Alco prime movers...the real issues

The biggest problems with the Alco 244 were:

1.  The GE air cooled turbo chargers.  Air cooling worked great in bombers flying at 20,000-30,000 feet.  At sea level in the Mohave desert (for example) thing s didn't work out so well.;

2.  The 244 design was rushed into production without the testing that other prime movers received.  So  problems such as crankshaft failures occurred on the road in customers' locomotives, instead of back in the factory when the 244 was being developed.  Things like this did nothing to endear them to the operating departments, especially when EMD 567s would run for months, if not years, with nothing more than routine maintenance.

Stuart

some background from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_PA

... the Model 244. In early 1944, development started on the new design, and by November 1945, the first engines were beginning to undergo tests. This unusually short testing sequence was brought about by the decision of Alco's senior management that the engine and an associated line of road locomotives had to be introduced no later than the end of 1946. In preparation for this deadline, by January 1946, the first 16 cylinder 244 engines were being tested, and while a strike delayed work on the locomotives, the first two PA units were released for road tests in June 1946 ...

The ALCO 244 V16 diesel prime mover proved to be the undoing of the PA: The engine had been rushed into production, and proved to be unreliable. The PA locomotives failed to capture a marketplace dominated by General Motors Electro-Motive Division and their E-units. The original Santa Fe three unit set #51L, 51A and 51B was repowered in August 1954 with EMD 16-567C engines rated at 1,750 hp (1,305 kW). This EMD repowering of the PAs was economically unfeasible and the remaining Santa Fe PAs retained their 244 engines. The later 251-series engine, a vastly improved prime mover, was not available in time for ALCO to recover the loss of reputation caused by the unreliability of the 244. By the time the ALCO 251 engine was accepted into widespread use, General Electric (which ended the partnership with ALCO in 1953) had fielded their entries into the diesel-electric locomotive market. General Electric eventually supplanted ALCO as a manufacturer of locomotives. ALCO's loss of market share led to its demise in 1969.

Still interested to know some technical details about the engines.

My perception is that the 538/539 was a larger lower-speed engine derived from a marine application. It was too big to be conveniently adapted into versions with more cylinders for more horsepower output, and likely not practical to increase the RPM for more output, so that's why Alco moved into developing the 244 engines. So even if the 538/539 engines were more reliable, they wouldn't have served the expanding market for diesel locomotives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_539T

"The Alco 539T ... has a straight-six, four-stroke design in a cast block which produced from 810 to 1,000 horsepower (600 to 750 kW) ... (bore and stroke 12.5" x 13') ... The first 539T engines were used in S-2 switchers and DL-105 passenger locomotives built in September 1940. Alco locomotives using this engine include the S-2, S-4, RS-1, RSC-1, RSD-1, DL-105, DL-107, DL-108, DL-109, and DL-110. MLW locomotives using this engine include the S-2, S-4, S-7, S-12, RS-1, and RSC-13.   An eight-cylinder inline version of the 539T was developed by Alco. This diesel engine developed from 1,080 to 1,300 horsepower (810 to 970 kW). It was never used in a locomotive, but had been planned to be used in an early version of the “Black Maria” DL-202/DL-203 in response to EMD's FT locomotive. The 8-539T was used in stationary and marine applications.   The 539 engine was developed in response to the perceived drawback that Alco's line of diesel switchers had a restricted field of vision because of the high hood."

"Both Baldwin and EMC were offering diesel switchers with a lower engine hood that the trainmen could see over. The 539 engine was developed from the 538 engine, both had the same cylinder dimensions. The engine base of the 538 was flat and rode on a flat underframe. The change that the 539 offered was to lower the base of the engine into the frame. This was done with revised mounting lugs and a modified oil pan. The modified 538 became known as the 539 and the change allowed the engine hood to be lowered two feet three inches."

C424's near Rochester NY in 2011

WESTERN NEW YORK & PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD

subsidiary of Livonia, Avon and Lakeville Railroad

This Alco V16 244 thing is really kind of intriguing.  Consider this...The Penn, in early

to mid 1955, set about to order a set of five RSD7/DL600A six-motor hoods for

dual service...the primary duty being passenger helpers on the east slope of the

Altoona/ Gallitzin grade.  Now the prime mover in this piece was none other than the

244H V16 engine that was the successor to the versions that had caused so much

grief to everyone...Penn included.  Seems that perhaps only the D&H and NYNH&H

were getting reasonable service out of these 244 engines, but that's another story.

Anyway, PRR could have obtained a similar performance with the FM H24-66, or

made do with a little less HP, and gotten some SD9s with the same equipment.

Point is, by 1955, the PRR was willing to put up with a known crap shoot engine,

and use it in passenger helper service.  Why?  Delivery times would not have been

all that critical for that type of service.  Was it cost?  I doubt it, when the Penn

would have known that they were likely buying a time bomb, that they'd have to

deal with down the line.  The only thing I can think of here is that Alco must have

made some serious attempt to re-engineer the basic 244 V16 to a degree that

PRR would feel comfortable obtaining some.  Remember, they had already cut their

ties with Baldwin by this time, and had long abandoned the "lets buy five of every-

thing" approach to Dieselization.  The only other thing I can think of might have

revolved around the ability of the RSD7 to mount a Vapor 4500Lb/Hr. steam gennie.

As one might expect, these beasts were terminated by PC starting in 1970, and the

last one died in'73.  The RSD15, which was present on the PRR roster, added as

soon as it became available, lasted way longer.   Makes you wonder, too, why

others added this big V16 244 in the mid '50s...like C&O.  I can tell you this,

for all the warts, and issues;  seeing and hearing them on the mountain was really

something else! 

I recommend discretion in taking as gospel everything one reads about Alco or Fairbanks-Morse locomotives in railfan publications.

While 244's were not as well-designed as Alco 251 engines (and certainly nowhere as reliable as EMD 567's), Alco redesigned some components and reduced the failures that occurred too often in the early days of the engine.  They were not junk.

By 1951, railroads that were willing to maintain their modified Alco 244-powered locomotives got good service from them.  SP&S and D&H relied on 244 engines with great success.  Santa Fe and Southern Pacific got reliable service from their PA and PB units.  In New Mexico, during the '50's, Santa Fe moved potash and provided helper service on Raton Pass almost exclusively with 244-powered engines. The availability and the cost, while not as good as EMD, could obviously be acceptable.  As I see it, it was the corporate culture of a given railroad's Mechanical Department that either had disdain for Alcos or used them with success.

Just sayin' . . .

Agreed!  New Haven went the extra mile, maintenance wise with their 244 powered FA1/FB1&2 fleet...at least in the beginning, and got good service.  Just wondering out

loud what Alco may have done to address the shortcomings of the earlier versions to get any market acceptance later on.  Clearly, something major needed to happen, and that would be the 251 engine, in it's various configurations.  Was there something about the V16 config. that made it more of a bear than the more common V12?  I

always thought the '16 sounded smoother at idle than the smaller mill.  PC offed the RSD7s starting in 1970, specifically because of that engine (244H V16) while the RS3s went on for a few more years, with original engines.   Parts availability problem or ?? I've never heard about any differences between 251 engines, V12 or V16, when it came to maintenence costs or issues, FWIW.

I was surprised to learn that Alco 251F engines are still available (?) from "Fairbanks Morse Engine" division of Enpro Industries.

"Market position: Principal supplier of medium-speed diesel engines to the U.S. Navy."

http://www.enproindustries.com/companies.html

http://www.fairbanksmorsenucle...engine_alco_251f.php

And also the Fairbanks-Morse opposed piston engine ... ?