I know this is a strange question but some retired railroaders I know say that ALCOs/MLWs were scrap. But the Ontario Southland Railway has some and I know quite a few other shortline railroads own them. Don’t get me wrong, I like those locomotives but why would they keep ALCOs on the roster if they’re were trouble to their original owners?
Not an expert, but I suspect ALCOs weren’t as bad as a lot of people think they were. Several months back “Trains” ran an article on Don Colangelo, the master mechanic of the Delaware-Lackawanna Railroad. D-L runs quite a few ALCOs and quite sucessfully. Mr. Colangelo who’s been called “The ALCO Doctor” says concerning the ALCOs reputation “Anything’s a piece of junk if you don’t take care of it.”
The Alco ‘Century’ series were not bad engines - The older ‘244’ powered engines were what sunk Alco’s reputation. Alco basically fixed the early problems by the time(1956) that the RS11 came out with the new ‘251’ power plant, but the ‘end of dieselization’ and a recession right after that sort of left little new market to exploit.
Parts are available from FM(they picked up the business), but they are expensive. As EPA regulations get tighter, there will be little chance of re-powering these locomotives. Take you pictures while you have a chance. I remember chasing Alco’s on the C&NW ‘Huron’ line in the 70’s. Within a few years they were gone. We then spent our time chasing GB&W’s Alco fleet - they are now gone as well. We still have the lines out east that you mentioned, plus Minnesota Commercial and the Arkansas & Missouri - Wait any longer and you will be looking at museum operations.
Jim
Alco designs lasted much longer in Canada, where MLW built licensed and upgraded versions of the Century series and 251 engines well into the 1980’s. I could speculate that they were helped by the fact that GE was essentially blocked from competing in Canada until the 90’s but it wouldn’t change the fact that the Centuries were, for the most part,well built machines…
Generally, the most inexpensive locomotive you can operate is the one you already own. New(er) are more expensive to purchase for carriers that are cash strapped.
I was just pondering this very question yesterday. It sure seems odd that there are more six axle Centurys/M-Lines running than all of the extant six axle U series/Dash 7 and C39-8’s combined. Ditto for four axle Centurys comapred to four axle U boats and Dash 7’s. Surely it can’t all be attributed to nostalgia. In hindsight, it would appear Alco had the superior product, so what really happened? Financing? After sale support, and lack thereof? A truly bad reputation left by the 244? All of the above? Like I said, it seems that Alco bested GE in the end in terms of longevity (read: durability). I’ve heard that all Dash 7’s died rather abruptly (between 2002 and 2010) because GE ended parts support–wonder if that’s true?
From various comments I have heard over the years, I understand that Alcos tend to like preventive maintenance. That costs money up front but is usually well rewarded by superior performance. Some short lines understand this and are willing (or have available shop time) to do this.### Alcos tend to be much cheaper to purchase on the used market compared with older EMD diesels. EMDs are more popular (and expensive) due to the wide support still available in parts and expertise.
It also helps that the 251 engine line is still supported by Fairbanks Morse. There are still OEM parts and technical support for operators of 251 powered locomotives:
From what I recall reading, Alco had some trouble early on with reliability issues. Eventually they got them straightened out and produced a good product, but by that time they kinda had a bad reputation at least with some folks. Plus by the 1950’s railroads were realizing that buying diesels from 3 or 4 different builders wasn’t a great idea. When they looked to standardize on one builder, the reliability of early EMD engines gave them an edge on later purchases.
p.s. I wonder what percentage of today’s freight diesels are ALCO or MLW?? I suspect it’s very very small. It may be a little like steam engines c.1962 - people loved them, so railfan mags gave a lot of space to pics and stories of the steam engines stil around, even though they were only maybe 1% of all US engines at the time. People love to photograph and discuss the Alco’s still in use, but how many are there really??
The problem ALCOs suffered on most class one railroads is that the maintenance departments were set up to maintain EMDs. The details of how you maintain an ALCO is different than maintaining an EMD. But unfortunately most shops used the EMD procedures on all locomotives to the other builders detriment.
One example of this happening in reverse was on the SP. For many years SP used FM Trainmasters on the San Francisco Commuter Trains and also used many FM switchers in the area. The local shops became experts on FM repairs. When SP retired the Trainmasters and replaced them with GP40Ps and SD45Ps the shops maintained the EMDs using the FM procedures. As could be expected the EMDs suffered numerous problems until the maintenance personnel were retrained to use EMD procedures.
That goes a long way in explaining why minority builder locomotives were often clustered in one operating area. SP kept its FM’s in the Bay area, N&W kept its FM’s on the former VGN lines, C&NW eventually assigned its Alco’s north of Green Bay and Cincinnati hosted L-H power from several roads in the early 1960’s.
In addition to the points mentioned above, I can add one observation made by a couple mechanics that have kept some of the various beasts rolling.
To paraphrase the one shop guy, “EMD shoves a big chunk of metal into La Grange and machines a locomotive out of it. Alco and Baldwin parked wheels and assembled a million parts on top of them into a locomotive. GE is somewhere between the two.”
Alco, Baldwin, and to some extent earlier GE’s had a reputation for being easier to maintain, if you knew what you were doing, than EMD and FM. Spares are also readily out there from aftermarket and junk providers, whereas a lot of EMD parts have been and remain proprietary–think being able to get parts cheaper from your auto parts store than from the dealer at dealer prices. EMDs are/were largely two-stroke diesels, much more complex than the four-stroke engines of Alco, GE, etc.
Consider a farm truck or local-driving truck. You have a choice between an old 1985 Ford, Dodge, or GM truck for $1,000 where all the parts are still available from transmission, auto parts, etc. stores, or you get that 2005 Ford/Nissan/Toyota.GM/whatever used for $10,000, and have to worry about the onboard computers, new emissions equipment, air bags, seat heaters, power windows, etc. Come on, you’re just gonna haul hay and firewood around now and then, not drive halfway across the country once a month. What are you gonna get?
I have also heard that the Alco/MLW locomotives use less fuel than a GMD/EMD of the same power rating.
I volunteer for the Waterloo Central Railway in St. Jacobs Ontario and we have just acquired an Alco S3 from the National Research Council in Ottawa. We are getting a variety of issues sorted and hope to have it in regular service sometime in the spring. I know in some short runs we have done it far outpulls our GE 70 ton diesel. Not sure about comparisons with our MLW 0-6-0 yet which has just come out of a restoration and done some commissioning/photo runs.
One of the things I’ve read over the years is that Alco’s used a lot less fuel for the same work as either an EMD or GE. That has been one of their strong points in the used market. What I saw written is that if you maintained Alco’s they were good engines. If I remember correctly Alco used a 12 cylinder engine with turbochargers against EMD’s 16 or 20 cylinder engines.
The last of the Century series(C-430, C630, C636, and MLW’S) also had Hi Adhesion trucks that were several years ahead of either EMD or GE.
One or the worst things about Alco’s was the reputation for emitting big clouds of black smoke(the problem was worse if the locomotive was not maintained).
Rgds IGN
Actually, I’ve cleaned out that locomotive’s electrical cabinet twice!
I’ve rode behind Alcos on the A&M in AR and I now know why they are called the steam engine of diesels. It was part of a private charter by Southern Appalachia RR Museum and when the director called for more some on the photo runbys, he got it.
I have friends who do volunteer work with that RR and the Alcos just keep ticking along. And I’ve seen pictures that others have taken of Alcos at work all over the US and many times, they are really smoking.
Long live Alcos.
…and all the Baldwins are now in Paulsboro, NJ!
The ALCO products are still available, both as used parts, as re-manufactured parts, and in some cases, new parts. Do an Internet Search for “ALCO Engine parts”. 251 parts are still out there, in all forms. ALCO is now a property of Fairbanks-Morse as of the early 1990’s.
I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet and I am not sure if there are any 251’s or ALCO locomotives in California at this time, but if they are, they are on a short list to be done away with… CARB, and the State of California have enacted and placed effective enforcement on Diesel Engines and their exhaust. Apparently, in 1998 (?) they found research that labeled Diesel Fumes(smoke) as a Toxic Product and Carcinogen. 2013 is the year they are going to force out older engines and trucks. You can bet older railroad diesels will probably get the same enforcement parameters, as well.
Here is a link to start with: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic_contaminants/html/Diesel%20Exhaust.htm
and this as well: http://www.etrucker.com/ccj/be-ready-calif-starts-enforcing-new-r
I was told the same by mechanics from Ontario Southland Railway.
Frank