I was wondering where CPR’s M640 ran 4744 what a powerful engine what was the horsepower on that thing
MLW’s M-640 (a one of a kind loco) was rated at 4000 horse power, this brute was powered with an 18cyl. 251F. Unfortunately, on the first run the 18-251F failed on the road. A crankshaft failure I believe. Just imagine what railroading today would be like today if the M-640 had been very sucessful, MLW/Bombardier might still be a viable player in the modern locomotive market.
What ever happend to KEVINS ALCO QUESTION???
HMMM???
One of the GM&O PAs was the unit that pulled the original Freedom Train in 1947.There was a plaque on the side stating this. I saw the plaque at the Casey Jones museum in 1967.
If I remember right the SD40s or SD40-2s also had a problem breaking the crankshafts. But there was more than one of them made.
The M640 started out even worse than you state. If failed in front of a lot of dignitaries while idling during the ceremony where it was being handed over to CP. NOT an auspicious beginning.
What your thinking of Jim is EMD’s SD45. The massive 20cyl. 645E3 block and 3,600 horsepower rating did not fair too well on the longer (and more prone to “snapping”) crankshaft. The SD45-2 did not have this problem as much due to refinements and modifications in the block and crankshaft designs.
This might come across as a dumb question, but 40 years after the fact my memory is dim. I was a kid hanging around the New York New Haven and Hartford Shoreline branch in Connecticut. The NH ran a daily way freight (God, I hope no present employee get fired over this) and I actually talked my way on board the locomotive while he did his switching in my home town. I remember it as having an NH deep orange/red nose with a handbrake wheel set in the middle of the high nose. The whistle cord (I got to blow it) dangled from the roof. I don’t remember much else about it except it wasn’t particularly noisy or smoky (my only comparison being E units the NH ran by at 40 miles an hour on the lead of THE PATRIOT) and that it had external brake cylinders that pushed rods that activated the brake shoes. This would have been circa 1967 or 68, right before the PC takeover. My question is, was that locomotive an ALCO road switcher? I think the cab ceiling MIGHT have been rounded, not angular…
Thanks!
One of Alco’s identifing features IS the rounded roof over the cab. On many of the short hood and long hood Alcos the hand brake was in the nose.
Eric: May have been an RS-11 (high nose) of New Haven’s 1400 class…4-RS-11’s made it briefly to CR before they left the roster for Mexico and other small railroads.
Thanks, guys. It wasn’t till recently I actually bought a book from Kalmbach that put actual nomenclatures and identifying features on the equipment I see running around here. I will never forget that locomotive ride- or being asked to duck under the window sill of the cab when a passenger train went by.
We need some more Alco questions. [8D]
John likes to answer them. And now his friend Nick will help answer some too.
So let those questions fly.
John,
How many Alco locomotives had fuel tanks integral with their frames? Locomotives I think were built with this feature were the C-855, the C-430, and in export units, the DL-560 and the Goodwin built DL-500G.
I assume that the export units were built that way to save weight, but that hardly seems a problem with the C-855 in particular.
Peter
Integral fuel tanks on North American design locomotives would be rare since cast frames are a thing of the past. Did the export designs mentioned above have a cast frame?
CSSHEGEWISCH is right. Also, I not sure if the C-430, and C-855 had cast frames. By then locomotive production was all welded frames, as there isn’t much need to save weight on a domestic unit(ie: need for tractive effort, etc.) , unless it is intended for light railed branch lines. The export units on the other hand, it is feasable that they would have had cast frames to conserve weight.
I heard some people talking about ALCo Prime Movers (244 and the 251), one said the 244 was better then the 251, and naturally the other person said the 251 was better. What was prime mover is really better?
The 251 engine was by far the better of the two. The 244 engine was one of Alco’s problems. Let me quote from Steinbrenner’s book “A Centennial Remembrance”, “By the end of 1945, the mininal laboratory testing performed did not support proceeding into production, skipping both more exhaustive laboratory testing, and, then, road testing, a sequence that could not be avoided or done in paralle.” He was referring to the 244 engine which was rushed into production. The 241 engine was available and one rational Alco engineer believed it could be further developed and put into production a full year ahead of the 244. But senior management insisted that the 244 begin production. (They felt it necessary to compete in the diesel market for locomotives.) This unfortunate decison was ultimately one of the nails in Alco’s coffin. The 244 suffered crankshaft problems thus also effecting the connecting rods and pistons. As I have stated before railroads have long memories and many of the railroads never forgave Alco of this problem. The Century Line proved to be an excellent line of locomotives but after the 244 problems many railroads never gave Alco another chance. The Century Line used the 251 engine. Today the remaining Century locos are a prize amoung short lines for their pulling ability.
Jim, your exactly right, crankshaft problems plagued the 244. However, (unfortunately) the 251 had some problems too, the majority of them just oil leaks in different areas, nothing that can’t be endured. Just give 'em a little TLC and they’ll just keep on working for you. [:D][;)]
Yes and the 241 also had some of the same problems. The 251 received much greater care and testing before being placed into service thus ensuring far fewer problems. Alco was excellent for having knowledgeable people in the field to assist the railroads with any problems they might have. Alco believed in trying its best to keep them runing after they left the factory.
Guys,
The integral fuel tanks are part of normal welded frames. The bottom plate of the frame curves smoothly down to the depth of the bottom of the fuel tank and back up to the normal frame depth. This can best be seen by comparing cross section drawings, often shown in operator’s manuals. In the “1970 Car and Loco Cyclopedia”, the C425 cutaway drawing is shown on page 885 and the C430 is shown on page 887. This provides a good direct comparison of conventional frames and the integral frames on generally similar units.
Drawings of the C-855 show the same shape of frame but it may have been used to increase the stiffness of such a big frame with twin engines.
I thought of this because yesterday I checked out a newly rebuilt GE, a double end boxcab unit using the integral frame of a DL 500G. In this unit, the tank had been enlarged by adding pannier tanks on the side, following the curve of the frame.
Peter