RE: (erielack) ALCO plant farewell

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

There are usually several factors to explain the demise of a large, 
established company, and the discussion here indicates this was certainly 
the case with ALCO. One big problem that Ed brought up is that the company 
didn't fully implement the mass-production methods that helped make GM and 
GE successful. Too many non-standard parts means higher production costs for 
the manufacturer and higher inventory costs for the customer. The underlying 
problem was the same failure to adapt that took down BLH; ALCO managed to 
last longer. In other words, it continued to think too much like a steam 
locomotive manufacturer.

Another problem was poor tracking of the six-axle trucks on less than 
optimum track. This plagued Northeastern roads that were traditionally good 
ALCO customers: LV, D&H, PRR. For example, the C628's, mainstays on the 
LV-D&H runthroughs NE-84/NE-87/AM-1/MA-2 for several years, were banned from 
these trains in 1/76 after a derailment at Windsor, NY on the D&H. The Hi-Ad 
trucks that began appearing around 1967 didn't help. One of the final ALCO 
sales was a half-dozen C636's to IC for coal service in 1968. Because this 
RR had begun to let its physical plant slide, they tended to bounce 
themselves off the rails also. Fortunately, EL avoided this problem by not 
acquiring six-axle Centurys.

MLW-Worthington did compete in the US market, but not very successfully. 
AFAIK, the only US buyer was PC spinoff Providence & Worcester; by ordering 
the M420W in late 1973, it introduced the "safety cab" design to the US. The 
M636 sold to Mexico's Ferrocaril del Pacifico, and there may have been other 
export sales.

The contraction of the RR industry as well as higher hp per unit reduced 
sales to the point where the market could support only two builders. This 
eventually pushed ALCO aside, the weakest of the three due to all the 
factors mentioned as well as the financing issue. EMD would have disappeared 
also by now if a couple of Class 1's, particularly UP hadn't bought its 
locos in an effort to maintain competition.

Several people have mentioned the unreliability of the U-boats, but the fact 
is that by today's standards, the products of all three builders in the 
1960's were not particularly reliable. I've read that EMD's 567 prime mover 
was pushed beyond its capabilities by the 2500 hp output used in the 
GP35/SD35, although I'm not certain what type of failures occurred. EMD 
developed the 645 engine to stay in the horsepower race. Even the SD45 had 
problems related to failure of the extra-long crankshaft. By the time this 
was corrected, the industry had soured on the 20-cyl prime mover, and the 
SD45-2 sold to only a handful of roads: EL, ATSF and SCL (theirs were 
swapped for U36C's with affiliate Clinchfield). By achieving a nearly ideal 
combination of reliability and utility, the SD40-2 became the most popular 
North American locomotive of all time. Unfortunately, GM began to fritter 
away its tremendous franchise in 1980 with the introduction of the 
notoriously unreliable GP50/SD50. Today's GE's are very dependable; you 
don't achieve market dominance by building a "throwaway" two-year 
locomotive.

Paul B

 


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

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