bought any PA's.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

While both NKP and LV used PA's exclusively in their passenger service, it would be a bit of a stretch to consider either of their passenger services to be top-line in the sense of ATSF or B&O.

It's interesting to note that L&N, which had a sizable fleet of 244-engined power, never bought any PA's.

In the sense of ATSF or B&O, true. But in terms of their systems, top-line as opposed to secondary services.

[Anonymous]

Firstly, I've got a feeling that there are masses of NKP and LV fans who would not be too happy if you called their railroads' services inferior--in those days, any top line passenger train was pretty close the best which could be found.

And I agree--
Steam was, is, and always will be KING!

-Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

I like PAs

I like Steam

There is room at the top

let all be kings. [:D] [;)] [:D]

[tpatrick]

Erie had 12 PA-1s and 2 PA-2s numbered 850 through 863. Some were painted in the black and yellow freight scheme, and others in the green passenger colors. All were used in commuter service and some occasionally made their way onto the mainline on the named trains. In later years they could be seen hauling freights as well. They lasted until 1969, when they were traded to EMD. I don't think any survived. As I recall, the PAs had the same single-chime air horn as the freight FAs.

[Anonymous]

I recently found two pictures of D&RGW PA's on the California Zephy. The CZ was not a second-rate train.

Here are the links:
http://calzephyr.railfan.net/gallery/riograndecoming.jpg
http://calzephyr.railfan.net/gallery/phdrgpa1.jpg

See you around the forums,
Daniel Parks

[agentatascadero]

MW is correct, there were wide gaps in quality of the best train between different railroads, often on the same routes. Think Erie Limited vs 20th Century limited, or The Rebel vs Panama Limited. On some roads, the best train was an all stops local.

[Anonymous]

Along the lines of what some of you have written above (excellent points by the way), there seems to be a clear consensus that: 1) the Alco PA's pulled a little better than equivalent h.p. EMD's; but 2) the EMD's greater reliability and lower maintenance costs more than offset whatever pulling advantage the Alco's had (at least when comparing those roads which had the choice of putting EMD's or Alco's on certain passenger runs.

Here's a real good question (at least in my humble opinion) - given that roads like Santa Fe, SP and Rio Grande all found that the Alco PA's had such a clear performance advantage, why didn't these roads get FA's for freight, and instead rely solely on EMD's F-units? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe any of these three roads had FA's on their rosters. This is especially puzzling on SP, which had multiple, repeat orders for PA's, and yet did not order any FA's (yet, SP purchased close to 800 F-units!!). Does anyone have any idea as to the seemingly inconsistent purchases for freight vs. passenger power in terms of Alco v. EMD?

[Anonymous]

Along the lines of what some of you have written above (excellent points by the way), there seems to be a clear consensus that: 1) the Alco PA's pulled a little better than equivalent h.p. EMD's; but 2) the EMD's greater reliability and lower maintenance costs more than offset whatever pulling advantage the Alco's had (at least when comparing those roads which had the choice of putting EMD's or Alco's on certain passenger runs.

Here's a real good question (at least in my humble opinion) - given that roads like Santa Fe, SP and Rio Grande all found that the Alco PA's had such a clear performance advantage, why didn't these roads get FA's for freight, and instead rely solely on EMD's F-units? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe any of these three roads had FA's on their rosters. This is especially puzzling on SP, which had multiple, repeat orders for PA's, and yet did not order any FA's (yet, SP purchased close to 800 F-units!!). Does anyone have any idea as to the seemingly inconsistent purchases for freight vs. passenger power in terms of Alco v. EMD?

[Anonymous]

P.S. - I apologize for submitting two consecutive replies, but I feel I have to stir up the pot at little bit - so much is written in the railfan press about the great looks of the Alco cab units (which I certainly agree with). Call me crazy, but I've always loved the look of the classic EMD bulldog nose - F units and E7, E8 and E9's (grew up watching them in Chicago suburban service on the Burlington, C&NW and Milwaukee Road, and freight service on the latter two and Soo Line). Seems like the EMD's don't get much praise simply because they were so much more common, but to be honest, I never saw PA's or FA's in service (did see FPA4's on Napa Valley Wine train though - beautiful units). I don't mean to alienate the Alco fans out there, but in my opinion, the EMD's are just as beautiful at the Alco's - I can't think of any diesel in North American railroad history that captures the power, grace, and beauty better than Santa Fe's passenger F-units (hey, just my opinion...)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

While it's a bit off topic, Mr. Frank's point of view in favor of the bulldog nose is nice to see, especially now that they are so rare. As I've mentioned in other threads, the bulldog nose is alive and well and living in Australia in several different versions, including a double-ender with two bulldog noses.

One place where PA's and FA's did not have to compete with E's and F's was Brazil. The Paulista had 3 PA's and the Central of Brazil had a small fleet of FA/FB's. Oddly enough, the DL-500 (World Locomotive) could not be found in Brazil.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if baby-boomers who had American Flyer trains as kids pefer PA's while Lionel kids like E and F units?????

(I had A-F)

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The Spanish Government Railroad (I believe its acronym is RENFE) had what looked like Alco PA's. I photographed one (#318) in the shops south of Madrid from the San Cristobal de Los Angeles suburban stop back in October 2002. Were they actually Alco PA's or were they MLW FPA's? Does anybody know what that unit is used for , or if it istill in existence?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

RENFE was one of two European operators of the DL500, which is the Alco World Locomotive. It could also be found in Greece, Australia, Argentina, India, Pakistan, Peru and perhaps some other places. It was an export design and could be considered the third version of the Alco flatnose design. The DL500 was double-ended with a second cab in the flat end, rode on C-C trucks and was rated at 1800 HP. They could be found in freight or passenger service.

[Anonymous]

"I have found a site that has a picture of SF 59L"

Is that what NKP #190 was originally? One of the two brought up from Mexico is still in Albany...at least, I think it is? I might be #190. The other engine was slated to get the 'warbonnet' paint scheme, and #190 clearly hasn't received that. I'm anxious to see what it looks like when its finished -- I grew up in Albany and remember the PA (two? I dont remember) up on blocks in the trainyard, near a side street.



Thanks,
Ryan Thompson
Corvallis, Oregon

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ragemanchoo

"I have found a site that has a picture of SF 59L"

Is that what NKP #190 was originally? One of the two brought up from Mexico is still in Albany...at least, I think it is? I might be #190. The other engine was slated to get the 'warbonnet' paint scheme, and #190 clearly hasn't received that. I'm anxious to see what it looks like when its finished -- I grew up in Albany and remember the PA (two? I dont remember) up on blocks in the trainyard, near a side street.



Thanks,
Ryan Thompson
Corvallis, Oregon

I don't have time right now but will try to answer your question Saturday evening.

[Anonymous]

190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190

I can't wait , Never having had the chance to see one in person. (They were razor blades years before I happened) I can't wait to see NKP190 come rolling "Back" to Ohio !

Get going Mr. McCormick let the blue and immitiation aluminium paint fly !

190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190