Re: [VIC] Silver DRC :-)

[Mark Bau <markbau@altavista.com>]

> From: Greg Rudd <grudd@mail.usyd.edu.au>
> Organization: The University of Sydney, Australia
> Newsgroups: aus.rail
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:02:17 +1000
> Subject: Re: [VIC] Silver DRC :-)
> 
> 
> The real reason that the NSWGR went for ALCO's (the 40 class) is as follows.
> 
> 1.  ALCO's were generally cheaper than what Clyde/EMD were offering.

For a reason
> 
> 2.  The ALCO had one of the most efficient electrical systems then available.
> The only other maker to come close was EMD.
So what is your point? We seem to be discussing the merits of EMD over ALCO
> 
> 3.  Being a 4-stroke it offered better fuel consumption than a 2-stroke and
> lower oil consumption.

Yep, ALCO got a lot of mileage from that hoary old chesnut. In reality, hp
for hp there was no discernable difference in fuel consumption between the
two engines even though ALCO lovers have tried to tell the world otherwise.
> 
> While the 244 engine that powered the 40 class had problems with the turbo
> charger and reliability in configurations above 1500 hp (the ALCO PA). The
> point was that the RSC-3 design was indeed reliable. And paved the way for the
> world series engines that were powered by the 251 engine which ironically just
> as reliable as any EMD unit with proper care and maintenance, as evidenced
> both
> on the NSWGR and in the Pilbra where the ALCO ruled supreme until the mid to
> late 1980's.  It is also ironic that the 567 engine which powered the B class
> also had its own problems i.e. water leaks.

The water leak problem in the 567B was fixed within 5 years of the engine's
debut and conversion kits to a BC engine were basically at cost price.

There are many more old EMD's running around various parts of the world than
old ALCO's.

Mark