Railroad Forums 

  • Why didn’t Alco run with the 539T?

  • Discussion of products from the American Locomotive Company. A web site with current Alco 251 information can be found here: Fairbanks-Morse/Alco 251.
Discussion of products from the American Locomotive Company. A web site with current Alco 251 information can be found here: Fairbanks-Morse/Alco 251.

Moderator: Alcoman

 #1524027  by mtuandrew
 
Dateline 1944, Schenectady:

The 241 block is misbehaving pretty severely. However, the 539T (cast) and 540T (welded block) have proven themselves on land and sea. Alco is already developing an inline-8 539T that could produce 1300 horsepower without a problem (which beats a 16-567 with half the moving parts, thank you very much), and with minimal development it’s entirely possible to build a 12V539T that can top 2000 horsepower by 1947.

So, why did Alco go all in on the 244 block instead?
 #1524054  by Allen Hazen
 
To add spice to the question... The 539T could have been uprated a bit. I think by the late 1940s Also had at least some experimental data on the possibility of a 1200hp version of the 539T, which would have made the S4 equivalent to the new switcher models other builders introduced in 1950, and maybe made the RS-1 a bit more versatile. (Remember that CC versions of the RS-1 were exported to the Soviet Union during WW II: the Russians revers-engineered them, and many "first generation" diesels on Soviet railways were powered by Russian-built 539T derivatives: at some stage the Russians upped the output to 1200 hp.)
--
My guess-- and I'm sure there are other people visiting Railroad.net forums who would have their own, possibly more knowledgeable, opinions-- is that there are at least two answers:
---Immediate problem: Alco was trying to compete with EMD (and also with Baldwin and F-M, but EMD was the important one), which had 1500 hp road (and by the end of the 1940s, road switcher) locomotives. Even an uprated, 1200hp, 539T wouldn't have been competitive.
---Longer term issue: The 539T was old technology-- an immensely heavy engine whose development could have been pushed a BIT further, but which (my guess here) was perceived as not having MUCH further development potential. Alco saw the future as belonging to smaller-cylindered V-type engines.
--Why didn't Alco pursue BOTH options: keep working out the bugs in the 244, and at the same time offering 1200 hp RS-1 derivatives (and a 1200 hp switcher when EMD came out with the SW-7). Answer here, I think, is that they didn't have enough engineering talent, or a big enough r&d budget, to do both, and so went with the option that seemed to offer more.
--
Opinions of the knowledgeable are solicited: I think there are interesting counterfactual questions here!
--
--
((Kirkland, in his "The Locomotive Builders, vol. 2: Alco," mentions the possibility of developing the 539T further as an option Alco COULD HAVE, but DIDN'T pursue: I'll look it up and see if he says much about the pros and cons.))
 #1524353  by mtuandrew
 
Regarding the immense weight, I have to wonder how heavy the 540T was in comparison. Even if Alco had a financial incentive to cast its blocks and frames (much more so than EMD), a welded block seems like it could have been considerably lighter. It would have required Alco dump a lot of money into development to catch up with the rapid changes in metallurgy and engine design brought on by the war though, like you said. (Just picture the difference between the 1930s 100 hp Ford flathead V-8, the 1953 Y-block with up to 235 hp stock, and the 1962 small-block that lasted until 1996 and has been pushed over 400 hp at the factory.) Maybe they could have brought a few dozen Pratt & Whitney or Packard design employees aboard, redesign the cylinder heads and create that V-12?
 #1524577  by Allen Hazen
 
I think -- I really MUST go and do some homework and re-read some sources! -- that Also found that the welded-frame engine was more expensive to produce than the cast-from 539T. Hiring engine-design experts to work on a V-12... sounds good, but Alco management, I think, believed that they couldn't afford any more engineering talent than they already had. (And why Packard or P&W? Both firms had done a lot of work on airplane engines during the war, but are the challenges there enough like those in medium speed railroad Diesel engine design to make Packard and P&W veterans the best people for Alco to recruit?)

Rereading what I've just written, Mtuandrew, it sounds as if I am just being negative about your suggestions: NOT my intention! I'll go and read and re-think and see if I have useful replies to make.
 #1524578  by Allen Hazen
 
Added first thoughts. The 241 and 244 engines were very impressive in terms of output for their size. The final 244 variant (244H) was apparently quite dependable. At least the 251 -- and I assume its thermodynamic essential were similar to the earlier Alco 9x10.5 engines. So I think maybe they made the right decision in big terms, but ran into trouble with some details:
(1) Somebody should have knocked heads together at GE and pointed out that even a long mission for a P-38 fighter plane was very different from a diesel locomotive's operation between 91-day inspections, and that their aircraft-engine-derived turbocharger really wasn't appropriate. Suppose GE had offered a water-cooled turbocharger similar to the Alco designs introduced in the 1950s for later 244-engined locomotives?
(2) A big problem with the early 244 was with the crankshafts. Somebody at Alco should have thought "It's the most highly stressed component in the engine-- do we really want to use CAST crankshafts?"
(3) There are a bunch of details -- Kirkland has a list -- in which the later 251 engine was like the Auburn-designed 241 (things like serrated rather than tongue-in-grove junctions for things that you want to have stay aligned), and where the 244 went for a (cheaper?) alternative: perhaps Schenectady thought that the 241 was overdesigned. That they reverted to the Auburn office's choices for the 251 suggests that they were wrong! If Alco's 1945 engine had been more like the 241 and 251 than like the first-generation 244, they might have had better luck.

All of these are comparatively small decisions-- nothing like abandoning the high-output 9x10.5 engine in favour of a developed 539.
 #1524604  by oibu
 
I think those that have pointed out the limitations of the 539 hit it on the head. Higher HP,V-type, less "overbuilt" (which has it's place, but also costs money in extra material, extra machining, waste, etc.), etc. Ultimately the 241 and 244 were steps in the direction of the 251 which carried Alco to the end and MLW/BBD until the mid 80s and is still considered a viable, reliable, and economical prime mover by those using them today. The 539 was bulletproof for sure, but it also was clearly a design that was more rooted in 1920s/early 1930s technology and was already becoming outdated by the mid-40s. Likewise, a larger 539 block with more cylinders would simply add to the "overbuilt" aspect, i.e. even more uneccessary material and even more wasted excess material machined away. Alco I think correctly realized that even an updated 539 in larger or v configurations was not likely to keep up with or ahead of the competition beyond ca. 1950, whereas the 244 and 251 allowed Alco to in most cases be the one to "up the ante" to progressively higher horsepower through the 50s and 60s (And arguably even MLW in the mid 70s with the M640 at 4000 HP, although other changes to the 251 design (cylinder liners, etc.) by MLW post-Alco led to another round of 244-esque faux pas with M630/M636 reliability issues that cost MLW dearly in the 1970s at a critical point and led CP and CN to migrate to GMD even though the Cn and CP C630s (built before the demise of Alco and MLW's subsequent design modifications) were considered the equal or superior to the SD40). It is also notable that Alco recognized the strong points of the 539 for switchers and did not move away from the 539 until the mid-50s in low hp/switcher applications at the same time it progressed through the 241 and 244 to the 251 for higher-hp applications. IMHO while there were some issues with the 244, the overall direction forward was clear and Alco chose the right path. Even the 244 foibles were largely addressed in later production, but the 251 development was the ultimate direction and it achieved it's goals and arguably more given that it carried Alco and it's successors up to the start of 3rd generation technology.
 #1525487  by Pneudyne
 
Allen Hazen wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:02 am (1) Somebody should have knocked heads together at GE and pointed out that even a long mission for a P-38 fighter plane was very different from a diesel locomotive's operation between 91-day inspections, and that their aircraft-engine-derived turbocharger really wasn't appropriate. Suppose GE had offered a water-cooled turbocharger similar to the Alco designs introduced in the 1950s for later 244-engined locomotives?
As I understand it, the underlying problem was that the constant-pressure type turbocharger was basically unsuited to traction work where the engine operated at variable speed and variable, with frequent changes of both. For the Alco application, GE did redesign its constant-pressure turbocharger to suit diesel engine requirements. In fact it may well have “beefed it up” too much; I understand that later iterations had reduced rotational mass. But given that it was of the “wrong” type, improving the GE turbocharger was really a sidebar; the answer was to move to the Buchi (pulse) type, which is what Alco eventually did.
Allen Hazen wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:02 am (2) A big problem with the early 244 was with the crankshafts. Somebody at Alco should have thought "It's the most highly stressed component in the engine-- do we really want to use CAST crankshafts?"
The impression I have from what Steinbrenner wrote on the matter is that Alco was somewhat constrained by availability, and that the cast crankshaft was an interim choice. It took a while to find a suitable supplier for forged crankshafts, and then there was a learning curve.
Allen Hazen wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:02 am (3) There are a bunch of details -- Kirkland has a list -- in which the later 251 engine was like the Auburn-designed 241 (things like serrated rather than tongue-in-grove junctions for things that you want to have stay aligned), and where the 244 went for a (cheaper?) alternative: perhaps Schenectady thought that the 241 was overdesigned. That they reverted to the Auburn office's choices for the 251 suggests that they were wrong! If Alco's 1945 engine had been more like the 241 and 251 than like the first-generation 244, they might have had better luck.
According to Steinbrenner, the primary motivation for developing the 244 was to have an engine that was cheaper and easier to produce than would have been the 241, at least as it had looked c.1944. And the decision to go ahead with the 244 was made before much testing had been done with the 241. Alco might have done better to firstly get its original design to work reasonably well, then work out how to manufacture it at lower cost in parallel with improving reliability and durability. Simply switching to a different design – aimed at the same target – would not – and did not - in and of itself eliminate the inevitable learning curve.
Allen Hazen wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:02 am Added first thoughts. The 241 and 244 engines were very impressive in terms of output for their size. The final 244 variant (244H) was apparently quite dependable. At least the 251 -- and I assume its thermodynamic essential were similar to the earlier Alco 9x10.5 engines. So I think maybe they made the right decision in big terms, but ran into trouble with some details:
The performance and physical targets for the 241 and 244 were ambitious, but I think there is little doubt that they were right for the longer term. Cooper-Bessemer had evidently set itself a similar target for the development of its FV engine, albeit with a quite different design and with development proceeding up a slower ramp.

I suspect that a vee-version of the 539T would have been a major development project that would have involved its own learning curve. Twice the power from about the same length of crankshaft would have been more than simple extrapolation. It might have been desirable to make the (fairly major) change from a bedplate to an underslung design. And the end result would have been an engine that was in general heavier, longer and wider than was otherwise achievable for its power output, and one whose power assemblies were larger and heavier than desirable for easy handling for maintenance purposes.


Cheers,
 #1545113  by PCook
 
What went on in the engine design group at Alco during World War Two would make a good subject for a book, and perhaps someday there will be time to write one.

One of their leading design engineers worked for years as a volunteer at the Schenectady Public Library and it was possible for anyone in the hobby to contact him and ask questions. I was talking with him one time and asked how many other people in historical groups had bothered to contact him, he replied "none".

That was in the 1970s. So now that fifty more years have passed, it seems that relatively little additional effort has been spent on this in the railroad history hobby.

PC
 #1545381  by Allen Hazen
 
PCook--
The American railman community really hasn't covered itself in glory from the point of view of doing serious history of technology! Somebody, in the 1960s or early 1970s should have gone around with a tape-recorder interviewing the various engineers and designers who created the American diesel locomotive. (Just as -- pet peeve -- someone should have preserved one of the Bush Terminal's early GE switchers....)
Steinbrenner's book on Alco ("Alco Centennial") has an organization chart of Alco's diesel engine design and engineering department from, I think, mid or late 1940s, with names in the boxes (so I think it gives a picture of just how large the group was). If one could compare this with records from EMD... Perhaps it would give an indication of the sort of engineering effort the two companies put into their engines.
--
(((On a general note: thank you for your comment! I always find your contributions to the discussions among the most interesting and informative!)))
 #1545427  by PCook
 
Allen, Thank You for your comment.

The period from about 1968-1972 would have been the most productive for contacting former Alco employees, when many of them were still in the Schenectady area. I met several Alco retirees through a friend who worked for the D&H, but I was a student in college with limited resources and a long drive to do interviews.

Around that time I notified the President of the Schenectady area chapter of a respected national historical group of the opportunity to interview Alco employees and document their history. He informed me that the Alco people were "welcome to come to our meetings", but seemed otherwise uninterested and as far as I know there was no follow up. Looking back, it was the loss of a great opportunity to have a historical group that close to a major locomotive builder and have no ongoing effort to at least do interviews. But in those days the railroad historical groups were very steam-biased, and in all fairness to the Schenectady area group, there were a lot of chapters of railroad historical groups in the Chicago area that made no effort at all to interface with EMD retirees either.

Going back to the 539 engine, Alco had a long and tedious but unsuccessful effort to build a tandem based on the 538/539/540 engines early in World War Two. It consumed a lot of time and resources, but they were never able to solve all the problems involved. It seems to have soured their Engine Design people on further efforts with that engine family.

PC
 #1545438  by Allen Hazen
 
PCook--
There is something tragic about missed opportunities! ... The steam orientation of organize railroad fan/history groups also played a role in the failure to preserve any of the Bush Terminal 60-tonners.
--
What do you mean by "a tandem" based on the 538/539/540 design? Would it have been something like the Sulzer 12-cylinder engine used on British Rail's Class 47: two banks of six cylinders on a common base, but driving separate crankshafts with gear drive of the traction generator?
 #1545442  by PCook
 
Allen,

Exactly! The Alco engine would have been two banks of eight cylinders each, with each bank driving its own crankshaft,the output combined through the rear gear train.

See US Patent 2,283,606 (F. M. Lewis) assigned to American Locomotive Company dated May 19, 1942 on google patents.

PC
 #1545449  by mtuandrew
 
Wow, a lot happens when you don’t review a topic for months :-D

I don’t know why I missed the crankshaft as a major failure point for any V-539T. It makes perfect sense that an early heavy diesel would require a single cylinder bank, wide crank journals, and a lot of bearings in order to reduce crankshaft failures. A V-configuration would have overstressed a period cast crankshaft, and any industrial forges capable of building that size of crankshaft would have been requisitioned for government use.
 #1545450  by Allen Hazen
 
Thanks for details!

There seems to be a history here, with metallurgy playing a role. As Pneudyne pointed out in earlier posts to this string, Alco had ... issues ... with crankshafts for the 244 engine, that seem to have turned in part on the difficulty of finding a supply of adequately robust, forged, crankshafts.
((((QUESTION: Did EMD have comparable difficulties? I can think of a couple of reasons why they might have had an easier time of it, but as a non-engineer I don't know whether or how much they mattered: (i) EMD's engines, in the 1940s/1950s, had a lower per-cylinder output than Alco's (12 Cylinder 244 gave the same power as 16 cylinder 567), so the energy transferred by a pair of EMD pistons to a 567 crankshaft throw was less than that delivered by a pair of Alco pistons to a 244 crankshaft throw, and (ii) EMD's engine was two-stroke, so every down-stroke of a piston was a power stroke, whereas Alco's was four-stroke, so only every other downstroke was powered: as a consequence the force exerted by Alco pistons on the crankshaft at each POWER stroke would have been higher.))))

Comparing the Alco 538 (family) and others with the Sulzer LDA28C used on British Rail Class 47 (and a few other classes) is instructive. The 9" bore, 10.5" stroke engines (Alco 241, Alco 244, Alco 251, CB/GE FDL) have a cylinder displacement of 668 cubic inches. The Sulzer engine is MUCH bigger: per-cylinder displacement of 1352.3 cubic inches (28cm bore, 26cm stroke). This isn't quite as big as the Alco 538 (1552.7 cubic inches), but it's closer to it than it is to the postwar Alco engines. (For comparison, the current GE GEVO engine has 970.6 cu in per cylinder.) I haven't found weights to compare, but the Sulzer engine seems to be much, much, lighter: perhaps a matter of not having a cast iron frame.
((((QUESTION: Does anybody here know just how much lighter the welded-frame 540 would have been than the standard 539?))))

Now the history. Sulzer (headquartered in Switzerland, though Sulzer engines were built by subsidiaries or licensees in many countries) had been in the Diesel engine business for decades, and had built V-configuration engines early on. They abandoned the V-type for high output engines, switching to the dual-bank form, in the 1920s. Apparent reason: crankshafts! They didn't think a single crankshaft, made with the technology available at the time, could handle the power of a big engine suitable for mainline railway purposes. SO: Alco's people in the early 1940s, exploring the possibilities of a dual-bank derivative of the 538 instead of a V-configuration, were following an established precedent. And, given the saga of 244 crankshafts, were probably reasonable in doing so.

Crankshaft design and metallurgy. of course, eventually improved. By the time (late 1950s) of the British Rail modernization plan, American locomotive engines were happily taking high power on single crankshafts. (Given the different conventions for stating power ratings, I think the 16-244 engine in Alco's 1955 Dl-600A had a higher output than the LDA28 in British Rail's Class 47 of the 1960s.) Sulzer themselves had gone back to the V-configuration for more modern diesels, supplying them for locomotives of the French railways. Why British Rail insisted on an engine design originally adopted for 1920s crankshaft metallurgy I'm not sure...

(References: British rail fans and technology historians are maybe a bit more with it than American. Googling "Sulzer LDA28C" I got a number of hits, including "fan" websites with lots of interesting history, much more than what I've summarized here.)
 #1545452  by Allen Hazen
 
I've ... skimmed ... the patent PCook references. (Given my lack of engineering background, I'm not sure how much I would have understood if I'd read it more carefully!) Neither Sulzer nor any other engine builder is mentioned by name, but it is written in a way that presupposes that the general idea of a twin-bank engine was familiar. The patent application is for refinements to the twin-bank idea to overcome vibration problems.