Did they make a decision to get out of the locomotive business or was there a problem with the locomotives they built (or something else)? Several shortlines today run nothing but ALCOS (or MLWs)…like the Ottawa Central and the Arkansas and Missouri. Nobody runs GE U Boats anymore yet GE has become the number one locomotive builder.
There were lots of factors, but the short story is that GE, who was once a partner in Alco’s diesel building, turned competitor when they came out with their own line of road diesels, starting with the U25B in 1960.
Alco just couldnt compete, EMD and GE made better products during the 1960’s, Alcos had more maintance issues that EMD and GE locos of the time, and the railroads chose to buy the more reliable product…
Alco didnt “choose” to go out of buisness…they didnt have a choice. they closed shop in 1969.
The “last-gasp” of Alco, the Century series, were good engines! and as you said, many short lines are still running them today…they were good, just not “good enough”…Alco became the number three builder during the 60’s, and the market couldnt support, and didnt need, three builders.
Scot
Thanks Scott…Steve Lee (Of UP steam locomotive preservation fame) had a rather humorous article in Trains a few years back about his days with IC and his experiences with the C636 diesels.
I guess MLW thought they could turn things around by purchasing the Alco designs and continuing the line in Canada for another seven or eight years. As I understand it the M630s and 636s were unreliable also although both CN and CP ran them until the early 1990s.
Among the other factors mentioned above, Alco never really recovered from the problems that came with the 244 engine. Once a negative reputation has been established, it’s very difficult to recover from it. The 251 engine is a good engine, and can still be found in a variety of non-railroad uses, it’s just that Alco’s sales were never good enough to carry the company while the 251 established it’s own rep.
It wasnt really a case of MLW “purchasing the Alco designs”…they already had them! MLW had been building Alcos since 1904! 
steam and diesel…they were basically a subsidiary building site, building the same Alco designs that were designed in Schenectady…Schenectady was always the “home office”…so instead of saying “MLW thought they could turn things around by purchasing the Alco designs and continuing the line in Canada for another seven or eight years.” it would be more acurate to say “MLW continued to build the Alco designs in Canada for another seven or eight years, because they still had willing customers with the Canadian railroads.”
I dont know if MLW ever thought they could “turn things around” or not…probably not.
they did some minor R&D after 1969, but didnt work on any major new ideas…they essentially just kept the line going a few more years because they still had the customers.
Scot
That makes sense…it looks as if MLW did try to turn things around after the M series failed by introducing the HR series (HR stood for High Reliability)…but apparently they weren’t so reliable, and when they failed to catch on MLW got out of the domestic market.
The writing was pretty much on the wall when BC Rail (an all MLW fleet) bought SD40-2s. Clearly they were nolonger happy with the Montreal product.
At the very end of Bombardier’s foray into the North American Freight locomotive market they were developing an all new prime mover: the B2600. This was meant to compete on even terms with the EMD 710 and GE’s later, upgraded FDL series engines. The 12 cylinder was supposed to produce over 4000 HP (this was back in the early 80’s). I believe that they wanted to try to market new locomotives “South of the (Canadian) Border”. BB-MLW did sell some brand new units in the US: in the Seventies the Providence & Worcester (my hometown RR,BTW) purchased several M420W units which operated into the early 1990’s.
At the very end of Bombardier’s foray into the North American Freight locomotive market they were developing an all new prime mover: the B2600. This was meant to compete on even terms with the EMD 710 and GE’s later, upgraded FDL series engines. The 12 cylinder was supposed to produce over 4000 HP (this was back in the early 80’s). I believe that they wanted to try to market new locomotives “South of the (Canadian) Border”. BB-MLW did sell some brand new units in the US: in the Seventies the Providence & Worcester (my hometown RR,BTW) purchased several M420W units which operated into the early 1990’s.
Maybe someday ALCOs will make a come back! I know that NRE owns the patents etc for many ALCO designed components and I’ve heard that 4 cycle prime movers like the 251 are more fuel efficient than the 2 cycle that EMD uses. With all the new EPA regulations maybe a modernized version of the 251 engine would work! On a side note growing up near Moncton NB nearly every loco I saw as a child was a MLW and I remember that many CN employees were very sad when they started to get phased out. The big M-liners were apparently very tough engines that would pull like crazy![:D]
However, Bombardier did do some very ground-breaking R&D. In the Western Hemisphere they were the pioneers of AC traction, not GM-Siemens.
Really? I thought the first North American freight AC loco was the Brown-Boveri retrofit of a MLW C640. I didn’t think Bombarier had anything to do with the retrofit.
The second was the Brown-Boveri retorfit of AMTK F40PH #202.
You could argue that ALCO, Baldwin and FM may have pushed the limits of technology too much trying to get the maximum horsepower possible into engines (via turbocharging etc.) which caused some maintenance / reliability issues, whereas GM was content to stay at lower HP but push reliability and dependability.
GM also did a great job in service, having representatives available to help railroads train employees on how the diesels worked and following up with any problems that did occur with the engines. I think the other builders didn’t have the money to do as much ‘hands on’ work as GM.
GM was also good about trade-ins, allowing railroads to get second generation diesels at a reduced price by re-using parts from their first generation (FT’s, F2’s etc) trade-ins. In fact, they even allowed the SOO to trade in their ALCO FA’s for GP-30’s, and used the ALCO trucks on the GP’s!!
EMD had an ulterior business motive for taking trade-ins. While EMD trimmed its profit margin somewhat by giving the trade-in credit, the trade-in had the effect of taking a locomotive off of the resale market.
Among the other reasons that Alco could not compete with GM and GE is financing. There were quite a number of times that Alco lost the bid because they had to rely on banks for financing the deals where GM and GE could finance the sales internally.
One instance I know about is the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines. After some demonstrations they decided that the best locomotive for thier needs was the C415. Since the PRSL had been a money losing line for a long time the banks were not willing to give loans at a reasonable interest rate. But GM could finance GP38s at a very low interest rate. So guess what was purchased? It wasn’t the Alco product that the operating department wanted.
My bad. That C640 is what I was refering to. I thot Bombardier had already purchased MLW by that time.
I agree that Alco was doomed when GE stopped helping them out on diesels. After GE started building the U-Boats, that just worsened Alcos chances even more.
From what I’ve read though the U boats weren’t that reliable either…in fact more Alcos are in service today than U boats. To the credit of GE, they went from a problematic locomotive line to number one locomotive builder today…that’s got to be one of those untold amazing comeback stories… Look at GM in the 70s and 80s…the SD40-2 was the number 1 selling locomotive… GM is out of the locomotive business and it looks as if the GE AC44CW/ES44CW is now the leader…
There’s evidence that it wasn’t so much a matter of unreliability from GE as it was better design from EMD. But the UP purchased 10 U28Cs the same year that they bot 10 Century 630s, & the U-boats were off the roster the same year as the C630s, and the Alcos lasted nearly 30 years on the Cartier.
Fact is that BN & UP obtained just enough U-boats during the 1970s to keep EMD honest. The quality stayed up & the price stayed competitive. Around 1980 GE provided the UP with what were essentially C36-7&1/2s. Their reliability was off the charts. This coincided with GMs offering of the SD50… Many thot that would be the death knell for EMD. Happily, no.
You all kinda missed the biggest reason Alco failed though EJE818 hinted at it.
It’s not that GE made better locomotives, it’s not that the railroads were scared off by the 244. The reason they fell apart is that GE was the supplier of all of their electrical components. When GE went into the market for themselves, Alco had to by electical parts from one of it’s biggest rivals.
Also, the idea of a modernized T2 compliant 251 is pretty funny. Alcos are famous for their turbolag that sends of large black clouds of exhaust. There’s no way you could make the 251 compliant without starting over.
The C36-7s weren’t THAT great, every last one was off the UP roster, before the first non-wrecked SD50 left the UP roster, and the SD50s were one year older. The C36-7s started off great but they were oddballs, the first fully microprocessor controlled GEs and as such they didn’t age very well.