ALCO C636PA

recently i came across a datasheet of a ALCO C636PA, which is a C636 inclosed in a F45 style cowl body. apparently there was a C636PB booster unit as well. both were sold to the pennsylvania railroad, and both were scrapped for reasons i have yet to assertain

Any pictures?

interesting!
but I doubt these were ever actual, existing units..
probably just some Alco proposals, perhaps to the PRR, for units that were never built.

The C636 was Alcos last-gasp for large road units..
only 34 were ever built (34 in Schenectady, more were built in Australia, plus slightly different MLW's)
and all are quite well documented.

so sorry..sounds like an interesting Alco proposal!
but the units never actually existed..

MLW and Bombardier later built some cowl units based on their Alco designs:
http://members.fortunecity.com/rrpics/acmlfo/cn2100.jpg

PRR never owned any though..
actually..PRR never owned any C636's at all..(Penn Central did though)

Scot

There was a magazine article (I think in RMC, but it could have been Railfan) where these units were proposed to the Santa Fe (they bought F-45's, of course). In that article they were named something like C636F's. They also mentioned B units. They didn't mention anything about PRR though. I don't think that any were ever built - for the PRR or anyone else.

Edit: Found it. August 1976 RMC.

http://usedmagz.com/cgi-bin/usedmagz_st ... rch2&xm=on

Hope this helps,

There's a paragraph, and at least one drawing, in Steinbrenner's "Alco: A Centennial History". I think the idea originated with the Santa Fe, and all three builders (Alco, GE, EMD) put in bids. Alco prepared separate drawings of freight and passenger versions: freight (portrayed in the "Railroad Model Craftsman" article) had a fairly simple cab (start with a standard Alco Century-series cab, then expand the short hood to a full-width nose), but they went all out aesthetically for the passenger version, grafting on a lookalike of the PA (or maybe FA) cab: this is portrayed in a drawing in Steinbrenner.

Santa Fe (I'm remembering this from the "RMC" article) asked for bids on B-units as well as A-units for freight: EMD and Alco offered B-units. (GE, somewhat strangely, was for a long time unwilling to countenance B-units: strange, since they DID build the U50 and U50C, which involved much more special engineering.) In the end they only bought F45 A-units from EMD.

scottychaos wrote:interesting!
but I doubt these were ever actual, existing units..
probably just some Alco proposals, perhaps to the PRR, for units that were never built.

The C636 was Alcos last-gasp for large road units..
only 34 were ever built (34 in Schenectady, more were built in Australia, plus slightly different MLW's)
and all are quite well documented.

so sorry..sounds like an interesting Alco proposal!
but the units never actually existed..

MLW and Bombardier later built some cowl units based on their Alco designs:
http://members.fortunecity.com/rrpics/acmlfo/cn2100.jpg

PRR never owned any though..
actually..PRR never owned any C636's at all..(Penn Central did though)

Scot

according to my info, there were some prototypes built, although i could be wrong

No prototypes were built. Drawing Board only.

Wouldn't this locomotive be MLW's HR616?

Tom

tomjohn wrote:Wouldn't this locomotive be MLW's HR616?

Tom

Not really..
although the MLW could have been inspired by the C636PA, in a small way..
but they are basically unrelated...

The Alco C636PA proposal must have been from 1967, '68 or '69..at the very end of Alco production..
while the HR616 didnt come along until 1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_HR-616

Scot

scottychaos wrote:

tomjohn wrote:Wouldn't this locomotive be MLW's HR616?

Tom

Not really..
although the MLW could have been inspired by the C636PA, in a small way..
but they are basically unrelated...

The Alco C636PA proposal must have been from 1967, '68 or '69..at the very end of Alco production..
while the HR616 didnt come along until 1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_HR-616

Scot

I found a copy of August 1976 issue of RMC. Oh, now I see and understand,thank you now I can go to sleep I learned something today....



A person is never too old to learn,the need for education never stops.
It stops for those who do not have the mental,physical capability and desire to be educated.

This might not be the best place to post this, and I'll let John decide, but according to the Wiki article, the M's were plagued with problems. Like what? I've never heard stories of their problems...unless they are concerns that the C's had that were simply passed along and not addressed.

John? Anyone?

Dave Becker

pablo wrote:This might not be the best place to post this, and I'll let John decide, but according to the Wiki article, the M's were plagued with problems. Like what? I've never heard stories of their problems...unless they are concerns that the C's had that were simply passed along and not addressed.

John? Anyone?

Dave Becker

The subject of problems with the HR's could be a topic of its own. Keep in mind that at least some of the HR616's had new electrical systems and TM's made by Hitatchi as well as new designs of some components on the engine itself. As a result of this I suspect that CN's shops were not well versed in doing work on these and as a result, the units suffered from reliability issues. This have been the beginning of a change for Bombardier to get away from GE as their major electrical gear source.
John

That seems to be the case with any new locomotive design, regardless of who built it or whose components are inside. The MPI MP36 was said to be extremely buggy when the first batch hit the rails. But look at it now: it has become the de facto standard in modern North American commuter locomotives, with 10 different agencies ordering them, and more to come. I assume that is due, in no small part, to MPI's service and support.

One has to wonder whether or not Bombardier provided adequate service and support to fix the HR616's teething problems. If the answer to that question is no, that could explain why the units had such short careers and why CN was the only North American buyer.

Thank you for the information about the HR's...I knew they were supposed to be bad, but did not know quite why.

However, the Wiki article says that the HR's were problematic just like the M's were. What were those problems?

Dave Becker

tomjohn wrote:Wouldn't this locomotive be MLW's HR616?

Tom

well, the model i aquired looks remarably similar, it just dosn't have the "draper taper". my guess is that when canadian national went to look for new cowl, the liked the C636F, but modified it for better rearwoard visibility