in 1939 EMD introduced the FT locomotive set as "Diesel replacement for freight locomotives".....with the coming of WW2 rationing of raw materials and manpower the Fed gov curtailed free trade to the point that there was restricted production of most things......as related to Diesels EMD was the only manufacture allowed to build "new frieght Diesel locomotives"...the others ALCO Baldwin etc were allowed "new Diesel switchers and new passenger Diesels on an as approved basis"....same with steam locomotive production except only exsisting designs could be used....the ALCO freight Diesel of the time was the FA....... a 4 axle PA they come out with as soon as the restrictions were lifted in 1945...Baldwins DR-4-4-15 freight Diesels came out in 1949 looked like the sharknose passenger units they built for the Pennsy
EMD FT a-b without dynamic brakes
EMD FT a with dynamic brakes
ALCO FA's
Baldwin RF-16...later model then the DR-4-4-15 but same carbody
It seems like the longevity of some of the Diesel builders was tied to the "generations" of Diesel locomotives.
I guess all of them (EMD, ALCo, Baldwin, FM) built 1st-generation Diesels. When those wore out and the railroads needed to buy replacements (the 2nd generation), it seems that Baldwin and FM had dropped out. Weren't the last Baldwins those German Maybach-powered ultra-low profile shark noses for the NYC XPlorer and New Haven Daniel Webster articulated trains? Weren't the last FM's those Speed Merchant passenger units for the New Haven and B&M Talgo trains?
Baldwin and FM didn't make it to build a 2nd generation -- probably a combination of being high-cost producers relative to EMD and the maintenance reputation of their products. Baldwins and FM's were probably perfectly workable locomotives only they may not have been competitive on maintenance hours with EMD.
EMD and ALCo make it to the 2nd generation and are joined by GE. Here ALCo is the weak competitor, dropping out as high-cost producer and maintenance difficulties with the Centuries, although I supposed the ALCo designs soldiered on as MLW in Canada. EMD and GE make it to the 3rd generation. GE is a company with deep pockets and a hunger for market share, but their product is weak in the maintenance area, but they hang on because of the desire of the railroads for a competitor to EMD and the persistance of GE in working out maintenance issues with the railroads. EMD and GE go to a fourth generation where GE gains on EMD because EMD starts making some weak locomotives (50 and 60 series) that are superceded by better models but the reputation lingers.
Some of the maintenance and longevity may be intrinsic to the design. Some of it may have to do with what the railroad shops are used to -- GE worked hard at getting their locomotives accepted by putting their people into the field to train railroads on maintenance procedures from the perspective of the GE design.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"Old diesels"- I assume you are talking about the classic carbodied, bulldog nosed EMD F units that Lionel made popular for kids?
As was pointed out well in previous posts, the F's were designed to haul freight, because that's where the money is in a railroad. The FT's, the ALCO PA's (which the New Haven used to haul freight when they weren't running passenger cars), and similar were excellent replacements to haul main line freight, of all kinds. They weren't so good at switching, because of visibility issues. The attitude was that the railroads had specially designed switchers that could do the job.
I've been in the cab of a late model F unit, and my two biggest complaints about it is this: you can't see behind you worth diddly, and getting in and out of the thing is a bear. That doesn't matter much on a haul where you are going in one direction between point A and B, and your trainman doesn't have to leave the cab to throw a switch. It makes a big difference when you want to see your trainman behind you as you back up to make a connection. And it makes a huge difference to the guy who's constantly up and down that miserably narrow, vertical ladder. The road switcher gave the train crews a safe place to stand and gave engineers the ability to see them.
But when they first hit the road, they were head and shoulders above a steam locomotive from nearly every perspective except dramatic looks. And looks, alas, do not pay the bills.
The second generation of freight locomotives addressed the problems of visibility and maintenance, as well as cost. I read an interview with the designer of the lowly GP, and he said that he wanted a locomotive that would work on branch lines and was deliberately ugly.
If you want to go back to the late 1920s and early 1930s just about all of the diesel locomotives were switchers. You would find most of them built by ALCO/GE/Ingersol Rand (AGEIR), and Westinghouse. There were a few others, such as 1 from Brill, and a very few that the Pennsylvania built itself. Also GE built one road freight diesel locomotive and one passenger diesel locomotive for New York Central, both were successful enough to show that diesels could perform that work. And Baldwin demonstrated a road freight diesel, which was successful enough to generate orders from SP and B&M (which were refused!!!!!)
It wasn't until the Zephyr on the CB&Q, and the EMC boxcabs on ATSF and the B&O proved themselves that railroads trusted passengers to diesels.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.