Modern Locos: Which is better? Reliable? GE or EMD

[Anonymous]

Well Mark, having worked on both, I'll take an EMD any day. The GE's seem to spend a lot of time in the shop with a lot of little nitpickey problems , where as the EMD is like the Eveready bunny. It keeps going and going[:p][:D]

[Anonymous]

EMDs last longer? Oh, I don't know about that. GP50/SD50s are all being retired right along with the DASH-7s built at exactly the same time.

Regardless, the fact that today I might see more 30-year-old EMDs running than 30-year-old GE's doesn't tell me which product is better right now. It only tells me which product _might_ have been better 30 years ago. OK, so now I know what I should have done 30 years ago. Heck, if I had that kind of foresight, I'd buy lottery tickets and to hell with locomotives.

Besides, longevity of locomotives, especially in the second-hand market, is not completely influenced by which manufacturer's products are better. More important is the availability of parts and broad familiarity with maintenance and repair. In the used equipment market, that will overwhelmingly favor the manufacturer who had more market share to begin with (in this case, EMD). For instance, there's lots of people in the earthmoving business who think that by the late 60s Allis-Chalmers made just as good a dozer as Caterpillar, but while you will find it easy to sell an old Cat, you'll have trouble finding a buyer for an old A-C. People who are clever at repair and sourcing hard-to-find parts take advantage of this, because they can purchase the lesser-known product for a lot less money, and get the same job done.

Desireablility in second-hand markets or for hanging onto the locomotive after 15 years is also influenced by what sort of locomotive jobs you have available. Great big honking GEs or EMDs aren't of much use for a branch line or yard.

If you recall 20 years ago, there was a pretty good market for used Alcos. Every time I asked them, "why don't you just buy GP9s?" they'd shrug and say, "well, these are cheaper." Yes, they'd admit that parts were a problem.

Now, we're seeing a significant number of GEs find second-hand markets, too. If one was to make a reasonable prediction of the future, you'll see GEs in the second-hand market in growing proportions--sheer numbers of available locomotives will influence that. "Better" will have little to do with it.

[GDRMCo]

To me i dont really care but over here Clyde-EMD rules hands down but BHP seems to love GE's but they dont look to good with their forward leaning windows on their boxy saftey cabs. Here is a link to a site for BHP engines: http://www.railways.pilbara.net.au/index2.html

[Anonymous]

Eventhough some of the respondents like/love the GE's better than the EMD/GMLG stuff, than ask yourself this question. Why is it that alot of railroads (big & small) retain
their EMD equipment alot longer than the GE's?? Goes to show who make the better product!

[espeefoamer]

It has been said that GE's have better fuel economy.An engineer friend once told me that a GE would pull better than EMD of the same horsepower.WHEN IT'S RUNNING!

[wabash1]

comfort has nothing to do with what is better. protection of the crews hearing has nothing to do with what is better. safety has nothing to do with what is better. with these issues out of the way it comes down to what the railfans want to see and hear. and to the masses they like to hear a chug chug chug from the amc pacer than the sweet smooth ride of the caddy.

[jchnhtfd]

Mr. Hemphil nailed it: the answerable question isn't -- and can never be -- 'which is better', but 'which is better in this application'. That's why most railroads have some of each, and some even have a few Alcos left! The big difference nowadays is that we do have a Ford vs. Chevy situation with locomotive manufacturers. Think about 60 years ago -- you had a good half dozen solid manufacturers, and even within one wheel arrangement and one manufacturer each railroad had slightly (sometimes radically!) different engines. Added lots of fun. Also added lots of expense[:D]

[Anonymous]

Or Dell Vs. Compaq

[dharmon]

Antonio...

I wasn't trying to be a (insert derogatory name here). This topic has been beaten to death on several occasions.....and it usually seems to break down into opinionated nonsense.... As Mark pointed out, it is like the perpetual Chevy vs. Ford debate. The real railroaders have their strong opinions as do those of us that are just watchers.

[AntonioFP45]

Mr. Hemphill,

Very well stated!
I used to love getting together with other railfans/modelrailroaders and get into this classic debate. The debating would sometimes get to "FRED FLINTSTONE" levels. Each of us defending our favorite builder, when in reality both bulders put out quality models that from time to time had typical problems. I am proud that that the U.S still builds the best diesel locos in the world.

For me, as a train watcher & modeler this how I break it down:
For looks in the modern category: EMD safety cabs hands down. Cabs resemble the old cowls.
For "trackside music": I absolutely enjoy hearing the deep "chugging" of GE 4 cycle diesels that can make a building's windows vibrate, especially when pulling heavy loads at notch 8! The old U-Boats & -7s were even louder. GEs "sound" powerful, whereas turbocharged EMDs scream.

For looks in the mid years: I like the boxy, flat faced look of the old U-Boats & -7s. Was a nice change from the EMD GP/SD 35,38,40,45 series which were everywhere!

For looks in the early years: The long bodied E-units. Graceful. It's great that a batch of E8s & E9s are still in existence and running in tour or museum service.

And of course my all time favorites were the EMD cowls.

[Anonymous]

The short answer: neither. Period. They're both good. Look at the sales numbers. GE has sold more in recent years in the North American market. EMD has sold more in the overseas market. Neither builder has driven the other from either field. If one was demonstrably better for any period of time, the other would be gone.

Some people say that railroads will buy an inferior product "to keep the other guy honest." Would you do that? I wouldn't! I'd buy the best product going, and if that leaves me with one builder, well, at worst that's a problem for the next guy, because I'll be retired by then. More likely that won't happen, because there's enough money involved here that a new company will come into the business. And it will be fun, too. If the one big builder has gotten complacent, is the new guy ever going to have a sweet sales message for a lot of customers really mad at the old guy.

GE didn't come into the market to compete with Alco, they came in to compete with EMD. They knew EMD built a good product, and they figured they could too, and there was enough for both. Yes, it took them 20 years to figure out the business and catch up to EMD's lead, but they did it.

The fundamental question is value -- "reliability" and "better" can only be measured if you know the price you have to pay to get them. Value is difficult to determine and often very specific to the way a railroad perceives its needs at a particular time. But the products are too closely matched for one builder to have it all over the other in value, at least right now.

It's interesting to talk to the builders. They do not bad-mouth the other guy, ever. Think of it this way. You run a speed shop. Your customers are all go-fast guys who know cars inside and out. Your competitor and you split the market. Your customers shop the two of you against each other constantly.

So a customer comes in one day, and asks, "Why should I go here?"

You say, "because Joe across the street is a lying SOB whose work is junk."

The customer says, "Gee, Gus, I don't know. I think he's honest and I've liked what he's done for me. People who buy his engines have won some races, you know."

Now you really, truly, wish you'd kept your mouth shut. You probably don't want to disagree with your customer's opinion of Joe -- you might as well say, "What are you? Stupid?"

You could admit that maybe you exaggerated a bit. Your customer then says, "Well, how do I know you're not exaggerating a bit when you say you can get me 10 more hp in this engine?"

"Uh, because this time I'm not lying?"

No, what you do is frankly state the obvious: your competitor (GE or EMD) is really, really good. But, you say, your product might be a little better match for your customer's specific situation. If you've done your homework, and you can make the case, you might make the sale. And that's exactly what we see in the locomotive market. Neck-and-neck sales, with GE winning this order and EMD that order. The winners in this battle are the railroads, who are getting a MUCH better locomotive than they would in a closed-market, sole-source system.

If you just have to find an inferior builder, look overseas. There's no builder in an open, diesel-electric market that has succeeded against EMD and GE.

I enjoy these discussions about which builder is better -- it's a Ford pickup vs. Chevy pickup debate. It's a Broncos vs. Raiders debate. You defend your hometown team, claim the other team is a bunch of snakes, drink a beer, tell some lame jokes, go home happy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by docy

well since alco is out of business my vote goes to GE
they always have pulled better than that other brand
and ive run them since 1979
my 1st road trip to ft.scott i had 4 u-25bs
ive loved the way GEs pull every since[:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

well since alco is out of business my vote goes to GE
they always have pulled better than that other brand
and ive run them since 1979
my 1st road trip to ft.scott i had 4 u-25bs
ive loved the way GEs pull every since[:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

ALCO!


oh Crap, hes not in the debate.

one vote for "other" then.

[dharmon]

Well this topic has only been discussed a couple of times. Here we go again[:)]:


http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3268
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3467
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3976
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2911
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=739

[AntonioFP45]

What changes!
Less than 2 decades ago many of us were making fun of GE U-Boats and praising EMD SD40-2s. Now both EMD & GE make giant, attractive state of the art 6 axle units that make GP40s look like yard switchers when parked next to them.
EMDs, with their higher reving engines, have always and apparently still do take off and accelerate faster than comparable GE models. GE's, however, are "supposedly" better at traction and torque output. AC units from both sides have raised the stakes even higher now. GE's ride rougher but grip better.

However, been seeing of stories of crews complaining about reliability problems as well as praises for comfort & fuel economy. I read about an Amtrak GE genesis "conking out totally " after the computer "caught a bug". Nothing was wrong mechanically! Poor engineer "longed" for an F40 comeback. Also read about EMD SD90s not performing up to par with the "H-engine". GE used to be the underdog and is supposedly "top dog". EMD supposedly has got the "top dog's collar clenched in its teeth!" and not letting him get too far ahead! Sounds just like the old "Ford vs. Chevy" days.
Who has the better loco? Any of you have the facts or better yet, feedback from locomotive crews and maintenance techs? Thanks!
[:D]