Thank you everyone for (1) correcting me by noting that FM is a “Train Master” rather than a “Roadmaster” and (2) informing of the status of such locomotives. I have to admit though, I was very said to hear that there is only one FM Train Master that was not cut up and sold for scrap and it sits in a museum in Canada.
My question is why is it that some types of locomotives are almost immediately sold for scrap as soon as they are taken out of Class 1 service while others seem to have a Methusala-like (sp?) quality about them?
I realize someone is going to say: well duh! Some locomotives are of higher quality than others/are better preformers. It is natural that the high quality builders stick around while the underachievers do not.
I am not sure such an answer would be a good one. Alcos, God love them, but history does not seem to remember them as one of the world’s most reliable types of diesles. Yet, they have penchant for avoiding the torch–at least compared to other non-EMD locomotives. Also, GEs do not seem to be preserved as much as EMDs. I am not certain there is that much of a qualitative difference to explain that phenomenon. Finally, why not the Train Master? The worst insult I have heard regarding them was “they were too early for their time.”
The fairbanks locomotives were not easy to maintain. I think they were ahead of their time , not alot or RRs knew what to do with 2400 horsepower. Back then the average frieght train was less than 5000 ton… do you send this engine on a train alone ? Not known for reliability , the RRs were hesitant to use the early diesils alone.
A good way to look at policys regarding locomotive diposition is to relate it to your own vehicles. Which would you prefer Chevys or YUGOs.
Randy
As already mentioned… It’s like the difference between saving a Mustang or a Ford Taurus. Much more value in the parts, or possibly restoring the Mustang… Who cares about the Taurus. The EMD stuff seems to be the winner in longevity. There’s a heck of a lot of SWs, GPs, and SDs still around out there.
OK, so you (both) are saying the FM Train Master is the Yugo/Tarus and the GM is the Chevy/Mustang? I can buy that explanation with regard to the Train Master (due to Randy’s statement regarding the maintenance of a Train Master).
However, what is really my point, is how the heck is an Alco the Chevy/Mustang and the GE the Yugo/Tarus? I realize this is probably the result of my lack of railroad knowledge, but what I seem to know is that Alcos weren’t the most reliable diesles of all time and GEs weren’t that much worse than EMDs (I have certainly heard some say that they were better).
With proper maintinance the ALCo 251 engine is reliable.That’s why roads like the Arkansas and Misouri, and (until recently) Cartier(sp?) in Canada stick with ALCOs.
Most roads didn’t want to take the time to maintain them properly,when EMDs required less maintainance.
It is not my contention in replying to assert that you are incorrect in your assertion. I am sure you know more about this stuff than I. It is just the incongruity that I am trying to resolve.
ALCO went out of business with the 251–well, later than that I realize. But I guess, why I am having trouble understanding your contetion (not to be confused with disagreeing with your contention) is that the 251 was not good enough to keep ALCO in business–when railroads wanted to keep it in business so there would be a competitor to keep EMD honest–but is good enough to keep around for 40 years? This seems a little contradictory to me.
The difference is Maintinance.This costs money .Most roads prefer EMDs which require a minimal amount of maintinance.This is why EMDs are rebuilt when other builders units are sold to shortlines or scrapped.
Fairbanks Morse locomotives disappeared fairly quickly (except maybe on MILW) because the OP engine is expensive to maintain with the second crankshaft above the cylinders.
Alco faded out a bit later because, although the 251 engine is a good design, it was not enough to overcomer the poor reputation earned by 244-powered locomotives. Note that 251-powered locomotives are still being built by the licensee in India, where they never had to overcome the poor rep of the 244 engine.
So has GE started making a better loco with the dash 8s and higher since they are outselling GM, or is it a cheaper price that pulls railroads in even if maintenance is a little higher.
I don’t want to change the subject Gabe, just thought question might be answered during or after yours.
I don’t know why CN sraped or sold off some of their GP40-2W, I don’t know why CSX got rid of some of their SD50s either; nor do I understand why UP retired a number of ex CNW SD60s. I know that the GP40-2W is a wonderful unit. I have seen them in action and I have to tell you that they make excellent mainline units for trains under 40 which CN operates a good few of and that they are great suppliments for small trains instead of using an SD75I or a Dash 9. They are great in pairs for larger trains of empties which makes them ideal for autorack trains. Why they sold a bunch to Huron Centreal and Montreal Maine and Atlantic shortlines for example, I will never know. They would have been better off selling the slugs and the GMD1s.
To put some points from Mr. Hemphill’s post into an automotive and/or personal perspective: #1: Parts, especially performance parts, for a Chevrolet are almost always cheaper for a Chevrolet (really any GM product) than for a Ford. Why? All told, there are more GM products around, everything except some body and trim parts will interchange from one GM brand to another, so there is a bigger pool of donor cars in junkyards and a bigger volume for manufacturers of replacement parts. For performance parts, the Chevrolet smallblock engine is just a better design if you want to add some oomph, so many more hotrodders soup up Chevy smallblocks (please no flaming, I’m a Ford fan). If you own an Isuzu pickup, as I do, God help you when you go to the parts store. #3: I keep the Isuzu because it’s like the Energizer bunny - it just keeps going and going and going. So far, the additional cost of parts hasn’t outweighed the fact that it doesn’t need many replacement parts (original brakeshoes and pads have 130,000+ miles on them).
IIRC, one of the principal reasons for the demise of FM locomotives was that the prime movers were, and are, in great demand for other applications. (That brings up the question, more difficult to answer, of why the carbodies were then scrapped without preservation…)
Alco did NOT exactly go ‘out of business’ over the 251, or anything else… any more than EMD went out of business when it shut down LaGrange and moved its building operations to London (Ont.) Seems to me that there’s this little place called MLW, and the things they built have a distinct resemblance to Alco products…
Read what folks who know the business say. In particular, read what Randy says.
Now, there are enthusiast communities in the used-locomotive market – Alco being one of the great examples. Perhaps the classic example here was Bruce Sterzing’s D&H – PAs and 251-reengined Sharks added a distinct touch of class that mere ‘get-it-over-the-road’ power won’t match. I can remember the original Auto-Train company using a Baldwin switcher at Sanford… they almost certainly didn’t buy THAT because it was cheaper than an NW2 or other reasonable alternative. I’d be of the opinion that the use of the F units in northwest Louisiana recently had a distinct ‘enthusiast’ flavor.
Even here, though, there’s a basic criterion: if the locomotive can’t keep running trains, it has to be replaced. And (as Mark indicated) it’s less likely for many forms of EMD to suffer a golden wound that makes it impossible to fix economically… or for less than ‘replacement cost’ of a better unit. I was sad when Trona traded in its Baldwins… but it was time.
Gabe,
The Fairbanks engine still sees a lot of marine applications…
One thing Fairbanks, and Alco didnt have, and EMD and GE did, and still do have, is a very active sales force…
A lot of times, the market is what you make it…
Think about the impact a GM trained sales force can have, as opposed to Bob, the Alco guy…
And, like Mark said, a EMD was designed from the get go to be beat up, locomotives were their only product…
designed to be easy to fix, and built to be rebuilt…GEs are a one shot thing…
Ed
Damn. DeLavernge engine, swiching Auto-Train cars, in Sanford. Definantly an SCL/ACL thing. Bunch of leftovers. Remember, the U36B’s were off the SCL fleet, down to the Funit trucks, which the Conrail rejected. Auto-Train unit replaced by a re-engined RS3. Fairbanks Morse, still offers rebuilt ALCo engines. Remember the General Motors slogan, “Standardization, Is The Key.” The EMD units, were “off the shelf” units, as descripted by Mr. Morgan, In Our GM Scrapbook. And the proof in the pudding, is, like in the fourty-three year old GP30. Many families were supported by the invention of the Series 567 engine. I’ve heard the ALCo locomotives, were hand built, non-considered assembly line. Consider this, the roads had built their mains, to the power of the day, and more hp/te, was not in vogue, until it was prevelant. SD45’s on 39’6" rail, only in Florida, after 1980. And…So…ACJ
What I don’t get about Fairbanks Morse and the opposed piston Diesel is if that top crankshaft was such a pain for railroads, how come it doesn’t bother marine and other users as much? Is it that they have space to lift the thing out where in a locomotive they have to take the whole hood apart?
How did GE stick around so long when they had such a reputation for junky locomotives?
Marine, has no knowledge, of rail. A Fairbanks Diesel, is a wonderful stationary power-unit, capable of years of service, in one stationary throttle application. Locomotives, however, are variable throttle applications. The scheduled maintence for a FM unit, constituted complete overhaul, on an engine, which required complete breakdown. EMD, fixed that wagon. Time management, killed the opposed piston concept, and the avoidance of repair constituted a trade-in. A cavalier effort, a challenge to transportation technology, however, lets… build scales! I would not trake anything for what Fairbanks Morris gave the History of the United States of America, and I’m glad, for a protected, engine, to have to hold/ ACJ.
If the railroads had taken the time to evaluate the new diesel locomotives instead of buying anything and everything to get rid of the steam engine, I’m certain many locomotives would not have been built.
We measure the worth of a locomotive or group of locomotives a couple of ways
Mean time between failure. The longer, the better.
Locomotive availability. By group
3)Shop track dwell time… ( This is what is killing the SD90mac ) Directly affects locomotive availabiliy.
Lets look at a typical locomotive shop. ( a bit on the fantasy side )… The shop lineup today is as follows:
ALCO C-420 reported with crankcase pressure
GP-9 reported with crankcase pressure
FM H-16-44 reported with crankcase pressure
Badwin AS 616 reported with crankcase presure
GE U-25B reported with crankcase pressure
Assuming that all the parts are in stock for all the locomotives which one do you think will leave the shop first? As locomotive shop forman the choice… where do I put my people? I await your job assignments.
Randy
Of course this means you will likely be changing head , liner and pistons