Why not a C428?

[trainwayne1]

Were the trucks under the RSD-12's and RSD-15's the same as those on the 628's?

[N. Todd]

Three orders? I can think of LV, Monon, L&N, SP, N&W, PRR, and D&H off the top of my head....

Pay attention, I referenced only 3000 hp units in my post (GP40, U30B) and the mention of demos should have made it obvious that I was referring to the C430!

Were the trucks under the RSD-12's and RSD-15's the same as those on the 628's?

Uh, yes, don't they look the same? The trimount was an outdated design; while it provided good traction in the 50s, it just wasn't on par with the rest come the Century series. The trimount design was very ridgid- not very flexible as was the flexicoil- and so it would apply extra force on the rail while going on curves. SP/SSW experienced this problem on their RSD5.

[GOLDEN-ARM]

I've read repeatedly about the rough ride of these units/trucks, so unquestionably, it's true. I've also ridden units with hard-riding trucks (70-tonner was the worst), so I know what that feels like.

My question is this: how is it able to be ascertained that any unit or class of units are straightening rails, destroying joints, etc.? Is it just that the rails are more worn after a brief period of time when these units are around? I mean, there were other styles of locos around at the time, and how is it determined that it's the C-628's and not the big U-Boats, for instance?

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I've always wondered when the D&H is using 6-axle U-Boats (which I thought went away before too long, too) how the 628's were the bad guy. I'm extending that question to the LV here as well.

Thanks in advance.

Dave Becker

If the ONLY six axle power on your railroad is a C-628, and every time they go around a tight curve, they derail or break the rails, in places the 4 axles run without a care, you might have an issue. In places where the C-628's roam, and the curves in the rail are suddenly being ground down, from the rail head, to the web of the rail, you might have a problem. If the C-628's start to "vertically oscillate" and the rail under them, becomes many, very short rails, without other locos creating the same problems, you might have an issue, with your C-628's. If you are running at lower speeds, and you enter a curve, and the rail on the outside is pushed out, and rolled onto it's side, ONLY when a C-628 powered train is running on it, you might have another problem. My favorite locos, were, unfortunately, very punishing, on stick rail, and moderate to tight curves. As I mentioned a while back, in another thread, LV engineer Tony Jules once told me, "a Valley engineer is measured, by the amount of sand he can throw onto the nose, from his sandbox fillers". A slight exaggeration, possibly, but he was stating the severe vertical pounding they demonstrated, while operating on jointed rail, and the ability of a LV engineer, to "ride it out", and keep on running in the 8th, even as it seemed, the train was literally about to leap off the tracks. The C-628 was a punisher, on the crews, and on the physical plant, of the railroad. Regards

[GOLDEN-ARM]

Keep in mind the C628 was a not exactly the most reliable machine out there. Yes, wheel slip was a common issue at the time. I'm surprized that even with the success of the U30B and GP40, that Alco could only draw 3 orders, even with the demonstrators.

I'm going to say, since this led off with a statement about a C-628, and it mentioned wheelslip in them, there isn't an "obvious" connection, with the implication that because you mentioned 3000 hp locos from other builders, that we had suddenly changed locos we are talking about. If the C-630 was suddenly being referenced, it might have been mentioned. C-628 Demos certainly did exist, and I saw no transition, in the quote above, from Alco 2750 hp units, to Alco 3000 hp units. Obviously, it wasn't as "obviious", as you intended it to be..................

[RS-3]

"Pay attention, I referenced only 3000 hp units in my post (GP40, U30B) and the mention of demos should have made it obvious that I was referring to the C430!"


A, the C-628 is (was) NOT 3,000hp (perhapes you weren't paying attention); B, you made no mention of C-430 nor was the C-430 mentioned in any of the 6 or 7 posts previous to yours.


Someone asked:
Were the trucks under the RSD-12's and RSD-15's the same as those on the 628's?

"Uh, yes, don't they look the same? ..."

Well yes they do. BUT I was under the impression (perhaps I wasn't paying attention) that the tri-mount trucks on the C-628/630/636 had a longer wheelbase than those on the older RSD-4/5. Anyone have the data that says one way or the other?


And lastly (pay attention), the C-430 sold to four railroads, not three.

RS

[N. Todd]

Okay, I noticed I did not transistion well. Things happen.
I belive the wheelbase on the RSD4/5 trmount trucks was the same as on the later types. But notice the slight difference in frame design on single-cylinder designs (which were also applied on the RSD7?).
On some early RSDs, the inside drop equilizer was shaped differently, more straight than curved.
When I was referring to the C430s, I used "orders" not sales. Orders: 2 RDG, 10 NYC, 1 GBW. SCL siply bought the SCL demos. I know WP tried out the C636 demos, but were the 430s sent west too?

[RS-3]

"Things happen."

Ha! Got that right!

Re tri-mounts, did they all use the same traction motors? While the basic design seems the same I wonder if there's not some minor differences?

RS

[alcodude]

I've read repeatedly about the rough ride of these units/trucks, so unquestionably, it's true. I've also ridden units with hard-riding trucks (70-tonner was the worst), so I know what that feels like.

<snip>
Dave Becker

[Alcoman]

Why did the CNW suddenly dispose of all their Alcos?

[N. Todd]

Well parts and such come to mind. They might have just been worn out. The C628s were traded for credit on those new Dash-8s. Quite an honor for an Alco in an odd way.

[GOLDEN-ARM]

Ride quality, like almost anything in life, is pretty subjective.

All things considered, the C628 proved to be quite successful on the C&NW.

I agree, it's subjective. No telling why those guys on the Chick-N-Wing thought they rode well. VERY subjective. Maybe the TM's were bouncy, and rough riding, so they were used to that. Perhaps they used them in drag service, hauling Taconite trains, at 20 mph, and they rode "better" at those speeds. EVERY other customer had them, said the same thing. "These things ride like s&^%". Monon traded theirs back in, within months of receiving them, they rode so rough. The Valley didn't mind, and added another batch, to their roster. (Monons loss, was a great bargain, for the Valley) The D&H and the Valley banned them both, from rails 110 pounds, and less. Looking in a D&H or a LV TT, you will see the huge amount of railroad, they were specifically banned from. My all time favorite locos, they were unfortunately, a little "rough", on the men and roadbed. <LV>

[N. Todd]

So how did the HiAds or blunts ride in comparison?

[BlockLine_4111]

The Lehigh Valley went back, for a second order of the "Snowbirds", as the AF-27's were known. They were that good. Known for being able to crawl at speeds with heavy tonnage that would have reduced lesser locos to scrap iron, the C-628's were really known, for their ability to launch crewmen straight up out of their seats, due to the "bounciness" of the Tri-Mounts, and of their ability to destroy trackage, under those same trucks. The C-628 was the hardest pulling loco on the LV diesel roster, with wheelslip not being an issue. Straightening out the curves in tracks, and pounding the joints into the ground, was the reason they were eventually banned from the west-end of the road, and from the D&H runs, into Bingo, as well. (D&H pulled their own, from the runs to Sayre, as well) Lot's of roads rostered them, and the total number built, shows the loco WAS a success, even as it continued to pound the rails into submission.

Sounds like the LV C628s were pounders, screamers, and spreaders and pardon my slang. I'm sure multiple unit consists of three locos or more were quite torturous on the curves of lightweight stickrail.

[Storknest]

Even though it is about 4 years later, just thought I would add information if that is OK since I became interested in unbuilt locomotives.

I own a copy of the book Alco Century Series Volume I - Four Axle Models. In the front on pages 6 and 7 they mention the C428 and C624. In addition is mentioned:

1 - On June 1, 1967 Alco had a binder listing Century models during a presentation to the Milwaukee Road, the C855 was not listed but a C860 was at 6000HP and 8 motors, this is the same binder showing the C428. It saya later in the same summary a handwritten note was next to a comparison between the DD-40 and C855, it said Alco can make a 6000HP loco with two 3000HP engines, AC generators.

2 - A DL-620 was available in the Century series since 1963. The only mention in the C420 section of the book ssaid it would have used the same prime mover as the C420 and RS32.

3 - Alco can make a 1000HP switcher for delivery in the first quarter of 1966. Later in the book in the C415 section, mention of an internal document from June 9, 1965 comparing EMD models (SW1000 and SW1500) to what Alco had and will make referred to the DL-410 again being available when noted. It is presumed this would have been a smaller version of the C415 since Alco was already making an end cab 1000HP unit in the T6.

4 - During the Milwaukee Road presentation, they also had a reference that Alco could make a 5000HP, 6 motor with a 24 cylinder, V-type, 251 engine. It would have two 12-cylinder blocks with an alternator between, weigh 402,000 pounds, would be 83 feet long inside the knuckles and develop 5000HP to the alternator down to 30MPH and go down to 4000HP between 30-20MPH. No designation is given.

5 - In the C425 section is more on the C428 that supposedly would have been indistinguishable from the outside compared to a C425. The C428 was offered when railroads were going towards 3000HP B-B units and starting to use C-C units in areas normally having B-B units. Alco may have been able to put Hi-Ad trucks on the C428 that would have made it competitive with the 3000HP models but it just did not sell.

[jbacon1361]

Why not? GE had the U-28b. Such an engine would look like a C-425 with the back end of a C-628. I would think it would ride on a 4-30 mainframe. A short version of the C-430. One would do a double take and cause confusion between a C-430 and a C-428. I think it would look cool. Any takers?