GE OR EMD

[Anonymous]

SD40-2, SD45, SD40T-2 were my favorites.

[Anonymous]

Even though both are very good locomotive makers, I like to see the Dash 7 series come back. The looks of them remind me of the looks of the U boats produced before the Dash 7s came into existence. Another thing, trainjunky is right. U forgot ALCO, the king of locomotives. There is nothing like those locomotives that belch out black smoke when they start up or when they are flying down the tracks.

[Anonymous]

Kinda hard to beat a -2

[Anonymous]

The answer to the question about when GE became king of the hill and left EMD in the dust is mid 1980s; EMD hasn't "ruled" for about 20 years. The "Perfect Storm" that knocked EMD off the top for good was part EMD, part GE. EMD's disastrous 50 Series, which pushed the 645 diesel beyond practical limits and resulted in lots of engine failures, plus teething problems with the 60 Series when they were introduced, put the bad taste in the mouths of RRs just as GE put its microprocessor-controlled diesels into the market (Dash 8's, 1987). With GE Dash8s returning 93-94% reliability and EMD's 60 Series returning 60% reliability (http://utahrails.net/loconotes/close-lagrange.php), it doesn't take brain surgery to figure out whose order books were going to get filled up and whose weren't! In addition, EMD closed production facilities at LaGrange in favor of moving all production to Canada, a short-sighted move based on the slow locomotive market at the time. So, when the boom hit, the situation was this: GE had better products, they were less expensive, and they had the production capacity to produce them in large numbers and satisfy orders.

Engineers that work for RRs comment on "refinement" issues like cab vibration, which is meaningless to the RRs. The RRs want locomotives that are reliable and efficient, day in and day out, and the locomotive that does that best today is made by GE, not EMD. Best evidence of this is the SD75 vs. the Dash9; the BNSF yanked the SD75's from its highest priority intermodal trains due to reliability issues (doesn't matter if the SD75 is smoother in the cab if it won't load LOL). Meanwhile, Dash9s and Dash8s hold down those assignments with utter regularity, and the only thing that will stop the flow of Dash9s out of Erie is the advent of emission regs and their replacement with GEVOs. EMD hasn't been the market leader in over 2 decades, and they're unlikely to regain that former stature. They need to come out with a 4 cycle diesel engine in order to keep up with emission regs (even if they can squeak by Tier 2 with the 710, they probably won't make it through the NEXT round with a 2 cycle), and GM is looking to sell EMD and therefore don't quite have their hearts in it any more. Guess they know they're beat. [:D]

GE's offer more horsepower, tractive effort, better dynamic brakes, better reliability, better fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and they cost less. They have the technological and performance edge over EMD and their units cost less than EMD, and they have the capacity to produce them faster. EMD's market leadership is ancient history - get used to it. Used to be that EMD got the lion's share of locomotive orders and GE got the "keep EMD honest" orders; now GE gets the lion's share and EMD gets the "keep GE honest" orders! [^]

[Overmod]

A big piece of this is also the Jack Welch leadership at GE during this period. As with other areas, the "GE way" was to find ways to dominate competitive areas. I believe Welch has something about this in his memoir...

In a way, GE 'out-Dilworthed' EMD in many respects, and went after some of the markets (e.g., real passenger locomotives) in a way EMD either couldn't or chose not to match. Where was EMD when the 'power by the hour' guarantees were going out?

I do agree that a 'customer-centric' policy on the part of GE would be much more addressed to the 'customer needs' of railroad management, and not to the (imho more important) needs of the people who actually have to run trains with the things. While I don't think we're seeing 'planned product obsolescence', the bottom-drawer depreciated resale values of just about all GEs is an indication of where the engineering priorities go. (Be interesting to see if this pattern is followed with the AC locomotives...)

But 'built to a price' isn't the same thing as 'bad'. Depends on what your definition of a locomotive is (as well-indicated above.)

[Allen Jenkins]

I voted "GP/SD 38/39." This is four, or six axle, Series 16V645N(non turbo), and Series 12V645 turbocharged prime mover equipment. Today, this would be current with Series 16V710N, naturally aspirated, (there is none), and Series 12V710, The GP59. The sixteen cylinder non-turbo would be so close to the twelve-cylinder, it would be considered redundant, and there would be another ten, or twenty locomotives produced, hardly break-even in the world of cash flow. Louis Rukeyser would not recommend such a builder, investment wise. The six-axle world is here. Welcome to the real world. Where I'm coming from, is a replacement locomotive, for the switcher series engines, soon to reach their end of life-cycle. A GP68, would produce about twenty-five to twenty-eight hundred horsepower, have a decent cab, and crew facility. A yard switcher, and a local switcher, with a little privacy. The SD68, would work well in heavy tonnage, and yard environs, yet both classes could do mainline freight (just like the B23-7, and the B30-7 did), whilst they were new, reliable locomotives. These engines would be lower priced, if bought in fleets, by the Class One's, and have a higher resale value. There! Enjoy Your Vote! ACJ.

[CSXrules4eva]

I personally have a strong obsession with EMD esp. the SD90MAC-H II locos only CP has the only three made though. I also like the other AC series EMD has too. It seems as if more people prefer the GP or SD 40 -2, or the SD45-2. Well I have to agree w/ ya there they are excellent locos esp for being built in the early 1970s w/o the revolutionized DC traction motors like the SD60i. I like GE too but not as much as EMD. I hate ALCO's Diesels but, the ALCO 4-6-6-4's built for UP were all that![:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

I personally have a strong obsession with EMD esp. the SD90MAC-H II locos only CP has the only three made though. I also like the other AC series EMD has too. It seems as if more people prefer the GP or SD 40 -2, or the SD45-2. Well I have to agree w/ ya there they are excellent locos esp for being built in the early 1970s w/o the revolutionized DC traction motors like the SD60i. I like GE too but not as much as EMD. I hate ALCO's Diesels but, the ALCO 4-6-6-4's built for UP were all that![:D]

Actually, CP does not have the only SD90MAC-H II's. CP has 4 and UP has the rest with 42. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe CP has a new order of these locomotives.

[CSXrules4eva]

Oh ok I didn't know that ?/ I thought UP had some I actually wasn't sure if they did or not. But they have evey other locomotive built by either Ge or EMD so I'm not suprised.
Thankx for that info Dude :)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: the bottom-drawer depreciated resale values of just about all GEs is an indication of where the engineering priorities go

Ah, but here again you're talking about old GEs vs. old EMDs, back when GE wasn't as good a product. Now that it's GE that builds the better product, that's likely to do a flip-flop in the future. Past performance in this case is not a predictor of future performance.

[Anonymous]

What about the great E's and F's

[Overmod]

Es and Fs were great engines in their day... but effectively that day is long gone. As someone pointed out recently, you can't look out the window to back up and keep your hand on the throttle at the same time... and the integrated 'bridge' frame construction makes it a major pain to maintain the engine and other components. There's a reason there are so many more GP7s and 9s still around compared to cab units.

E units are not particularly useful in freight service. Even fast intermodal trains, where I would have expected to see some used in the early years after Amtrak came in.

With respect to GE resale value, I had the distinct impression that any GEs on the market so far were depreciated relative to their 'equivalent' in EMD units. Obviously that may change when the current pool of Dash-9s hits the used-equipment market; GE did make a higher-grade product in the '90s. (I agree that it's not fair to compare the quality of older GEs to newer ones; if I, for example, compared early-'80s Cadillacs to mid-'90s ones, it's obvious which is better. On the other hand, resale value in the railroad market is determined by 'what people are willing to pay for them' -- and I worry that even the modern GEs are acquiring a reputation as difficult to maintain after they come off their 'power-by-the-hour' factory guarantees and get fully depreciated.

I note that there appears to be a considerable groundswell of opinion on the part of the people who run GE locomotives concerning the reliability of their operation and build quality. This may just be a reflection of 'squeaky wheels' -- that's an occupational hazard of conducting opinions research on voluntary forums -- but it appears to be borne out in some other ways. I don't have access to the statistics, but others can probably comment on this in an informed fashion.

I certainly HOPE there is an effective and lucrative market in Dash-8 and Dash-9 locomotives; I was filled with joy to learn that the ex-EL U34CHs (one of my favorites, and a top contender in the class of 'honorary steam locomotives') have almost all been given a new lease on life in Mexico. The original topic of this thread concerned railfan preference more than operating/economic preference anyway, I think...

ATSF conclusively demonstrated the 'best' use for F units with the CF7 program

[Anonymous]

I believe that modern passenger locomotives don't have the "bridge" construction that the old Fs and Es had, which makes them less of an issue for maintenance and so forth. I personally think they could run high speed Roadrailer trains (no "switching" to be done with the locomotive there, just hook n go) with big power blocks of passenger units (think GE Genesis P42's in 4 or 5 unit sets appraoching triple digit speeds). They might have to build some "high platforms" at crew change points to ease entry/exit, but I bet the fuel savings of the aerodynamic units would make it worthwhile for high speed service. [8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by xBNSFer

They need to come out with a 4 cycle diesel engine in order to keep up with emission regs (even if they can squeak by Tier 2 with the 710, they probably won't make it through the NEXT round with a 2 cycle), and GM is looking to sell EMD and therefore don't quite have their hearts in it any more. Guess they know they're beat. [:D]

I prefer steam - give me an Alco Northern anyday, but the last time I was out at the IL Railway Museum, I got a really good look an EMD SD45 2 cycle prime mover with a few cylinder heads off. My reaction was 'why would anyone build a large 4 cycle diesel? Four exhaust valves at the top of the cyclinder and 2 intake ports at the bottom with a turbo to scavenge and refill the cylinders with fresh air. This is a whole lot different than a 2 cycle gasoline engine where part of the fuel-air mix goes out the exhaust port.

So what part of the emissions regs can't these things meet? I'd guess cold startup might be a problem or maybe noise from spinning the turbos faster?? Since it's firing more often, it probably runs hotter??? I'm not an engineer and I don't doubt there's a problem, but I'm just curious what it is?

Back to the question - I like SD40-2's. The low pitched growl combined with the high pitched turbo whine when they're working hard seems like what a diesel should sound like. The muffled roar of SD70MACs somehow reminds me of a Hoover Vacuum cleaner. With Dash 9's it just seems like the dilesel isn't running fast enough for the speed of the train.

[ClinchValleySD40]

EMD 40 series hands down. GP and SD 40-2 best ever made, any era.