This is what I show for LSRC's ALCo units:
181 C425mac
281 C425m
381 C425m
469 RS2u
646 S1
698 HR412
798 M420
974 RS3u
975 RS3u
976 C420
1195 RS11u
1280 C425mac
M-420's 3500, 3504, 3515, 3563, and 3571. (parts unit 3575)
LSRC power
The 646 was recently sold to an outfit in Colorado. I'm not sure if it has been physically moved yet, but perhaps LSRC could give us an update on that unit.
The 976 was gutted by a fire a few years back near West Branch. This was the result of a burst fuel line. This unit was scrapped, though I'm sure that LSRC retained many of the components for future use as spares in the rest of their units.
Last I was in Michigan, the 469 was out of service because it had been overheated which led to degredation of the gaskets and seals. It sounded like it would need most of the internal seals replaced before it could be placed back into service.
The 975 has/had a bad crankshaft if I recall correctly. One of the LSRC's engineers once told me that the 975 has always been a maintenance hog.
I don't believe that the overall low dispatch reliability of the locomotives is the fault of the maintenance crews. I believe it's just the result of having a very low ratio of mechanics to locomotives, coupled with an aging roster. Add the complexity of moving the maintenance shops to this and you can understand how power availability may suffer for a while.
I wonder how the increasing Alco rarity is playing into the cost of repairs as the availability of servicable used parts declines. My previous discussions with Mike Wood seemed to indicate that this scarcity is driving up the prices of replacement parts. Part of the D&M's decision to hold onto the Alcos for so long was probably due to a glut of used units and parts resulting from larger railroads offloading their Alco equipment. Now that Alcos are being operated only by smaller railroads, this abundance of supplies seems to have evaporated. Mike commented that there were no good economical used Alcos left on the market, which lead to the purchase of the GP-38's, SD-40 and now the GP-40's. He also indicated that shortlines often resort to trading Alco parts with eachother in order to keep their units running. For example, I believe that the 976's glass was traded to an outfit for other parts needed by the LSRC. All of this leads me to believe that some of the older Alcos will probably be retired in the next several years as more major failures occur as a result of the age of the units. That's just a guess on my part.
There also seems to have been a shift in the maintenance strategy that may have been a result of the current circumstances. The D&M historically sent newly-purchased used units out for rebuild before operating them. This was done to the 974, 975, as well as all of the C425's. The LSRC pressed the M420 (and HR-412) units directly into service upon receipt, probably to rectify a shortage in power. It appears that these units are being gradually rebuilt and upgraded (like converting some units to AC traction) as needed. This lack of pre-emptive maintenance means more breakdowns, but reduced costs as some value is being extracted from these units before the railroad invests money into rebuilding them. As much as the LSRC maintenance department would probably love to spend time rebuilding units to increase reliability, I doubt that they have time to do anything but rectify individual problems as they occur.
In a nutshell, I don't believe that negligence on the part of the LSRC is leading to power shortages. It's just due to the fine line that the management surely has to walk in order to stay in business. If they could financially justify better power and improved maintenance, you'd be seeing it. Without looking into the LSRC's books, it's pretty difficult to point fingers.
The 976 was gutted by a fire a few years back near West Branch. This was the result of a burst fuel line. This unit was scrapped, though I'm sure that LSRC retained many of the components for future use as spares in the rest of their units.
Last I was in Michigan, the 469 was out of service because it had been overheated which led to degredation of the gaskets and seals. It sounded like it would need most of the internal seals replaced before it could be placed back into service.
The 975 has/had a bad crankshaft if I recall correctly. One of the LSRC's engineers once told me that the 975 has always been a maintenance hog.
I don't believe that the overall low dispatch reliability of the locomotives is the fault of the maintenance crews. I believe it's just the result of having a very low ratio of mechanics to locomotives, coupled with an aging roster. Add the complexity of moving the maintenance shops to this and you can understand how power availability may suffer for a while.
I wonder how the increasing Alco rarity is playing into the cost of repairs as the availability of servicable used parts declines. My previous discussions with Mike Wood seemed to indicate that this scarcity is driving up the prices of replacement parts. Part of the D&M's decision to hold onto the Alcos for so long was probably due to a glut of used units and parts resulting from larger railroads offloading their Alco equipment. Now that Alcos are being operated only by smaller railroads, this abundance of supplies seems to have evaporated. Mike commented that there were no good economical used Alcos left on the market, which lead to the purchase of the GP-38's, SD-40 and now the GP-40's. He also indicated that shortlines often resort to trading Alco parts with eachother in order to keep their units running. For example, I believe that the 976's glass was traded to an outfit for other parts needed by the LSRC. All of this leads me to believe that some of the older Alcos will probably be retired in the next several years as more major failures occur as a result of the age of the units. That's just a guess on my part.
There also seems to have been a shift in the maintenance strategy that may have been a result of the current circumstances. The D&M historically sent newly-purchased used units out for rebuild before operating them. This was done to the 974, 975, as well as all of the C425's. The LSRC pressed the M420 (and HR-412) units directly into service upon receipt, probably to rectify a shortage in power. It appears that these units are being gradually rebuilt and upgraded (like converting some units to AC traction) as needed. This lack of pre-emptive maintenance means more breakdowns, but reduced costs as some value is being extracted from these units before the railroad invests money into rebuilding them. As much as the LSRC maintenance department would probably love to spend time rebuilding units to increase reliability, I doubt that they have time to do anything but rectify individual problems as they occur.
In a nutshell, I don't believe that negligence on the part of the LSRC is leading to power shortages. It's just due to the fine line that the management surely has to walk in order to stay in business. If they could financially justify better power and improved maintenance, you'd be seeing it. Without looking into the LSRC's books, it's pretty difficult to point fingers.
-
AARR
- Incognito and Irrelevant
- Posts: 38858
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
- Location: Washington, MI
DittoIn a nutshell, I don't believe that negligence on the part of the LSRC is leading to power shortages. It's just due to the fine line that the management surely has to walk in order to stay in business. If they could financially justify better power and improved maintenance, you'd be seeing it. Without looking into the LSRC's books, it's pretty difficult to point fingers.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...
Ok i'm in need of a few things from anyone in the know. First.. the new LSRC units.. can someone confirm they are infact rated at 300 HP like they should be? and I need built Dates for each unit. I also need, from you photographers out there, a group pic of these units together.. 2 or more.. All this is greatly appreciated.
-
SDavey
- BANHAMMERED
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:41 am
- Location: Bay City, Michigan
- Contact:
I saw the 1164 tonight coming into Bay City and it had been repainted and is now in primer colors. Are all four being prepped for painting or is this only happening to the 1164?
Steve Davey
Check out some of my photos on other sites:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7669
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8195762@N03/
Check out some of my photos on other sites:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7669
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8195762@N03/
LOL..the Rock Island lived that way from the early 1970's to it's demise (March 1980), let's hope the LSRC dosnt head down the same path.Railfan James wrote:I foresee a problem. No wonder LSRC has problems. Try to get a 121 car train with 5 diesels down the worlds most crudest trackage, at which you could go only 20-30 mph at most without a major derailment.
Build dates..
1162 built 10-71
1164 built 7-66
1169 built 12-70
1179 built 12-70
I am sure that these units are still 3000 HP..as the rebuild/upgrades done to to them over the years would have been to install the "-2" electronics in an older "hardwired" unit..plus the upgrade to the "AC" traction motors (also like GP40-2's).
Dave C