GE and ALCO

I don't think so. GE bought the Bessemer(not RR, Cooper-Bessemer) diesel engine and used that.  That is why the GE parts & engine plant is in Grove City, Pa. where CB was.  I think GE , sort of, stabbed ALCO in the back.

Alco diesels, unfortunately, had developed a poor reputation by the early 1950's.  Due to problems they had experienced, I know the Union Pacific had decided not to buy any more Alco diesels by that point, and eventually only bought a handful of road switchers.  I've heard that GE felt their association with Alco was damaging their own reputation because of Alco's reliability problems.  It is interesting that GE felt it would be easier to go it alone than overcome the stigma associated with Alco.  Of course, GE had dabbled in the railroad locomotive business at the dawn of the electric age and even built some very early diesels.

I have never seen a good write up on what happened and why on that whole deal. Cooper  Bessemer was a decent customer of mine but I knew they were on shaky ground and GE opened a small parts mfg. plant in Grove City. I know ALCO had a bad reputation on reliability which they didn't seem able to overcome. the crews sure seemed to like AlCOs and the way they pulled but bean counters rule. Another corporate mystery.

When GE made the "corporate decision" to enter the mainline diesel locomotive market (1961?) with the U25B model, GE was using their own "improved" electrical switch gear & control systems, and purchasing the Cooper Bessemer four stroke cycle diesel engine. Concerning Alco, GE was NOT providing their "improved" electrical systems to Alco, since Alco was then a competitor.

As time progressed, GE was not happy with the performance of the Cooper Bessemer prime mover, nor the engineering support they were receiving from Cooper Bessemer. Thus GE subsequently purchased completely the design and manufacturing rites for the FDL diesel engine.

During the same time, the 1960s and early 1970s, Alco was having trouble "keeping up" with both GE and EMD in the horse power & reliability "race". 

Interesting info.  It was a wide open market in those days and the steam engine people didn't do too well. There were a lot of factors at work in the market place.

What does this have to do with the Alco 244 engine which had not been produced for over a decade when Alco quit the business?

Number 90 posted:

What does this have to do with the Alco 244 engine which had not been produced for over a decade when Alco quit the business?

Good observation. When I was District Engineer for EMD, working out of Jacksonville, FL, 1967 thru 1971, both the former Seaboard Air Line and the Atlanta & St Andrews Bay shop personnel got excellent service/performance out of the Alco 251 engines. Those folks knew what they were doing and maintained the Alco units properly.

Part of the formula for success is parts availability, tech service and ease of  keeping it running.

When I arrived at the GE Loco business in April, 1964, Alco had 3% market share, GE had 5%, and EMD had the rest. (EMD market share at 92% was so high that there were rumors that the Justice Dept. was going to investigate.) The Alco 251 engine was not highly regarded no matter what you might read. I recall talking to a NYC Mechanical Dept. guy who told me that the Alco PA's that were on the Central were to be assigned between Harmon and Albany on less than first class trains and then turned, and the operating people were told to never dispatch a pair, but to dispatch a single PA with either an E7 or E8. On one of my first sales trips for a mechanical meeting on the Wabash at Decatur, IL, the Alco guy told the Wabash rep that the RR was not changing oil filters on schedule, and that was why the engines were running so poorly. The Wabash guy exploded, and told the Alco guy to follow him outside, which he did. (I also wanted to see what was going on, but the GE senior sales guy grabbed my arm (wisely)). The Wabash Mech Dept guy marched the Alco rep to a gondola car filled with used Alco engine oil filters!

GE realized early that Alco could not compete with EMD financially, and I am sure that a series of strikes and work stoppages at Alco right after the war did not improve Alco build quality. The favorite quality of the Alco locomotive, its pulling power, was the result of the use of the outstanding GE752 traction motor and either a GE GT581 or GT598 main generator, and not anything that Alco designed.

GE got into the loco business largely as a defense gesture as annual sales to Alco of main generators, traction motors, and control dropped. GE needed an engine, and after looking at several designs, chose the Cooper Bessemer engine. At this time GE had installed C-B engines in 70 ton switchers. It was an inline engine with removable cylinders. GE bought the rights to the engine, which from C-B was a V12. The GE FDL16 was designed at Erie, not at C-B. Since the first FDL, GE has redesigned literally every part of that engine, so the FDL16's are purely GE.

The best engines Alco ever built were called Big Boys, Challengers, Hudsons and Niagaras.........and there are no diesels on that list.

I just want to set the record straight.......

Hudson5432 posted:

 

The best engines Alco ever built were called Big Boys, Challengers, Hudsons and Niagaras.........and there are no diesels on that list.

I just want to set the record straight.......

Boy,,,, will I agree with THAT.  Having been "involved" with both the UP Challenger and FEF-3 Northern, I can surely test to Alco's engineering and manufacturing quality.  However, not so much for their diesel locomotives.

"The later Dash 7's were much improved and then with the Dash 8's and later designs GE overtook EMD* as the #1 diesel builder in the US/Canada."

Emphasis on the word "builder". That does not in any way mean performance, which they definitely lacked! 
I would also say the use of the word "improved" is a relative term. Improved as to what? Whatever improvements were made were with themselves. They still couldn't match an EMD! And never would load up like an RS11 !!!

Hudson   Thanks for the info.

Good stuff. Very enjoyable reading .

I love reading these posts too.

Uh Oh. Foaming?

GE started selling more diesels than EMD in the 1980's, but even today old GE's are cut up, while EMD's get rebuilt. What is wrong or different about the GE that doesn't lend itself to being rebuilt the way old EMD's do?

I have often wondered the same thing but have never gotten an answer.  Having sold industrial equipment etc I have some ideas but  I will keep them to myself.

GE started selling more diesels than EMD in the 1980's, but even today old GE's are cut up,
while EMD's get rebuilt. What is wrong or different about the GE that doesn't lend itself to being rebuilt
the way old EMD's do?

The cost of parts plus parts availability. Ge parts cost so much more than EMD parts. Also note GE's Program of purchasing the newest equipment with warranties gave a much better deal than the competition as well as rebuilding older GEequipment. What those terms are I don't know. However NS has decided to rebuild OLDER C40-8 and dash 9's abeit with the NS designed safety cab.

jim pastorius posted:

I have never seen a good write up on what happened and why on that whole deal. Cooper  Bessemer was a decent customer of mine but I knew they were on shaky ground and GE opened a small parts mfg. plant in Grove City. I know ALCO had a bad reputation on reliability which they didn't seem able to overcome. the crews sure seemed to like AlCOs and the way they pulled but bean counters rule. Another corporate mystery.

I may be able to shed some light on what the bean counters were looking at.  Lloyd Stagner wrote an excellent book titled, "Union Pacific Motive Power in Transition".  In it, Stagner researched UP company internal correspondence and wrote about the period between 1936 and 1960, when the UP purchased its most modern steam (Challengers, FEF Northerns, and Big Boys), and then eventually dieselized.  I will quote a few passages from the book.

"In his letter of November 4 (1952), to Harriman (UP Chairman), Stoddard (UP President) ... stated that he had talked to Alco representatives about difficulties with their engines.  'We have proven beyond doubt that the Alco diesel will not hold up in through freight or passenger service in our desert territory, principally due to the fact the turbo supercharger will not supply sufficient air to keep the exhaust manifolds from burning up,' he wrote.  A third new design had been placed on 15 units in August and September, and up to November, five had failed.

"Stoddard wrote that to get the best service out of the Alco units, they would have to be transferred to the Eastern District, and plans were being made to put them in service from Laramie through Denver to Kansas City via North Platte and Salina.  The only Alco (diesel) locomotives that were performing satisfactorily were the yard switch engines, which were working on the Eastern District and were not subject to desert heat."

So, above you have the President of the railroad very aware of the operational and reliability limitations of one make of diesel locomotives--is it any wonder that the company would then shy aware from further purchases from that builder?  That says a lot for UP, which had been an Alco road since the mid-1920's!

Here is another bit of insight from the book, and this is particularly the kind of thing that bean counters look at:

"A.C. Sherwood (UP Secretary) wrote Stoddard on October 15, 1953, mentioning that one of the UP directors had raised a question concerning the wisdom of buying all EMD power.  Stoddard wrote Lovett on October 15, enclosing a copy of his November 4, 1952, letter explaining the problems with Alco units.  He further stated that the cost of maintenance for Alco units, as compared to EMD, was 41.7 percent greater and that the EMDs were more dependable, having less out-of-service time.  Alco units were held out for overhauling at 150,000 miles, compared to 445,000 miles on EMDs which received an engine change and were back in service within 24 hours.  Alco units required rebuilding of about 75 percent of the accessories and were out of service 10 days.  Stoddard said that when it came to additional yard power and dieselization of certain branch lines, that some power other than EMD could be used in light service with little, if any loss.  He promised to keep that in mind when ordering additional power for those services."

Since railroads are businesses, with an obligation to their shareholders to make the most efficient use of capital, it is hard to disagree with the judgment of the bean counters given the above information!

Scott Griggs, Louisville, KY

Thanks Scott, very informative.  From what I have read when EMDs had a problem it was usually ad  dressed and corrected, if possible.  Evidently steam engineers aren't good diesel guys. I don't want to start an argument or anything but being on the road for 40 years driving the torturous western Pa. roads I learned to favor Chevrolet autos. For the same reasons UP went with EMDs.

Alco's shrinking market share was not caused by one factor.  Among other factors (and importantly) Alco's field service was far inferior to that of EMD, its major competitor.  When GE entered the main line diesel-electric locomotive market, it provided very good field service.  This makes a lot of difference.  GE's first efforts were not terribly reliable, because the Engineering philosophy at GE let to a number of sensitive protective devices on the prime mover, and a design that intentionally placed reset devices out of reach of on-board employees (to prevent resetting and continuing to operate the engine and possibly damage it.  However, when GE began signing service contracts on its locomotives, they learned how to improve their product in many ways, and GE's became very reliable, a comparable product to EMD, and pretty close on maintenance cost.

Alco's corporate mentality did not keep up with the times, and -- right to the end -- they produced locomotives with fuel and oil leaks; uncomfortable, noisy, drafty cabs; and did not have a large number of friendly, helpful Field Service personnel for the Mechanical Department.  Their attitude seemed to be "We're Alco.  We know locomotives from our long history in the business, and you (railroads) should be satisfied."  

No sale.

The "AltoonaWorks" website has several interesting comments on the current state of diesel engines. these are the guys who run them.

The GN Man posted:

Very interesting thread!  Makes me wonder, why did UP bother with the Century 855?

They also purchased RS27s and C630s.

ecd15 posted:

The GN Man posted:

Very interesting thread!  Makes me wonder, why did UP bother with the Century 855?

They also purchased RS27s and C630s.

Large companies like the option of getting quotes from as many suppliers as possible.  At some point, if EMD is the only game in town, they are going to start exploiting that advantage.  

It should be pointed out that the UP only owned 3 C855's, 4 RS27's, and 10 C630's.    In the 1950's, the railroad was issuing orders to EMD hundreds of locomotives at a time.  Buying a few units from Alco allowed them to try them out in a low risk way.  

Scott

I recall reading that the Alco Century 855's on UP never made a single successful trip, and on their first trip they failed within the yard limits. Conversely, EMD throughout all of the first generation of dieselization usually "got it right".

All of the major builders have had problems. My first boss at GE, who as a young engineer had worked for Winton, told me that the Burlington Zephyr diesel engines were rebuilt AFTER EVERY TRIP, for a year and a half!!! He told me that the warehouse where the engine components were stored was "the largest he had ever seen".

It's true that the GE U30's were not "stars", principally due to slow loading and the unfamiliarity that the existing RR (mostly EMD trained) shop forces were with GE power. The GE slow loading was a surprise to the Erie gang. The original U25's did not have a loading issue at all, and the two reasons were the early U Boats had a multi pipe manifold with a separate pipe from each cylinder which pulsed the turbo with exhaust gasses much better than the "improved" "sewer pipe" manifold. (The old multi pipes failed at the bellows section, which was necessary for pipe expansion, and resulted in exhaust leaks.) The early U25's also had an engine shaft driven equipment blower that placed some load on the engine at all times and made the exhaust gas pulses more effective. The intro of a 3000 HP engine and the single pipe manifold killed load rate since the turbo wheel diameter was larger for the increased HP and the exhaust gas pulses at low throttle settings was weaker, and the engine had to load 500 HP higher. The Woodward governor lag also contributed to the throttle lag. Some of these problems lingered into the -7 era since a Dash 7 was essentially a U30 with the latest engine fixes and relocation of various items for maintainability. (For example, the air compressor was moved into a separate area in the carbody where it would not freeze and its oil laden vapor (it rotated at all time whether delivering air or not) would not contaminate the engine air filters.)

The Dash 8 remedied most of these problems and with the -7 the FDL had reached maturity, so they were successful. Starting with the AC4400 and the current EVO, GE has been delivering a world class product that has not been matched for performance, fuel economy, reliability, emissions, and lowest total cost. The people that purchase locomotives keep abreast of the offerings from major builders, and there is plenty of solid evidence from unbiased third party testing, etc. that reinforces these decisions.

The Alco S-1 through S-4 switchers were indeed very good locomotives and several still run to this day.  When Alco came out with the 251 engine they first placed 6 cylinder versions in the S-5, which was basically an S-4 just with a different engine and a horizontal radiator instead of two vertical radiators.

Only a half dozen or so S-5s were built and the S-6 with 200 more HP also was not very popular.  There were two reasons for this. The first was that the older S switchers were not wearing out fast enough to warrant replacement, and the second was that the 251 engine needed to run much faster than the 539s to generate the needed HP, resulting in more maintenance. 

We own the only remaining S-5. It has the distinction of being the oldest Alco with a 251 engine.  I would like to get its engine running over the next year or so.  We also own an S-2 which I consider the cadillac of the Alco switchers.

The GE slow loading issue is mainly only an annoyance to Locomotive Engineers, who were accustomed to fast response when the throttle of an EMD locomotive are advanced.  Hundreds of trains daily are successfully operated with solid GE consists, even passenger trains, and that is really the bottom line.  Back in the era when we could stretch brake and engage in high-performance train handling to try to shave away seconds at a time, GE would never have been the choice.  There was not a measurable standard for train handling, and every Engineer did what worked best for him.  The measurement of his quality was done on the caboose.  However, that kind of train handling burned up a lot of diesel fuel.  The Engineer's reputation was in his ability to get over the road quickly and smoothly.

Train handling today is all about economizing on fuel while recording all Locomotive Engineer activity and measuring it against a standard.  GE fits right into that strategy, as does EMD.  The most compliant Engineer is the best Engineer, as the railroad views it.  The overwhelming majority of Engineers on the job today were trained with classroom instruction, simulator instruction, and on-the-job training.  They don't have to make a run at it, to get past one more siding on single track before heading in to clear a superior train, as in Timetable and Train Order operation used before the mid-1980's.  All they have to do is show up on time in good condition, know the rules and the physical characteristics of the railroad, and operate the train as they were taught, managing (not eliminating) slack and using some common sense here and there.  Seconds no longer count.  Good, conservative, train handling is all that is asked of them.

It's got to be a special, unique, type of feeling knowing you are at the controls of millions of dollars of someone else's machines and freight merchandise.

One day while taking RR photos in Beaver Co.,Pa. I met a guy who was training to be a Road Foreman of Engines for NS.  Previously he had been an engineer running coal trains in southern Virginia. He commented that when you were sitting in front of a loaded coal train going 60 MPH that you felt like Superman.  There has to be an adrenalin rush involved. A lot of responsibility.