Re: (erielack) ALCO"S

[RAILDATA_@_aol.com]

By the time Alco produced the C628s they were pretty much on the ropes, 
technically and financially. 

The D&H (which was the sole rail connection to the Alco plant) which had 
bought nothing but Alcos for years bought C628s. They could not keep them on 
the track due to the faulty design of the three point suspension trucks. When 
the D&H complained to Alco, they were more or less told "tough".  Hence the D&
H from that point on bought GE locos. The C628s on the D&H were soon 
relaghated to pusher and other secondary service.

The LV's expereince was similair. Thye bought some that the Monon returned to 
Alco. The LV's chief mechanical officer told me he pleaded with executive 
management not to buy the C628s, but the price was right. Further told me 
that the first C628 on a train out of Sayre derailed three times before they 
got it out of the yard. The LV also soon assigned the C628s to secondary 
service.

One of the best decisions the EL ever made was not to buy the C628's. I went 
through the Alco plant while they were building C424s and it was really 
terrible in terms of organization, etc. They literally were hand building 
each loco with little internal wiring standardization, use of fixtures, etc. 
They were a good company once but could not keep up in the diesel business. 

Like the EL, I think one of the best decision I ever made was to not accept 
the Alco job offer when I got out of Penn State in engineering!

Whether a diesel locomotive is 2 or 4 cycle has nothing to do with it's 
tractive effort. This is determined by design factors such as locomotive 
weight, truck springing arrangement, and the engine horsepower. 

Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO

------------------------------