The ALCo diesel locomotive thread

[Anonymous]

HI-if some body have procedure or instructions for ovrhaulling these type of trucks tri-mount alco(*dl560-dl543).

I need to know how they used to verify the relationship between three points in the running sheds.WeRE THEY DETRUCKING THE PLATFORM EVERYTIME

[Mikeygaw]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=41290

figured i post it since it's recent... dont know much about it other than what's provided in the pic

[Mikeygaw]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=41290

figured i post it since it's recent... dont know much about it other than what's provided in the pic

[Anonymous]

My Conrail has plenty of Alco locomotivers in lehigh valley conrail and penn central .
I grew up with EMD a paasing fad as saw more MLW then anything at a all.what was
the accident that happened to the mexican PA locomotives and why will they never run again as be be draw to the mexican ecconomy with rail fans ect.

stay in the green

David brown

[Anonymous]

My Conrail has plenty of Alco locomotivers in lehigh valley conrail and penn central .
I grew up with EMD a paasing fad as saw more MLW then anything at a all.what was
the accident that happened to the mexican PA locomotives and why will they never run again as be be draw to the mexican ecconomy with rail fans ect.

stay in the green

David brown

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

As to Alco building their own electrical equipment, a couple of things come to mind. GE appear to have continued to supply Alco with the equipment they needed, including the GTA-9 alternator for the C-630 before GE used it themselves in the U30C. Alco didn't have the resources, financial or otherwise, that GM had in the 1940s to set up production of a competing line of electrical equipment.

Peter

The electrical components and wiring for a loco were almost one-third of the loco's cost. Every sale of an Alco was in part a sale for GE. Nothing like helping your competiton is there? I believe that in the 1940s Alco didn't see the need to set up their own production of electrical equipment but had they done so that might have bough them more time in the locomotive production business. Alco closed in January 1969 with the first major gas crisis coming in 1973. The 251 engine enjoy a better mpg than either the then current GE or EMD engines. But Alco had already closed. IF they could have remained in the business the gas crisis might have been favorable to Alco. But we cannot go back and rewrite history even though I would dearly love to do so.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

As to Alco building their own electrical equipment, a couple of things come to mind. GE appear to have continued to supply Alco with the equipment they needed, including the GTA-9 alternator for the C-630 before GE used it themselves in the U30C. Alco didn't have the resources, financial or otherwise, that GM had in the 1940s to set up production of a competing line of electrical equipment.

Peter

The electrical components and wiring for a loco were almost one-third of the loco's cost. Every sale of an Alco was in part a sale for GE. Nothing like helping your competiton is there? I believe that in the 1940s Alco didn't see the need to set up their own production of electrical equipment but had they done so that might have bough them more time in the locomotive production business. Alco closed in January 1969 with the first major gas crisis coming in 1973. The 251 engine enjoy a better mpg than either the then current GE or EMD engines. But Alco had already closed. IF they could have remained in the business the gas crisis might have been favorable to Alco. But we cannot go back and rewrite history even though I would dearly love to do so.

[M636C]

As to Alco building their own electrical equipment, a couple of things come to mind. GE appear to have continued to supply Alco with the equipment they needed, including the GTA-9 alternator for the C-630 before GE used it themselves in the U30C. Alco didn't have the resources, financial or otherwise, that GM had in the 1940s to set up production of a competing line of electrical equipment. Alco were not as dependent on GE in export markets. The majority of Australian-built Alco locomotives had electrical equipment from the English company Associated Electrical Industries (AEI), which included former GE subsidiary Briti***homson Houston (just to confuse things more). This company became part of Alstom. It is possible that the earlier Indian built locomotives had AEI electrical equipment, although more recent Indian-built locomotives had Indian-built equipment. As well as the DL-560 broad gauge locomotives, a very large number of DL-535 metre gauge locomotives have been built and a number of other types, mainly 1800 HP Heavy Switching units. Indian built DL-535s have been exported to Tanzania, Vietnam and Malaysia, among others. Some of the Malaysian units had seen previous service in India, but had been replaced by progressive conversion of metre gauge lines to broad gauge.

Peter

[M636C]

As to Alco building their own electrical equipment, a couple of things come to mind. GE appear to have continued to supply Alco with the equipment they needed, including the GTA-9 alternator for the C-630 before GE used it themselves in the U30C. Alco didn't have the resources, financial or otherwise, that GM had in the 1940s to set up production of a competing line of electrical equipment. Alco were not as dependent on GE in export markets. The majority of Australian-built Alco locomotives had electrical equipment from the English company Associated Electrical Industries (AEI), which included former GE subsidiary Briti***homson Houston (just to confuse things more). This company became part of Alstom. It is possible that the earlier Indian built locomotives had AEI electrical equipment, although more recent Indian-built locomotives had Indian-built equipment. As well as the DL-560 broad gauge locomotives, a very large number of DL-535 metre gauge locomotives have been built and a number of other types, mainly 1800 HP Heavy Switching units. Indian built DL-535s have been exported to Tanzania, Vietnam and Malaysia, among others. Some of the Malaysian units had seen previous service in India, but had been replaced by progressive conversion of metre gauge lines to broad gauge.

Peter

[kenneo]

One other point to consider about why they were all cut up is that the railroad did not own them. A leasing outfit did. Ever notice the ownersplate on the frame? "such and such company/bank Trustee, Owner and Leasor". When the railroad was done with them (as the NW was with those 628's), they turn them back to the owner and then that company gets to find a new home for them. I can tell you right now that banks are not big on donations when they can sell the beasties for more than they have into them. It's not that money talks. Money is the only thing.

[kenneo]

One other point to consider about why they were all cut up is that the railroad did not own them. A leasing outfit did. Ever notice the ownersplate on the frame? "such and such company/bank Trustee, Owner and Leasor". When the railroad was done with them (as the NW was with those 628's), they turn them back to the owner and then that company gets to find a new home for them. I can tell you right now that banks are not big on donations when they can sell the beasties for more than they have into them. It's not that money talks. Money is the only thing.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Cris Helt

I've got a couple of questions regarding Alco. First: why were none of C&NW's high-nosed ex N&W C628s preserved? Was C&NW more interested in getting as much money as possible for scrapping or trading in the locomotives?
Second: After the Alco-GE partnership dissolved in the 1950s, why didn't Alco simply make its own version of GE's traction motors, and electrical equipment, like EMD did?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask a couple of questions that have been nagging me for awhile.
Cris [8D]

First question - probably for the same reason we don't have any NYC Niagaras to admire. Money talks. A loco on display somewhere is a write off, and most RRs were more interested in the cash scrapping them would generate. That's why you don't see many older (pre WWII) locos preserved.
Second question - They may not have had the expertise to do it without violating patents. Or they may have seen the writing on the wall and decided to get while the getting was good. I'm pretty sure I've seen articles (and I'm sure there's at least one book) on the subject that can probably shed a lot more light.

[2c]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Cris Helt

I've got a couple of questions regarding Alco. First: why were none of C&NW's high-nosed ex N&W C628s preserved? Was C&NW more interested in getting as much money as possible for scrapping or trading in the locomotives?
Second: After the Alco-GE partnership dissolved in the 1950s, why didn't Alco simply make its own version of GE's traction motors, and electrical equipment, like EMD did?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask a couple of questions that have been nagging me for awhile.
Cris [8D]

First question - probably for the same reason we don't have any NYC Niagaras to admire. Money talks. A loco on display somewhere is a write off, and most RRs were more interested in the cash scrapping them would generate. That's why you don't see many older (pre WWII) locos preserved.
Second question - They may not have had the expertise to do it without violating patents. Or they may have seen the writing on the wall and decided to get while the getting was good. I'm pretty sure I've seen articles (and I'm sure there's at least one book) on the subject that can probably shed a lot more light.

[2c]

[Anonymous]

I've got a couple of questions regarding Alco. First: why were none of C&NW's high-nosed ex N&W C628s preserved? Was C&NW more interested in getting as much money as possible for scrapping or trading in the locomotives?
Second: After the Alco-GE partnership dissolved in the 1950s, why didn't Alco simply make its own version of GE's traction motors, and electrical equipment, like EMD did?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask a couple of questions that have been nagging me for awhile.
Cris [8D]

[Anonymous]

I've got a couple of questions regarding Alco. First: why were none of C&NW's high-nosed ex N&W C628s preserved? Was C&NW more interested in getting as much money as possible for scrapping or trading in the locomotives?
Second: After the Alco-GE partnership dissolved in the 1950s, why didn't Alco simply make its own version of GE's traction motors, and electrical equipment, like EMD did?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask a couple of questions that have been nagging me for awhile.
Cris [8D]

[BentnoseWillie]

QUOTE: The RS-10 may have been only built in Canada, and was really an RS-11 with the 244 engine.

the RS10 was indeed Canada-only. It was an RS18 with a 244, built to satisfy demand for roadswitchers between the end of RS3 production in Montreal and the beginning of RS18 production.

The RS18 was more or less identical mechanically to the RS11, but has a different carbody. The biggest (but not only) spotting feature distinguising an RS10 or RS18 from an RS11 is that the notches in the top corners of the hoods of an RS11 are absent from the MLW models.

[BentnoseWillie]

QUOTE: The RS-10 may have been only built in Canada, and was really an RS-11 with the 244 engine.

the RS10 was indeed Canada-only. It was an RS18 with a 244, built to satisfy demand for roadswitchers between the end of RS3 production in Montreal and the beginning of RS18 production.

The RS18 was more or less identical mechanically to the RS11, but has a different carbody. The biggest (but not only) spotting feature distinguising an RS10 or RS18 from an RS11 is that the notches in the top corners of the hoods of an RS11 are absent from the MLW models.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The last Schenectady-built locomotives were Newburgh & South Shore 1018-1019, both were T6's.

Peter was one step ahead of me in reminding everybody else about ongoing production under license by DLW in India. One of the reasons that Alco's are still built under license in India was that back in the 1960's, Indian Railways sampled locomotives from both EMD (GT16C's) and Alco (DL-500 & DL-560), but only Alco was willing to grant a production license to DLW.

Paul

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The last Schenectady-built locomotives were Newburgh & South Shore 1018-1019, both were T6's.

Peter was one step ahead of me in reminding everybody else about ongoing production under license by DLW in India. One of the reasons that Alco's are still built under license in India was that back in the 1960's, Indian Railways sampled locomotives from both EMD (GT16C's) and Alco (DL-500 & DL-560), but only Alco was willing to grant a production license to DLW.

Paul

[M636C]

Of course, if you count Alco and subsidiaries, the last unit was DL535E, White Pass and Yukon 114, built in Montreal. Some of the earlier version WP&Y DL535Es were sent from Schenectady to Montreal for completion, and they might count as the last units "Built at Schenectady".

If you count licence construction, they are still building DL-560s in India to Alco design.

Peter

[M636C]

Of course, if you count Alco and subsidiaries, the last unit was DL535E, White Pass and Yukon 114, built in Montreal. Some of the earlier version WP&Y DL535Es were sent from Schenectady to Montreal for completion, and they might count as the last units "Built at Schenectady".

If you count licence construction, they are still building DL-560s in India to Alco design.

Peter

[espeefoamer]

The last ALCo diesel built was a T6.I assume the next to last was the same model.

[espeefoamer]

The last ALCo diesel built was a T6.I assume the next to last was the same model.

[adrianspeeder]

Pop ALCO quiz time!!!
What was the second to last and last diesel locomotives to leave the alco plant?
Extra Credit: Where is that second to last loco now?

Everybody stop looking off of your neighbors paper and turn them in at the end of class.

Adrianspeeder

[adrianspeeder]

Pop ALCO quiz time!!!
What was the second to last and last diesel locomotives to leave the alco plant?
Extra Credit: Where is that second to last loco now?

Everybody stop looking off of your neighbors paper and turn them in at the end of class.

Adrianspeeder

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

David and Peter,
The re-powering binge of the late 1950's resulted in some odd-looking locomotives. SLSF and MKT both had RS2/3's re-powered by EMD with an appearance similar to RI's RS2's 450-454. C&NW had an RS3 fitted with a 251 engine and an RS11-type long hood. Alco also installed 251 engines in WAB H24-66's (Train Masters), but their appearance was unchanged except for the exhaust stacks.

Paul

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

David and Peter,
The re-powering binge of the late 1950's resulted in some odd-looking locomotives. SLSF and MKT both had RS2/3's re-powered by EMD with an appearance similar to RI's RS2's 450-454. C&NW had an RS3 fitted with a 251 engine and an RS11-type long hood. Alco also installed 251 engines in WAB H24-66's (Train Masters), but their appearance was unchanged except for the exhaust stacks.

Paul

[M636C]

Dave,

In fact the 251 was slightly taller than the 244, but only about six inches taller. Some RS-3s were rebuilt with 251 engines, with only a small alteration in the height of the long hood. Often the short hood was lowered at the same time, making the change even harder to see.

The RS-10 had the 244 engine anyway, so that wasn't the reason in that case. Partly it was a matter of styling, partly it allowed more room for larger vertical radiators, and it did allow the fitting of so called "bathtub" dynamic brake units above the engine, as had been done in some cab units earlier, including the export DL-500 type.

I did see some rebuilt RS-2s on the Rock Island, switching at Blue Island. It didn't seem that odd, but of course they had C-415s there as well, and even stranger things in other places and other times.

Peter

[M636C]

Dave,

In fact the 251 was slightly taller than the 244, but only about six inches taller. Some RS-3s were rebuilt with 251 engines, with only a small alteration in the height of the long hood. Often the short hood was lowered at the same time, making the change even harder to see.

The RS-10 had the 244 engine anyway, so that wasn't the reason in that case. Partly it was a matter of styling, partly it allowed more room for larger vertical radiators, and it did allow the fitting of so called "bathtub" dynamic brake units above the engine, as had been done in some cab units earlier, including the export DL-500 type.

I did see some rebuilt RS-2s on the Rock Island, switching at Blue Island. It didn't seem that odd, but of course they had C-415s there as well, and even stranger things in other places and other times.

Peter

[Kozzie]

Thanks Peter [:)][;)] RS-10 /RS-11 it is. The raised hood was basically due to larger engines??

Thanks drephpe [:)][;)] I ckecked out that web site. First impression is: very strange - but must have served the purpose.

Hmmmm...morphodite...hmmm...something that undergoes a change in shape..I gues..???

Dave