Did New York Central own any RSC-2?

Did the NYC ever have a RSC-2.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RSC-2

-=otto-

nope..
according to the roster here:

http://www.thedieselshop.us/NYC.HTML

(which I believe is complete..no reason to doubt it)
they had no 6-axle RS units at all..

actually, apart from passenger units, NYC didnt go in much for 6-axle power..
They never owned a single EMD SD unit or 6-axle Alco freight unit..

Scot

On the other hand, an RSC-2 is basically just an RS-2 on trucks with a center idler axle, and the NYC did have RS-2.
--
The only real motivation for buying RSC-2 instead of RS-2 was if you didn't think your track was good enough to cope with higher axle-loadings. So the main U.S. buyers were in the Midwest (lots of branch lines serving country grain elevators) and the South (which in the late 1940s was still a very poor, economically underdeveloped part of the U.S.): Seaboard Air Line's corporate successor Seabord Coast Line still had some light-rail trackage in the 1970s, and traded in (some of?) their RSC-2 on lightweight U18B with very small fuel tanks.

As for six-axle diesels with all axles powered (Alco RSD series, EMD SD series, GE with a "C" somewhere in their model designation), remember that the New York Central was the "Water Level Route": low grades, good track, fast freight trains. Until after the Penn Central merger, the people overseeing the New York Central's track thought they could use the highest available locomotive horsepower in a four-axle, four traction motor, unit: largest customer for U25B and U33B, lots of GP40.... New York Central's managers were not dogmatic: they were willing to experiment, and allowed Fairbanks Morse to send a pair of "Train Master" (six-motor units with 2400 hp, which in the 1950s was high) to demonstrate on New York Central lines.

Thanks for the info, it is greatly appreciated

The only place that I can think of in NYC days that could have justified six motor power was the Boston and Albany. The
Central did not think it was worth it to order specialized power for mostly the B & A. They felt it was simpler and more
efficient to just run enough units (four motor units that is) to get over the grades on the B & A.
Dynamic brakes were another item that the Central did not order on much of their earlier diesel power. Post Central years
and especially Conrail and later the industry came to the position that dynamic brakes were a useful tool even on railroads
that do not have any heavy or major grades. Today even the Florida East Coast which has even less grades than the former
New York Central has determined that dynamic brakes are a useful tool in operations and their newest locomotives are
equipped with dynamic brakes.
Even back in the days there are places on the former New York Central where dynamic brakes could have been very useful in
years past as they are today on these same routes.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver--
Didn't New Yorck Central in fact have a small number of GP-7 with dynamic brakes, bought specifically for service on the Boston and Albany? Or am I confusing something half remembered?

GP-7 class DRS-4h were built with dynamic brakes. They were numbered 5686 thru 5708. I believe they were originally assigned somewhere in the midwest and also think that they were the NYC's only 1st generation roadswitchers with dynamics.

I actually think it was planning for the PC merger - which went on for some time before it actually took place - that led to the change in thinking and ordering dynamic brakes on locomotives, since this happened roughly 1965 with the GP40s, and I presume the U28B's that would follow as well.

It seems that many people assume that the NYC didn't order too many units with dynamic brakes. Not true.

Some facts about NYC units with dynamic brakes:

1) 54.5% of the entire road fleet had dynamic brakes. ( This is all units on the roster except switchers ).
2) Remove the passenger units from the total and the number goes to almost 60%
3) Remove the roadswitchers ( RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, GP7, GP9 ) and you end up with 93% of the road freight fleet with dynamic brakes.

Now - if you take a look at the fact that all of the freight cab units had dynamics, when it came time for the second generation road power to show up on the road - they opted not to have them - so that would indicate that maybe the extra cost just wasn't worth it based on the experience during the 50's with the cab units. Then came the planning for the merger in the early 60's resulting in the GP40 coming with dynamic brakes.

That's a very good point and a good discussion of it. I'd hasten to add that while none of the turbocharged EMD road units had dynamics until the last GP-35, the U25's all had dynamic brakes with deliveries beginning in early '64.

According to Edson/Vail/Smith the GP-7 units with dynamic brakes were originally built for service between Ashtabula and Youngstown, which directly implies iron ore, coal, coke and steel.

-Will Davis

It may be worth noting that by the mid-60s the NYC was losing money and looking to merge with the PRR, in the active planning stages, and perhaps assuming that much less debt by not ordering the dynamic brakes helped them look like a better merger partner.

I think even in the late New York Central days it was intended to run the GE's in the east and the east includes the B & A
which did have grades and was a good place for dynamic brake equipped locomotives.
I do go along with the theory that once the merger became more certain, it made sense to order everything with dynamic
brakes so they could efficiently utilize them everywhere as the former PRR had plenty of grades especially in Pennsylvania.
Noel Weaver