Steve_F 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
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
So what you are saying, or what your linked article is saying, is that ALCo was in reality making a GE locomotive as the relied upon the GE electrical gear. ALCo had, say, 20 percent of the market, but then GE decided they "wanted in" and then they drove ALCo out and took over that 20 percent of the market?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Going back a bit on this thread. The reason the Alco PA's were not liked on the D&RGW was simply that it is was the wrong locomotive for the job. FA's would have been a better choice. The PA's were built for high speed service on fairly level track, not for a mountain railroad, which usually gets best results from diesels with all axles powered. Thus the EMD F-units were a better choice. But note that four units were usual for the CZ. Th Alco passenger locos continued in reliable service on the Yampa Valle Mail, Joint-iine trains and the Scenic-Limited - Royal Gorge, and occasionally on the Prospector, all shorter and lighter trains.
Paul Milenkovic So what you are saying, or what your linked article is saying, is that ALCo was in reality making a GE locomotive as the relied upon the GE electrical gear. ALCo had, say, 20 percent of the market, but then GE decided they "wanted in" and then they drove ALCo out and took over that 20 percent of the market?
That's always been my understanding.
GVT loves their ALCo's. Adirondack Scenic has two RS18u's on line, and they're working on getting RS3 8223 back on line as well. They're good locomotives.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
A real question in my mind is why so many late model ALCOs are still running when so few U-Boats are. Since ALCO was using GE electrical equipment what were the first generation GEs so bad at?
LensCapOn A real question in my mind is why so many late model ALCOs are still running when so few U-Boats are. Since ALCO was using GE electrical equipment what were the first generation GEs so bad at?
It isn't so much the electrical equipment as it is parts availability for the prime movers. I've gotten the impression that it's easier to get parts for 251's than it is for earlier FDL's.
Couple of things I read years ago in TRAINS:
Since Alco knew they had less of the diesel locomotive market than GM, they made a big effort to use parts other than prime movers, generators and traction motors (small parts) that were available on the open market, maybe even primarily used in other industries, for better parts availability. That could explain why so many older Alco's are still running.
Another article discussed the amount of maintenance required by early GM, Alco, Baldwin and Lima-Hamilton diesels. If the amount of maintenance required by a GM locomotive was a 1, an Alco took about 1.5 and one of the other makes took somewhere between 1.5 and 4, and the other took 4. In other words, an Alco took about 1.5 times the amount of maintenance that a GM loco did, and one of the other makes took about 4 times the maintenance a GM loco did. If accurate, explains why Lima-Hamilton and Baldwin didn't last long in the diesel locomotive business.
All this is according to memory, and corrections by anyone willing to dig up those articles (or with a better memory!) is welcome.
i knew a guy who was a mechanic for the Milwaukee Road, He said the GE engines didn't load like EMD or ALCOS, Therefore they don't do well in switching, which is what second hand or demoted units usually do. But they could run with the best of them. He said that's why on the Milwaukee they generally used on the transcontinental trains where they could stretch their legs, Even the U-18s were a valiant try, but they didn't work out too well. Ken used to say that you can switch with an SD45 if you have to, where a "U-Boat you put it in Run-8, put your feet up on the control stand and pull it back when you get to Seattle. That's all they''re good for."
Alco certainly had some inventive foresight in being the first with the idea of a "road-switcher" diesel, which all diesels became.
daveklepper Going back a bit on this thread. The reason the Alco PA's were not liked on the D&RGW was simply that it is was the wrong locomotive for the job. FA's would have been a better choice. The PA's were built for high speed service on fairly level track, not for a mountain railroad, which usually gets best results from diesels with all axles powered. Thus the EMD F-units were a better choice. But note that four units were usual for the CZ. Th Alco passenger locos continued in reliable service on the Yampa Valle Mail, Joint-iine trains and the Scenic-Limited - Royal Gorge, and occasionally on the Prospector, all shorter and lighter trains.
I must respectfully disagree.
It is well documented in the various Alco PA books, including "PA Alco's Glamour Girl" that at the time of introduction, the Alco PA-1 was superior to the current EMD offering, the F-3, in mountain service. The Alco PA had a stronger acceleration curve and the dynamic brakes as tested by Santa Fe were much better than what EMD had in the F-3. That is why Santa Fe and Southern Pacific placed large multiple orders for this locomotive model.
The PA was better in the mountains than the F-3, and forced EMD to go back to the drawing board, which did result in the F-7, which could be argued as being superior to the PA-1.
Remember, this was all before they were in service long enough for the turbocharger and crankshaft issues to destroy Alco's reputation. As later well documented in the RS-27 book, the stigma of poor performance of the Alco PA on Santa Fe continued to be very damaging to both Alco and GE during the 1960's.
Respectfully submitted--
John
I preface my further comments here by saying that since I was 5 years old, I loved Alco locomotives--just even the look of Century Series units, as well as the powerful sound--at least until recently.
While Mr. Colangelo and others are able to provide high quality maintenance to their units to keep them operating very well in their current service, I have read rather extensively the comments of other railroad operating officials that provide different viewpoints.
Whether it's the various publications by Withers Publishing (including Diesel Era magazine), or the publications authored by Joe Strapac (the Southern Pacific Historic Diesels series), it has become clear that even the Alco Centuries just did not hold up in demanding Class 1 Railroad service.
Southern Pacific and Cotton Belt gave Alco chance after chance, even after other railroads totally gave up on Alco power. They purchased fairly sizable (compared to others) fleets of many Alco models--and the Alcos just could not hold up in the demanding mountain service that SP had, or in the high speed fast freight service on the Cotton Belt. Santa Fe got decent service out of RSD-15's, but on the Cotton Belt, where they ran at higher speeds, there were overheating problems.
In fairness to Alco, the GE U-boats up to and including U33C's also didn't hold up as well in the demanding service of the SP as EMD's, but they held up better than Alco, and that was all that was necessary...for all too many roads, as the market would only support two manufacturers.
I also reject the notion that Class 1 maintenance people willingly "undermaintained" Alcos relative to EMD's. More than one former railroad official has debunked those assertions in the various Withers Publishing books by offering that they would never do that when they got called on the carpet by management every time a diesel failed on an important train.
The story of Alco is a textbook account of how not to manage an American manufacturing company. The arrogance and/or self delusion of their management was remarkable. Trains did a very informative issue about the historic failure some years ago--it's the one containing the IC C636 article.
ALCo's biggest problem is they let the internal politics rule their engine decisions rather than the engineers. The 239 was a good engine, the 241 was a product of a different engineering group that 'won' the ears of the management over the other who didn't. The result was an engine that had a couple of major flaws (mainly the crankshafts, which seemed to snap like matchsticks under heavy use). That, and by not controlling the whole manufacturing process they were reliant on GE for their electrical technology. As Preston Cook pointed out in the E-Unit series in Railfan a few years back, ALCo thought of GE as a partner, then they sold to ALCo's competitors showing GE looked at ALCo as a customer. That left GE behind EMD and, when GE finally decided to go into business themselves, guess who got the latest and greatest, and who didn't. Though, the electrical gear (esp. the traction motors) in the early ALCo's and Baldwins for that matter, was considered superior to EMD's. That's why re-engining was given a try, the thought was to build an idea locomotive - and EMD engine with the GE traction motors/electricals. The cost was prohibitive in most cases because EMD and GE's trade-in programs made it so, but most of them lasted longer than their unconverted sisters, which says something to the thought behind the conversions.The PAs did give EMD a wake-up call, EMD had no dynamics in the E-7, which rushed the E-8 into high gear. That, and the realization that passenger traffic at that time was starting to wane, left most western railroads with the choice of F-Units for Passenger service because they were more suitable for conversion to freight service as passenger service inevitably decreased.Again, over simplification, but the issues in a nutshell...
Alco's qualities make them great for 'roads that have switching, car spotting, on-line pick-ups and set-outs, severe grades, limited budgets for fuel, that want to get the maximum performance from their engines.
Not writing about 244-engined engs, except firing and hostelling SP PA's, but the 251 engines...
EG. Out of Alameda, to the Fruitvale Ave bridge over the Estuary and to West Oak' with 32 loads of canned goods, this is early 1970's, thru a bunch of switches and hard left turns....an S-6.
The cop put the radar on me and reported to the Company that I was moving at 1 or 2 mph blocking him from responding to a call. 20 seconds for the gates to come down, then 2000 feet of cars and engine at between 8' and 16' feet a second...
EG. I worked (sugar) beet gon peddlers from San Luis Obispo often, I fired EMD GP and F powered trains and I fired Alco DL701 powered. Predominately winds came off the Pacific, from the west toward the east
I saw a 1- or maybe nearly 3 mph speed increase on the easier parts of the grade with the EMD's The Alco's in similar siruation would gain 3 or 5 mph at the same place on Cuesta.
Another EG. We'd leave after a pick-up, there was a 50 mph curve at the start of a descent not requiring braking. When we had a GP9, it was Th 8 thru the curve. When we had a DL701 with the same train (really close) I'd have to drop the throttle a couple of notches toavoid 6he speed constriction
Rode the A&M a couple of years ago and really got to see Alcos at work. Found out why they are called the steam of diesels. They put out a nice head of smoke for photo ops. And they seem to be around on other RR's, do see pics getting posted on Facebook in various areas. So they must be a great workhorse.
UP 4-12-2 I also reject the notion that Class 1 maintenance people willingly "undermaintained" Alcos relative to EMD's. More than one former railroad official has debunked those assertions in the various Withers Publishing books by offering that they would never do that when they got called on the carpet by management every time a diesel failed on an important train.
If that is true it is no wonder that the maintenance of locomotives was so poor on the Penn Central and in the early days of Conrail. There were few days in the Middle Division when the tower operators didn't have to bypass freights which had broken down in route. Apparently the maintenance people spent all thier time "on the carpet" rather than maintaining the equipment.
How is the ALCO S3 coming along? I live in Toronto and would love to go for a ride, I have many memories of them from when my dad worked for CN back in the day. Let me know of any scheduled runs, St Jacob's is not that far away!
Kahless the Unforgettable How is the ALCO S3 coming along? I live in Toronto and would love to go for a ride, I have many memories of them from when my dad worked for CN back in the day. Let me know of any scheduled runs, St Jacob's is not that far away!
It has been operable since January. We've been working on scraping out the old paint in the cab and give it a new coat and are planning to repaint the exterior next year. When I was working the shop one day, I got a cab ride in it while we did some shop switching and a brief run down the line. It definitely had the heart of an Alco.
Lone Geep
\
Paul Milenkovic Steve_F 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 So what you are saying, or what your linked article is saying, is that ALCo was in reality making a GE locomotive as the relied upon the GE electrical gear. ALCo had, say, 20 percent of the market, but then GE decided they "wanted in" and then they drove ALCo out and took over that 20 percent of the market?
1) Alco 251 engines and engine parts are 'relatively plentiful' in North America. In addition to the OEM, there are a number of domestic sources for new or RTO parts.
2) The three remaining fleet operators, (DL, A&M and LA&L), long ago committed to a high standard of maintenance.
3) Much of the GE material contained within these locos can be sourced either as new, reconditioned or RTO.
I note that Indian Railways operates over 4500 Alco-powered locos and has developed their own local sources for renewal parts. Some Asian, African and South American operators source some of their parts from India.
CPM500
RTO=Running Takeout
Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW) in India became an Alco licensee some time in the 1960's and has been building 251-powered locomotives ever since. I'm not sure who receives the licensing fees now.
As an aside, DLW is now also an EMD licensee.
DLW has stopped production of ALCo 251 based locos. They do build kits for reconditioning older locos to various workshops.
The current production at DLW is focused solely on EMD 16-710 and EMD 20-710 based locos.
I belatedly reply to UP4-12-2. You disagree? How? I did not say that D&RGW should have used EMD F3s instead of PAs. I said they should have used FAs instead of PAs. So why did you make the comparison with F3s? And any mountain railroad is better off with all axles powered. I surely agree with you about the comparison with F3s, and D&RGW went to EMD`Fs for the CZ`only when the F7 was available, an improved product as you pointed out. I also did point out that they generally used four units vs. three for the PAs. I don't disagree with your facts. They are the same as what I tried to say.
daveklepper I belatedly reply to UP4-12-2. You disagree? How? I did not say that D&RGW should have used EMD F3s instead of PAs. I said they should have used FAs instead of PAs. So why did you make the comparison with F3s? And any mountain railroad is better off with all axles powered. I surely agree with you about the comparison with F3s, and D&RGW went to EMD`Fs for the CZ`only when the F7 was available, an improved product as you pointed out. I also did point out that they generally used four units vs. three for the PAs. I don't disagree with your facts. They are the same as what I tried to say.
Did any U.S class 1 railroads operate FA/FB-1s in passenger service?
I know the later FA/B-2 was used as passenger power, it was built on a longer frame with room for a steam generator.
And of course the later 251 engined FPA-4 was widely used up North by CN.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Not all Alco/MLW products were bad. Apparently the RS-18 was a winner, which is why they continue to soldier on at the Ontario Southland. Ironically the RS-18s that are used here.. (yup, right here in Guelph) were also the ones that I used to see as a kid way WAY back in the 1970s in Sherbrooke, QC. They're like old friends to me, although they got a chopped nose back in the early 80's they're much the same as when they left MLW.
Unfortunately MLW's 244 engine had a bad reputation for unreliability, and that sealed MLW's fate.. even the RS-18's success couldn't overcome the builder's reputation. CP and CN gave MLW one last chance in the early 70s when the M630 and M636 were introduced. Had those models been successful MLW could very well still be in business today. After all, both CN and CP were shopping for new locomotives in a big way: CP decided on the SD40-2 after initially favoring the M630 (for pulling power), and CN went for the GP40-2W in a big way, with a smaller order of SD40-2Ws for the West. The M series could have been MLW's saving grace but instead sealed the locomotive builder's fate. Even Bombardier couldn't save it.
The M series did have one important feature that is worth noting (and that could have swayed CN to put in a large order: the three axle Dofasco truck has a very short wheelbase, thereby minimizing track damage on CN's notoriously sharp curves throughout northern Quebec and Ontario. I'm sure that Dofasco truck was designed with CN in mind as it was common knowledge that CN was not happy with their huge fleet of SD40s for this reason. Again... MLW had the order in their grasp if only the product could have been more reliable. Sad.. now we have no locomotive manufacturers in Canada when some 40 years we had three.
Ulrich The M series did have one important feature that is worth noting (and that could have swayed CN to put in a large order): the three axle Dofasco truck has a very short wheelbase, thereby minimizing track damage on CN's notoriously sharp curves throughout northern Quebec and Ontario. I'm sure that Dofasco truck was designed with CN in mind as it was common knowledge that CN was not happy with their huge fleet of SD40s for this reason. Again... MLW had the order in their grasp if only the product could have been more reliable. Sad.. now we have no locomotive manufacturers in Canada when some 40 years we had three.
The M series did have one important feature that is worth noting (and that could have swayed CN to put in a large order): the three axle Dofasco truck has a very short wheelbase, thereby minimizing track damage on CN's notoriously sharp curves throughout northern Quebec and Ontario. I'm sure that Dofasco truck was designed with CN in mind as it was common knowledge that CN was not happy with their huge fleet of SD40s for this reason. Again... MLW had the order in their grasp if only the product could have been more reliable. Sad.. now we have no locomotive manufacturers in Canada when some 40 years we had three.
I have a copy of a technical report regarding lateral forces in curves, comparing MLW and EMD trucks on the CN. There is no doubt that MLW designed that truck for CN, and that it worked as advertised.
A point often missed is that the highest lateral forces are often caused by the leading axle of the trailing truck. It was this axle that derailed on many of the SDP40F derailments that led to the withdrawal of that type.
The MLW design has the pivot point between the leading (or outer) two axles and this increases the lever arm on the trailing axle and reduces the force that the truck can apply through the lead axle of the trailing truck to the outer rail in a curve. The tests on CN showed that this was correct.
This truck was introduced on the C630M and was used on all subsequent six axle MLW units (well, those built in Canada) and was introduced before Alco adopted their Hi-Ad on C630 and C636 units.
What is hard to believe is that MLW couldn't get the cooling system to work on the M630s and M636s. Canada isn't known for really high temperatures, but enlarged header tanks were needed to keep M636s working, even though their radiators were 33% bigger than the C636. In Australia, the MLW radiators were ignored and a much more effective contra flow double pass radiator was applied to all M636s and these remained in service through the 1990s. The central air system was too complex, and some CN units received new air intakes close to the turbocharger with new paper air filters.
But the MLW trucks are still being made for export units. The "Atchison 5650" design on NREC and Motive Power units for Australia are simply the export version of the M630 truck. 5650 is the MLW drawing number. Although they don't look similar the standard domestic GE truck uses the same secondary suspension as the MLW design, something GE picked up when the bought MLW from Bombardier.
At the time the M630 and M636 were introduced, their detail design wasn't much worse than the GE U series. But GE put the time and effort in and their locomotives now are much more reliable. If MLW had tried harder to to make their units more reliable in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they might still be in business. The HR series were too late and the 251 Plus was, if anything less reliable than the 251F. I know of two 16-251Plus that were rebuilt in 2007 as 251 F because every single "improved" cylinder head was found on inspection to be cracked.
M636C
Hello there,
at least the Greek export MLWs had the Dofasco trucks (MX627 and MX636). These were produced during 1974-1975, if I remember correctly, and still soldering around Greek mainlines, after being rebuilt.
This sample video shows one of the rebuilt MX627 locomotives along a German V.60: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlWydN6qXb8
The ALCo 251F engine is another major asset. I *think* that these were rebuilt as 251 Plus later, but I am not certain.
Cheers,
N.F.
Jim: I'm from the Buffalo, NY area and we used to see Alcos but haven't for some time now. "Take pictures while you can" is good advice. On a 1984 train-watching trip tp Wisconsin, we went to the GB&W engine shop and got a tour of the shop. Upon leaving, a local freight with an ALCO engine in the lead put on quite a turbo smoke demo for us.
Dave Zaenglein
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.