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.
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.
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.
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).
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".
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.