In the era of first generation diesels, it’s been written often, that many railroads purchased some ALCO diesels just to make sure EMD had some competition. I’ve read that some of the roads continued to buy a few, even when the EMD’s proved to be a better performing machine.
Why, then, did some roads embrace ALCO’s to such a great extent? SP&S, D&H(?) and Lehigh Valley(I think), are three that come to mind. They seemingly liked what they bought, and bought more. What did they see in them that others didn’t?
The same could be said for PRSL with Baldwins and VGN and P&WV with FM’s.
A lot of it may have to do with parts standardization and expertise from a shop staff that’s much more familiar with maintaining them since they weren’t minority makes or oddballs on those roads.
The New Haven was a big-time loyal ALCO customer.
ALCO’s were reliable, top of the line products. The NH didn’t have the crankshaft problems other roads had with the 244.
Once they started it worked well for work-force and parts standardization to remain with a primary supplier.
The one railroad that I know of that bought strictly ALCo in the Steam and Diesel eras was the Late Green Bay and Western and sister road, KGB&W.
The D&H made ALCO buys also because they were an online manufactuer, they didnt have to look far for locomotives because they were built right in Schenectady along the main D&H branch.
Lehigh Valley used to put out bids for new power when required, to ease the process of getting the power they wanted at the best possible price. This was the source of the Valley’s Alco fleet. Alco usually underbid EMD for comparable units. Then too, if the Valley wrote the proposal right, the Alco order, or an EMD order would be OK’d by parent PRR or PC prior to bankruptcy and the court and trustees after bankruptcy. The only Alcos LV regretted getting were the ex-Monon C628s, 633-641. They beat the[:0][censored][X-)][sigh]out of the under maintained LV trackage, especially west of Sayre, and on the curves in the road’s namesake valley.
There seems to be alot of Alcos still operating given their age. I am particularly enamored toward diesels, so I am not particularly interested in learning much about them unless its a specific question-so,why are so many Alcos still operating? Seems pretty remarkable-is it durability? Operating cost?
Durability is the key here, Alco built their locomotives to last, except for some C430s,C630s and C636s which had self-destructing aluminum wiring! That was a too long test in search of less expensive wiring, that hurt all the builders from 1966-75! Ask UP about their U50Cs, espically![B)]
Another question-If they were more durable-would that not make them less expensive in the long run if properly maintained? Or was it in technological advances that Alco failed to keep up with?
Well I’m not sure what you mean…“enamored” means “to be in love with” ("en amor " in French) so I would think you would be very interested in them ?? [;)]
Are there really are that many Alco’s still around?? The ones that are garner a lot of publicity so it might seem that there are a lot, but really it’s a pretty small number - maybe 100 or less?? (Not talking about operating RR museums etc., just actual everyday freight haulers.) Here in Mpls St.Paul I think MN Commercial owns 5-6 Alco’s (or MLW’s), they are the only Alcos in this area out of maybe 1000 total. Soo Line used GP-9’s until the end, in fact, I believe some are still in use on CP Rail. BNSF still has SD-9’s in use. Comparable Alco’s like RS-3’s, RS-11’s etc. are long gone.
Wasn’t it also on the Erie Mainline, or am I thinking of someone else?
ALCO built a very rugged and reliable locomotive. Even the PA-1 with the troublesome 244 prime mover, performed well in many circumstances. The PA was a superb climber, and had a very sturday and dependable electrical system(GE).The problems with the 244 prime mover, were largely corrected by the 251 power plant. However, by this time, word of the 244’s problems had pretty well spread industry wide.
Did conrail order ALCO engines when she was born?
ALCO wasn’t on the Erie main, but they did have a lot of them. I remember their F’s had a very distinctive whistling sound, probably the turbocharger. Erie also ran a few PA’s, some in black and yellow and some in their two-tone green passenger colors.
Today the old Erie still hosts a fleet of ALCOs on the Western New York and Pennsylvania RR. C424s are the usual power and there is a C630 sitting in the yard at Falconer, NY. They range from Hornell to Meadville and also on the newly acquired Rouses Point branch in PA .
The Minnesota Dakota and Western has a few S-2’s.
I never thought of Conrail as having a gender!
ALCO stopped taking orders in 1968, I think and Conrail was not formed until later. Penn Central ordered some of ALCO’s last production, some C636 locomotives, which were used by Conrail, of course.
M636C
The most loyal ALCO customer had to have been the Spokane Portland & Seattle. They pretty much only bought ALCOs, including, i believe, 10 C636s. BC Rail and Cartier both owned MLWs not too long ago.
My favorite revenue-producing ALCOs are on the Apache Ry. In Holbrook AZ. They have some RS-18s and C420s, though don’t quote me on it. The Green and White scheme kicks ***.
BTW-What is the current status of the 2 PAs? I would travel several states to seem one run (preferebly in warbonnet but NKP is OK, i guess…)
If what I’ve read in history is correct, when GE decided to enter the mainline locomotive business, they stopped supplying ALCO with the latest designs of electrical gear, so from that standpoint ALCO would’ve fallen behind the technology curve.
As logical as that sounds, the reality was quite the opposite!
GE sold alternators to ALCO for use in the C430 and C630 while GE themselves stuck with the GT586 generator in the early U28s, the generator being the thing that kept the power to 2750HP.
The MLW M-Line locomotives, M630 and M636, sometimes had equipment more advanced than the contemporary U boats and early Dash 7s. GE was happy to sell their equipment to ALCO and MLW, and only stopped selling when MLW stopped ordering!
M636C
EMD (GM) had the best service, field representation, and most reliable diesels, especially before supercharging became usual. Alco’s GE electricals were superior, and both the diesel and the electcricals could take more abuse, overload, before quiting or frying. But Alco’s field representation wasn’t as widespread in quantity, and the prime movers were reputed to be tougher to maintain. In certain specific areas, like wheel slip detection, GM was suprerior, but Alco in others.