What does the future hold for Alco locomotives?

There are many Alco copy/look alike units all over Ukraine and in Belarus as well. There is a huge Locomotive Factory in Kiev, Ukraine alone that still pumps locomotives the largest number of export locomotives built in the Soviet Union came out of Ukraine and were sent to Romania, Poland, North Korea, Iraq, India, and Cuba, and some various countries in Africa.

Alco Locomotives were exported to the following countries:
Country and number of Locomotives
Algeria======10
Argentina====310
Australia=====622
Bangladesh===21
Brazil========252
Camaroon====20
Canada======2302
Chile========61
Columbia=====5
Cuba=========72
East Africa====35
Ecuador=======10
England=======5
Guatemala====15
Greece=======89
Hondras======1
India=========1983
Indonesia=====30
Iraq==========96
Jamaica======31
Korea========59
Mexico=======739
Malawi=======20
Mozambique==12
Nigeria======54
Pakistan=====405
Peru========84
Portugal=====87
Romania====50
Saudi Arabia=10
Sierra Leone=4
Sri Lanka====14
Spain=======197
Tanzania====25
Tunisia=====68
Uruguay====63
Yugaslavia==20
Venezuela==12
Zaire (Now Called The Democratic Republic of the Congo)==16
U.S.A.====8978
U.S.S.R. ===144

From what I can find in the Diesel Spotters Guide 144 RSD-1 were built between 11/1942-3/1945 for the Soviet Union with 1000 h.p. 6 cylinder 539 engines the spec numbers were which is what the Russians called them by were E-1645 and E-1646. all of these units ran one 3 axle trucks. History:
The E-1645 RSD-1s were the diesels that saved Russia. The Soviets requisitioned all the U.S. Rs-1's because the Luftwaffe had attacked the Murmansk convoys in the North Arctic Ocean. The Trans-Iranian Railway, with RS-1s on six-wheel trucks, fed Russia. These locomotives became the prototype for Russia's first standard diesels, of which more than 6,000 were built.

Not only the Alco techniques had been copied, the russian versions of the Fairbanks - Morse opposite piston engines built at the russian locomotive factory in Lungansk had been a tremendous sucess even built in thousands and later upgraded with turbochargers too. So the FM´s have been really better much more then their american image; in my opinion the usually careless maintenance in earlier times was the main reason that for example Fairbanks Morse, Sulzer, Krupp and other really established engine producers with good reputations in other countries had no chance on the north american locomotive market.

Petz wrote:Not only the Alco techniques had been copied, the russian versions of the Fairbanks - Morse opposite piston engines built at the russian locomotive factory in Lungansk had been a tremendous sucess even built in thousands and later upgraded with turbochargers too. So the FM´s have been really better much more then their american image; in my opinion the usually careless maintenance in earlier times was the main reason that for example Fairbanks Morse, Sulzer, Krupp and other really established engine producers with good reputations in other countries had no chance on the north american locomotive market.

A lot of it was unskilled workers in the field working on Fairbanks Morse, Sulzer, Krupp locomotives. Fairbanks could have made a go at it if they lets say had a lot of former Navy submarine guys working for the railroad's that were buying there product. as for Sulzer, and Krupp I have doubts that there were many skilled people who knew how to fix them but then and again the North American railroads tend to over work and over load there units a bit more than European railroads. One must look at the weight of the cars the number grades, and the tonnage hauled in North America compared to Europe. The Russian rail network and its locomotives on the other had is another animal in its self and could be compared to if not has more challenges than what most North American Railroads would just assume not deal with.

An appropriate worker´s training would be the basis for a good maintenance but a good worker with technical and vocational interests should be able to do a proper service on a unknown engine too, i see the troubles based at the personal´s relationship to its job.
I agree with you concerning the smaller european train weights based on the different and weakly coupling system but in India, China or Russia the locomotives are working under the same heavy conditions like in the USA. Besides that overweight loads could damage the generator and electric motors but they are not able to kill the diesel engine itself.

The object of American Railroads is to move freight not deal with fussy, cranky locomotives.

The object of American Railroads is to move freight not deal with fussy, cranky railfans.

RickRackstop wrote:The object of American Railroads is to move freight not deal with fussy, cranky locomotives.

For the benefit of Europeans that don't understand that we North Americans do things very differently. The National Railroads in Europe are more of an employment agency that runs trains when they get around to it. A lot of Europeans do come over here and enjoy our railroading as much as anyone though its probably a well guarded secret.

Incidentally there are a lot of rail-fans working for the railroads but at least they take a great deal of interest in what they do and sneak picture on the side. EMD service department had a question for prospective employee - "Would rather take roster shot photos or go with girls". Only half in jest.

Petz wrote:Not only the Alco techniques had been copied, the russian versions of the Fairbanks - Morse opposite piston engines built at the russian locomotive factory in Lungansk had been a tremendous sucess even built in thousands and later upgraded with turbochargers too. So the FM´s have been really better much more then their american image; in my opinion the usually careless maintenance in earlier times was the main reason that for example Fairbanks Morse, Sulzer, Krupp and other really established engine producers with good reputations in other countries had no chance on the north american locomotive market.

something else that came to mind with most locomotives built in places like the Former Soviet Block countrys like Russia, Ukraine, Poland and even the former Yugoslavia is that the metals that they used was often higher quality for there engines which could sustain higher hotter temperatures this was barrowed from there armament factorys. If you own any WWII Yugo M48 or a Russian army rifle like the M1891/30, M38 or M44 you'll know what I mean about the steel being used.

RickRackstop wrote:The object of American Railroads is to move freight not deal with fussy, cranky locomotives.

Very true. Alas most railroads are stuck with their EMD's and GE's.

RS

Colt Industries owns the Fairbank Morse line of engine parts. They support the engines still, along with phone and field tech support.
I own the FM H12-44 #1845 locomotive along with a spare ( core 38D8 ) engine and a few skids of spare engine parts. I also have the Colt Industries entire parts catalog for the 38D8. I must add that the parts are veeeeeeeery expensive, but I can still purchase what I would need to keep those opposed pistons moving out and back.

Here's some food for thought. Sooner or later the EPA is going to crack down on these older locomotives and ban their use. Barring that, I have no doubts that we could see 100 year old Alco's still in service in a few decades.

RickRackstop wrote:The object of American Railroads is to move freight not deal with fussy, cranky locomotives.

Exactly! Case in point EMD's SD90MAC-H.

Although in all fairness to the SD90MAC-H, I have no doubt whatsoever that these locomotives will provide outstanding, reliable service as 10 fl oz units for the Campbell Soup Company.

JR

JKR251 wrote:

RickRackstop wrote:The object of American Railroads is to move freight not deal with fussy, cranky locomotives.

Exactly! Case in point EMD's SD90MAC-H.

Although in all fairness to the SD90MAC-H, I have no doubt whatsoever that these locomotives will provide outstanding, reliable service as 10 fl oz units for the Campbell Soup Company.

JR

Soup cans are made of Aluminum, SD90MACs are mostly steel...they'll become razor blades and Toyotas.....

v8interceptor wrote: Soup cans are made of Aluminum, SD90MACs are mostly steel...they'll become razor blades and Toyotas.....

From Campbell's website: http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/faqs.asp

"Yes, the can is recyclable in most municipalities because it is made of steel.

The lid is made of a steel with an aluminum tab. It is also recyclable in most municipalities, but please check with your local authorities."

JR

JKR251 wrote:

v8interceptor wrote: Soup cans are made of Aluminum, SD90MACs are mostly steel...they'll become razor blades and Toyotas.....

From Campbell's website: http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/faqs.asp

"Yes, the can is recyclable in most municipalities because it is made of steel.

The lid is made of a steel with an aluminum tab. It is also recyclable in most municipalities, but please check with your local authorities."

JR

wow got a long lesson in education on there product and cans. (I'm not mocking anyone just commenting)