What about the Pennsy and NYC? Six!...With most RRs sampling locomotives from 3 and sometimes 4 different builders...
Now what exactly was the case with the 241? Was this in general a better concept than the 244 but needed alot of tweaking?
Yes, bearly twenty years. Isn't that just about the length of time a locomotive could be depreciated at the time? [ Not sure if it was 15 or 20.] That was possibly a bigger factor than the usefullness of the PA locomotives at the time. Many locomotives built in the same era lasted far longer. [Some still power money making trains today.] The PAs were certainly not worth rebuilding at twenty years old [Remember that the D&H personel sent to inspect them found them stored dead, doors opened to the elements and partially vandelized in early '67], and repowering was not a solution at ATSF. The D&H saved their's from the dead line twice, not because they were spectacular locomotives, but because a true railroad fan ran the company at the time. The D&H paid scrap value for all 5 of their PAs. [Yes 5]Doing the math-sounds like the ATSF fleet lasted almost 20 years !!!!
Categorically incorrect. Both the ATSF and SP were the beneficiaries of a GE initiated and designed upgrade program that included:
*'new' engines and water-cooled turbos
*upgrade to Simplified Amplidyne Control scheme including re-wiring
*general carbody overhaul, repaint, etc.
Yes, the M640 had radiator "wings" similar to those on GE locomotives. The big 18-cylinder 251 must have needed more cooling capacity than the standard Alco/MLW radiator configuration was able to provide.TheChessieCatLives wrote:Plus, the back end of it looks like what you'd see on a GE today.