Given all the talk of professionalism and such that emanates from this board, I've seen little on the subject of controlling costs. Accordingly, the previous thread on RS-3's has inspired me to put forth the following postulate: Can any tourist or museum railroad really AFFORD to operate the oddball diesels any more ? Has the time come to effectively "retire" some of the equipment that could replaced by something more recent, and hence more supportable? Does your mission statement really require an organization to not only run its bankbook into the ground-in addition to the artifact ? Enough questions...

As the example, I am going to use the RS-3's mentioned in the previous thread. I will qualify my remarks by stating I've put more than my fair share into several of these beasts. And beasts they are...

I've come to believe that the time has passed as operational entities for these things. They are more valuable as display items-and easier on the budget. One of the really weak points of the design are the radiators. They tend to trap gunk
(which is rusted cast iron) at the bottom of the cores and split. You can pinch off and solder the leaking tubes-but the problem is intrinsic. The only solution is store the unit inside a warm building-so the tubes don't freeze. Folks, these radiator cores are MTO-and they are not cheap !!!

Then, there are issues with material such as 6 and 24 brake valves, FRA glazing, controls, lube oil cooler, governor and so on.

Cheap old locomotives are no different than cheap old autos-if one is not careful, one can easily exceed the purchase price on repair items.

I doubt that $10,000 mentioned in the thread would both deliver the unit to your shop and make it "right and tight." Based upon experience, the actual tab might be closer to $ 20,000-or more.
That $ 35,000 might get you a (much) newer EMD or GE product.

Comments ?



newhaven0401-NOSPAM-@verizon.net

> Given all the talk of professionalism and
> such that emanates from this board, I've
> seen little on the subject of controlling
> costs. Accordingly, the previous thread on
> RS-3's has inspired me to put forth the
> following postulate: Can any tourist or
> museum railroad really AFFORD to operate the
> oddball diesels any more ?

Hard to answer outside the context of a specific operation. Take a hypothetical museum with a weekends-only demonstration "yard shuttle." I don't see why they couldn't baby their ALCO or whatever and operate it for the indefiniate future if the store it carefully inside between operating sessions. That said, even in this scenario and EMD 567 powered something might be cheaper still to run.

For a big tourist railroad like the Grand Canyon or the Cuyahoga Valley, maybe the economics would catch up with them much sooner.

On the other hand, aren't there a few operators with very good skilled shop guys who find that the lower initial cost of acquiring used oddballs more than makes up for the higher maintenance costs of running them? I'm thinking here of ALCO operators like Arkansas & Missouri and Delaware-Lackawanna.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Let's be brutally honest, it's amazing that at least some of these Alcos can be earning their keep over 30 years after their manufacturer closed its doors.

A couple railroad maintenance guys (including maybe one who is a regular on this board) explained the longevity of Alcos and GE's to me a while back. Basically, to over-simplify their arguments and analogies, Alcos and GE's (and Alcos used GE electricals, remember) differed from EMDs in the sense that EMD, in a sense, shoved a block of metal into one end of La Grange and turned it into a locomotive, whereas Alco and GE *assembled* components into a locomotive. Therefore, the latter are a pile of connected parts easier to work with or disassemble than the former. In later years, EMD replacement parts remained primarily proprietary, whereas parts for old Alcos and GE's were still available off the shelf or via aftermarket/remanufacturer suppliers. This significantly impacts the ability of the so-called "backyard mechanic" to work magic and keep an old goat running.

In another sense, I've heard EMD compared to Macintosh/Apple computers (better in every way, but more expensive) and Alco/GE/Baldwin to IBM/PC/Microsoft computers (more of a pain, but far easier to get and live with and way too many parts in the junk bin).

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

Ever compare price and availability of EMD 567 engine components (liners, heads, pistons, etc) with Alco 244 items? There are 4-5 (at least) aftermarket suppliers of 567 stuff, some of it reconditioned and some of it actually new, non-EMD manufacture. Try doing the same for 244 stuff--it's made from that famous railroad material called "unobtainium". At best, you might find some dubious quality used liners-heads-pistons, perhaps not much better that what you're pulling out. The 251 parts are a bit different, and more available. And the 251-powered locomotives are what A&M and D-L use in day-in, day-out freight service (yes, I know about the two D-L RS-3s---and now one has a broken crankshaft, and another RS-3 is going to give up its 244 engine for it), not 244-powered units.

Given a choice, I would prefer to have 567-powered locomotives for "regular users", and keep the 244-powered locos for "state occasions"---limited service and special events.

hpincus@mindspring.com

May I respectfully point out that the individuals I mentioned above either made their statements during, or based their statements on their work in, the mid-1980s. At the time, they were explaining the relative popularity of Alcos and GE switchers on short lines at the time.

Today, when "short lines" refers to "empires" like the Ohio Central, the Reading & Northern, and the New England Central, it is indeed a whole different kettle of fish or spare parts.

In recent days, though, I recall one railroad maintenance chap that went to a junkyard, pulled a few small parts off an EMD 567 that had been dropped by a crane, put them IN HIS POCKET, and remarked, "Well--that's about $500 I just saved there......"

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

The popularity of Alcos on shortlines in the '80's had everything to do with low initial buy-in and a plentiful supply of RTO material to serve as "parts." Hell, back then, one could still get reconditioned 244 material from a variety of sources.

As for the D-L and A&M, they have the luxury of a daily cash flow which enabled development of a trained work force and build-up of a substantial
parts supply via surplus purchases. Most tourist operations cannot afford this type of extravagance.

Fact is-most Alcos were undermaintained for years in Class 1 service. So, sooner or later, one has to spend the $$$ to bring them up to snuff.

> May I respectfully point out that the
> individuals I mentioned above either made
> their statements during, or based their
> statements on their work in, the mid-1980s.
> At the time, they were explaining the
> relative popularity of Alcos and GE
> switchers on short lines at the time.

> Today, when "short lines" refers
> to "empires" like the Ohio
> Central, the Reading & Northern, and the
> New England Central, it is indeed a whole
> different kettle of fish or spare parts.

> In recent days, though, I recall one
> railroad maintenance chap that went to a
> junkyard, pulled a few small parts off an
> EMD 567 that had been dropped by a crane,
> put them IN HIS POCKET, and remarked,
> "Well--that's about $500 I just saved
> there......"


newhaven0401-NOSPAM-@verizon.net

> That $ 35,000 might get you a (much) newer
> EMD or GE product.

> Comments ?

I checked a few resellers of locomotives on the web- now granted sometimes prices start high and then go low.. but most want much more (60+) for the GP7, 8, 9, 10, 16 variety.

superheater@rrmail.com

> For a big tourist railroad like the Grand
> Canyon or the Cuyahoga Valley, maybe the
> economics would catch up with them much
> sooner.

> As for the Cuyahoga Valley, we purchase and run Alcos for many reasons,but mostly because we are happy with there dependibility and we are very comfortable with there upkeep.It is also our opinion that the Alco's continue to be more cost effective for our operation, both in maintinance and in fuel savings over a EMD.
244 parts are getting harding to come by, but that shouldn't preclude a museum or tourist line from using them especially if you are trying to recreate a line that used the RS-3 to dieselize(the D&H comes to mind).Our RS-3 is used as back up for when one of the other units is in for work or 92day inspection, and we will continue to use it that way until something major happens that we cannot repair(like a crankshaft). As for our fleet of 251 powered engines, look for them to be roaming the valley for years to come.

B. Allan


http://www.cvsr.com
cvsrkahuna@aol.com

If you want "ready to go", you have to pay upfront. Plain and simple.

Fact is-by the time those RS-3's (or Baldwins...or whatever) trickle down to tourist or musuem service-they are "beaters." I've seen enough examples to know that most require a huge dose of sweat equity-in addition to $$$$-to bring 'em up to snuff.

One area that always seems to be neglected is brushes on rotating traction equipment. I've seen enough threaded commutators to recognize this right off the bat. If you apply the correct brushes from the gitgo, you spend some $$, but the
return is measurable. The comm can last essentially forever. If you don't spend the money, the machine will eventually require replacement.

Another area of neglect is fluid couplings and gaskets. These old RS-3's seem to leak every type of fluid from every pipe joint and gap. In todays world, it is just not acceptable for locomotives to "mark their spot." Couplings ain't cheap-neither is the time and effort to apply them.

Then, there is the governor. That baby is just obsolete-period. No parts or support from the manufacturer.

And so it goes

> I checked a few resellers of locomotives on
> the web- now granted sometimes prices start
> high and then go low.. but most want much
> more (60+) for the GP7, 8, 9, 10, 16
> variety.


newhaven0401-NOSPAM-@verizon.net

> Given all the talk of professionalism and
> such that emanates from this board, I've
> seen little on the subject of controlling
> costs. Accordingly, the previous thread on
> RS-3's has inspired me to put forth the
> following postulate: Can any tourist or
> museum railroad really AFFORD to operate the
> oddball diesels any more ? Has the time come
> to effectively "retire" some of
> the equipment that could replaced by
> something more recent, and hence more
> supportable? Does your mission statement
> really require an organization to not only
> run its bankbook into the ground-in addition
> to the artifact ? Enough questions...

> As the example, I am going to use the RS-3's
> mentioned in the previous thread. I will
> qualify my remarks by stating I've put more
> than my fair share into several of these
> beasts. And beasts they are...

> I've come to believe that the time has
> passed as operational entities for these
> things. They are more valuable as display
> items-and easier on the budget. One of the
> really weak points of the design are the
> radiators. They tend to trap gunk
> (which is rusted cast iron) at the bottom of
> the cores and split. You can pinch off and
> solder the leaking tubes-but the problem is
> intrinsic. The only solution is store the
> unit inside a warm building-so the tubes
> don't freeze. Folks, these radiator cores
> are MTO-and they are not cheap !!!

> Then, there are issues with material such as
> 6 and 24 brake valves, FRA glazing,
> controls, lube oil cooler, governor and so
> on.

> Cheap old locomotives are no different than
> cheap old autos-if one is not careful, one
> can easily exceed the purchase price on
> repair items.

> I doubt that $10,000 mentioned in the thread
> would both deliver the unit to your shop and
> make it "right and tight." Based
> upon experience, the actual tab might be
> closer to $ 20,000-or more.
> That $ 35,000 might get you a (much) newer
> EMD or GE product.

> Comments ?

You are correct re the radiators. Which is one of the reasons the COM 603 is such a loss. They spent $10,000 on new (recored) radiators on it just a few short years ago. Yes, some old locos cost more to put in service than to buy, that's the sad part re the 603, its in pretty darn good shape right now. Parts, good parts, are hard to come by, more the shame when good parts are scrapped.

As for "display", I'm of the opinion locomotives should run. (Boats should float, and planes should fly, etc.) I'm not much on the "stuff and mounted" display. Show me what it's suppose to do. I'd rather see one old engine running than a 100 stuffed and mounted.

GM



gmckee@uky.edu