US RS10/18s?

[sirenwerks]

I'm just cruious, why the RS10 and RS18 models never saw US adoption? I know these are MLW-built units, but why were they not marketed in the lower 48? Competition too much? Design features that made them un-marketable? Did the Canuks just thumb their nose at US class 1s? (They'd have every right these days). Collapse of the US Alco parent get in the way? Why didn't we see these units owned by US roads when they were being built?

[C855B]

My guess would be tariffs, that there may (?) have been tariffs that applied to cross-border licensing versus products unique to each market.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Because the GP9 was a better deal and EMD had a better sales org behind it.

[Curtis Kyger]

My understanding was that the locomotives would be taxed when they crossed the border.  But if that's true, what changed that allowed the Providence & Worchester units to be imported?  Had the taxation/tariff situation changed or was P&W simply willing to pay that cost to get the MLW's into the US?

[Mark5]

I'm just cruious, why the RS10 and RS18 models never saw US adoption? I know these are MLW-built units, but why were they not marketed in the lower 48?

Alco RS-11 I assume. Alco did not collapse until about '68 IIRC.

Also, it might have been a condition of the licensing agreement that MLW not market to US railroads.

This is only a guess.

Mark

[RRRover]

I recall reading that the financing arrangements with MLW allowed shortline P&W to acquire new power. Otherwise they couldn't afford them in the US market from EMD or GE.

[coosvalley]

As far as I understand it, the RS11 and RS18 were essentially the same machine, and the RS10 was an early version basically using RS3 guts.

I don't see why they would bother to import them(extra cost) if they were available domestically. MLW was just a Canadian-licensed manufacturer of Alco designs, although they often had some differences from the US versions.

So the answer to your question is the RS11 was available in the US, and the RS18 was just a Canadian version of that.

I wonder why the MLW versions were seemingly so much more reliable, lasting much longer than RS11 did in the US..

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I wonder why the MLW versions were seemingly so much more reliable, lasting much longer than RS11 did in the US..

My guess is that Canadians take better care of their stuff.

Or, more likely... RS-11s were never incredibly common in the US. They didn't make up large parts of any railroad's roster. That meant that they were in the crosshairs when it came time to cut costs by standardizing.

I think the MLW versions might've been statistically more significant on their owners rosters.

[Mark5]

My guess is that Canadians take better care of their stuff.

Or, more likely... RS-11s were never incredibly common in the US. They didn't make up large parts of any railroad's roster.

N&W had over 100. A few lasted into the 80s on the N&W. They were loved not far from me on the W&W into the late 80s.

A number of units are still running.

https://www.thedieselshop.us/AlcoSurv-RS-4.HTML

How long did they last in Canada?

Mark

[mandealco]

As mentioned, the RS-10 was in effect an RS-3 in an RS-18 shell.  The RS-18 was produced in Canada long after the RS-11/36 had stopped production in the US.  It was IIRC, cataloged well into the '60s while Alco was marketing the C-420.  Add to that the 69 units that CP Rail remanufactered in the '80s and the RS-18s were in general in a lot better shape than their US counterparts.  It's no co-incidence that the majority of active RS-18s are former CP rebuilds.  Many an engineer has claimed the RS-18 as the best ever MLW diesel, often prefered to a Geep.
Cheers
Steve

[Mark5]

Last Alco RS11/RS36 (DL701) produced August 1963. Last MLW RS18 (DL718) produced August 1968.

[mandealco]

Thanks for the dates Mark, I'm on vacation and don't have my reference books handy.  You're better than uncle google.
Cheers
Steve

[Lenny53]

As mentioned, the RS-10 was in effect an RS-3 in an RS-18 shell. 

A hammerhead RS-3 as the taller style allowed for a steam generator.

[mandealco]

Good point Lenny:  The higher hood on the RS-10 allowed for both steam generator and dynamic brakes.
Cheers
Steve

[jdcolombo]

My guess is that Canadians take better care of their stuff.

Or, more likely... RS-11s were never incredibly common in the US. They didn't make up large parts of any railroad's roster. That meant that they were in the crosshairs when it came time to cut costs by standardizing.

I think the MLW versions might've been statistically more significant on their owners rosters.

The NKP had 35 RS11's and the SP had 34.  They were the largest numbers after the N&W's 99 (and of course the N&W inherited the NKP's 35).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RS-11

Don't know about the SP, but the NKP units were about 25% of the combined GP9/RS11 roster (107 GP9's); the NKP also had roughly equal numbers of RS36's and GP30's.  Part of the reason the RS11's weren't a larger part of the NKP's roster (or, I imagine, other rosters) was timing. The first RS11's were produced by Alco in 1956; EMD started making the GP9 in 1954, so EMD had a significant head start on the 1750hp road switcher - and remember the GP9 was essentially an evolution of the GP7, which started production in 1949.  Alco's competing model was the RS3, and EMD produced almost twice as many GP7's as Alco did RS3's - plus, the Alco 244 prime mover had significant reliability problems, which made the GP7 more attractive.  EMD pretty much dominated locomotive production in the US in the 1950's; Alco was always a distant second, but one wonders what might have happened if Alco had come out with its 251 prime mover and the RS11 carbody design in the late 40's.  The Alco 251 prime mover was rock solid; it's still being made by Fairbanks Morse for stationary and marine use.

John C.