GE's SUCK EMD's RULE

[Anonymous]

Mike, you are warped! We have had a few head-ons this year on the BNSF. One death that I know of. I don't like to even think about that! I would assume that you aren't a rail yourself. I am and it sure makes me kringe to entertain the thought of a head-on.

[Anonymous]

BNSF bought all of those GEs because EMD and BNSF had a falling out.

[Anonymous]

Old engines used Babbitt, that is some pretty soft stuff.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, i do like the new Emd-sd 72

[Anonymous]

The 7HDL engine wasn't even designed by GE. It was a modified marine engine manufactured Deutz-MWM in Germany.

[brilondon]

The only reason any railroad buys a certain type of equiptment is because of price. But do remember you get what you pay for. The Acela trainsets were built by Bombardier who was preceded by MLW ( a.k.a. Alco ) The came with many problems including cracked frames. Bomber has not been very reliable when it comes to its products. Ask the people who had to fix the LRC when they first arrived in service with VIA Rail. Let them tell you about the broken tilt mechinisms that have never been used in revenue service. Why also when Amtrak was shopping for high-speed equiptment in late seventies did the give back thier LRC train sets. I do miss the belching black smoke of an accelerating alco but I do like to eventually arrive at my destination.

[dharmon]

What's wrong with marine engines? Did you know that nuclear powered aircraft carriers have four Emergency Diesel generators to provide electrical power should there be a reactor shutdown? They are EMD 567 or 645's depending on when the ship was built.

[Anonymous]

Also this. 2 sump pumps made by a company Burke were purchased many years ago. Burke 1 lasted 17 years of continually until 7 years back, the motor blew up and smoked itself till it caught on fire. The elctric components of that sump pump were liscenced to a company called "Marathon Electrics" based in Michigan somewhere.

Burke sump pump 2 was bought at the same time, different store, and waorks better then ever today. It is 24 years old, and pumps the water in the basement out faster then you can say "Ramma-llama-ding-dong" whats the difference? the motor and electrical components where lisenced to, "GE motor Division"

[mudchicken]

(1) Does it run?
(2) Does the owner spend the $$$ to maintain it?
(3) Is it inspected at the proper intervals by folks who know how to maintain the thing?
(4) Do I know how to properly run this engine?
(5) Is this the right tool for the job?

If the answers from 1-5 are yes, Let's go to work with it.

[Anonymous]

GE's have proven thier success in the latter years, EMD started off big, but has fallen off (not died, just diminished from what it used to be)since GE established market share with the Dash 7s and then Microprosser-run Dash 8s sold themselves to the Class 1 Railroads. Now we have D-9 technology that is improving everyday, along with AC power. A locomotive is a locomotive, if it starts and gets the massive load from A-B without too much trouble in the long run, then it is a tried and true strategy for Railroads to implement "whatever works" If GE's are outselling (hence greater market share) EMDs, then it is probable that GE makes an overall better machine, or at least the Class 1 railroads think so. I have no favorite, I love em all, and wish I could run those aforesaid 0-50-stop 1/4 miles in them, you don't know how lucky you are man!!!

[Anonymous]

Silvio, you don't know what you are talking about. I have a butt load of miles in both and the GEs are trashcans. They shake like a wet dog, truckhunt when they get a little wear on them when they are not in Power. The bottom line is price and service agreements. GE has its own LMIT on the property in a lot of terminals. It is price and definitely not quality, the emd is of better quality hands down! Trust me, I spend the majority of my existence in these machines.
Ken

[Anonymous]

What is probably the reason the crankshafts are not hardened is simply strength. When steel is hardened it looses much of its strength. Wear is improved because of the hardness, but the metal becomes much more brittle. That is the same reason many tools are "case hardened". Only the outside few mil's are hard for wear resistance, while the core is still mild steel for strength. The designers of the HDL apparently wanted maximum strength with minimum weight.

[Anonymous]

GE locomotives are shop Queens, THANKS MARTY!

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

What is probably the reason the crankshafts are not hardened is simply strength. When steel is hardened it looses much of its strength. Wear is improved because of the hardness, but the metal becomes much more brittle. That is the same reason many tools are "case hardened". Only the outside few mil's are hard for wear resistance, while the core is still mild steel for strength. The designers of the HDL apparently wanted maximum strength with minimum weight.

Well, not quite. Case hardening (carburizing, induction hardening, forging, etc) all increase the overall strength of the part as well. In fact, on loco crankshafts, that's exactly why they're hardened. EMD and GE have been using hardened cranks for years and years. Hard to believe the new 6000 HP engine crank isn't hardened- must have VERY large bearing diameter!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Well, not quite. Case hardening (carburizing, induction hardening, forging, etc) all increase the overall strength of the part as well. In fact, on loco crankshafts, that's exactly why they're hardened. EMD and GE have been using hardened cranks for years and years. Hard to believe the new 6000 HP engine crank isn't hardened- must have VERY large bearing diameter!

While I agree that work hardened steel, such as happens in forging and extrusion, does increase strength, that is not the case with temperature hardened steel, whether induction, radiation or convection. That embrittles the metal. The case hardening usually put on cranks, valves, camshafts and the like is done for wear resistance. If you manage to wear through the protective layer the underlying metal wears very quickly. If you look at a micrograph of the surface and of the underlying metal the difference in the crystal structure is obvious. I've worked with far to many improperly hardened shafts, both where they were over hardened and we snapped them during high torque operation and with under hardened shafts where the seals fretted the metal away in short order.

I do not understand why the designers would not want to protect the crank by hardening. The extra weight would be minimal and the benefits are considerable.