Throughout the years, diesel locomotive manufacturers have made various diesel engines of the 4-stroke and 2-stroke type. However, some seem to be more durable than others. That leads to the question: Which ones of these diesel engines will remain standing while all the other diesel engines around it fall? I've narrowed it down to two engine models: EMD's 567 and ALCo's 251. Here's the reasons why:
1. Locomotives with EMD's 567 are found all across North America on tourist railways, shortlines, industrial railroads, etc.
2. Locomotives with ALCo's 251 makes up the bulk of Indian Railway's roster, most of which have been rebuilt with 251 engines.
3. The ALCo 251 is used to power NASA's Crawler-Transporter, which transported both the Space Shuttle and the Saturn V, the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status, from the Vertical Assembly Building (VAB) to either Launch Pads 39A or 39B, on a specially-designed 'Crawlerway'. Without the 251 engines, the Crawler wouldn't be able to move, and without the crawler being able to move, well, we wouldn't have put a man on the Moon.
4. The 567 has been offered for marine and stationary versions, with a left-hand or right-hand rotating engine.
5. The 251 is still offered as a stationary power generator.
6. The 567 was used in the Landing Ship, Tank (LST) (2), which was used by the US Navy, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Canadian Navy, of which 1,000 was made of and was used in WWII and the Korean War.
As you can see, each one has their pros, which one do you think is the better one? Or do you think you have an engine that would be a worthy opponent for these two engines?
1. Locomotives with EMD's 567 are found all across North America on tourist railways, shortlines, industrial railroads, etc.
2. Locomotives with ALCo's 251 makes up the bulk of Indian Railway's roster, most of which have been rebuilt with 251 engines.
3. The ALCo 251 is used to power NASA's Crawler-Transporter, which transported both the Space Shuttle and the Saturn V, the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status, from the Vertical Assembly Building (VAB) to either Launch Pads 39A or 39B, on a specially-designed 'Crawlerway'. Without the 251 engines, the Crawler wouldn't be able to move, and without the crawler being able to move, well, we wouldn't have put a man on the Moon.
4. The 567 has been offered for marine and stationary versions, with a left-hand or right-hand rotating engine.
5. The 251 is still offered as a stationary power generator.
6. The 567 was used in the Landing Ship, Tank (LST) (2), which was used by the US Navy, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Canadian Navy, of which 1,000 was made of and was used in WWII and the Korean War.
As you can see, each one has their pros, which one do you think is the better one? Or do you think you have an engine that would be a worthy opponent for these two engines?