Railroad Forums 

  • NYC's RS36

  • Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.
Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

 #391446  by N_DL640A
 
At work yesterday, I came across something rather interesting that I was never aware of - NYC apparently owned an RS36.
In the cover pages of an NYC C430 maintenance manual (we sold the C430s but still have manuals - we own other ALCOs) there was a listing of the serial, model and road #s of various ALCO models owned by NYC. What I found interesting is that they listed an RS36 as the 8002. Was this connected to the RS11 orders? RS32 orders? Was it high or low nose?
Last edited by N_DL640A on Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #391944  by N_DL640A
 
The manual lists the locomotive as NYC #8002, an RS-36 spec #DL-701, Serial #82363.
 #391996  by scottychaos
 
N_DL640A wrote:The manual lists the locomotive as NYC #8002, an RS-36 spec #DL-701, Serial #82363.
Thanks..
then the manual is wrong..its just a typo.
because 8002 was a RS11.
and serial #82363 matches the NYC RS11 order:
http://users.inna.net/~jaydeet/rs11.htm

Im finding references that BOTH the RS11 and the RS36 are referered to as a DL-701..so thats a bit confusing, (and maybe thats where there RS36 data came from?? maybe someone saw "DL-701" and thought "thats a RS36")?

but its clear now that NYC never had a RS36..
road number 8002 and serial #82363 both belong to a RS11.

Scot

 #392004  by pablo
 
Dumb question, then: what's the difference between the two? I should know this, and perhaps I did...but I have forgotten. Could an RS36 have snuck into the mix, or are they that distinguishable that there's no chance?

Dave Becker

 #392023  by Luther Brefo
 
Looking through my RS-11, 36 manual, it appears that aside from cosmetics differences, they are actually very similar locomotives. The RS-36 was also an 1800 HP 251 powered locomotive just like the RS-11. In fact, they even share a common frame and running gear.

 #392028  by scottychaos
 
Alco probably called them both DL-701, because they were very similar.

But I dont think its possible a RS36 snuck into the NYC RS11 order,
because according to:

http://users.inna.net/~jaydeet/rs11.htm

the NYC RS11 order was built June-July 1957.

but according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RS-36
and
http://users.inna.net/~jaydeet/rs32_36.htm

The RS36 was produced in 1962-1963.

so when NYC 8002 was built, the RS36 wouldnt even exist for 5 more years.

IMO its conclusive..its a RS11.

Scot

 #397383  by Allen Hazen
 
Nothing to add to what weveral people have said about why 8002 had to have been an RS-11 and not an RS-36, but maybe something on the nomenclature front...

RS-11, a.k.a. Dl-701, with 1800 hp, was introduced in 1956. By the early 1960s, Alco was happy to market its 12-cylnder 251 engine rated at 2000 hp, and so (to compete with EMD's GP-20?) introduced the RS-32, a.k.a. Dl-721. The new model had a revised carbody and some internal improvements, notably the "Type E" throttle with transistorized electronics. New York Central bought 25 of them: 8020-8044.

AFTER the RS-32 came out, Alco decided to market an 1800 hp version for customers didn't want the extra power (??and to compete with the GP-18??): the RS-36. (Why wouldn't a railroad want the extra power? Some, like Tennessee Central, may have thought it wasn't needed for their comparatively low-speed operations, but Nickle Plate, famous for fast freights, also bought the RS-36. So maybe they thought maintenance and reliability would be better with a less ambitious power rating. (Speculation.))

The RS-36 had the revised carbody of the RS-32, and also the transistor throttle (though apparently this wasn't originally planned), and seems to have shared the Dl-701 specification. BUT: my recollection is that the roster in the back of Rehor's history of the Nickle Plate refers to them as Dl-701X. Alco did use suffix letters to mark what seemed to them minor changes in a design (the Century Series variants on the Dl-640, the C-424 and C-425, for example being Dl-640A and Dl-640B), and also wan't particularly careful or systematic in its nomenclature), so it may be that they used the X suffix to mark the RS-36 in some but not all documentation.

 #399994  by Luther Brefo
 
As I seem to recall the X and XA addendum to the designation would have meant that the locomotives were built with trade-in components.

 #400058  by Noel Weaver
 
I don't remember exactly when this happened or just what locomotives
were involved but Alco built some road switchers to New York Central
specs and painted them up, they actually reached New York Central
property but were never fired up and used. Truth was the New York
Central never ordered them and eventually they went back to Alco at
Schenectady to be repainted for the Delaware and Hudson where they
served for a good number of years.
Noel Weaver

 #400092  by metman499
 
The locomotives involved were RS-11s.

 #404146  by Typewriters
 
That is kind of interesting, since the C-430 manual well postdates construction of the RS-11 units.

You'd have to wonder, if that were not a typo, if the unit suffered an electrical fire, or were wrecked and rebuilt and included the newer excitation system; that would be one reason why ALCO would call it out in later publications as an RS-36. I don't have anything here to either support or refute this theory, unfortunately.

Someone interviewed on one of the Pentrex ALCO tapes -- I think it might have been George Hockaday -- said that the people on the production floor and in design at ALCO didn't know, at the time, that marketing had decided to rename the DL-701. (That is, alter the model advertised to customers from RS-11 to RS-36.) Only years later did he learn this; the production and design people considered the change to Type E excitation as simply an improvement, and considered the DL-701 as essentially the same locomotive start to finish. My point with this is that the people actually designing and building these locomotives didn't make a distinction as if there were some world-shattering change.

But the singular different reference to NYC 8002 is still interesting.

-Will Davis

 #408679  by Allen Hazen
 
I posted a related query on the3 Alco forum (string title: "X-rated Dl-701") and got some further information about what the X suffix on the spec number for the Nickle Plate's RS32 might mean. (These units were built on PA trade-ins and re-used main generators and high-capacity air compressors from the trade-ins.)

Back to the New York Central. According to the "Extra 2200 South" article I cited in my post on the Alco forum, New York Central's FIRST RS32 order (8020-8034) were built (possibly one exception) with GT-564 generators from trade-in FA and RS-2 units. (Some apparently got retrofitted with GT-581 generrators-- anybody know why?) The SECOND order (8035-8044) were built with PA trade-ins, and had GT-566 generators. So: has anybody seen ALCO or NYC paperwork distinguishing them? The extracts from the New York Central diagram book on George Elwood's Fallen Flags railphoto site are great, but don't include any for 1960s Alcos (or, sniff sniff, for the Central's U25B/U28B/U30B units). If the New York Central mechanical department's practices in the 1960s were like their earlier habits, the two orders would have been considered different subclasses, each with its own diagram!