by Allen Hazen
Going by survivorship, Alco's switchers seem to meet the "rational railroad manager is glad to have them" test, but there is something disturbing about them: the S-2, built from 1940 to 1950 was the best seller of the lot. The S4, almost identical to the S2, didn't sell nearly as well.
Why? My guess is that by 1950 the railroads wanted more than 1,000 hp for most switcher applications. All the other companies building switchers for general service (i.e. switchers for other than the specialty niche's GE was selling the 44 and 70 tonners for) on American railroads-- EMD, Lima, Baldwin, and FM-- went to 1200 for their heavy switchers in 1950, and Alco didn't. I think this was not a good commercial decision on Alco's part.
---
Leading to the T-6. Probably a fine locomotive in various respects, with big GE 752 traction motors for hard pulling. But at 1000 hp it was closer to a competitor for EMD's SW-900 than for the popular SW-1200.
---
I'm not sure what this implies, because I guess I'm not sure of EXACTLY the criteria we should use in judging the "best" Alco locomotive. But it wasn't ... a very good locomotive for the market.
Why? My guess is that by 1950 the railroads wanted more than 1,000 hp for most switcher applications. All the other companies building switchers for general service (i.e. switchers for other than the specialty niche's GE was selling the 44 and 70 tonners for) on American railroads-- EMD, Lima, Baldwin, and FM-- went to 1200 for their heavy switchers in 1950, and Alco didn't. I think this was not a good commercial decision on Alco's part.
---
Leading to the T-6. Probably a fine locomotive in various respects, with big GE 752 traction motors for hard pulling. But at 1000 hp it was closer to a competitor for EMD's SW-900 than for the popular SW-1200.
---
I'm not sure what this implies, because I guess I'm not sure of EXACTLY the criteria we should use in judging the "best" Alco locomotive. But it wasn't ... a very good locomotive for the market.