Eastern Railroad Discussion > WNYP Action

The Western New York & Pennsylvania (WNYP) doesn't seem to get much love since the AC6000's killed off the six-axle MLWs. I hadn't photographed the big GE's yet, so my Dad and I headed down to Olean, NY yesterday to check them out.

Photo 1 - around 9am a crew came on duty as OL-2 and ran to Salamanca, NY to interchange cars with the Buffalo & Pittsburgh.  On the return trip, we photographed WNYP 6004 and 6005 at Carrollton, NY on the former EL about to duck under the B&P (formerly B&O).

Photo 2 - another crew came on duty around 1:30pm to run down to the wax plant on the Farmer's Valley Branch, and do some additional work on the way.  They're not six-axle MLW's, but the WNYP can still put on a good show with their four-axle Alco's.  The pair of C430s smoke up downtown Olean as they head south on the former PRR Buffalo Line. 

Photo 3 - there's often a remote job (RC-1) that switches the east end of Olean Yard.  With their work done for the day, WNYP 406 and 421 returned to the shop where we were able to get a photo of the spiffy rebuilt RS3.  The unit was the D&H's bicentennial unit 1776.

The WNYP can still put on a good show, and with the B&P nearby, it's a great area to visit.

Rob Smith
Hamilton, ON

---

---

---

I wondered where the old M-K rblt D & H units got too.
Nice shots !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/22 18:20 by NiagaraMike.

First-class coverage.
Bob

The C-430---ALCO's answer to the GP-40--wonder why more weren't sold?  I really like the truck design on those C-430's!

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The C-430---ALCO's answer to the GP-40--wonder why
> more weren't sold?  I really like the truck
> design on those C-430's!

Partly because Alco used GE electricals while GE themselves were ramping up their own locomotive designs and you certainly don't think Alco got a good price as a result? Really, I don't think there could actually be three major producers in the US with them all making money.  I do think in the present day somebody such a Brookville or anyone actually could make a killing in new 4 axle units....the reckoning is going to come...six axles can't do all the grunt work that 4's can and the present stock is going to be less and less rebuildable as emissions play a role. 

I've always enjoyed this area. Great photos!

engineerinvirginia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coach Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The C-430---ALCO's answer to the GP-40--wonder
> why
> > more weren't sold?  I really like the truck
> > design on those C-430's!
>
> Partly because Alco used GE electricals while GE
> themselves were ramping up their own locomotive
> designs and you certainly don't think Alco got a
> good price as a result? Really, I don't think
> there could actually be three major producers in
> the US with them all making money.  I do think in
> the present day somebody such a Brookville or
> anyone actually could make a killing in new 4 axle
> units....the reckoning is going to come...six
> axles can't do all the grunt work that 4's can and
> the present stock is going to be less and less
> rebuildable as emissions play a role. 

The common thread when I was involved with a locomotive contract rebuild shop and LMOA (Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association) in the 1980's and interviewed many CMO's who ran or did run Alcos was the common thread of customer support and inferior locomotives. When issues developed Alco's answer was, "no one else is having that issue" or "you just don't know how to maintain them". CMO's and mechanical people talk amongst themselves all the time and in particular through organizations like LMOA, it was a bogus response. Alco had no where near the customer support that EMD did, who in my opinion in the early years was great and GE was ahead of Alco with a strong commitment to succeed even though many believed they had an inferior diesel design as compared to Alco. Alco really screwed up with the aluminum piston debacle in the late 60's and even though they knew about it still kept building engines with piston issues.  I have worked on, torn apart and rebuilt and run C430's. Interesting locomotives but very troublesome and maintenance intensive. As to the trucks, agreed that they are cool looking but they tend to develop stress cracks and they are much rougher riding than EMD's. Also in my experience, I never was convinced they really gave all that much more adhesion as touted in the Alco publicity. None of the three builders initial offerings were trouble free out of the box (GP40, U30B, C430) but EMD sure got the GP40 right, and GE kept moving on and improving until they eclipsed EMD in more recent years. Meanwhile, Alco / MLW just didn't seem to make the moves to remain competitive. I asked CP Rail management back about 1990 why they did not buy the MLW HR Line that they had tested. The response was that the HR series locomotives in their opinion were not sufficiently advanced or improved over the older M-series and they were looking to move into the future. CN bought some, but big Alco / MLW user CP did not. For whatever it was worth, that is the response I got from top CP mechanical folks in Montreal.

And as to maintenance intensive; that C430 in the photo (ex NYC 2050 / ex NYSW 3000) and sister unit 433 (ex NYC 2056 / ex NYSW 3006) bought my first house !
The 2nd unit in the photo posted above is WNYP 431, ex NYC 2053 to M&E 17. I've run that one also.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/22 07:11 by train1275.

Beautifull painting. It looks Denver & Rio Grande.

Posted from Android

Pedro Rezende
Vespasiano MG,
https://youtube.com/c/minasgeraisrailways1

train1275 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> engineerinvirginia Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > coach Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The C-430---ALCO's answer to the
> GP-40--wonder
> > why
> > > more weren't sold?  I really like the truck
> > > design on those C-430's!
> >
> > Partly because Alco used GE electricals while
> GE
> > themselves were ramping up their own locomotive
> > designs and you certainly don't think Alco got
> a
> > good price as a result? Really, I don't think
> > there could actually be three major producers
> in
> > the US with them all making money.  I do think
> in
> > the present day somebody such a Brookville or
> > anyone actually could make a killing in new 4
> axle
> > units....the reckoning is going to come...six
> > axles can't do all the grunt work that 4's can
> and
> > the present stock is going to be less and less
> > rebuildable as emissions play a role. 
>
> The common thread when I was involved with a
> locomotive contract rebuild shop and LMOA
> (Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association) in
> the 1980's and interviewed many CMO's who ran or
> did run Alcos was the common thread of customer
> support and inferior locomotives. When issues
> developed Alco's answer was, "no one else is
> having that issue" or "you just don't know how to
> maintain them". CMO's and mechanical people talk
> amongst themselves all the time and in particular
> through organizations like LMOA, it was a bogus
> response. Alco had no where near the customer
> support that EMD did, who in my opinion in the
> early years was great and GE was ahead of Alco
> with a strong commitment to succeed even though
> many believed they had an inferior diesel design
> as compared to Alco. Alco really screwed up with
> the aluminum piston debacle in the late 60's and
> even though they knew about it still kept building
> engines with piston issues.  I have worked on,
> torn apart and rebuilt and run C430's. Interesting
> locomotives but very troublesome and maintenance
> intensive. As to the trucks, agreed that they are
> cool looking but they tend to develop stress
> cracks and they are much rougher riding than
> EMD's. Also in my experience, I never was
> convinced they really gave all that much more
> adhesion as touted in the Alco publicity. None of
> the three builders initial offerings were trouble
> free out of the box (GP40, U30B, C430) but EMD
> sure got the GP40 right, and GE kept moving on and
> improving until they eclipsed EMD in more recent
> years. Meanwhile, Alco / MLW just didn't seem to
> make the moves to remain competitive. I asked CP
> Rail management back about 1990 why they did not
> buy the MLW HR Line that they had tested. The
> response was that the HR series locomotives in
> their opinion were not sufficiently advanced or
> improved over the older M-series and they were
> looking to move into the future. CN bought some,
> but big Alco / MLW user CP did not. For whatever
> it was worth, that is the response I got from top
> CP mechanical folks in Montreal.
>
> And as to maintenance intensive; that C430 in the
> photo (ex NYC 2050 / ex NYSW 3000) and sister unit
> 433 (ex NYC 2056 / ex NYSW 3006) bought my first
> house !
> The 2nd unit in the photo posted above is WNYP
> 431, ex NYC 2053 to M&E 17. I've run that one
> also.

I love hearing the "real story!"  Thank you!