One of the persistent questions I've had lately is what was the difference between the ALCO Century Series Diesels and the later RS Series?

The reason I'm asking is that after reading Albert Churella's book "from Steam to DIesel", it seems obvious to me that by the time the Century series was on the drawing board, ALCO shouldve realized that as the last standing (or soon to be last standing) builder from the steam era- they should have realized that they needed to improve product quality, especially from the reliability and serviceability ends and maintained as high a production volume as possible per line in order to lower average fixed costs.

Facing a declining market share-and the threat of a new entrant into the market (GE) that would mean identifying a core product line and concentrating on it. Given ALCO's poor finances in the 50's and 60's this would mean working on existing products and not making heavy investment in the R&D and marketing that's required of a new product line, unless the existing line is clearly obselete. Essentially its a tactical retreat.

As I understand it, the RS series was ALCO's bread and butter post steam. Why wouldn't they stick with the RS series? What was supposed to be the great difference between the Centuries and the later model RS's? What are the major differences between a late model RS and a 4 axle century?

they basically HAD to introduce the Century series to remain competitive..
the Century series wasnt really anything radically new, it was more of a natural evolution from the previous RS models.
they just gave the series a new name to make it seem more modern..
yes there were many improvements, but they could have just as easily called a Century 420 a RS420, or whatever..
The century series IS the improved versions of the RS series..
its not like they scrapped all the old technology and started with something brand new and radically different..
and every company has to keep coming out with newer and better products..
EMD couldt say "well, the SD40-2 is basically perfect, lets just stop here and keep on making these from now on."

The Century series is to the RS series what the GE -7 series is to the U-boat series..just a newer and better version of what came before.

Alco came out with the century series for the same reason Ford comes out with a new models every year.
or why Boeing is now making 767's instead of DC3's.
or why EMD is making SD70's today rather than GP7's..
etc.

and they couldnt just "stick with the RS series" because that was old news..
you have to keep modern..
who would buy a new RS11 when the GP38-2 was available?
its just natural progress..The Century series was Alcos "latest and greatest"..
yes, sometimes newer ISNT better! ;)
but we only see that with hindsight..
at the time Alco didnt have any choice..it was "improve or die"..same as every other company ever, no matter what the product.

If Ford was making a brand new 1976 Pinto today, unchanged from 1976, would you buy one if every other auto maker kept moving forward? ;)

Scot

Still a lot of Alco MLW's in service on the Delaware-Lackawanna, Susquehanna, and countless short lines, and museums. Love that black smoke!

Ed K. cp. Laurel Run

> or why Boeing is now making 767's instead of DC3's.

Don't intend to be an anal nitpicker, but to SUPPORT your argument.

No one is buying 767's (for commercial use anymore) and it's only hope for survival as a platform is for military tanker and/or awac projects. While Boeing may have merged with McDonnell Douglas a few years ago, the 767 was purely a Boeing product, and the DC3 was purely McD. :-)

I think superheater neglected to consider that everyone has 20/20 hindsight. If you don't have access to Alco's internal records, former executives and project managers from the time, you can only speculate.

Thousands of enthusiasts analyze and re-fight military engagements from every continent and era of history using their modern insight and knowledge of historical fact and progression of events, and ask the same questions superheater does of Alco.

What we know now, they (then) either didn't know, or didn't appreciate (i.e. fully understand). That's history, and it's happening all around us, just watch the news... for instance: Where are those WMDs? :-)

It could be said that the Century series was a reaction to the various marketplace conditions such as a) the trend toward unit reduction that began in the late 50's b) the shrinking size of the locomotive market due to: a) and reductions in passenger service and the need for yard switchers c) EMD's GP-30 d) lackluster sales of late RS models such as the RS-27, RS-32 and RS-36 e) the railroads overall disatisfaction with 244-engined locomotives and f) entrance of GE into the marketplace.

That being said, the Century series were not at all dissimilar from the equivalent RS or RSD model. The 251 engine, main generator, trucks, much of the high voltage switch gear, air compressor and some other parts were essentially carry-over from the late RS line.

The major improvements within the Century line were as follows:

mechanical equipment air filtration
single traction motor blower
pressurized engine compartment
two stage engine air filtration
single horizontal radiator vs two vertical panels
improved equipment access via multiple section carbody doors
Improved 'Type E' (blue faced card) controls for excitation, wheelslip and transition
greater modularity of construction

So, yes, the objective was improved reliability, serviceability, lower cost per mile operated and so on.

It is interesting to note the amount of equipment that could be salvaged
from a 244-engined road switcher, road freight unit or road passenger unit
as follows:



main generator (GT-564,GT-581,GT-566 or GT586)
auxiliary generator(s)
trucks and traction motors
air compressor
high voltage switchgear (line contactors, reverser, braking switch, etc)
eddy current clutch/right angle fan drive
dynamic brake grid blower

Although I don't have the numbers in front of me, I would suspect that a large number of B-B Century units with DC transmission were built against 'trade-ins.' Oddly enough, NYC, which was a good customer for 244 engined locomotives-only purchased 10 AC/DC C430's.

Of course, by the time the AC/Dc transmission came into vogue, it is easy to see that Alco was now at a huge disadvantage against both EMD AND GE-as both were vertically integrated and Alco was not.

Not a Pinto, no -- but I probably WOULD by a 1973 Mustang Mach I if it was still being made today!

(One of these days I'm going to get that '70 sitting in my yard running again...)