WHY ALCOS?

Two other factors which enter into the process, and tip it one way or the other--

First, money. ALWAYS an issue!!! GM and later, GE, had well-run, deep pockets financing programs. Look at the data plates on many units-- GM and GE were the owners and lessors of the units to a lot of railroads, and in many cases, that railroad may not have been able to get their own financing ("equipment trust" it was called). Alco had no such resources, and once Alco became a part of the various conglomerates, it had even fewer resources, even for Research and Development.

Second, Factory Support. GM and GE were again, bigger, with larger and more established field support organizations (with all due apologies to Mr. McDermott!!).

It can easily be argued and probably proven that Alco made a superior product, especially the Centuries and the other 251-powered units (we'll forget about the C-855 and such!!). But, in the corporate environment of the 50s and 60s, that didn't necessarily carry the day.

The head start of WW2 (advantage to EMD-GM), the rush to put the 244 into locomotives (bad taste for Alco on many roads), the overall shrinking of the market coinciding with the 251 intro, were all bad enough; GE deciding to jump in and the conglomerate stupidity were the final coffin nails.

The aluminum wire business didn't come along until after GE's U25B, did it?

-But, in the corporate environment of the 50s and 60s, that didn't necessarily carry the day. -

As evidenced by the fact that GE oustold Alco by the mid-60s. Has ANYONE, operating OR mechanical, ever said much good about early U-boats???


Re: aluminum cabling, that was definitely after the advent of the CEntury series, and I'm not sure if even the early Centuries had it. Aluminum is in fact a better conductor, which is why Alco used it; however, once it corrodes (at connections, etc.), the aluminum oxide is an extremely poor conductor.

Oibu asks:
Has ANYONE, operating OR mechanical, ever said much good about early U-boats???

The New Haven, which had both U25B and C425, apparently usually (not always) dispatched them with a U25B as lead unit. (Source: picture caption in an old issue of "Trains" explaining that the photo, of a NH train with a C425 leading, was of something unusual.) I have assumed for years that this was because the engine crews HAD said something good about the U25B -- like, maybe, it rode better -- but does anyone here know?

Hmmm...well, the trucks on these two models were identical, as I recall. I, for one, disliked the U25B controls. The throttle handle was akin to a present-day workout machine.

Personally, I don't think I ever had anything good to say about early U-boats.

As for the aluminum cables, EMD did some of that, too. Early GP40s were so equipped, and required new hi-v cabling after a while.

Maybe in the early days of the U25's, many engineers liked them, BUT with time; it changed. Some much so that the shops hated working on them and some railroads asked ALCO about putting 251 engines in them.

Then again now.....How many U25B's are still operating in 2007 vs C425's ???
That answer should sum it up nicely.

The real question should be how many 7FDLs are running vs how many 251s?

Yes, the early FDL was a pretty poor engine; the 251 was/is a pretty good one. But, GE put the effort into fixing problems and selling locomotives, and financing locomotives, and that is what ultimately counted.

Best scenario: if, in 1955, GE decided to buy Alco and use the 251 in the U-series locos. GE certainly had the resources then to do it-- was there too much bad blood over the joint marketing arrangements with the 244?

I've heard that the cab heaters in the U25s were quite good.

MEC407 wrote:I've heard that the cab heaters in the U25s were quite good.

The heater would drive you out of the cab when the air valve was wide open. In later years, though, there was usually exhaust gases mixed in with the heated air. Not pleasant, and quite likely to produce a bad headache...

Back to Alcos -- yeah I always liked them better than U-boats.

[quote=Seems like there is a company in India that makes ALCO Parts correct??[/quote]

ALCO 251 power plant based locos are still
made at Diesel Loco Works (DLW) in India.

DLW has made 4,500+ units and they had
Transfer of Technology agreement with ALCO in
early 60s.

They modified ALCO 251C 16-cylinder plant
to generate 3,500 HP against 2,600 in original
ALCO design.

What sort of R and D is still going on with the 251, if you know?

Dave Becker

Dave,

As of February 2008, I was told that their R&D
has stopped working on ALCO 251 refinements.

They have Transfer of Technology from EMD to
manufacture SD70MAC and now they install IGBT
rather than GTO in it. They have also
increased throughput to 4,500 HP.

As a result, their priority has shifted to EMD
710 based product.

That may change in future as ALCO are cheaper
to manufacture and easier to maintain.

Many engineers in DLW had not heard that F-M
offers 4,000 HP kits for 251 till I showed it
in my presentation.

The question they asked is, besides modifying
crankshaft, camshaft, piston crown and
increasing engine RPM, what else F-M modified
to achieve this?

Also, will F-M be able to re manufacture 251
after new EPA regulations?

They re manufacture older 2,600 HP locos
and deliver them as 3,100 or 3,300 HP models.
It is done at different facility in India.

Prakash

Here is the current information for the Alco 251 currently produced by Fairbanks-Morse:

http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engine_fm_alco_251.php

-otto-

I'm surprised nobody bought up SP's experince aluminum pistions in their C-630s... that forever turned away a good customer.

For those shortlines who still use Alco's - it's largely a business decision.

Since Diesel Loco Works in India still manufactures ALCOs,
feel free to check their current product line.

http://www.diesellocoworks.com/products/alco.htm

They also make SD70MAC.

Regards,

Prakash