I preface my further comments here by saying that since I was 5 years old, I loved Alco locomotives–just even the look of Century Series units, as well as the powerful sound–at least until recently.
While Mr. Colangelo and others are able to provide high quality maintenance to their units to keep them operating very well in their current service, I have read rather extensively the comments of other railroad operating officials that provide different viewpoints.
Whether it’s the various publications by Withers Publishing (including Diesel Era magazine), or the publications authored by Joe Strapac (the Southern Pacific Historic Diesels series), it has become clear that even the Alco Centuries just did not hold up in demanding Class 1 Railroad service.
Southern Pacific and Cotton Belt gave Alco chance after chance, even after other railroads totally gave up on Alco power. They purchased fairly sizable (compared to others) fleets of many Alco models–and the Alcos just could not hold up in the demanding mountain service that SP had, or in the high speed fast freight service on the Cotton Belt. Santa Fe got decent service out of RSD-15’s, but on the Cotton Belt, where they ran at higher speeds, there were overheating problems.
In fairness to Alco, the GE U-boats up to and including U33C’s also didn’t hold up as well in the demanding service of the SP as EMD’s, but they held up better than Alco, and that was all that was necessary…for all too many roads, as the market would only support two manufacturers.
I also reject the notion that Class 1 maintenance people willingly “undermaintained” Alcos relative to EMD’s. More than one former railroad official has debunked those assertions in the various Withers Publishing books by offering that they would never do that when they got called on the carpet by management every time a diesel failed on an important train.
ALCo’s biggest problem is they let the internal politics rule their engine decisions rather than the engineers. The 239 was a good engine, the 241 was a product of a different engineering group that ‘won’ the ears of the management over the other who didn’t. The result was an engine that had a couple of major flaws (mainly the crankshafts, which seemed to snap like matchsticks under heavy use). That, and by not controlling the whole manufacturing process they were reliant on GE for their electrical technology. As Preston Cook pointed out in the E-Unit series in Railfan a few years back, ALCo thought of GE as a partner, then they sold to ALCo’s competitors showing GE looked at ALCo as a customer. That left GE behind EMD and, when GE finally decided to go into business themselves, guess who got the latest and greatest, and who didn’t. Though, the electrical gear (esp. the traction motors) in the early ALCo’s and Baldwins for that matter, was considered superior to EMD’s. That’s why re-engining was given a try, the thought was to build an idea locomotive - and EMD engine with the GE traction motors/electricals. The cost was prohibitive in most cases because EMD and GE’s trade-in programs made it so, but most of them lasted longer than their unconverted sisters, which says something to the thought behind the conversions.
The PAs did give EMD a wake-up call, EMD had no dynamics in the E-7, which rushed the E-8 into high gear. That, and the realization that passenger traffic at that time was starting to wane, left most western railroads with the choice of F-Units for Passenger service because they were more suitable for conversion to freight service as passenger service inevitably decreased.
Again, over simplification, but the issues in a nutshell…
Alco’s qualities make them great for 'roads that have switching, car spotting, on-line pick-ups and set-outs, severe grades, limited budgets for fuel, that want to get the maximum performance from their engines.
Not writing about 244-engined engs, except firing and hostelling SP PA’s, but the 251 engines…
EG. Out of Alameda, to the Fruitvale Ave bridge over the Estuary and to West Oak’ with 32 loads of canned goods, this is early 1970’s, thru a bunch of switches and hard left turns…an S-6.
The cop put the radar on me and reported to the Company that I was moving at 1 or 2 mph blocking him from responding to a call. 20 seconds for the gates to come down, then 2000 feet of cars and engine at between 8’ and 16’ feet a second…
EG. I worked (sugar) beet gon peddlers from San Luis Obispo often, I fired EMD GP and F powered trains and I fired Alco DL701 powered. Predominately winds came off the Pacific, from the west toward the east
I saw a 1- or maybe nearly 3 mph speed increase on the easier parts of the grade with the EMD’s The Alco’s in similar siruation would gain 3 or 5 mph at the same place on Cuesta.
Another EG. We’d leave after a pick-up, there was a 50 mph curve at the start of a descent not requiring braking. When we had a GP9, it was Th 8 thru the curve. When we had a DL701 with the same train (really close) I’d have to drop the throttle a couple of notches toavoid 6he speed constriction
Rode the A&M a couple of years ago and really got to see Alcos at work. Found out why they are called the steam of diesels. They put out a nice head of smoke for photo ops. And they seem to be around on other RR’s, do see pics getting posted on Facebook in various areas. So they must be a great workhorse.
If that is true it is no wonder that the maintenance of locomotives was so poor on the Penn Central and in the early days of Conrail. There were few days in the Middle Division when the tower operators didn’t have to bypass freights which had broken down in route. Apparently the maintenance people spent all thier time “on the carpet” rather than maintaining the equipment.
How is the ALCO S3 coming along? I live in Toronto and would love to go for a ride, I have many memories of them from when my dad worked for CN back in the day. Let me know of any scheduled runs, St Jacob’s is not that far away!
It has been operable since January. We’ve been working on scraping out the old paint in the cab and give it a new coat and are planning to repaint the exterior next year. When I was working the shop one day, I got a cab ride in it while we did some shop switching and a brief run down the line. It definitely had the heart of an Alco.
GE kinda realized that ALCo’s issues were becoming ‘their’ issues by association. They decided since they were building all but the engine, why not do that too and get ‘rid’ of ALCo. EMD had shown the world that was the way to go, so why not them too? They thought they could recoup the lost business.
In the end, GE was right.
What has kept ALCos around is that they used ‘off the shelf’ parts, GE made them not only for the Locomotive market, but stationary and others as well. That kept the parts ‘out there’ and available. On a smaller road where maintenance can be kept up to date and parts supplies concentrated they work fine. Also, (generally) they strain isn’t as great on a shortline as a Class 1, so they have to work ‘less hard’ and live…
Alco 251 engines and engine parts are ‘relatively plentiful’ in North America. In addition to the OEM, there are a number of domestic sources for new or RTO parts.
The three remaining fleet operators, (DL, A&M and LA&L), long ago committed to a high standard of maintenance.
Much of the GE material contained within these locos can be sourced either as new, reconditioned or RTO.
I note that Indian Railways operates over 4500 Alco-powered locos and has developed their own local sources for renewal parts. Some Asian, African and South American operators source some of their parts from India.
Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW) in India became an Alco licensee some time in the 1960’s and has been building 251-powered locomotives ever since. I’m not sure who receives the licensing fees now.
I belatedly reply to UP4-12-2. You disagree? How? I did not say that D&RGW should have used EMD F3s instead of PAs. I said they should have used FAs instead of PAs. So why did you make the comparison with F3s? And any mountain railroad is better off with all axles powered. I surely agree with you about the comparison with F3s, and D&RGW went to EMDFs for the CZonly when the F7 was available, an improved product as you pointed out. I also did point out that they generally used four units vs. three for the PAs. I don’t disagree with your facts. They are the same as what I tried to say.
The big problem with all FDL engines is the cast crankcase. After some years of use, cracks form in the casting which can’t be repaired.
In the case of the Dash9-44CW locomotives operated by Rio Tinto in Western Australia, these required new crankcases after around ten years. Meanwhile, their competition, BHP Billiton, purchased some forty year old SD40Rs ex Southern Pacific, which they placed in service all with their original engines. The SD40s were recently scrapped after a further ten years, but still with their original engines.
The problem with keeping old GEs in service is the cracking in the FDL engine. The 119 surviving Pacific National Cv40-9i units are being fitted with new engines after sixteen or so years in service. I’m pretty sure the BNSF Dash 8 unit that has been rebuilt with AC motors received a new FDL engine as part of the rebuild.
Alco 251 engines, like EMD engines have welded crankcases which can be repaired if required and so unlike GE units, Alcos can be rebuilt using their original engine, making the cost of the rebuild much cheaper.
Alcos require different maintenance attention than EMD engines, and they suffered when operated by people who didn’t understand the differences. Alcos needed quite different lubricating oils, for example. You could find an Alco in group of EMDs by the different smell of the lubricating oil.
&nbs
Not all Alco/MLW products were bad. Apparently the RS-18 was a winner, which is why they continue to soldier on at the Ontario Southland. Ironically the RS-18s that are used here… (yup, right here in Guelph) were also the ones that I used to see as a kid way WAY back in the 1970s in Sherbrooke, QC. They’re like old friends to me, although they got a chopped nose back in the early 80’s they’re much the same as when they left MLW.
Unfortunately MLW’s 244 engine had a bad reputation for unreliability, and that sealed MLW’s fate… even the RS-18’s success couldn’t overcome the builder’s reputation. CP and CN gave MLW one last chance in the early 70s when the M630 and M636 were introduced. Had those models been successful MLW could very well still be in business today. After all, both CN and CP were shopping for new locomotives in a big way: CP decided on the SD40-2 after initially favoring the M630 (for pulling power), and CN went for the GP40-2W in a big way, with a smaller order of SD40-2Ws for the West. The M series could have been MLW’s saving grace but instead sealed the locomotive builder’s fate. Even Bombardier couldn’t save it.
The M series did have one important feature that is worth noting (and that could have swayed CN to put in a large order: the three axle Dofasco truck has a very short wheelbase, thereby minimizing track damage on CN’s notoriously sharp curves throughout northern Quebec and Ontario. I’m sure that Dofasco truck was designed with CN in mind as it was common knowledge that CN was not happy with their huge fleet of SD40s for this reason. Again… MLW had the order in their grasp if only the product could have been more reliable. Sad… now we have no locomotive manufacturers in Canada when some 40 years we had three.
I have a copy of a technical report regarding lateral forces in curves, comparing MLW and EMD trucks on the CN. There is no doubt that MLW designed that truck for CN, and that it worked as advertised.
A point often missed is that the highest lateral forces are often caused by the leading axle of the trailing truck. It was this axle that derailed on many of the SDP40F derailments that led to the withdrawal of that type.
The MLW design has the pivot point between the leading (or outer) two axles and this increases the lever arm on the trailing axle and reduces the force that the truck can apply through the lead axle of the trailing truck to the outer rail in a curve. The tests on CN showed that this was correct.
This truck was introduced on the C630M and was used on all subsequent six axle MLW units (well, those built in Canada) and was introduced before Alco adopted their Hi-Ad on C630 and C636 units.
What is hard to believe is that MLW couldn’t get the cooling system to work on the M630s and M636s. Canada isn’t known for really high temperatures, but enlarged header tanks were needed to keep M636s working, even though their radiators were 33% bigger than the C636. In Australia, the MLW radiators were ignored and a much more effective contra flow double pass rad
at least the Greek export MLWs had the Dofasco trucks (MX627 and MX636). These were produced during 1974-1975, if I remember correctly, and still soldering around Greek mainlines, after being rebuilt.
Jim: I’m from the Buffalo, NY area and we used to see Alcos but haven’t for some time now. “Take pictures while you can” is good advice. On a 1984 train-watching trip tp Wisconsin, we went to the GB&W engine shop and got a tour of the shop. Upon leaving, a local freight with an ALCO engine in the lead put on quite a turbo smoke demo for us.