Tioga Central RR for Sale (Wellsboro, PA)

lvrr325 wrote:Actually, I'd think an RS1 would be ideal excursion power - because it has little or no value as freight power.

I must respectfully disagree with this statement. The current freight operator on the line (W&C) uses an SW-8 for its operations- a locomotive with less horsepower and tractive effort than an RS-1. An RS-1 could fit nicely into freight operations for other shortlines, whether she's "mainline" power or just a yard switcher. Let's not forget LAL has an RS-1 in Lakeville, while numerous shortlines (including BSOR, GVT, NYLE, OMID and OCTL) use other 1000HP Alco switchers for various duties. TC's operating RS-1 #62 will have value to someone- she'll find a new home.

I just read somewhere that the TC is to be sold as a complete set and not parted out as the possible buyer is also going to acquire the contract of the freight operations as well.
No name were mentioned, however it did state that if the TC is parted out, the deal is off.
Very Interesting !!!

Remember that the LAL does not often send out the RS-1 onto the main. I don't remember if it even has ditch lights, as I thought one of the 539-powered units lacked them.

There's no doubt that in the right hands those units work well and pull better. 539 parts are harder to come by these days, and perhaps that's why using these units isn't necessarily the best choice.

Dave Becker

539's are still common enough there are plently of parts available. As for ditch lights, don't need them at most small shortline speeds. The 539 is a heavy, overbuilt engine great for shortline work.

RS

I know you can get parts for the 539. At what cost? How much compared to EMD parts?

Further, if you know the LAL, they run at speed where ditch lights are needed, though they could certainly travel slow enough to avoid that concern if needed to.

Dave Becker

Matt Langworthy wrote:
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. The current freight operator on the line (W&C) uses an SW-8 for its operations- a locomotive with less horsepower and tractive effort than an RS-1. An RS-1 could fit nicely into freight operations for other shortlines, whether she's "mainline" power or just a yard switcher. Let's not forget LAL has an RS-1 in Lakeville, while numerous shortlines (including BSOR, GVT, NYLE, OMID and OCTL) use other 1000HP Alco switchers for various duties. TC's operating RS-1 #62 will have value to someone- she'll find a new home.

Hey, disagree if you want, but how many more RS1s has LA&L picked up to run their other lines with? I can think of a few others with RS1s on the roster, but they all see limited and very light duty.

There's a reason why a tourist hauler like TCRR has three of them, and the W&C has a smaller EMD as sole power. Could they be used to haul freight? Sure. There's nothing basically wrong with them, and parts are out there. There just are better locomotives available to anyone planning on seriously working them day after day. It was noted in at least one publication that when the Morristown & Erie stepped up to their C424s and C430s (latter since sold to the WNY&P) that fuel consumption was cut about in half. The W&C unit you mention was rebuilt in the 1980s and updated in a number of ways.

Most of the lines you mention also have, or have had, bigger power; the only one that's without it is the NY&LE (sold their C425s to GVT).

NY&LE sold ONE C-425 to GVT.

1,000hp is a bit light for "mainline" duty for larger shortlines these days, but that doesn't take away from the 539. I've no doubt the RS-1s could handle the TC freight business as well as the EMD switchers. LA&L didn't buy more RS-1s as they didn't need more RS-1s. I serious doubt the fact the didn't buy more RS-1s as a put down of the RS-1. LA&L has two 539's and seems quite happy with them.

RS

NY&LE sold ONE C-425 to GVT.

1,000hp is a bit light for "mainline" duty for larger shortlines these days, but that doesn't take away from the 539. I've no doubt the RS-1s could handle the TC freight business as well as the EMD switchers. LA&L didn't buy more RS-1s as they didn't need more RS-1s. I serious doubt the fact the didn't buy more RS-1s as a put down of the RS-1. LA&L has two 539's and seems quite happy with them.

RS

No one is arguing that the 539 is a bad engine, but the RS-1 is no longer a unit for serious, day-in and day-out railroading, and has not been for decades. Also, note the fuel economy issue.

Dave Becker

Hope someone tells the MD&W.

RS

Eh. This really is a silly argument. Someone who's involved with brokering real railroad equipment has already said they're not very desirable engines - he knows what he's talking about.

They may be a bargain at initial investment, but maintenance costs are higher, transportation costs to ship them are higher, parts are difficult to find, they consume more fuel because the lower horsepower prime mover has to be worked harder to accomplish the same tasks, and even an older EMD at the least will have 1/3 to 1/4 the maintenance expense.

When you get your railroad and you want to use them to run it, you're more than welcome to do so. Some people use them and are happy with them - I'm sure there are some tasks to which they are well suited. Personally, unless it's all I can find in my operating budget price range, I'm going to opt for an EMD, GE, or 251-powered Alco. (unless I can get my hands on the last L&NE engine, which is an S1 or S2).


NY&LE selling only one C425 only adds to my point; even they keep bigger power on hand for use when necessary.

To each his own. I'd have no problem using 539's if I got the chance. Been there, done that. Worked with four of them for 6 years and they peformed almost flawless handeling thousands of cars a year. You're entitled to your opinion re fuel and maintaince cost and transportating cost. (Not sure why it cost more to ship an 539 Alco but if you say so. And 1/3 to 1/4 the maintaince cost? Whatever you say:-) I disagree but its a free country.

Happy Thanksgiving.

RS

lvrr325 wrote:Hey, disagree if you want, but how many more RS1s has LA&L picked up to run their other lines with? I can think of a few others with RS1s on the roster, but they all see limited and very light duty.

Each and every one of the shortlines I listed previously uses 1000 HP Alcos on a regular basis. OMID, for example, uses their S-4 to save fuel for runs of just of a few cars- where 1800 HP is overkill. Similarly, GVT is assigning an S-6 to their Batavia operation, where traffic levels are not high enough to warrant an RS-11 or RS-18. True, an RS-1 would be useless for a heavier mainline drag, but for yard work, light density shortlines and MOW, it would be ideal.

lvrr325 wrote:There's a reason why a tourist hauler like TCRR has three of them, and the W&C has a smaller EMD as sole power.

The W&C has EMD power because its parent corporation, the North Shore Railway System, is an all EMD operation. North Shore avoids Alco Centuries and RS-1s alike.

BTW, TC has loaned an Alco to the W&C in times of need.

lvrr325 wrote:Eh. This really is a silly argument. Someone who's involved with brokering real railroad equipment has already said they're not very desirable engines - he knows what he's talking about.

Maybe a 1000 HP Alco isn't desirable to the clientele your broker services, but there are shortlines who feel otherwise. Heck, the B&H handled hundreds or even (in the glory days) thousands of cars per year using a pair of 660 HP S-1s with nary a problem prior to expanding a few years ago. Better yet, go out and purchase a Kalmbach shortline guide- you'd be amazed by the number of shortlines (and industrials) using switchers of 1000 HP or even less. I stand by my statement- #62 will find a decent home and it still has value as a freight duty.

lvrr325 wrote:They may be a bargain at initial investment, but maintenance costs are higher, transportation costs to ship them are higher, parts are difficult to find, they consume more fuel because the lower horsepower prime mover has to be worked harder to accomplish the same tasks, and even an older EMD at the least will have 1/3 to 1/4 the maintenance expense.

1. Fuel consumption will actually be less for the lower HP unit when one gets into runs of just a few cars, as per the management of OMID.

2. EMDs tend to be lower maintenance than Alcos because a 2 stroke engine is easier in general to maintain than a 4 stroke engine- as per several RR employees. The advantage of an Alco is reliability, more torque (for equivalent horsepower) and great fuel efficiency.

lvrr325 wrote:When you get your railroad and you want to use them to run it, you're more than welcome to do so. Some people use them and are happy with them - I'm sure there are some tasks to which they are well suited. Personally, unless it's all I can find in my operating budget price range, I'm going to opt for an EMD, GE, or 251-powered Alco. (unless I can get my hands on the last L&NE engine, which is an S1 or S2).

Interesting... I have thought about what I'd do if I won the lottery, and purchasing a shortline is certainly one of my ideas. Yeah, I'd like to have some Alco 251s, but as I've stated before, a couple of 539s sure would be handy for light duty freight, MOW or yard work.

I do find it odd that your contradict your logic by saying you'd pursue an S-1 or S-2 just because of its heritage. What's the practical advantage of having a unit you would not want otherwise?

lvrr325 wrote:NY&LE selling only one C425 only adds to my point; even they keep bigger power on hand for use when necessary.

Errr... NYLE's C425 #1013 has bad wheels... and thus doesn't operate. I'm not talking about the former PC unit they gutted for parts, either. NYLE uses a former Erie S-1 for regular service because they only have a handful of customers.

Does W&C only have the one EMD? A SW8 isn't it? (I was thinking they had two units but I could be mistaken. Might be wrong re SW8 too.) Side note, I saw somewhere W&C's traffic is about 650 cars per year. I've no idea how accurate this is now but from my observations it would seem to be in the ballpark. What is interesting to me is the TC’s Alcos probably haul the same “ton miles” as the W&C freight trains. Roughly. (I'm guessing W&C runs maybe 2 or 3 times a week. TC runs at least 5 trains per week, most of the year which probably match W&C's tonage per train on average.) Ironically the RS-1 would seem perfect for a railroad like the W&C.

And I agree with Matt that North Shore isn’t “into” Alcos, period. But *if* a new operator takes over the W&C I could see the TC power being used for the freight and passenger traffic. (BTW I have not been able to find out the date W&C’s contract expires although CR service ended on December 31.) It will be interesting to see what happens. Best of luck to all involved.

RS