Are there any U25b's left operating on Class 1 railroads? How many are preserved?

Orange Empire Railway Museum has a U25B that was once SP 3100. As the 3100 it was a trial rebuild by the SP to utilize EMD components.

Last U25B use on a class one was about 1988-89 on the Seaboard System line, former L&N units.

Off the top of the head, without resorting to the published sources, there are 7 extant U25Bs-- two NYC, two MILW, one L&N, one SP, one NH.

I think there's an LS&I U25C stuffed and mounted up in Michigan someplace.

MILW 5056 is a U 25 B at IRM in Union. It sees sporadic work on body and paint and 'could' be operational someday as far as I know.

Bob Kutella

To put this question in perspective, most (if not all?) of the successor model ,i.e. Dash-7's, have been retired by their original owners. Some work for second owners in domestic lease fleets, and a fair number have been shipped to various USSR republics and South America.

Additionally, NS has begun to retire some of their early Dash-8's, of both pure NS and CR heritage. I note that there are efforts afoot to preserve one of these 'classic' 6 motor Dash-8's.

Dave

The TTI Railroad in Kentucky was noted for running a fleet of U28Bs, including some of the early models which utilized U26B carbodies, including the long noses.

I don't know if they are still running, but I doubt it. GE locomotives typically have not had the "afterlife" that their GM counterparts have. RJ Corman in my hometown still used 2 ex-C&O GP9s on the Bardstown Branch. You just don't see many other units of similar vintage from other builders doing that.

Believe that TTI is operating U-36's at this date.

Only in recent times has there been any good-sized demand for GE's in the secondhand market. Perhaps it due to the fact that GE's share some favorable performance characteristics with the Alcos. More than likely, it has to with initial buy-in. Several years back, CSX disposed of their B-27 fleet (a NICE shortline loco) at prices than ran less than avg. new car.

Traditionally, GE material is only available through the OEM vs. the large number of aftermarket outfits who support EMD. On top of that, GE services shortline and industrial accounts through a (high cost) distributor.

DPK

I very much appreciate everyones feed back on this question. Several friends who are Diesel mechanics have a very low regard for GE's U-boat models, though I don't know why. I regard them as some of the nicest looking locomotives to have entered the Diesel market after steam was a memory. Maine Central purchase a bunch of used U25's from the Rock Island's estate, rebuilding them into very nice looking units. Guilford used 'em up and disposed of the carcasses.

Nice looking does not always translate to a good running, relatively-easy to maintain locomotive. Having spent a few hours around a certain U25B (and a certain U23B), and having had some conversations with loco maintenance managers who dealt with the first U-boats (both GE reps and railroad men), I would say that GE was still laboring hard up the learning curve with the U25 series. The next models were a bit better (getting away from the big single blower/rad fan arrangement, for example), the B-series was more improved, and by the era of Jack Welch ("be number one in a market or get out of it") in the early 80s, they were getting to be pretty good locomotives. The FDL diesel engine was much improved over the course of 25-30 years, too.

The U-series locos were not substantially built locos, much less so than the average Alco RS-whatever, and there was no "aftermarket" of GE parts like there was and is for EMDs. That situation has changed and 15-20 year old GEs are in some demand for shortline and regional railroad service.

Even the difference between the 1965 U25B (at the end of that model's run after 5 years) and the 1977 U23B (the last U-series built before the B-series) is substantial as regards body integrity and loco operation, among other things. It was obvious that the early U-boats were designed for a 15-year service life, with the thing being just about 98% used up at the end of year 15.

When those Rock Island U25s arrived on the MEC, they didn't have too much more left in them, Guilford or not. They were cheap, and rather disposable.

Quite by coincidence, I discovered these images this morning. The place is Bangor, Maine, the date is around 1980. The entire shop complex, fuel depot, and roundhouse are nothing more than memories, as are the U boats.

Railroad mechanical personnel who are quick to criticize GE's do so for one of two reasons (or maybe both): A.) they've worked on Chevys all their lives and are suddenly forced to learn a different language (GE), hence the negative attitude, or B.) they have no clue how to properly maintain a GE locomotive so that automatically makes all GE locomotives junk (right?).

Remember that numerous railroads regarded Alco 244's as junk as well. That is unless you worked in Colonie, NY or New Haven, CT. The D&H and New Haven kept their fleets of old Alco's running long after everyone else was retiring RS-3's or putting 567 engines into them. My point here is that its all what you're familiar with. Any group of mechanics can properly maintain even the weirdest of locomotives provided that they have the right tools, knowledge, skills and most importantly... the right attitude.

I thought the problem was that there were some serious problems with the early Alco 244 locomotives that forced even very Alco-friendly roads to look for more reliable power? I believe Alco corrected the problem, and some roads such as the Monon installed newer 244 prime movers in their old RS fleet.

Those early days of dieselization must have been interesting from the sales perspective. I'm reading a book on the history of the Illinois Terminal, and it talked about how ever diesel builder courted the IT when it came time to retire the electric locomotives. The IT, which had a fleet of RS-1s was initially interested in newer Alco power, but was unimpressed. After testing demonstrators from FM, Baldwin, and Alco, they decided on EMD power. I imagine a problem with one particular model of locomotive could cause a builder to quickly get behind in the sales race.

One thing to remember is that Alco was an early user of the turbocharger, while you could get the same or similar performance from a non-turbo EMD locomotive. I like old Alcos, especially the RS-1, but I think the problem with Alco wasn't that the railroads were all pro GM. By the time Alco developed the still-supported 251, much ground had been lost. Even the D&H which you cite, installed 251s in the ex-Santa Fe PAs

The Alco 244 was a design rushed into production without sufficient field testing under actual railroad operating conditions (which, to borrow part of a phrase, are "nasty and brutish"). Alco put a lot of effort into working out the 244's weaknesses; a few could not be fixed, primarily the fact that a piston and rod could not be pulled out of the liner and the whole liner/piston/rod had tp come out. It was more work than on the EMD 567, and with 567s and 244s being maintained in the same shop, guess which engine got the PITA designation?

By the time of the 251, which was and is a great 4-cycle diesel engine, Alco's reputation was tarnished and many roads would not buy Alcos.

The railroad locomotive market has traditionally liked to have an alternate vendor to EMD; after 1960, it became obvious that GE had more corporate depth and assets to back up their full-size road locomotive line than Alco did at that time. The early U25s had numerous teething problems, which was natural-- it was a rather new design and it was getting quite a workout in high speed railroad freight service. What made the difference between the GEs and the Alco Centuries of the 1960s was GE's field service and factory technical support; GE had the corporate resources and the corporate desire to succeed in the road loco market. Alco was by then a fourth-rate, unwanted division of a third-rate conglomerate (that wonderful late 50s-early 60s American business phenomenon) and money for R&D, field and factory support, and product financing was in very short supply. Both GE and EMD had the resources to finance fleets of locos to indigent 1960s railroads. Sometimes, that made the difference in who got the order.

Yes, the early U-boats had some deficiencies, but GE stuck with the program and eventually made pretty damn good locomotives.

I seem to remember reading that one of the problems the NYC had regarding locomotive maintenance was that they did not initially concentrate power from the builders in specific parts of the system. This meant a shop had to stock parts and be able to maintain Alco, EMD, Baldwin, and later GE locomotives.

I imagine by the early to mid 1960s, the enormous stress this put on your supply chain had to be tremendous. This is also probably why smaller roads like the Monon repowered their FM locomotives with EMD prime movers and rebuilt their RS-2s with newer 244 prime movers.

By the way, is anyone providng support for the RS-1 prime mover?