You can read it (or at least some of it) on line here:
This piece does not say that ALco had a “bad” locomotive but that its corporate culture was not good enough to sustain a good product. There are many who swear by Alco and many who swear at. Alco did provide some great power duirng the steam era and some good power durng the diesel years. So, to answer the quesiton about locomotives, pick a year, pick a model, pick a railroad, pick a MM, an pick a fireman, and pick an engineer: you’ll get a differing viewpoint from each.
Different viewpoints indeed! I’ve just finished reading a book called “Trackside along the Erie Railroad and its Connections” by Jim Kostibos, a veteran Erie engineer who retired from NJ Transit in 2000. He liked the RS series ALCO diesels, said they were fun to run and “as close as you could get to running a steam engine and still be running a diesel.” He HATED the PA series diesels however, calling them 'uncomfortable pieces of junk!" Sorry ALCO fans, his words, not mine!
In today’s technology world it looks like we are seeing the same implosion occurr with RIM, the creator of the Blackberry as it tries to compete in the Iphone marketplace.
Jack Welsh, formerly head of GE, used to say you’ve got to be first or second in any given maket to be able to survive in that market…i.e. there’s no room for a third place contender. Alco was in third place.
ALCO was actually 1st. But did not realize the significance and did not follow through.
Alco FELL to third place. Under steam, it was the leader. With diesels, it was teamed up with GE until GE pulled the plug. EMD became number one because of great marketing but also because the Federal Government put a hold on diesel development during WWII while allowing EMD to proceed with contracts in hand. GE had been making diesels on its own, mostly industrial types, then joined with Alco before going back on its own.
I still like Alcos…even though they were a tree huggers’s worst nightmare…
as a macheniest on at&sf I worked on some alcos some were really nasty & some were not we had rsd 15 the worst rsd 7 (turbo eaters) rsd 5 & 4 (really great road switchers per my dad who was a yard engineer) we also had pa s they also had an appatite for turbos seemed like the alco turbo was not big enough for more than 1600 to 1800 hp the 3 4 5 s all did well but pa s were 2000 hp & rsd 7 s were at 2400 hp all in all they spent to much time in the shop and used up too much money on parts
I thought the PA’s got their 2000 HP from two prime movers of 1000 HP each.
That describes Alco’s earlier DL-109, with a pair of 539 engines (used singly in the switcher line), and of course EMD’s E-units.
I thought the PA’s had a pair of 244’s. Railroads were still big on ‘limp in’ ability for passenger power when the PA’s were introduced.
The PA’s had a single 244 prime mover rated at 2,000HP. Had the 244 been more reliable, Alco could have wiped EMD out of the passenger market as a single engin locomotive is much cheaper to make than a twin engine design. It wasn’t uncommon for passenger trains to have more than 1 PA or E up front, so there would have been a form of limp home functionality.
One other PA advantage, the PA had 40" wheels while the E’s had 36" wheels, which allowed for a beefier traction motor.
The heavier electrical gear explains why a fair number of PA’s wound up in freight service as passenger schedules were discontinued.
My recollections stand corrected.
The PA also featured a very capable dynamic braking system, which EMD had yet to offer on E units at the time. That was a big factor in some railroads (Santa Fe, Southern Pacific) deciding to purchase PA’s.
The four D&H units were rebuilt with V12 251’s, and rated at 2400 HP. Doyle McCormack’s NKP 190 retains this configuration, but now contains a donor engine from a ex-BC Rail M420B
My guess is there’s more Alcos RS and Centuries still in operating condition than GE’s first generation Universal series.
There are, but a lot of that is shortlines that dieselized with first generation Alco castoffs found it natural to transition to second generation models when those were sold off. GE’s switchers were different enough that railroads that had them didn’t tend to buy U-boats.
Alco’s failure also had a lot to do with its status as a relatively small outfit trying to compete with two major congolomorations that had the size and financing arms to make their locomotives cheaper than Alco could in an era where railroads were desperate.
The 244 had its problems, but Alco would’ve been fine had GE not entered the market.
MLW lasted a lot longer in Canada, where it was difficult for GE to compete due to tariffs on imported equipment (this is pre-NAFTA, of course). But poor reliability did them in eventually, too. The M636 was their SD50, only sooner. Turns out you could only push the 251 so far.
GE has been quite ruthless in ending parts support for their older models. They ceased supporting the Dash-7’s about 10 or 15 years ago, to say nothing of the Universal series.
Off topic, but I happened upon this old Dash-7 thread. I especially enjoyed the last post by Mr. Randy Stahl:
you guess right