[N&W] Re: N&W Alco question

[nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org]

 >   Can anyone explain exactly why the big Alco's were hard on the track 
or what
 > they did to the track to make them not be liked by management.
 >
 >                                      Russell

Russel,


The Alco's were hard on tracks for two reasons I suspect. The N&W's C628's
first order weighed in at 404,000 lbs. The second order (and the 10 C630's)
weighed in at 408,000 lbs. EMD SD35's weighed in at 393,000 lbs. N&W's two
orders for EMD SD40's weighed in at 392,000 lbs., and 396,000 lbs. The only
six axle locomotives to weigh more than the Alco's during the late 1960's,
were EMD SD45's. They came in at 410,000 lbs.  The second reason the Alco's
were hard on the track was their uneven axle spacing, and long wheelbases.
The uneven axle spacing was due to the three traction motors. The first two
face one way, the third one faces the opposite way. That makes the trucks
have uneven spacing. Add that to the long legnth of them, their weight, then
they wear out track faster than most locomotives. EMD's six axle trucks of
that time frame had even spaced axles, and shorter wheelbases. They were
hard on tracks, but at a more acceptable rate of wear. Alco used an existing
truck design that was not very well liked. Their newer trucks found under
C636's, C&O and Reading C630's were better. Their axles were spread out more
evenly like EMD's six axle trucks. But by then GE had overtook Alco as the
#2 locomotive builder. Alco went out of business in January 1969.
As for track damage, here are some of my ideas. Bear with me, I'm no expert.
The longer the wheelbase, the longer the curves and switches must be. This
is beacuse locomotive trucks don't turn easily. They roll into curved
sections of track, and there is alot of friction between the wheels and
track. This slowly shaves off metal from the wheels, and track. Plus back
during the time of Alco C628's and C630's on the N&W, wasn't the track
bolted together every 40' or so? All that weight would try to straighten out
curves. Plus those bolts would work lose over time. So add all that
together, and the tracks must be maintained more often. And those wheels on
the Alco's would be trued more often too. I hope this helps, and I got some
of the facts correct.
Nowdays EMD and GE have trucks with sensors that detect curves. Onboard
computers steer the trucks ever so slightly. So then rail wear, and wheel
wear are reduced. And adhesion is increased. One last note about the
tri-mount trucks found under C628's. Northern Pacific GE U25C's, and U28C's,
had trucks that were very similar. The crews didn't like the ride they gave
at all. So some employees called them "springless chuggers."
Al Seever.
_________________________________________________________
Thanks for the clarifications. Yes, I do recall reading that they C630's 
were used in yard work.  My point being that they were kept off the road. I 
got the part confused about the slugs, they were mated with slugs, not 
turned into them, my apologies. (My brain knew what to type, but my fingers 
didn't:-)  )

Anyway, I may be wrong, but you can usually bet that a big road unit that 
has been put into yard service has had some problems, or is close to 
retirement.  The reason being that the dependability of the unit is in 
question.  Having a yard unit go down, wouldn't gum up the works like a 
road unit going down out on the road.

A.J. Gemperline
__________________________________________________________
Regarding the ride of the big Alco's, I cannot say with any certainty which 
model the crews referred to.... But the crews disliked the ride immensely 
when the unit was in the lead.  They have told me that as the unit went 
into a curve, it felt like the loco was going to continue in a straight 
line and go into the corn fields.  The Peavine was assigned some of the 
Alco's for a very short time.  The crews complained loudly to supervision 
who had the units returned back to Roanoke.

Gary Rolih
__________________________________________________________
Good Morning N&W Listers,

Let me reply to a few of the questions and add a few comments on the Alco
C-628 and C-630 units.
First let me suggest you see my article in the December, 1980 issue of
The Model Railroader magazine.

Some of the references to the C-630's and T-M slugs will be cleared up therein.

The LONG wheelbase ALCO truck under the C-628's and the first 5 C-630's was
very rigid. It was extremely rough riding and going in to a curve at speed
it tended to climb the outside rail and give you a feeling it was going to
push the outside rail over and derail the train. The Alco truck had very
little "give" or "flex" to it. At low speeds and on yard tracks it was OK,
but at speed, look out!

The last 5 units, with F-M Trainmaster trucks, rode so much better and did
not try to climb nor push the outside rail out in a curve.

There was a much difference between the Alco truck and the F-M trucks as
there is in day light and dark.

One reason the T-M's were used for slugs was that they had superior
traction motors and was excellent "luggers" at low speed such as in hump 
service.
With the weight of the added concrete, they coudl shove about anything
they were coupled to.

Also, the 65 tons of concrete ballast was not added until they were
rebuilt to slugs.

Alco units were excellent "luggers". Pure unadulterated junk but if
running "right", they would pull anything you could hang behind them. I had a
single RS-11 on a 123 car emty train one afternoon and just luckily she was
running right and chugged, and of course smoked, all the way from Joyce 
Ave., to
Portsmouth without missing a beat. If I recall correctly, she got up to
about 28 mph down hill into Chillicothe. I didn't have to worry about
slack action as once the throttle was wide open, I didn't close it until I
pasted the Scioto Div. office building in Portsmouth and then I still had 
to keep
her pulling in about the 4th notch to get the train into East Yard here..

Tom "N&W" Dressler