I’ve seen a lot of threads about how railfans and modelers love ALCO diesels. I wonder about the railroads themselves?
If I am to believe things I’ve read, it appears that EMD had the superior product, better technical back-up, better marketing department, and deep enough pockets to plain bury ALCO, starting way back when they both entered the diesel market. Eventually, of course, they did.
What was it about the ALCOs, then, that made some railroads so loyal to them? I seem to recall that SP&S, D&H, Erie(?), and Lehigh Valley(?), among others, being very into ALCOs for a long time. Why?
They were not the most technically superior product on the market but could they haul heavy mineral drags. Yes they are long gone out of the Pilbara in Western Australia but those of us who saw them shake the earth as they marched up the Chicester Ranges will never forget them. In their time they were the best of the best.
There was a column in TRAINS (Locomotive) sometime in 2007 or 2006 about the railroads with Alcos. All of the all-Alco roads really liked them, because they are very good locomotives if you have the parts to keep them running.
Alco and Baldwin were long-time steam manufacturers, many railroads who had had positive experiences with them in steam days continued to buy from them when diesels came along.
Plus most railroads were used to buying from a variety of builders depending who was available to do the work for them, so in the space of five years a railroad in the twenties might buy 20 2-8-2’s from Lima, 15 4-8-2’s from Baldwin, and some 0-8-0 switchers from Alco. All were built to company specs, unlike diesels which were like buying a car - you picked the model that worked best for your needs and the bought it “off the shelf”. So when diesels came, many railroads continued to buy from several manufacturers - partly because after WW2 there was a rush to dieselize, with EMD having a backlog of a year or two at one point I believe.
I’ve heard railroaders say that Baldwins and Alcos were superior haulers to EMD engines, but the EMD engines were easier to maintain and keep available to work, and that eventually was the deciding factor in going with EMD over other builders in later purchases.
This is speculation by me as to cause, but at the risk of over generalizing, railroad shop forces in the early 1950s were having to learn the foibles and characteristics of EMD, Fairbanks Morse, Baldwin, ALCo, and in some instances Lima Hamilton. That was a lot to ask of guys who were probably mostly steam trained. My guess is that EMD had the fewest foibles.
It was also a lot of expense and effort to keep all those parts on hand. ALCo engines and design had their issues but it seems that railroads that tried to keep parts inventories for all the major makes and have shop forces equipped and trained to deal with all the makes tired of ALCo versus EMD while roads like the Green Bay & Western which basically committed to being virtually all ALCo early on did not.
Although ALCO never had a very big piece of the diesel market compared to EMD, it was the ending of the ALCO/GE partnership and the entering of GE into the domestic market that brought about the end of ALCO as a locomotive builder. Had this not happened it is possible that ALCO could still be in business to this day, albeit as a small player, because the railroads did not want to be tied to only one manufacturer. The company I work for uses 2 ALCO switchers, one built in 1940 and one in 1954. They are very good locomotives and they should be around for years to come.
I grew up in Quebec in the 1970s…so first generation MLW motive power on both CP and CN were dominant. CN used GP9s on it’s St. Lawrence and Atlantic line as well…but RS-18s and RS-10s were the rule with an occassional DW&P or CV RS-11 in the mix. CP used to mix F7A and Bs with there Alco consist, making for an interesting lashup… i.e. RS-3 leading…F7B…followed by an RS-18.
THe 251 engine has been quite reliable as is evidenced by the number of them still in service.
SP&S Northerns & Challengers were built by Alco(their only ‘new’ steam power). Alco was a natural choice for them. Also, Alco engines were priced less than EMD.
Alcos are great to see in person, almost like a celebrity sometimes. I’ve rode in them and can definitely appreciate them. In the latter half of the 60s apparently there just wasn’t room for more than two major builders, and Alcos numbers, as can be seen in any of the Diesel Spotters Guides, were minimal compared to GE and EMD. Their last big hope, the Century series, never seemed to quite catch on though I have seen a few articles about people who ran them and had a long list of problems. Alco also, as pointed out in an article a few years back in Trains, failed to embrace the diesel revolution right away, feeling there was still a market for steam even after many railroads had foresaken it. It would be interesting to see what it would be like if they were still around. Their Canadian division, MLW, was around a long time after they went out I believe.
Overall, EMD’s were a superior product. The EMD 567 engine was the best in railroading.
However, Alcos were better heavy pullers, especially on heavy grades. This was due to their
GE generators and traction motors. On my railroad, the New York Central, EMDs were the
desired engine everywhere except on the Boston & Albany with its mountain grades and
many curves.
The NYC was proud of their low profile, hence the “Water Level Route.” If I recall, they also never owned six motor or dynamic brake equipped units. Except for the B&A never really needed them.
The Adirondack Division has some grades approaching 2%, but it’s not like the trains they ran on it were any too big.
That line climbed from about 420’ above sea level at Utica to 2035’ at Big Moose (MP H69) - highest elevation on the entire NYC. It rose 265’ in the five miles between Carter Station and Big Moose - an average 1% grade, but the actual grade was around 2% in spots.
We use dynamics if we have them on our 10 mile run from Thendara to Otter Lake. Between MP 55.5 and 50 the elevation drops 230 feet…
The NYC used RS-3’s quite heavily on the line. We use one now, too…
The B&A does use EMD’s, but many of the locomotives used are GE’s. That line often has CSX’s AC600CWs on them. AC traction is useful on this line too; I’ve seen a train with just SD70Ms (with DC traction motors) come close to a stall on the (relatively small, compared to the actual Berkshires crossing) hill just west of Worcester, MA.
I bet the B&A is where the Alcos were last used in mainline service on the NYC, except for branch lines and yards.