RE: (erielack) ALCO plant farewell

["Gary R. Kazin" <gkazin_@_yahoo.com>]

Ultimately, GE locomotives had better FINANCING than any other manufacturer.


ALCo had serious durability issues with the 244 engine, which powered the FA/FB and PA/PB locomotives.  After some years in service, crankshafts tended to suffer catastrophic failures on the road.  The 244 was much less durable than the 539 engine which preceded it.  The later 251 engine used in the Century series was much better, but by the time it was used in production locomotives in 1963, most customers had decided to take their business elsewhere.

ALCo used an interesting code for its engine model number: the month and year in which the first development engine was built.  So the 539 originated in May, 1939, the 244 in February 1944, and the 251 in February 1951.  They then took many years to actually enter production...

Gary R. Kazin
DL&W Milepost R35.7
Rockaway, New Jersey


- --- On Fri, 12/10/10, Montgomery, Edward T <ETMontgomery_@_fcps.edu> wrote:
> One thing I read on this site a while
> back was GE only had to "be better than ALCO" to put them
> out of business.  I remember reading that ALCO units
> did not have standardized parts from one unit to another,
> sort of like DELL computers.  They look the same on the
> outside and how they work but internally things were
> different.




	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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