Tioga Central RR for Sale (Wellsboro, PA)

RS-3 wrote: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.)

Yep, just one lone SW-8. She's a former LV pup.

RS-3 wrote: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.

You make a great point, but let's not forget #62 may actually run 2 or 3 trains each day it operates, which means it really hauls at least 10 trains per week during excursion season . Trying to figure this in my head, I'm thinking #62 actually hauls more tonnage than the SW-8 does.

RS-3 wrote:Best of luck to all involved.

Agreed. I'd hate to see TC's unique collection separated.

I'm somewhat amazed at all of the rampant speculation regarding the use of RS-1's. Perhaps I need clarification: are any of you suggesting that these units would be ideal to use on a start-up shortline?

I'll begin with my personal experience with the LAL/WNYP. The system suggests that they will never own 244-powered units, which is fine. Of course, they have 2 539-powered units at the house in Lakeville. I'm sure that we would all agree that the LAL takes good care of its ALCOs. What is the reason that they stay in Lakeville almost all of the time? Sure, one of them made it out of the home territory a bit last year on a work train, but they very, very seldom stray far from the shop. And, I am not suggesting that either is a piece of garbage, either; I've seen the S-unit work a whole day drilling at Lakeville, so it earns its keep.

The B&H is mentioned, which is a good comparison. It's mentioned that the two units carried on for a long time and did just fine. Indeed. When an owner/operator showed up with better power and more money, the units were almost immediately shelved. The benefits of the S-units truly exist, but aren't always served by venturing out onto longer jaunts.

I think the end of the last post says it all: the fact that this is a unique collection. We're actually talking about a rolling museum, the reason why many here are getting all misty eyed about these units. They work and are quite old. They have historical significance, no doubt. But, as units used in a mainline operation? There are better choices, even from the ALCO stable, meaning essentially almost anything with a 251.

I'm not looking to fight, I guess, I guess I'm just looking for some rational thought here.

Dave Becker

Dave, no fight at all, just love a good "discussion". And I respect your opinion. (Actually I think we agree on a lot.) Re LA&L, I think its clean the 539's stay in Lakeville to switch. That's what they do best, especially the S-2. There's little argument that the bigger C's are better suited to LA&L's "mainline" freight. The S class switchers are just that, switchers at heart. (And in my opinion they’ll switch rings around an EMD.)

The RS-1 has the advantage of road trucks that make it much more suited to *light* road work. (By today‘s standards. Remember the weight of a standard car has doubled since the RS-1 was built). A railroad the size and traffic of the W&C seem perfect for a RS-1 in this day and age. But that’s just my opinion, other’s may differ:-) Given the choice between a RS-1 and a SW8, I’d take the RS-1. Again I’m sure someone would take the SW8. EMD didn’t really field a SW on road trucks. (In the USA anyway.)

Re the B&H, had not the B&H picked up the gas traffic I could see the RS-1 being well suited for the B&H. (Not that I think Lakeville would have parted with it for a second.) The gas traffic really makes the two S-1s mostly too light for their needs today plus the added mileage isn't as well suited for the switcher trucks. (As I understand it one still works the traffic that goes west of Cohocton.)

Like any loco (or person), its all depends on its job. The right engine for the right job is the key.

RS

Just a few comments, from one that is has a bit to do with 539s and, more lately, EMDs.

The 539 family of RS-1 and S-1 through S-4 are great little engines, and really do well as switchers, but have a few limitations as road power in todays railroading. Even if they are equipped with MU, that MU will be the old 19 pin MU, (T1, T2, T3), and not be compatable with any newer units.

On the air side, the 539s were equipped with 14EL brakes (its in my 1925 'Cyc-), and 14 can neither lead nor trail today's 26.

A very notable exception is GMRC 405, which has 27 pin AAR standard MU and has been rebuilt with 26 air. However, that conversion was done not so much for freight service, but for use with a former CNJ cab car in passenger service.

Using a 539 alone or with another 539 is fine, but to upgrade one to modern standards does not make economic sense, unless for a special service like 405 mentioned above. It's a lot easier to get a unit that already has modern MU, brakes and bearings. (405 is a very historical unit, operating passenger service on rails that have been "home" for over half a century.)

With respect to the SW-8 vs. RS-1 question-

I wish I had a nickle for every time I explained the difference between tractive effort and horsepower, going back to the early '90s, when I was brokering equipment. Weight gives you TE, HP gives you acceleration (once you get the train moving).

The SW-8 is a good unit for a shortline, because it has the "standard" 120 ton weight (plus or minus), but only has eight cylinders to suck up fuel. On a shortline, or switching a yard (i.e. not mainline track), speed and accel. most likely won't be an issue. This pertains to both the HP and truck design. You may not use all that HP, and the rigid bolster trucks are good to at least 35 MPH, track conditions permitting.

The North Shore group happens to be very fond of SW-8s for the reason of fuel economy. They will do anything an SW-7 or -9 will do, it just takes a tiny bit longer. This bit of philosophy came from a North Shore official, twenty years ago, when I just happened to be leasing them an RS-1.

pablo wrote:I'm somewhat amazed at all of the rampant speculation regarding the use of RS-1's. Perhaps I need clarification: are any of you suggesting that these units would be ideal to use on a start-up shortline?

Yes, I am... with the caveat that an RS-1 would be ideal under certain conditions. Let's say I win the lottery and purchase a shortline. Now, if this theoretical shortline (which we'll imagine is in NY to appease Otto) had hauls of 12 modern* freight cars or less per trip, the RS-1 would be a great fit. The distance wouldn't really matter because, unlike an S class switcher, RS-1s ride on road trucks.

Or let's say my imaginary shortline has a small yard- the RS-1 would be a great goat for shuffling cars around. While we're at it, the engine's lower weight (in comparison to bigger Alcos) would make it useful for travelling on older, lighter rail- both for MOW and freight operations. Could you see a Century operating on 60lb rail? I shudder to even think about it.


*- assuming a max weight of 315,000 lbs.

pablo wrote:The B&H is mentioned, which is a good comparison. It's mentioned that the two units carried on for a long time and did just fine. Indeed. When an owner/operator showed up with better power and more money, the units were almost immediately shelved. The benefits of the S-units truly exist, but aren't always served by venturing out onto longer jaunts.

Dave- I like ya but that's not a completely accurate statement. The S-1s weren't shelved almost immediately upon the arrival of the LAL as an operator. In fact, the B&H continued with just the two S-1s for over 5 years after the 1996 changeover- making fairly lengthy trips from Cohocton to Blessing 2-3 times per week. Everything changed after LAL leased the Painted Post-Bath segment in late 2001, when the tonnage more than doubled. Prior to that, lower HP Alcos were just fine.

Of course, #5 is still used on occasion as back-up road power, yard power and the odd MOW operation. Let's not forget #5 handled the move up the original mainline last year- a less than ideal location for a Century.

pablo wrote:I think the end of the last post says it all: the fact that this is a unique collection. We're actually talking about a rolling museum, the reason why many here are getting all misty eyed about these units. They work and are quite old. They have historical significance, no doubt. But, as units used in a mainline operation? There are better choices, even from the ALCO stable, meaning essentially almost anything with a 251.

'Tis true I'm more than interested in keeping the TC collection together, but that isn't clouding my judgement. Just as there are situations where a 251-powered Alco is ideal, there are other scenarios where a 539 (or a 244) makes a better fit. The latter is why LAL keeps a pair of 539s in Lakeville.

pablo wrote:I'm not looking to fight, I guess, I guess I'm just looking for some rational thought here.

Maybe I don't say this often enough on the 'Net: please don't confuse disagreement with a lack of respect. We're each entitled to our own opinions. A friendly, honest debate does make this board more interesting- just we're doing here. Take care.

Matt, a few things, and keeping it friendly-

I don't think freight cars are at 315K yet, the last I heard was that railroads are still upgrading from to 286K.

As for a Century operating on 60# rail, an RS-1 weighs 120 to 125 tons, and some of the four axle Centuries (or GEs or Geeps) are in that weight range as well; I'm assuming (bad word to use, I know-) you are talking four axle here.

The M&E ran their C-430s on what I remember* to be 60 and 85# rail, albiet with a very partial fuel load to keep the weight down. They also used less fuel than the 14 (S-4) and 15 (RS-1), due to the more modern aftercooled engine! Too bad Ben Friedland isn't still with us to verify this-

I'm very partial to RS-1s; I was a partner in an early contract switching operation in 1981. We switched a chemical plant with former G&W 43 and I handled some 70 car cuts with her. I was also the CMO-

The truth is that 539s are too old to use daily, unless you have a good CMO/MM that can spend a lot of time giving them TLC. Even the 251s need their share of tinkering, and time spent keeping up on parts sources. (17MG8 governors?)

This has been an interesting discussion, but the truth is that we're in 2007, and that the 539 dates back to 1939 or even 1931. Times have changed, lets save the 539s for light duty things like tourist and dinner trains.

* I worked on the track crew there, 1973

EDM5970 wrote:
The M&E ran their C-430s on what I remember* to be 60 and 85# rail, albiet with a very partial fuel load to keep the weight down. They also used less fuel than the 14 (S-4) and 15 (RS-1), due to the more modern aftercooled engine! Too bad Ben Friedland isn't still with us to verify this-

This is quoted in print, somewhere, I want to say in a Railfan & Railroad magazine article on the M&E a number of years back -

Just want to remind everyone. The county owns the track. TC is a tenant and the W&C is contracted out (North Shore) to operate the freight portion.

Seems like when you read the article that the TC isn't making enough money anymore to pay the licensed (FRA certified) people to operate the equipment.

Volunteers can not do everything.

Ahhh ! If I was only 150 miles closer I would be there to help.

Former Tioga County native.............

Well, some clarifications are needed.

Freight cars are not at 315K yet. It will likely be a very long time before that happens, simply due to the economics of it all. That's my opinion.

I'm glad here for EDM5970, who has far more practical experience than I do in these matters.

As for Matt, the "certain conditions" that are advocated are exactly my point: not mainline railroading at all. If you won the lottery, you could run a quartet of 25-tonners up and down the line and play trains all you wanted to, for as long as you wanted to. It's not an ideal situation is all I'm saying.

Agreed that they might do well in a yard or short runs on the main; it's exactly what the LAL does. Does anyone know how good those TC units are?

Your point about the B&H amplifies mine: the S units were fine for the short trips, but once the line expanded, new power was needed. It's also possible that there were no extra units to send south to Cohocton, or that the preferred way to get units to Cohocton didn't really exist. I can't answer that, but I expect that is part of it, too.

Again, the 5 is used as back up power, and not something that can be regularly depended on. In fact, I would bet that the most common use of the 5 is for the tight curves at the plant in Katona.

OK, I guess that's it. Tell you what...I'll win the lottery and let you buy some locos. We'll just need to see if we can pry that line south of Buffalo from the GW. Unless you have a better line to purchase...

Dave Becker

lvrr325 wrote:

EDM5970 wrote:
The M&E ran their C-430s on what I remember* to be 60 and 85# rail, albiet with a very partial fuel load to keep the weight down. They also used less fuel than the 14 (S-4) and 15 (RS-1), due to the more modern aftercooled engine! Too bad Ben Friedland isn't still with us to verify this-

This is quoted in print, somewhere, I want to say in a Railfan & Railroad magazine article on the M&E a number of years back -

Fair enough, but I would also add that the MA&N tried running Alco Centuries on the Lowville & Beaver River's 60-80 lb rail with poor results- they had derailments.

EDM5970 wrote:The M&E ran their C-430s on what I remember* to be 60 and 85# rail, albiet with a very partial fuel load to keep the weight down. They also used less fuel than the 14 (S-4) and 15 (RS-1), due to the more modern aftercooled engine! Too bad Ben Friedland isn't still with us to verify this

The staff at the Ontario Midland has issued a differing statement (to both the press and to me personally) on that subject when explaining their decision to use an S-4 instead of their RS-36 or RS-11. In the interest of keeping the discussion friendly, I'll just say OMID feels a 539 offers a fuel savings over a 251 for light freight runs.

EDM5970 wrote:This has been an interesting discussion, but the truth is that we're in 2007, and that the 539 dates back to 1939 or even 1931. Times have changed, lets save the 539s for light duty things like tourist and dinner trains.

It's not the date of the technology that matters- it's the age of the prime mover itself that matters. RS-1s were built all the way up to 1960 (with #62 dating to 1950) so the difference in age between some 539s and some 251s is slight indeed. As RS-3 and I discussed, it's highly probable that TC's active RS-1 pulled more tonnage this year than W&C's SW-8. BTW, #62 is just 2 years older the former LV Pup.

pablo wrote:Freight cars are not at 315K yet. It will likely be a very long time before that happens, simply due to the economics of it all.

OK, I'll concede that point with this caveat- the numbers of cars would thus be higher but the maximum tonnage an RS-1 can haul remains the same.

pablo wrote:As for Matt, the "certain conditions" that are advocated are exactly my point: not mainline railroading at all. If you won the lottery, you could run a quartet of 25-tonners up and down the line and play trains all you wanted to, for as long as you wanted to. It's not an ideal situation is all I'm saying.

Actually, light freight runs are mainline RRing for many shortlines. OMID runs trains with its S-4 on a regular basis. Again, I'm asking you to check out a Kalmbach shortline guide. You'd be surprised at how many shortlines still use Alco (or EMD) switchers for mainline RRing. I think that's part of the problem in our friendly debate: our respective mental pictures of what defines a shortline operation differ greatly. Apples vs. oranges applies here.

pablo wrote:OK, I guess that's it. Tell you what...I'll win the lottery and let you buy some locos. We'll just need to see if we can pry that line south of Buffalo from the GW. Unless you have a better line to purchase...

Dave Becker

I have some thoughts about which shortline I'd purchase (I can think of several) but let's win the lottery first, OK? Yes, I play...

The Wellsboro & Corning Railroad will have a new operator for 2008. It is not the LA&L, M&E, or other speculations made on various forums.

I believe it to be the same gent trying to buy the Tioga Central.

So, Ima thinking ALCO RS1s on freight and passenger trains.

PVRX1 wrote:The Wellsboro & Corning Railroad will have a new operator for 2008. It is not the LA&L, M&E, or other speculations made on various forums.

I believe it to be the same gent trying to buy the Tioga Central.

So, Ima thinking ALCO RS1s on freight and passenger trains.

One operator on a line that small makes sence. Also, it would allow the excursion the possibility to go farther than the Tioga Dam. i.e.: Wellsboro to Lawrenceville or even Gang Mills.

It always seemed to be a short train ride.

Interesting news. I look forward to hearing more details when it can be announced. (It would kind of ironic if the new operator did use the Alcos for the freight service after all the discussion here!)

I think the current TC trip covers about 12 miles, which isn't too bad. And the dinner trains covered about 24 miles I think.

RS