Alco 636's on NYSW

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

User avatar
scottychaos
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:18 am
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by scottychaos » Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:07 pm

We have been debating the renumburing of two of the units over on the Susquehanna forum...this is where I believe everything stands right now.
corrections welcome:

2 of the units were briefly renumbured in the 6300 series.
and are now in the 3600 series.

Cartier 45 was the first renumbured, to 6366, photographic proof of renumbured 6366 taken on June 4, 2005.
On July 30, the unit was spotted renumbured a second time, this time to 3666.
So this unit went from Cartier 45 to NYSW 6366 to NYSW 3666. hopefully settled down now.

Cartier 43 was very briefly renumbured to 6370..perhaps only a few weeks in July 2005. by late July she was renumbured to 3670.
this unit went from Cartier 43 to NYSW 6370 to NYSW 3670.

Current numbering status as of August 1, 2005:

41 - still #41, operating with NYSW

3670 - was briefly numbured 6370, perhaps only a few weeks in July,
was Cartier 43, operating with NYSW

3666 - was numbured 6366 for approx 2 months, June and July
was Cartier 45, operating with NYSW

47 - still #47, operating with NYSW
75 - still in Cohocton, not operating.
77 - with NYSW, but has not operated yet.
78 - still #78, operating with NYSW.
85 - still in Cohocton, not operating.

five of the eight are operating!
three still await a return to service.

Scot
Last edited by scottychaos on Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alcoman
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere

Post by Alcoman » Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:18 pm

Scot:
77 - with NYSW, but has not operated yet.
78 - still #77, operating with NYSW.

78 should be 78

User avatar
MEC407
Posts: 10911
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: ....

Post by MEC407 » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:38 pm

Ale Rider wrote:As for MEC 407's comments I would point out that these are recently rebuilt units from the Cartier, a railroad that put a lot of time and research into mailing these reliable up to date locos.
True, but Cartier must have had a reason for getting rid of them. I doubt they chose to go out and buy brand new GEs just for the fun of it! :wink:
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives

User avatar
scottychaos
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:18 am
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by scottychaos » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:54 pm

Alcoman wrote:Scot:
77 - with NYSW, but has not operated yet.
78 - still #77, operating with NYSW.

78 should be 78
'doh!
good catch, thanks Alcoman.
its fixed..
Scot

tgibson
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by tgibson » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:02 pm

Hi,

AFAIK the main reason these days to replace old large locomotives that are still doing the job OK is reduced (virtually eliminated) maintenance expenses due to warranty repairs of the new units. Also, after that the builders will typically provide their own maintenance system for you, allowing you to essentially eliminate your heavy maintenance shops. This is usually more cost effective, especially for small/medium railroads.

By "still doing the job OK" I mean reasonably reliable, parts still available, shop force familiar with them, etc.

Take care,
Tom Gibson

Cal Classic Alco Page: http://www.calclassic.com/alco/

Ol' Loco Guy

Post by Ol' Loco Guy » Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:31 pm

Even though we are talkin' waaaaay back-I can recall that both BN and CR gave up on spending any serious monies on Alco products not long after both those outfits left the gates.

So-whatever locomotives that made it to Chrome or Naporano were most certainly not in the best of shape. Also recall that way back then-the RTO market for Alco 251 engines was bit hotter than today.

Based upon all kinds of reports and personal observation-the opposite is true for the Cartier units-251 Plus components, heavy blocks, purpose built controls...with the units just being pretty damn sweet. Locos that come down from Canada tend to be in better shape than their American equivalent-perhaps based upon cost and availability of capital. I can't help but notice our brothers from the north may even RESPECT the equipment a bit more than some of the yanks.

As for why they are on the Suzy Q, property-seems to me that the boss must've wanted 'em. So, the guys in the shop will learn to deal with 'em-and life will go on.

OLG

User avatar
MEC407
Posts: 10911
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Post by MEC407 » Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:45 pm

If Cartier put all the time / effort / money into rebuilding and modernizing these units, and still chose to retire them shortly thereafter and replace them with new units at considerable expense ... well, either the units weren't performing as well as was expected, or Cartier likes to waste money. And I've never heard of any railroad, anywhere, that was frivolous with money.
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives

Alcoman
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere

Post by Alcoman » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:19 am

MEC407 wrote:If Cartier put all the time / effort / money into rebuilding and modernizing these units, and still chose to retire them shortly thereafter and replace them with new units at considerable expense ... well, either the units weren't performing as well as was expected, or Cartier likes to waste money. And I've never heard of any railroad, anywhere, that was frivolous with money.


OR the GE Salesman was a good BS artist!

Ale Rider

as stated above....

Post by Ale Rider » Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:47 am

Read carefully, this is probably the most signifigant reason....

"the main reason these days to replace old large locomotives that are still doing the job OK is reduced (virtually eliminated) maintenance expenses due to warranty repairs of the new units. Also, after that the builders will typically provide their own maintenance system for you, allowing you to essentially eliminate your heavy maintenance shops. This is usually more cost effective, especially for small/medium railroads."

Also, the cartier did keep about 9 of the newest rebuilt MLW's around and in service for log trains and other jobs around the railroad.

User avatar
Tadman
Posts: 9415
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Tadman » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:25 pm

There probably was some justified accounting reason, we just aren't thinking of the right one - maybe fuel consumption on the new GE's is much lower than the MLWs, maybe Cartier got a tax writeoff for buying new units versus throwing money at maintenance, etc... Also there isn't much of a market for used alco/mlw products, so when an Alco friendly road needs power it's a good idea to unload your used alcos then. THinking back to NYSW in the 80's, they were almost all-alco, so some shop forces must remember how to work on them and fix their quirks. On the other hand, any shop can work on EMD's, so NYSW can unload their old EMD's whenever, however.

User avatar
MEC407
Posts: 10911
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Post by MEC407 » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:42 pm

Alcoman wrote:OR the GE Salesman was a good BS artist!
A BS artist is only as good as the person he's trying to sell his "art" to. :wink:
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives

ANDY117
Posts: 1944
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:01 pm
Location: Forgotten in a siding

Post by ANDY117 » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:40 am

UPDATE!!

NYSW GETTING THE LAST 2 M636'S FROM COHOCTON THIS MORNING!

UNITS ARE:

NYSW 3672

NYSW 3674

Most likely ex. 75 and 85, because i can't imagine why NYSW would send 2 old ones out there for renumbering.

HOORAY!

Alcoman
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere

Post by Alcoman » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:48 am

This is interesting since the president of the WNY&P once was qouted in saying that they had purchased them.

nessman
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Isle of Sodor

Post by nessman » Wed Aug 17, 2005 11:00 am

Alcoman wrote:This is interesting since the president of the WNY&P once was qouted in saying that they had purchased them.
No - he said that they had an option to buy two of them.

User avatar
scottychaos
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:18 am
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by scottychaos » Wed Aug 17, 2005 11:01 am

thanks Andy!
yep, it must be 75 and 85.
I read somewhere about a week ago that the 2 units were spotted still IN Cohocton with the new NYSW numbers applied.
so the new numbers were added there..

now, the big question..which is which? :-D
were they numbured consecutively?

Scot

Post Reply

Return to “American Locomotive Company - ALCO”