Did not the article on Erie FA's recently talk about the flaws in the 244 mostly having to do with the GE turbo charger? And that once a new alco turbo was retrofitted they were ok? Did the 251 make it's debut in the RS11 in 1956? I suppose by then alot of railroads had a bad taste for Alco already and they had pretty poor sales after that right up until the end. Sad to say that the RS3 with the flawed 244 was their biggest seller. > Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 19:13:27 -0700> From: gkazin_@_yahoo.com> Subject: RE: (erielack) Alco vs EMD> To: erielack@lists.railfan.net> > The books I've read state that the 244 was a flawed engine, rushed> into production at the end of World War II. It had several> mechanical problems that didn't show up until they had been in> service for a while.> > EMD had built engines throughout the war, partly for locomotives and> partly for marine applications - many for the Navy - while ALCo built> other military products. ALCo WAS NOT ALLOWED to work on locomotives> during the war, which severely handicapped them when the war ended -> EMD was already designing improvements to the FT while ALCo was still> redesigning its prime mover. The 244 had problems, big ones. By the> time the 251 was designed and in production, some lines were> reluctant to buy ALCo products and switched to GE, which had> introduced the U25B. 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.