Were there any major features that the EMD geeps had that their competitor Alco RS2s and RS3s didn’t have? Just asking because the geep hoods were so much taller than the early alco road switchers, which basically look like stretched out yard switchers with slimmer hoods. Or was this just a technical thing (one longer/wider than the other based on engine size,etc.).
The prime mover in each is very similar in physical size. The principle difference was because EMD chose to arrange the dynamic brake assembly and radiators above the engine, whereas Alco chose to arrange these component at one end. That required a taller hood for the EMD.
RWM
Don’t forget the EMD’s included reliability with their locomotives. 
I was thinking last night of typing “employs fewer mechanics and clerks to order more parts” but decided to be charitable given the season …
RWM
Always being the bigger man. In my very limited expierance with alco RS units, they really were not that bad, easy on fuel, could out lug an EMD, but you had better not get too far from a shop.
The Alco 1500 hp RS2 started product just after WWII, and was a ‘bigger/better’ follow-on to the 1000 hp RS1. It featured a new turbocharged V12 ‘244’ series engine, and had a small fuel tank under the cab floor, similar to previous Alco switcher products. The GE ‘air cooled’ turbo charger had a habit of launching itself out of the exhaust stack.
The EMD 1500 hp GP7 was a 1949 design and was EMD’s first ‘full size’ road switcher. It used the proven V16 ‘567’ power plant and could carry all of the extra features of a standard F unit, but cost less.
By 1950, the RS2 was superceeded by the 1600 hp RS3 model. This addressed the small fuel tank issue by moving to the underbody. The RS3 could have both D/B and a S/G in the smaller hood if it was raised’(Hammerhead’ configuration). The ‘244’ series engine was still an issue, and Alco started a new project.
In 1956, the 1800 hp RS11 was introduced. This had a new V12 ‘251’ series engine and the hoods were full height like EMD. Sales were not good, as two things conspired against it:
-
Railroads were basically ‘dieselized’ by then
-
A recession by 1958 stalled sales, even for EMD
Jim Bernier
Jim said:Railroads were basically ‘dieselized’ by then.
Actually Alco’s maintenance problems didn’t help any either.The RS11 was no match for EMD’s GP9s as far as dependability…Alco was loosing the locomotive race to a superior locomotive.
As far as the lowly RS1 it was in Alco’s sales book till 1960.The RS2 was in the book from '46-'50.
The 244 had a nasty habit of snapping crankshafts and shelling bearings. The air cooled turbos had the undesireable habit of self destructing under load. The later 251 series was a marked improvement, by then it was too little to late to save Alco.
EMD employed the proven V16-567B assembly in a compact, verstile , cheaper package that could be optioned without resorting to major design modifications. Popularity of the GP7 forced several roads to cancel or postpone orders due to over optimistic production schedules. It took 16 months for production to catch up with demand, but not before Baldwin, FM and Alco had recieved an infusion of fresh orders.
EMD was not ignorant to the emerging technology of turbocharging, it was loath to risk its reputation for relibilty at a time when steam was being replaced wholesale. Although EMD was leary of turbocharging the mechanical folks over at the Union Pacifc had no such quams, they installed Air Research turbos on several geeps, based upon UP reserarch, EMD developed the 576C block, designed with turbocharging in mind. these “Omaha Geeps” spurred developement of the GP-20 at a time when EMD was lagging behind in sales.
Dave
EMD also had great service reps both for training in employees on the new engines, and going out in the field to the railroad if any GM product had a problem. They also had a very liberal trade-in policy, and would take most any engine the railroad could drag to an interchange site.