BOB2 - I am guessing there is no need to question your opinion on the matter!

It's been over 20 years, but if I recall the SP units had dual control stands and each was perched up on a platform that you had to go up a couple steps to get to - if you didn't fall off the ledge. Standing in the middle of the cab was like being in the Grand Canyon. This must have been really miserable when assigned to roadswitcher service. IIRC the 701 had a standard cab height, only one control stand and looked a little more crew friendly.

Alco did make an attempt to consider the exhaust issue. The longer of the two hoods has the engine and main generator with a driveshaft runnning under the cab to the shorter hood that has the air compressor, gear unit for the radiator fan, radiators and batteries. The engine is actually mounted backwards compared to most locos with the main generator in the nose of the long hood, requiring all the cables to run back to the electrical cabinet. Apparently the reason for this was to put the turbocharger and exhaust end of the engine closest to the cab. The original design had an exhaust duct that ran across the top of the hood, up the face of the cab exhausting even with the top of the cab. By the time the 701 and 702 had got to Tillamook, they had tall straight stacks off the turbo, so the original design must have had issues as other operators also went to a straight stack.

[www.trainweb.org]

[www.railpictures.net]

There is a claim that the radiator end was slippery on these due to an imbalance of weight, but I can't imagine that Alco or SP did not ballast these with the same weight on each truck. Assuming they weighed the same as an SW1500, I wonder if the excitation and wheel slip were to blame or this was just a perceived issue?

There are engines you swear by - and plenty you swear at! Railroading as a hobby might be fun, but it can be a real @#$%& as an occupation.