WHY ALCOS?

A question asked out of curiosity.
Why would a railroad (GVT, LAL, A&M etc.) in 2007 choose to use all Alco power?

It would seem that in 2007 the logical business choice would be to use EMD or GE engines instead of Alcos.
Second hand EMD or GE engines are more available and since both companies are still in business parts, new(?)
and used have to be more available.

The pool of available Alco/MLW engines is much smaller. When it comes to parts, are new parts available or does
everything have to be stripped from donor hulks and rebuilt or purchased remanufactured?

It just seems easier (and maybe more important, cost effective) for a railroad to purchase say a second hand
GP38-2 or GP40-2 thats ready to go to work then resurrect an RS11, C420 or C424 from a deadline.

Now having said all that, if the folks at GVT happen to read this....
How about a pair of FA's (maybe painted in a Santa Fe Warbonnet inspired scheme) to go with the rest of that
beautiful fleet!!!

I'm not speaking on behalf of any of those roads, but here are some factors.

First, Class I railroads got rid of ALCOs quite a while back. When they made the decision to eliminate them, many good, fairly recent ALCOs were sold at fairly cheap prices. So the fact that some lines DON'T want them makes the cost lower for those who DO.

Also, some ALCO roads have had at least some ALCOs for years. As such, they have accumulated not only the parts needed to keep them running, but also the skills and experience to take care of them. If you have a CMO such as you'll find at the lines you mention, you'll find guys who know these beasts inside and out and can take better care of them than if it was one ALCO at an otherwise all-EMD line.

As fewer and fewer people want a given brand, those survivors gravitate to places that specialize in them. I would not know the first thing about a Baldwin for example, but the folks in New Jersey who have that niche are doing nicely with them.

tj48 wrote:A question asked out of curiosity.
Why would a railroad (GVT, LAL, A&M etc.) in 2007 choose to use all Alco power?

It would seem that in 2007 the logical business choice would be to use EMD or GE engines instead of Alcos.
Second hand EMD or GE engines are more available and since both companies are still in business parts, new(?)
and used have to be more available.

The pool of available Alco/MLW engines is much smaller. When it comes to parts, are new parts available or does
everything have to be stripped from donor hulks and rebuilt or purchased remanufactured?

It just seems easier (and maybe more important, cost effective) for a railroad to purchase say a second hand
GP38-2 or GP40-2 thats ready to go to work then resurrect an RS11, C420 or C424 from a deadline.

Now having said all that, if the folks at GVT happen to read this....
How about a pair of FA's (maybe painted in a Santa Fe Warbonnet inspired scheme) to go with the rest of that
beautiful fleet!!!

There are many reasons why Alcos are chosen over EMD or GE.
1) Parts are still made brand new. (FM/Alco) The marine industry loves the
251 engine. NASA uses 2 Alco 251 engines on the shuttle crawler.
2) Plenty of used parts from dealers at reasonable prices.
3) You can buy 3 to 5 used Alcos for the price of 1 EMD.
4) Alcos are more fuel efficient than EMD because of the Alco 4 stroke
design.
5) Alcos have better lugging ability than EMD due to the GE traction motor being larger.
6) Alcos are easier to work on than GE's.
7) Better engine design than GE FDL engine.
8) Alco engines last longer due to robust part design. There are Alco engines that are 70 years old still running. (538 engine) Longer spans between scheduled overhauls. (251 engine) I know of one engine that has run 25 years between overhauls.
9) Alco 251 does not require alot of maintenance.
I am sure there are other reasons. Perhaps some Alco Mechanics can chime in.
Alcoman

WOW. Good question. Answer....Best kept secret in America! Ask Casey or Kevin!

I'll say it again....If I were a CMO during the 1960's and sampled Alco, EMD, and GE locomotives......knowing what I know now.....GP35s, U25Bs, (You got to be kidding me.) and C425s for example. And yes, sometimes not a very polished product, the C425 and the C420 to a lesser degree, would be the only product I could purchase for my employer and sleep at night. I guess like many American companies, some not unlike Alco just run out of steam (no pun intended) and fall by the wayside. Quality of the product has nothing to do with it!

And parts are not a problem!

Alcodoc

You might want to add that hundreds of 251 Diesel Generator sets were built and are scattered all over the world and are still used as back up power for many operations such as the Military (mosley Navy), Power Companys, Hospitals, Oil Companys, ect, ect.. I would think that anyone could buy one of these to use as a parts supply for an ALCO locomotive.

Correction: New parts are not a problem!

Alcodoc

alcodoc wrote:Correction: New parts are not a problem!

Alcodoc

Seems like there is a company in India that makes ALCO Parts correct??

I guess there is. But I'm talking about parts made in the US or supplied by North American suppliers.


Alcodoc

actually, i was looking into the ALCO company history and its successors, and believe it or not, but ALCo actually lives, Today!
Its called: ALCO locomotive works, which reproduces ALCo parts for diesels. it also is a leasing company, which helps in rebuilding then selling, or leasing an ALCo unit.
So, no wonder why ALCos are so popular, because they are the strongest D$%& locomotives that were ever created.
Cheers,
Sean

Its intresting as I have a production book from the ALCO Plant in Auburn given to me by my grandfather who worked there. The book reports where that last of the 251's are today with a list of buyers, and countrys. ALCO may have stopped makeing engines in 1969 at its Auburn Plant but had enough work to keep them building 251's till April 1980 when the contracts ran out from what it looks like to me as I read on in the book.

scharnhorst wrote:Its interesting as I have a production book from the ALCO Plant in Auburn given to me by my grandfather who worked there. The book reports where that last of the 251's are today with a list of buyers, and countrys. ALCO may have stopped making engines in 1969 at its Auburn Plant but had enough work to keep them building 251's till April 1980 when the contracts ran out from what it looks like to me as I read on in the book.

Alco discontinued making LOCOMOTIVES in 1969 at its Schenectady plant, but AUBURN continued as "ALCO POWER" UNTIL Bombardier sold the rights to the 251 engine to GE who in turn sold it to FM.

Alcoman wrote:

scharnhorst wrote:Its interesting as I have a production book from the ALCO Plant in Auburn given to me by my grandfather who worked there. The book reports where that last of the 251's are today with a list of buyers, and countrys. ALCO may have stopped making engines in 1969 at its Auburn Plant but had enough work to keep them building 251's till April 1980 when the contracts ran out from what it looks like to me as I read on in the book.

Alco discontinued making LOCOMOTIVES in 1969 at its Schenectady plant, but AUBURN continued as "ALCO POWER" UNTIL Bombardier sold the rights to the 251 engine to GE who in turn sold it to FM.

I know about the locomotive part ending in 1969.

Alcoman wrote:

tj48 wrote:A question asked out of curiosity.
Why would a railroad (GVT, LAL, A&M etc.) in 2007 choose to use all Alco power?

It would seem that in 2007 the logical business choice would be to use EMD or GE engines instead of Alcos.
Second hand EMD or GE engines are more available and since both companies are still in business parts, new(?)
and used have to be more available.

The pool of available Alco/MLW engines is much smaller. When it comes to parts, are new parts available or does
everything have to be stripped from donor hulks and rebuilt or purchased remanufactured?

It just seems easier (and maybe more important, cost effective) for a railroad to purchase say a second hand
GP38-2 or GP40-2 thats ready to go to work then resurrect an RS11, C420 or C424 from a deadline.

Now having said all that, if the folks at GVT happen to read this....
How about a pair of FA's (maybe painted in a Santa Fe Warbonnet inspired scheme) to go with the rest of that
beautiful fleet!!!

There are many reasons why Alcos are chosen over EMD or GE.
1) Parts are still made brand new. (FM/Alco) The marine industry loves the
251 engine. NASA uses 2 Alco 251 engines on the shuttle crawler.
2) Plenty of used parts from dealers at reasonable prices.
3) You can buy 3 to 5 used Alcos for the price of 1 EMD.
4) Alcos are more fuel efficient than EMD because of the Alco 4 stroke
design.
5) Alcos have better lugging ability than EMD due to the GE traction motor being larger.
6) Alcos are easier to work on than GE's.
7) Better engine design than GE FDL engine.
8) Alco engines last longer due to robust part design. There are Alco engines that are 70 years old still running. (538 engine) Longer spans between scheduled overhauls. (251 engine) I know of one engine that has run 25 years between overhauls.
9) Alco 251 does not require alot of maintenance.
I am sure there are other reasons. Perhaps some Alco Mechanics can chime in.
Alcoman

First of all, thanks for all the great replies. I've learned alot.
This however leads me to a second question. Not sure if it belongs here or as a new topic (I'm kind of new to this)
but here gos....
If the Alco design (251 engine, better traction motors, ease of maintenance, etc.) was superior, why does it seem that
most railroads got rid of thier Alcos or worse reengined them with EMD engines relatively quickly?
Or was it a case of bad marketing by Alco or better marketing by EMD?
Again, thanks for all your replies.

I won't claim to be the expert on the topic but a few thoughst for your last question:

1. War Production Board in WWII let EMD build road diesels; Alco could only build steam or switchers. Guess who got the early foot in the door with road diesel sales and also R&D? And bear in mind product familiarity breeds customer loyalty in the future.

2. Alco did not jump into diesels with both feet at first, as they were a steam builder and continued to do so until the mid-late 40s.

3. In the 60s, Alco was owned by Studebaker who has been accused of financial mismanagement of the company on a grand scale

4. Alco's early 244 engine production (mid-1940s, just post-war, a critical time fo Alco to get road diesels into production and "catch up" from 4 years of EMD seeling F-units left and right while Alco could only build 4-8-4s and S-2s) had some issues that gained them a bit of notoriety; it is my understanding that these issues were later worked out wth the 244... but still, the damage was done.

5. Alco used GE rotating electrical equipment (in fact, they had a partnership with GE until the early 50s and all units built during that time are technically "Alco-GE" locomotives). Therefore, they had the best TM's and generators in the industry... but had to get them from a company that by 1959 was a direct competitor in the locomotive market.

6. The early lead by EMD meant many railroads had "EMD guys" in the shop by the time they got Alcos. Considering they are completely different beasts in design and operation, is it any wonder the Alcos had higher failure rates and generated more complaints from the mechanical forces? Many Alcos suffered from day one from poor/deferred/incomplete/inappropriate maintenance at the hands of crews who only knew EMD. And nevermind that when one died on the road, the likelihood of the travelling mechanic (trained on EMDs, of course) getting it back up and running was less... so when Alcos showed up on a previously all-EMD road, it's easy to see how they became the "black sheep" or unloved stepechildren from day one.

7. The early 60s saw GE enter the field as a third competitor. By this time, the new locomtive market was small enough to be spread pretty thin between the three builders. GE also touted a lot of innovations and, as the new kind, probably would do anything to get a sale... so lots of GE's got sold, and GE quickly became the number two builder in the mid-60s... despite the fact that there are far more Alcos from the 1960s running today than there were operating 60s-era GE's a decade or two ago. The early GE's sounded good on paper, which is all that counts to make a sale... but most died early deaths as even the second-hand loco market didn't want them.

Think one of the reasons too may be when GE entered the locomotive business they take profit from the good name of Alco´s generators and traction motors at a time when Alco had been dumped by their piston and the aluminium cable episode.