GE made the electrical componenents for Alco (which Alco was dependent upon and which GE was required to provide), so Alco was just as good as GE from the electrical end. Of course, everything else being equal, Alco couldn't obtain the profit margin GE could get because GE profited on sales to Alco. The reason railroads became dissatisfied with Alco was because of the unreliability and high maintenance cost of its diesel engines. Alco had also become a "minor player" in the locomotive field, so I assume it couldn't obtain the "economies of scale" its competitors had, thus losing its competitiveness, with the corollary effect of inadequate resources for the R&D needed to improve its diesels. Thus, a deathly spiral.
Mark
If Alco's products were so problematic then why do some shortlines run them to this day? I believe Arkansas & Missouri is (or was until very recently) completely Alco. Ottawa Central, a progressive Canadian shortline runs primarly RS-18s and a couple of C424s. And there's a regional in NY (the name escapes me now) that even runs MLW M630s and 636s...an all Alco line too!!
Ulrich wrote: If Alco's products were so problematic then why do some shortlines run them to this day? I believe Arkansas & Missouri is (or was until very recently) completely Alco. Ottawa Central, a progressive Canadian shortline runs primarly RS-18s and a couple of C424s. And there's a regional in NY (the name escapes me now) that even runs MLW M630s and 636s...an all Alco line too!!
Probably because the physical demands were much lower on the shortlines. Anyway, see this lengthy treatise about ALCo's decline:
http://utahrails.net/loconotes/alco-v-emd.php
Thanks alot for that link...very interesting reading. I'm surprised that even in the mid 1940s...a full ten years after the introduction of the FT by EMC...senior Alco managers still believed that steam had a future.
The article also serves as a bit of a warning to corporations today who believe out sourcing everything other than core competencies is the order of the day. That's what Alco did with the electrical equipment...and that's why Alco was unable to gain technological leadership in this market.
I disagree with the premise in the article from Don Strack's webpage that ALCO had the financial wherewithal to finance competitive diesel locomotive development in the 1930s. During the Decade of the 30s ALCO lost money in seven of ten years. See The American Locomotive Company A Centennial Remembrance Chapter VI page 182 by Richard Steinbrenner.
"Depression era R&D funding at ALCO was very limited, and to further obstruct technical progress, in the late 1930s engineering management of the Diesel Engine Division underwent frequent turnover. Therefore it took the introduction of the FT to finally energize a high priority development effort in 1940 at Auburn for a high output 12-cylinder V-type engine." . . . Steinbrenner page 179.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.