Almost all railroad cars and locomitives were procured on "equipment trusts", not leases. On these trusts the railrroad made payments to the bank issuing the trust. After making payments for the duration of the trust the railroad was given title to the equipment and they could do as they wished with it, but it was the rairlaods problem what to do with the "worn out" equipment. I have followed all the Alco discussion here with interest.....and I sure did love those Alcos but they were terrible locomotives. But romance doesn't overcome the facts. There is a lot of difinitive matrial in scholorly books about how Alco managment never really knew how to cope with the deisel age. When I got out of Penn State in 1953 with a degree in mechanical engineering, I interview with Alco and GE's locomtive division. Even in my youthful viewpoint I could tell that GE knew what they were doing ( at the time they were building gas turbines for the UP along with a huge export buiness). But talking to the Alco guys, who were old enough to be my grandfather, I could see that all they wanted were shop foremen and there were no engineering opportinities there. I would up going to IBM becasue it looked like the best job closes to home and I was going to get drafted...another story. About 10 years later I had another opportunity to tour the Alco palnt and by this time I had quite a lot of design and production experience. It was appaling how the place was run. They literally built locos like you would a brass model; except they used chalk on steel plates and welding torches instead of brass sheet, a jeweler's say, and soldering iron. The electricla work was done by a bunch of guys wandering around who did the wiring like they were doing a house. At the tiem they were building the C-424s. Almost all Alco's sales in the PA era were done when all the railroads were converting froms team and the diesle builders were back ordered so they ordered engines from who ever could supply them. Later on it was usually that Alco would give a better price or the railraod wanted to share their purchases. On almost every raiload that bought PAs, FAs, and the S series switchers they were the first to go when the company got second generation The C628s were really bad news. The D&H couldn't keep them on the track and complained; to which Alco more or less told them "tought". So after that, the D&H, which ahd nver bought anythign other than alsos and even served the Alco palnt went to GE. The Monon bought them and returned them to alco for the same reason. When I wrote the LV book, I interviewed teh guy who was Chief Mechancial Officer and he said he pleaded with top management not to buy the ex Monon units, but the price was so good that the powers that be couldn't resist. He told me thaay ont he first trip out of Sayre they derailed three times. Soon were placed in very restrictive service. There are a lot more layers to this story. Including the fact that gE and Alco ahd to use 4 cycle engiens becasue General Motors had the patents on two cycle fuel injection systems prettyw ell sewed up in the US. Also, the Justice dept brought suite against EMD claiming they monoploized the deisel loco buisness, forcing Baldwin and FM out of it and threatening ther ailroads, etc. This was all settled out of court after whereh EMD agreed tp get down toa bout 50% of the market, after which GE for the fisrt time got into the US road diesel business with the U25C. So there is a lot of fact out there if one is willing to dig.....and put an end to the "logic says that" or "surely it msut ahve been that"..... Sorry for the "sermonizing" but every so often we need to get at the facts! Chuck Yungkurth Boulder CO - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill K." <pontiac_@_dreamscape.com> To: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:10 AM Subject: Re: (erielack) equipment leases > Alcos: Most railroads kept the 251-powered Alco units, disposing of them > through the mid-1980s to scrap, trade-ins, and secondhand users. > > GP35s: Most users began to dispose of, or rebuilt, these units by the > mid-1980s. By the mid-1990s class 1 roads had pretty well eliminated > unrebuilt examples. It's modeler's choice here to have your EL system opt > to rebuild the units with upgraded electrical systems and perhaps 645 > power assemblies to become either GP38M (Conrail prototype 7600) or GP39M > (BN) units, to rebuild some as CSX-style road slugs, or to trade them in > on other power. > > U25Bs: Likely would be traded on new power again in the mid-1980s, > perhaps somewhat earlier, due to the more restricted availability of parts > for these engines. > > > Your 1977 era non-Conral EL system should also be owner of a dozen each > GP38-2 units and U23B units - orders for both were placed, then cancelled, > in the early 1970s. Of those units, the U23Bs would have about an 18-year > lifespan, the GP38-2s would continue in service today. > > > It should also be noted that Conrail dumped a lot of PC units at the end > of their lease in the 1980s - GP38, 38-2, GP40, and various GE units made > for quite a glut of secondhand motive power. It may have been more > cost-effective for the EL to buy and overhaul these units as replacements, > than to rebuild existing units or buy new power. (That would be a switch, > a PC unit with EL patch paint). > > > > Bill K. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:18:07 +0000 >> From: pat.moore_@_att.net >> Subject: Re: (erielack) equipment leases >> >> Brad, >> >> Well, this is your pipe dream, so ultimately you can do whatever you >> want! >> >> Now, if you are asking my opinion...that and $5 will get you a cup of >> coffee at Starbucks. >> >> Let me start by saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. >> However, I would have to wonder what the terms of any locomotive lease >> would be. As for the C425s, they must have been on a 12 year lease, >> because the EL sent them out west in March 1976 right before Conrail. In >> fact they even totally repainted one of them only a matter of days before >> the end. Talk about company pride... >> >> Does that mean the other Alcos were on a 12 year deal? If so, then the >> C424s were already "owned" by the EL by 1976. >> >> I guess you would have put yourself in the position of the person in >> charge of motive power. When the lease ends, how much is it going to >> cost to retain the units vs. how much will it cost to purchase/lease new >> units? Do you go with something new and expensive, or relatively cheap >> but heavily used? Something new that your shop might not know how to fix >> or something that you've been maintaining for the last 15 years or so? >> Is the lessor someone you can deal with? I recall that Conrail sent back >> the EL units that were financed through Dereco (N&W) when their lease was >> up in the early 80s. >> >> As for your last question, you would have to ask yourself what the new >> units will be used for. It seems to me that the EL preferred 6-axle >> units for their road freights. If you needed a 6-axle unit in the mid to >> late 70s, the SD40-2 was the best thing out there. >> >> - -pat >> >> - -------------- Original message ---------------------- >> From: "Bradley Butcher" <llyengalyn_@_hotmail.com> >>> >>> Ok I think most people have heard at least some about my freelanced >>> prototype EL >>> ideas. Now my question is. >>> >>> Since I plan on modeling EL in the late 70's <remember NO Conrail> >>> typical >>> Locomotive lease periods seem to be 15 years by and large. So >>> theoritically in >>> 78 the lease would be coming up on the C424's. Do my learned list >>> brothers >>> believe that EL would have renewed they're lease? >>> >>> I guess it the question could be extended to the C425's. U25B's and >>> GP35's by >>> 1980 for perspective. >>> >>> >>> And if they did retire them what would replace them? BB units or CC? I >>> could see >>> GP40-2's, C36-7's. For some reason I just can't see EL every buying >>> SD40-2s even >>> if they had the money. >>> >>> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List >>> http://EL-List.railfan.net/ >>> To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html >> >> >> > > The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List > http://EL-List.railfan.net/ > To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List http://EL-List.railfan.net/ To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html ------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2008 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.