Next ALCo loco to make?

[jmlaboda - RIP]

Don't forget the 34 FPA4 and 12 FPB4 units that lasted into the 90s in VIA service, before going to various tourist and shortlines.

They are some beautiful locomotives in their own right and the use of the 251 prime mover in them allowed the units to glean 1800 HP vs. the previous 1600 HP.  And, while not often discussed, ALCO did do some repowerings of FAs and FBs using the 251 engine which. while still limited in numbers, was an effort to create a more useful locomotive.  Ironically VIA Rail Canada thought that the MLW FPA4s and FPB4s were as sought after historical locomotives as the ALCO PA/PB units, initially asking a rather high price for the units being sold, but they learned the hard way when no one wanted to buy them at such a high price.  Guess you live and learn...

Missouri - Kansas - Texas had a pair of FA/FB-units (#85A and #85C) repowered using the 251 engine which retained their 1500 HP rating while New Haven, who also started a rebuilding program with ALCO, repowering some ALCO RS3s with the 251, also repowered some FA/FB units the same way.

Lets not forget the ALCO FPA2/FPB2 of Lehigh Valley (FPA2 #594/FPB2 #583, circa 1954-55) and the four CN MLW FPA2/FPB2 units that were the prototypes for the FPA4/FPB4 program (two each for Canadian National, who went on to buy the total production of the MLW units) were upgraded the same way as a precursor to the FPA4/FPB4 production (one of which still survives on what was the New York and Lake Erie shortline), all of which were rerated for 1800 HP.

I don't have the figures as to how many units were rebuilt but the RS3s that were had a distinctive bulge in the turbocharger area that was raised several inches to accommodate the better turbocharger.  The images below, from George Elwood's Fallen Flags site, clearly displays what I am talking about (which was the same reason that Green Bay & Western and Delaware & Hudson 251-rebuilt locomotives had their long hoods raised approximately 6", so as to accommodate the larger turbocharger).  (Wonder if anyone ever actually documented these early rebuildings)...

Before...


After...


(ALCO FA and FB units had no need to raise the turbocharged area since the roofline was high enough to clear the 251 turbocharger.)

The previously mentioned MKT rebuilds actually went on serve in Precision Engineering's (later known as Precision National) early lease fleet, serving for a while with their 251 engines.  While I can't recall whether they were ever repainted into the solid green or yellow and green paint scheme they never the less was able to demonstrate just how improved the rebuilds could be (ironically these same units were some of the earliest RS3s to be converted by Penn Central into DeWitt Geeps so were the rebuilds actually successful???).

One thing to keep in mind in regards to the ALCO 251 prime movers that Fairbanks Morris sells today are intended for Marine applications just as FM's own, still produced, OP engines are.  While some time back National Railway Equipment had purposed, some years back, to create a new generation ALCO powered locomotive though it never actually surfaced much like the 3600 HP passenger unit ALCO purposed for the Santa Fe way back when they went shopping for some newer, more reliable, locomotives... which still remains one of my MOST favorite ALCOs to think about...

[jmlaboda - RIP]

or the DL200{?} series "Black Marias"

Available as truly fine resin (styrene-like) castings...

later the C855A&B locos

Available through Shapeways...

[Spikre]

 
   Jerry,
    most repowered 244 engine locos got the 250 series 244H engines
  which were much improved over earlier 244s.
   the NH units got 250s.
   NYC repowered one FA with a 251,but removed it later and stuck a 244
   back into it.
   Alco did repower 2 C&NW RS-3s with 251s and RS-11 hoods.
   later some roads had 251s put into RS-3s like GB&W,D&H,and several others.
    the MLW FPA-4 Proto units did get 251s,and saw one of them at Spadina
    around 1976.
     244s suffered from weak lower crank areas,which is why 1600 HP was the limit
   on most V-12s,even though they could produce 1800/2000 HP if  a road
   wanted it.Erie ran FA-2s at 1800 HP for Alco for test purposes,apparently
   Alco replaced damaged engines.
   the 16-244s were pushed to 2250 HP in PAs and DL600s,then 2400 HP in DL600As.
    they weren't as successful as 251 powered DL-600Bs.
         Spikre
           

[jmlaboda - RIP]

244s suffered from weak lower crank areas,which is why 1600 HP was the limit
   on most V-12s,even though they could produce 1800/2000 HP if  a road
   wanted it.

Yep... those RSD7s were bears to deal with, unlike the RSD15s that followed them.

[Kisatchie]

There isn't a single ugly loco in the Alco line-up.

No, they're all ugly 


Hmm... Kiz, the trouble
maker...

[jmlaboda - RIP]

Dee... please don't tell me that Kiz is one of those Caterpillar "notched nosed" lovers... I don't think my poor old body can take such a shock!!!

(But you know you gotta love him... he's forum family after all...)

[Kisatchie]

Dee... please don't tell me that Kiz is one of those Caterpillar "notched nosed" lovers... I don't think my poor old body can take such a shock!!!

Hmm... no, for some
inexplicable reason, Kiz
just felt like throwing a
grenade...

[cjm413]

All I can say is if a modeler is so anal that they squawk over ⅛" error in a model's length for HO scale they are in the wrong hobby to begin with.  And I would bet that up until now 98% of the modelers in any scale was unaware of the foot or so difference there actually was between the various ALCO switchers but unfortunately now must wrestle over the decision to accept or reject whatever is offered.  Some models have bigger differences than that but are widely accepted despite the errors.

Atlas GP30 fan mistake (drops mic)

[nkalanaga]

"Ugly" is a matter of opinion, and even if one considers a prototype "ugly", that doesn't mean that one won't buy it.  Most steam locos weren't designed to win beauty contests...

[sirenwerks]

"Ugly" is a matter of opinion, and even if one considers a prototype "ugly", that doesn't mean that one won't buy it.  Most steam locos weren't designed to win beauty contests...

I like how you assume to be correcting me (does "one" need quotation marks for a single word?) when I was stating my opinion.  And you support opinions, right?

[ChristianJDavis1]

Even though it is technically MLW, I would not mind a ready-to-run M420, M420R, or M420W. Used by a variety of roads, like the SRNJ (a local shortline that at one time had a decent-sized fleet of them). Something with Fox Valley level of details (not much molded on, but little parts in a baggie to be installed at the will of the modeler).

Also, I know a few kits have been made, but of course I only heard about them after they sold out...

[nkalanaga]

Sirenwerks:  I hadn't even seen your comment.  I was commenting on the earlier remarks about the 9950 being ugly, and noting that, just because a prototype may be ugly, it doesn't mean that a model of it won't sell.

For what it's worth, I haven't looked at the links, have no idea what the 9950 is/was, and therefore have no opinion on it.  As for Alcos in general, the SP&S had lots of them, the BN ran most of them for at least a few years, and I've bought a few models of them.

[mmagliaro]

Alco made a lot of engines that weren't ugly.

[CNR5529]

Alco made a lot of engines that weren't ugly.

Agreed!

[jmlaboda - RIP]

Hmm...  from this angle NYC Hudson looks like something from Buck Rogers...







I'm just sayin'.