Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Take a break from playing the game and chat here about real-world transportation issues!

Moderator: General Forums Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by NekoMaster »

Sometimes I wonder why did the "American Locomotive Company" and "Montreal Locomotive Works" close down?

Yeah they werent the "best" locomotives around, but they got the job done, I guess competition from EMD and GE push them out of business?
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
User avatar
piratescooby
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
Posts: 449
Joined: 21 Nov 2014 12:39
Location: The Granite City.

Re: Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by piratescooby »

http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/roster/bldr.html ......http://railfan.com/extraboard/rf_extra_oct2011.php , So sad when all that history gets demolished ,the two articles make good reading .
User avatar
Cecil Cityscape
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 25
Joined: 07 Sep 2014 02:27
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by Cecil Cityscape »

It really began with the PA, with ge and alco getting into a disagreement and breaking their partnership. Competition from ge and emd combined with some flops of locomotives dramatically dropped ordrrs and killed alco (it didnt help that a lot of railroads were also going bankrupt at the time, dropping orders). MLW stuck it out longer in Canada as GE didnt get a foothold until the 90s and their locomotives had the tendency of being significantly better than Alco, as they made mamy improvements in their models. The problem with MLW is that they never spent much time developing their own designs. By the time the century series had run its course, the m420 was too little too late. MLW never really did die out, bombardier purchased them and they became bombardier's rail division. While the hr412 was ok, the hr416 was a disaster and forced them out of the freight market.
Cecil Cityscape is the name of an avatar in Chris Sawyer's Locomotion
Cheers from the Dominion of Canada! :lol: 8)
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Re: Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by NekoMaster »

Cecil Cityscape wrote:It really began with the PA, with ge and alco getting into a disagreement and breaking their partnership. Competition from ge and emd combined with some flops of locomotives dramatically dropped ordrrs and killed alco (it didnt help that a lot of railroads were also going bankrupt at the time, dropping orders). MLW stuck it out longer in Canada as GE didnt get a foothold until the 90s and their locomotives had the tendency of being significantly better than Alco, as they made mamy improvements in their models. The problem with MLW is that they never spent much time developing their own designs. By the time the century series had run its course, the m420 was too little too late. MLW never really did die out, bombardier purchased them and they became bombardier's rail division. While the hr412 was ok, the hr416 was a disaster and forced them out of the freight market.
Damn, really does suck that there isn't much in terms of Canadian built Locomotives now but it would see a lot of countries these days are Importing locomotives from USA for the most part with Imports from China, Russia, and Japan (there may be others but I wouldn't know, I see mostly American, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese locomotives running outside of their home countries)
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
Baldy's Boss
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1396
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 22:02

Re: Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by Baldy's Boss »

Is it true that Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton's engine business exit in 1956 all came down to their not getting an order from the Pennsylvania RR because GE had given the Pennsy a great bulk rate price?
User avatar
Espee
Traffic Manager
Traffic Manager
Posts: 198
Joined: 27 Mar 2010 23:05
Location: One Market Plaza, San Francisco

Re: Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by Espee »

Baldy's Boss wrote:Is it true that Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton's engine business exit in 1956 all came down to their not getting an order from the Pennsylvania RR because GE had given the Pennsy a great bulk rate price?
BLH was the classic example of a company so stuck in the past that it couldn't get in gear fast enough to offer any serious competition in the North American diesel-electric locomotive market. It was the polar opposite of EMD in terms of manufacturing. Baldwin in its diesel years found itself in a vicious circle of small batch production and custom design that precluded any economy of scale, which made it by far the most inefficient builder of diesel locomotives from a cost standpoint. It was so inefficient that Baldwin actually LOST money on every diesel sale, and its salesmen were actually forbidden to actively market diesel locomotives to its customers. Instead, Baldwin built diesels only when its existing customers (SP, PRR, Santa Fe, C&O were the main ones) DEMANDED them, yet at the same time was willing do to all sorts of low-volume custom jobs such as the Centipedes and the center-cab transfer units, which made the situation worse. Anyone who ever tried to build (or kitbash) a model Baldwin diesel-electric locomotives knows that Baldwin could never build the same thing the same way twice. The locos also rode rough, and the six-axle versions weren't forgiving of less than well-maintained track. Baldwin also used a pneumatic MU (multiple unit) system that was incompatible with EMD and Alco, which used a more reliable electrical system.

About the only thing Baldwin really had going for it was the use of big Westinghouse traction motors with lots of copper in their windings that let them out-pull just about anything else on rails. The Southern Pacific quickly demoted all the Baldwins they purchased to low-speed switcher/hump/transfer service and found they worked adequately for that purpose, with the last ones (S12 models) not retired until 1975. Logging outfits and shortlines in the hills (Sierra Railroad, Weyerhauser, McCloud River) seemed to like them well enough, as they purchased plenty of retired ex-SP units, some of them which even lasted into this century...
User avatar
Espee
Traffic Manager
Traffic Manager
Posts: 198
Joined: 27 Mar 2010 23:05
Location: One Market Plaza, San Francisco

Re: Why did ALCO and MLW fold?

Post by Espee »

Cecil Cityscape wrote:It really began with the PA, with ge and alco getting into a disagreement and breaking their partnership.
To be more specific, the breakup between Alco and GE was in many ways due to the latter's lack of confidence in the way Alco handled their business relationship due to the problems with the 244 series prime movers (i.e. the actual diesel engines) used in its road freight and passenger units from 1946 to 1956, the worst of the bunch being the infernal V-16s in the Alco PA models. While the PAs have tended to be railfan favorites as they were considered to be very sleek, good-looking locomotives, the railroads themselves considered them to be complete lemons, with flexing engine blocks and oil starvation problems that wore out crankshafts on short order, as well as the air-cooled Buchi turbochargers that liked to blow up at inopportune times.

The Southern Pacific probably had the largest Alco fleet in the US (over 600 units purchased) so its experience with Alcos might be of some interest. The S series switchers with the older 539 series prime movers performed reasonably well, but the PAs were just the tip of the iceberg when it came to problems with the 244 prime mover. The Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific had the largest fleet of them, and actually collaborated with GE and each other (despite being competitors) in the early 1950's to rebuild their entire fleets with water-cooled turbos and upgraded electricals, which resulted in their fleets outlasting just about everyone else's. The SP kept its PAs for Overland Route trains over Donner Pass because the bigger traction motors compared to EMDs E-units made them decent mountain locomotives, and kept most of them in service until the SDP45s were delivered in 1967. The Santa Fe demoted them to secondary lines and mail trains once they acquired enough second-generation passenger power (U28CG/U30GC/FP45) by 1968. What really finally killed them off was the loss of railway mail contracts in 1967. Other roads demoted them to freight service and usually got rid of them as soon as their 14-year bank trust leases were up (around 1961-1963).

The V-12 equipped locos were somewhat better but far from perfect. Southern Pacific acquired a large number of 1600 HP six-axle RSD-5 road units which quickly were banned from their intended service as helpers over Tehachapi and demoted to switcher or branchline service as they kept throwing cranks and turbo blades under load. On the SP, if it couldn't handle the mountains, it was either banished to the Central Valley in California or send to subsidiary T&NO (Texas and New Orleans), so a lot of Alcos wound up spending their final days on branch lines in Texas. SP was so fed up with RSD-5s that it traded in 21 units (the oldest no more than 7 years old) in 1961 to be rebuilt into V12-251 equipped RSD12s. SP however was a sucker for anything with 6 axles, so it and the Cotton Belt (SP subsidiary St Louis Southwestern) purchased 2400 HP DL600B (aka RSD-15) hood units equipped with V16-251s. The 251 models were an improvement but they tended to overheat on the road, and got demoted to switchers as well. SP was one of Alco's biggest (and most loyal customers) but every time SP went to Alco, seems that Alco let them down, with the possible exception of the ten 2000 HP RS32s, Alco's answer to the EMD GP20. The DL643 "Alcohaulics" were complete turkeys, as unreliable and prone to breakdown as the K-M hydraulics. The C628s were decent pullers but smoked excessively and were exceedingly rough on track, the C630's had the same sins but also liked to throw piston/connecting rod assemblies through the sides of engines and access doors under full load. Those 6-axle Centuries wound up as switchers as well, having the series-to-parallel transition capability removed so that their max operating speed was reduced to 25 MPH.

(Another example from the Union Pacific concerning Alco's C855 double-diesel monstrosities: "For what it's worth, those Alco 855 units (A-B-A) where VERY unreliable and only made one aborted westbound trip out of Council Bluffs, Iowa, back in 1964. They never made it to Fremont, Nebraska, because upon making forward transition just west of Summit, all three units had their side high voltage electric cabinets explode into flames. Some local fire department had to put out the flames, and all three units where towed dead back to Omaha Shops. The Union Pacific NEVER let the units operate in a consist together again! Even the Alco Field Service people couldn't keep them running." http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/up-alco-c855-diesels)

In fairness, Alco probably built better locomotives overall than Baldwin or Fairbanks-Morse, but certainly not better than EMD. Alco survived because nobody, EMD included, wanted EMD to completely corner the market. The railroads basically wanted another builder to provide competition and keep EMD honest, while EMD itself didn't want to be the subject of an anti-trust suit from the Feds. EMD also understood that with the cyclical locomotive market that they would maximize profits by NOT shooting for 100% of the market, as that last 1/4 of the market would be a rather expensive proposition. As long as Baldwin and FM were the only real competitors to EMD besides Alco, then Alco could survive. Once GE chose to get into the road loco market with the U25B, then it was "game over" for Alco - not necessarily because the early U-boats were a more reliable design in the long run, but because GE had a handle on large-scale manufacturing (AND deep pockets to finance major capital projects) that Alco did not.
Post Reply

Return to “Real-World Transport Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests