[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: (erielack) equipment leases

Chuck Yungkurth makes a very good point about the Alcos of which the ERIE had a great many and I spent much time in the cabs of them. I'd lean back in the engineer's seat when I was given the throttle and contemplate the tongue & groove wood in cab roof of the old S-2s and then I'd be using the big throttle (so similar to a steam engine) and reflect "These guys think they're still BUILDING a steam engine". The only difference was that we had a high voltage cabinet where there otherwise would be a set of butterfly doors with a roaring fire behind them. Many of the engineers I fired for of course felt right at home with cabs like this - they'd spent so much time in them except they had a tender in back of them.
 
Just reminiscing,
 
Walt Smith> From: raildata_@_comcast.net> To: erielack@lists.railfan.net> Subject: Re: (erielack) equipment leases> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:32:20 -0600> > Almost all railroad cars and locomitives were procured on "equipment > trusts", not leases. On these trusts the railrroad made payments to the bank > issuing the trust. After making payments for the duration of the trust the > railroad was given title to the equipment and they could do as they wished > with it, but it was the rairlaods problem what to do with the "worn out" > equipment.> > I have followed all the Alco discussion here with interest.....and I sure > did love those Alcos but they were terrible locomotives. But romance doesn't > overcome the facts. There is a lot of difinitive matrial in scholorly books > about how Alco managment never really knew how to cope with the deisel age.> > When I got out of Penn State in 1953 with a degree in mechanical > engineering, I interview with Alco and GE's locomtive division. Even in my > youthful viewpoint I could tell that GE knew what they were doing ( at the > time they were building gas turbines for the UP along with a huge export > buiness). But talking to the Alco guys, who were old enough to be my > grandfather, I could see that all they wanted were shop foremen and there > were no engineering opportinities there. I would up going to IBM becasue it > looked like the best job closes to home and I was going to get > drafted...another story.> > About 10 years later I had another opportunity to tour the Alco palnt and by > this time I had quite a lot of design and production experience. It was > appaling how the place was run. They literally built locos like you would a > brass model; except they used chalk on steel plates and welding torches > instead of brass sheet, a jeweler's say, and soldering iron. The electricla > work was done by a bunch of guys wandering around who did the wiring like > they were doing a house. At the tiem they were building the C-424s.> > Almost all Alco's sales in the PA er!
 a were d
one when all the railroads were > converting froms team and the diesle builders were back ordered so they > ordered engines from who ever could supply them. Later on it was usually > that Alco would give a better price or the railraod wanted to share their > purchases. On almost every raiload that bought PAs, FAs, and the S series > switchers they were the first to go when the company got second generation> > The C628s were really bad news. The D&H couldn't keep them on the track and > complained; to which Alco more or less told them "tought". So after that, > the D&H, which ahd nver bought anythign other than alsos and even served the > Alco palnt went to GE. The Monon bought them and returned them to alco for > the same reason.> > When I wrote the LV book, I interviewed teh guy who was Chief Mechancial > Officer and he said he pleaded with top management not to buy the ex Monon > units, but the price was so good that the powers that be couldn't resist. He > told me thaay ont he first trip out of Sayre they derailed three times. Soon > were placed in very restrictive service.> > There are a lot more layers to this story. Including the fact that gE and > Alco ahd to use 4 cycle engiens becasue General Motors had the patents on > two cycle fuel injection systems prettyw ell sewed up in the US. Also, the > Justice dept brought suite against EMD claiming they monoploized the deisel > loco buisness, forcing Baldwin and FM out of it and threatening ther > ailroads, etc. This was all settled out of court after whereh EMD agreed tp > get down toa bout 50% of the market, after which GE for the fisrt time got > into the US road diesel business with the U25C.> > So there is a lot of fact out there if one is willing to dig.....and put an > end to the "logic says that" or "surely it msut ahve been that".....> > Sorry for the "sermonizing" but every so often we need to get at the facts!> > Chuck Yungkurth> Boulder CO> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill K." <pontiac_@_dreamscape.com>> To: <erielack@lists.rai!
 lfan.net
>> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:10 AM> Subject: Re: (erielack) equipment leases> > > > Alcos: Most railroads kept the 251-powered Alco units, disposing of them > > through the mid-1980s to scrap, trade-ins, and secondhand users.> >> > GP35s: Most users began to dispose of, or rebuilt, these units by the > > mid-1980s. By the mid-1990s class 1 roads had pretty well eliminated > > unrebuilt examples. It's modeler's choice here to have your EL system opt > > to rebuild the units with upgraded electrical systems and perhaps 645 > > power assemblies to become either GP38M (Conrail prototype 7600) or GP39M > > (BN) units, to rebuild some as CSX-style road slugs, or to trade them in > > on other power.> >> > U25Bs: Likely would be traded on new power again in the mid-1980s, > > perhaps somewhat earlier, due to the more restricted availability of parts > > for these engines.> >> >> > Your 1977 era non-Conral EL system should also be owner of a dozen each > > GP38-2 units and U23B units - orders for both were placed, then cancelled, > > in the early 1970s. Of those units, the U23Bs would have about an 18-year > > lifespan, the GP38-2s would continue in service today.> >> >> > It should also be noted that Conrail dumped a lot of PC units at the end > > of their lease in the 1980s - GP38, 38-2, GP40, and various GE units made > > for quite a glut of secondhand motive power. It may have been more > > cost-effective for the EL to buy and overhaul these units as replacements, > > than to rebuild existing units or buy new power. (That would be a switch, > > a PC unit with EL patch paint).> >> >> >> > Bill K.> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:18:07 +0000> >> From: pat.moore_@_att.net> >> Subject: Re: (erielack) equipment leases> >>> >> Brad,> >>> >> Well, this is your pipe dream, so ultimately you can do whatever you > >> want!> >>> >> Now, if you are asking my opinion...that and $5 will get you a cup of > >> coffee at Starbucks.> >>> >> Let me start by saying that I don't know what I'm t!
 alking a
bout. > >> However, I would have to wonder what the terms of any locomotive lease > >> would be. As for the C425s, they must have been on a 12 year lease, > >> because the EL sent them out west in March 1976 right before Conrail. In > >> fact they even totally repainted one of them only a matter of days before > >> the end. Talk about company pride...> >>> >> Does that mean the other Alcos were on a 12 year deal? If so, then the > >> C424s were already "owned" by the EL by 1976.> >>> >> I guess you would have put yourself in the position of the person in > >> charge of motive power. When the lease ends, how much is it going to > >> cost to retain the units vs. how much will it cost to purchase/lease new > >> units? Do you go with something new and expensive, or relatively cheap > >> but heavily used? Something new that your shop might not know how to fix > >> or something that you've been maintaining for the last 15 years or so? > >> Is the lessor someone you can deal with? I recall that Conrail sent back > >> the EL units that were financed through Dereco (N&W) when their lease was > >> up in the early 80s.> >>> >> As for your last question, you would have to ask yourself what the new > >> units will be used for. It seems to me that the EL preferred 6-axle > >> units for their road freights. If you needed a 6-axle unit in the mid to > >> late 70s, the SD40-2 was the best thing out there.> >>> >> - -pat> >>> >> - -------------- Original message ----------------------> >> From: "Bradley Butcher" <llyengalyn_@_hotmail.com>> >>>> >>> Ok I think most people have heard at least some about my freelanced > >>> prototype EL> >>> ideas. Now my question is.> >>>> >>> Since I plan on modeling EL in the late 70's <remember NO Conrail> > >>> typical> >>> Locomotive lease periods seem to be 15 years by and large. So > >>> theoritically in> >>> 78 the lease would be coming up on the C424's. Do my learned list > >>> brothers> >>> believe that EL would have renewed they're lease?> >>>> >>> I guess it the question could be !
 extended
 to the C425's. U25B's and > >>> GP35's by> >>> 1980 for perspective.> >>>> >>>> >>> And if they did retire them what would replace them? BB units or CC? I > >>> could see> >>> GP40-2's, C36-7's. For some reason I just can't see EL every buying > >>> SD40-2s even> >>> if they had the money.> >>>> >>> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List> >>> http://EL-List.railfan.net/> >>> To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html> >>> >>> >>> >> > The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List> > http://EL-List.railfan.net/> > To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html > > > The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List> http://EL-List.railfan.net/> To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html
_________________________________________________________________
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------