Its my understanding that the scrapping has started in the last day or so. These units are ether gone already or about to be..

You are correct, OERM 1975 ex DOT-15 was one of the ones built new for the Army

I have purchased some parts from these locomotives, including the entire electrical cabinet from the RS2 977.

I will say this; There are some very unhappy people there as per the stealing of these parts.

The people who did this need to be turned in.

All 4 class lights and the 2 Mars lights from the 466.
Two Pyle National dual sealed beam headlight assemblies from the 977.
One fairly new Nathan horn, I believe it was a 'P3'.

This took some time and more then one person.

Damn significant nationally.

Alco never imagined the RS-1 would replace covered wagons on the mainline. However they DID intend the RS-2 to do that. And that's exactly what happened (with a little help from EMD's famous Geeps). And 466 is the one that started it all.


The preservation community is very interested. The preservation community is just behind the curve with this sudden news. Credit where credit is due: the Michigan railfans finding out about it in time to alert us, and POSSIBLY to save the unit. With any luck the scrapper will be Waymore Power, who love Alcos, are well aware of the significance of the unit, and have been willing to work with folks; in fact that's how sister unit 469 got saved.

You know how I've always ranted: "Don't just get more stuff, instead invest in the infrastructure to preserve more stuff well." I walk my talk, and my plate is rather full at this moment doing just that. Yet still - there's a lot I can do, please keep me in the loop.

Can you actually confirm 469 is safe and not just "Set aside for now"? If so where is it going?

Still looking into 469 - maybe not.

On 466, however, the units were sold outright by Michigan Southern/ Pioneer Railcorp to the scrap company. I have talked to the scrap company. They do appreciate its historic value. However they want serious money for the unit, this isn't likely to be a donation. They have shopped it around to a number of Alco collectors with no luck. They envision about $40,000 cost to make it fit for interchange, they feel between that and the money they'll want, they have low hopes that a savior will come along at the last minute. My assumption is, it'll come out by truck and look very handsome on motorless trucks in a carbarn, festooned with signs describing how it killed the A-B-B-A unit. Don't open the doors or you'll see an empty space.

While their appreciation for the unit's history certainly reflects into the sequence by which they are scrapping the units, the fellow I've talked to suspects they have already scrapped the long hood and pulled the prime mover.

We, in preservation, could do this; but we'd have to pull off another Bill Wall, and do it FAST. I'm certainly willing to support the project strongly, especially if the unit stays in Michigan.

Guy called me back, a $60k check today would save the unit, but it would still have to be off the property by Christmas unless some arrangement were made with Pioneer Railcorp

They're not willing or able to delay further because the railroad wants them gone, and because the equipment they will use to scrap it is on-site this week, and they can't afford to delay further while the wheels of preservation turn. He feels those wheels HAVE turned, and produced a "no preserve" decision, and he can no longer wait.

Thank you for staying on topic and adding to the discussion, Mr. McDowell. As usual, while RYPN debates semantics, the torch gets closer. This was Thursday:

http://members4.boardhost.com/OtherMich ... 64690.html

Oh, well.

Walt L.

The issue of whether the 466 is really the first "road-switcher" can be debated endlessly depending on the conditions and qualifiers you apply. The term (as two words: road switcher) was being used by another manufacturer to describe some of their products before the Alco RS series appeared. There may be some earlier examples of the use of this description for a locomotive, if so I have not seen them yet.

I tend to give the builders description of the locomotive more respect in determining "first" status than qualifications applied later by writers, but your opinion may be different.

PC

The reason was described at the beginning of the thread. You (any many others) are dwelling on semantics rather than contemplating the mainline situation at the time the RS's were introduced. It was steamers and solid lash-ups of ABA, ABBA or ABBBA cab units - F7, FA, Shark, etc. Trying to switch industries with an F-unit - well, ask any museum that attempts it contemporarily. Working a branchline - who can afford to tie up 4 units to switch a branch? What if you need more than 1 unit, but less than 4? Often the cab units are coupled with drawbars.

The RS-1 was an S-4 switcher on a ballasted stretch frame. When they said "road" they meant "branchline". It had the pulling power, but not the horsepower needed for mainline speed. An ABBA locomotive was easily 6000+ horsepower - can you imagine a 6-unit lashup of RS-1s dragging a road freight down the Water Level Route at 70 mph? Alco didn't.

Heck, M.U. was an OPTION.

The RS-2 was an FA mainline engine repackaged as a road-switcher. A 4-unit RS-2 locomotive could haul a mainline train at speed, and then be broken up and reallocated at will for mainline, branch and yard service. The versatility to operations was like nothing that ever existed on the railroad, suddenly the entire concept of "classes of equipment for classes of service" Just Went Away. With massive economic savings. That classless locomotive was not possible until it had the horsepower to run on the road.

When we say "road switcher", that's what we're talking about. I don't think it's a controversial position, but it is a complex one that may test the attention span of the modern American.

Back in the day, the builder referred to what is now called an 'FA-1' as a 1500 hp road freight unit and the PA as a 2000 hp road passenger unit. So, it seems to me that the name was emblematic of the intended use. Note that m.u. control was standard equipment here.

There was also to be an Alco 1200 hp 'road switcher' (their designation) based upon the stillborn Model 241 engine. When that engine design was abandoned, the actual locomotive constructed was the RS-2. Neither the planned 241 powered demo nor the RS-2 had m.u. controls as part of the basic specification.

So, it seems to be obvious what the builder had in mind for this equipment. Of course, over time, the railroads developed some different ideas as to application-as is always the case.

BTW, NYS&W was famous for their multiple consists of RS-1. I'm sure that they put 4 unit consists together on many occasions.

DPK

As this discussion has illustrated, the "title" for the first road switcher is contested.

One thing seems fairly definite right now though, nobody is going to have to write a placard to put in front of the 466 identifying it as the first road switcher, which is really unfortunate because it would have made a great exhibit for that Alco museum in Schenectady.

My own preference for the locomotive that was the first road switcher remains with the locomotive that was first advertised by its builder as a "road switcher". The builder that coined the term should get the credit.

PC