Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx

Having recently come into a slew of Alco Century units, I've got a question or two about them:1. What were the merits of the Century series? From reading some of the fan magazines, there are still a fair number of them in service, so I figure there's got to be something good about them. The Bridge Line indicates that they could pull weight rather than break land speed records, so I assume that the Centuries could start and keep heavy loads running at some acceptable speed.2. Objectively, was the Century series a 'good unit', i.e. a good design that wasn't a roundhouse queen and that was reliable? I ask that because I've come to understand that success in the American locomotive market didn't always come to the superior product but that the equation was far more complex than "which locomotive was the best" and often factored in marketing, maintenance & support by manufacturers, and other intangibles that only railroad men would know about. 3. What was the downside to the Century series? I've read once that they were "hard on the rails" or something; could anyone clarify that?4. Where are the parts for these things coming from these days, inasmuch as it's been nearly 35 years since Schenectady was open? I'm not sure when the MLW line was closed down, but I'm reasonably certain that it wasn't yesterday. Thanks in advance!

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, kevarc, Oct-08-03, 12:28 PM, (1) RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, Coonskin, Oct-08-03, 01:47 PM, (3) RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, kevarc, Oct-08-03, 02:03 PM, (4) RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, NW_611, Oct-08-03, 02:43 PM, (5) RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, kevarc, Oct-08-03, 04:57 PM, (6) RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, ASR_Q301, Oct-08-03, 07:44 PM, (7) RE: Alco Century v. U-Boat v. SDxx, ndbprr, Oct-08-03, 12:54 PM, (2)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Alco's were haulers, but they were also hanger queens. The 244 engine was a piece of junk and by the time next was available it was to late. GE had decided the ther reliability problems of the Alco's were killing them since they were partners. This lead to GE deciding to get into the engine business. Without GE, Alco had no elertical components.The 244 engine was the killer. It was junk, no two ways about it. It was very needy and when it did not get it, it let you know.Parts are easy to find, there are a lot of dealers in second hand/reconditioned parts out there. Where I work we have Nordberg's and FM diesels (both out of business) and can get any part I need for them.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Cry havoc and Let slip the dogs of war.
Lone Wolf Activities Forum and Activity Packs are on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Kev's assessment of the 244 is, sadly, a typical one adapted by most railroads. The early 244's were a booger, and were about the only prime movers ever developed that could spit a crank while it sat idling.As a general rule, this finickiness of the 244 perplexed the railroads, especially those that rostered Alco's S series and RS1's. Those used the 239 Seymore-McIntosh prime mover which proved to be almost bullet proof. The water-cooled turbo modifications Alco came up with in the early-mid 50's helped the 244 situation, but did not totally alleviate it. The secret was in a good maintenance regime. Given good maintenance, a 244 powered locomotive could and did give good service.The Century series used the 251 series of prime mover that Alco developed and not the 244. The 251's were (are) a good prime mover, with many, many examples still plying the rails. Alas the 251, even the Century series, was too little too late, for most railroads were embracing EMD by that time, and later the upstart GE. It would be interesting if there was a way to know how much the 244 contributed to the failure in the marketplace of the 251 powered Alco locomotives.Having had the pleasure of being in/on/around 251 powered Alco's, I can say that most engineers will readily grant that they are a good locomotive. Very quick to "load" (accelerate), pull extremely well down low, and overall a tough engine. Some railroads are taken with them to such an extent that they will go to great lengths to insure an adequate supply of parts for their future. (The Arkansas & Missouri, for example.)Alco's: Love 'em.Andre Ming

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

From information I have, it was a main concern about ALCO. The RR's did not want a repeat perfomance of the 244. But like you said, it was to late. GE was already upset with the tarnish they were getting over the 244 and started their own line, the U-boats. And so ALCO was gone within a few years.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Cry havoc and Let slip the dogs of war.
Lone Wolf Activities Forum and Activity Packs are on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The impression that I have about the early U-boats (from, among other things the Conrail Cyclopedia and Usenet archives) is that they were pieces of junk, being known for leaking oil and having problems. In fact, the CRCYC refers to them as 'unreliable'. If this impression is true, why then did General Electric's clunker go on to outlast Alco's clunker?

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yes, but they were still better than ALCO engines. ALCO was in serious finacial troobles due to the 244 fiasco and the delayed development of the 251. They could not afford to redesign the traction system from scratch.I'll post back tonight when I have my reference material handy.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Cry havoc and Let slip the dogs of war.
Lone Wolf Activities Forum and Activity Packs are on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Without GE, Alco had no elertical components.Thats why the C636's were REALLY shocking. Anyone read in the "All ALCO edition of Trains magazine" about the Illionis Central C636's? They were shocking and the crew hated everything about them. They were sent to CP after a couple of years working on IC. CP, a large ALCO buyer also hated the C636's. It was ALCO's last crack at the locomotive building industry. They launched the 636 just after GE pulled out of the partnership.>Mike Forster<
Perth, Westen Australiapacificnational_nr103@hotmail.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

the Century series was Alco's answer to EMD and GE efforts to introduce solid state and computerized applications to locomotives. As stated Alco's were luggers and usually used where tonnage was involved like severe grades, iron ore, coal and other minerals. as to your last question when locomotives are rebuilt most of the components are modular. So you can as an example replace a GE generator with a Westinghouse. Most of the components on an engine are subbed to companies other then the manufacturer. they are usually just an assembler. Now if the frame breaks or the body is damaged it might be hard to find those and the engine would probably be scrapped. If the diesel engine blows up then finances take over as to the age of the unit and how much depreciation is involved, etc. Most shops doing engine rebuilds have both the material and staff to make just about anything that can't be bought or substitute something that can be had. There are still a lot of locos from the 1930's and 40's out there believe it or not.

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.