THE magazine of railroading

SEARCH TRAINSMAG.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Will North American railroads look at European manufacturers for viable 4 axle locomotives?

5997 views
28 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April, 2007
  • From: Ontario
  • 709 posts
Will North American railroads look at European manufacturers for viable 4 axle locomotives?
Posted by da_kraut on Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:07 PM

 Hello everybody,

after reading this excellent post: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/159698.aspx and seeing that BNSF is purchasing used GP38's this question came to mind.

I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service.  The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself.  Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model. 

It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either.  From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags.  This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units?  It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.Cool

Here are some of the European Manufacturers:

Siemens

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/ts/en/pub/products/lm/services/platforms/eurorunner.htm

Bombardier

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp

and Voith

http://www.voithturbo.de/lokomotivtechnik-gravita-en.htm

I am looking forward to everybody's opinions and thoughts.

Frank

"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
  • Member since
    December, 2004
  • From: Mesa, AZ
  • 770 posts
Posted by silicon212 on Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:16 PM

Bombardier is actually a Canadian company, and already builds locomotives for EMD (if you look at a current EMD builder's plate, it will list country of origin as a check one of Canada, USA or Mexico - Mexican built EMDs are built by Bombardier).

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Central New York
  • 335 posts
Posted by MJChittick on Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:14 PM

I have no doubt that should the North American Class Is communicate the desire for NEW four-axle locomotives to GE and EMD, they will be more than happy to provide them.  They always have and always will!

 

Mike

  • Member since
    June, 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 4,755 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, September 07, 2009 9:15 AM

da_kraut

 Hello everybody,

after reading this excellent post: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/159698.aspx and seeing that BNSF is purchasing used GP38's this question came to mind.

I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service.  The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself.  Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model. 

It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either.  From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags.  This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units?  It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.Cool

Here are some of the European Manufacturers:

Siemens

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/ts/en/pub/products/lm/services/platforms/eurorunner.htm

Bombardier

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp

and Voith

http://www.voithturbo.de/lokomotivtechnik-gravita-en.htm

I am looking forward to everybody's opinions and thoughts.

Frank

Frank:

Logts of interested 'FANS" haveasked questions as to why did the K-M Diesel Hydraulics fain in service here and in South America. Here is a link that might explain some of these faults:

http://sp9010.ncry.org/faq.htm

And this link as well for additional information on the K-M Diesel-Hydraulics ( 15 to SP and 3 to D&RGW):

http://espee.railfan.net/spml4000.html

I hope this will answer some of your questions, satisfactorily: 

Sam

 

 


 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,444 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Monday, September 07, 2009 11:08 AM
It must be noted though that the Siemens and Bombardier locomotives cited are both Diesel-electrics, with 3-phase Asynchronous AC traction motors.
  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 1,949 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, September 07, 2009 11:19 AM

da_kraut

 Hello everybody,

after reading this excellent post: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/159698.aspx and seeing that BNSF is purchasing used GP38's this question came to mind.

I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service.  The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself.  Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model. 

It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either.  From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags.  This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units?  It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.Cool

Here are some of the European Manufacturers:

Siemens

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/ts/en/pub/products/lm/services/platforms/eurorunner.htm

Bombardier

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp

and Voith

http://www.voithturbo.de/lokomotivtechnik-gravita-en.htm

I am looking forward to everybody's opinions and thoughts.

Frank

Vossloh, one of the major European manufacturers of diesel electrics, is using EMD engines and electrical systems in many of their locomotives. Keep in mind that the US railroads aren't purchasing 4 axle locomotives for road service but for yard and local freight/ branchline service. I don't really see what advantages any of the European offerings have for that market. Many of the manufacturers in North America building GenSet units also offer new single engined BB locomotives as well..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    April, 2007
  • From: Ontario
  • 709 posts
Posted by da_kraut on Monday, September 07, 2009 11:31 AM

beaulieu
It must be noted though that the Siemens and Bombardier locomotives cited are both Diesel-electrics, with 3-phase Asynchronous AC traction motors.

 

 

Hello,

also I would like to add to this that the SD70MAC and the various versions of the SD90's all have their electric equipment made by Siemens.  Keeping this in mind and having a European manufacturer with good North American experience my thinking was why not use a European design over here as well.  Mind you it would have to be modified to meet North American requirements, but still it could have been an alternative. 

 

Thank you for all the responses so far.  The points raised are very interesting.  As for the Diesel Hydraulics, I believe it was the wrong locomotive for the wrong application.  The Hydraulics might have done better with a HEP unit in passenger service.   Here in North America we really push the equipment compared to Europe.  That is why the British Class 66 made by EMD is such a success.  

 

"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
  • Member since
    September, 2002
  • 6,206 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:28 AM

My experience is from the steel industry and may be biased.  Every time a European process was purchased engineering and maintenance personnel were assigned to reduce the maintenance and downtime that European steel mills favored.  Don't know the reason for that other than make work in Socialist countries but it was extremely excessive and many components were designed to fail.  An example is a brick machine purchahed for Armco Middletown BOF shop that had  over 400 limit switchs. Idea was this thing delivered bricks for relining vertically on a conveyer and then out to the end of an arm a man stood on and placed the bricks in their final resting position as this thing rotated and screwed itself vertically up every revloution.  Within six weeks we had it down to 14 limit switchs and had replaced several weak components.  I know when the PRR tried a French De Glehn steam engine the Frenchman commented, "You don't move cars.  You move houses". The Europeans have developed superior electric engines but their other equipment isn't that geat or rugged amd therefore dependable in my opinion.

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 8,189 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:32 AM

There are several cultural factors involved.  European railroads were willing to accept more down time for maintenance than American roads.  Also, the cost of labor compared to the cost of fuel was lower than in North America.  How engineers view the nature of their profession is also different.  European engineers view themselves more as men of science, and seem to be more interested in getting an "elegant" solution; American engineers tend to be more interested in results, and are more willing to improvise and arrive at "inelegant" solutions that work. 

Paul The commute to work may be part of the daily grind, but I get two train rides a day out of it.
  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 375 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:40 AM
CSSHEGEWISCH

There are several cultural factors involved.  European railroads were willing to accept more down time for maintenance than American roads.  Also, the cost of labor compared to the cost of fuel was lower than in North America.  How engineers view the nature of their profession is also different.  European engineers view themselves more as men of science, and seem to be more interested in getting an "elegant" solution; American engineers tend to be more interested in results, and are more willing to improvise and arrive at "inelegant" solutions that work. 

The SD40-2 is an example of American Engineering in that everything not absolutely necessary to make it work was discarded from the design. Since then to either make small improvement in fuel efficiency, increase power or increase tractive effort has greatly complicated the design. Culturally, during WW 2 the German Navy kept large staffs busy designing the perfect battleship. The result was a design with the most armor protection, the most powerful guns and the most powerful propulsion plant for the highest speed. The problem was no capacity to build it or produce the steel for or getting a crew to man it or any fuel to get it to sea if it was built. I use to think it was a ploy to keep them from going to the eastern front but its part of a national contest for design superiority at least on paper. There use to be a contest between the Germans and the French and the British to design the most complicated diesel engine design. At this point MAN has bought out all its competitors except in Germany. Getting back to the SD40, operational results was the prime objective.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 1,949 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:52 AM

European railroad equipment is for the most part, built to a smaller loading gauge than that of most of North America. In addition, the rail network in Europe operates very differently than that in the U.S where heavy haul freight service is dominant. European builders have their strengths, particularly in electric motive power and passenger equipment, and those market segments are where they have had success on this side of the pond selling (or licensing to domestic builders) "Americanized" versions of their offerings......

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • 1,828 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 12:00 PM

Brian Hollingsworth's book on express passenger steam locomotives offers some interesting insights into the regard in France for complex locomotives such as the de Glehn and later Chapelon machines.

Apparently France is lacking in coal supplies, so thermal efficiency was paramount.  England went to four cylinder steam like the de Glehn designs, but opted for simple instead of compound operation because coal was somewhat more plentiful.

It had been suggested somewhere else that the reason that the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the wide spread use of steam power) happened in England and not France is that the early steam machinery was only marginally cost effective, but the abundance of coal in England tipped the balance towards using coal in steam engines (coal was a form of labor in that someone had to dig it out of the ground) over direct labor in the factories and mills.

Similarly, France is 80% nuclear on their electric grid.  One could argue that France is "more progressive than we" on CO2 emissions, but the simple fact is that France went nuclear because they had to, much as they went for complex compound steam because they had to.

What is interesting from Hollingsworth's book is reviewing the stats, and on comparing US Superpower steam against some of Chapelon's creations.  It seemed that Superpower needed about twice the weight, grate area, evaporative and superheating surface to get the same amount of "cylinder horsepower" as the French designs.  I suppose if coal was relatively cheap and you wanted the weight for pulling tonnage, Superpower was a good design.  But it is brute force in comparison.

Hollingsworth comments, however, that some post WW-II US-built Mikes they had in France were more cost effective than the best that Chapelon had to offer -- what they gave up in coal consumption, even at French coal prices, they made up in lower maintenance, although it was explained that the Mikes were that good because Chapelon had made some steam passage "tweaks" on them.  Kind of like a big-bore V-8 with tuned headers being more effective than some fancy small displacement overhead cam multi-valve exotic European mill.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
  • Member since
    May, 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:00 PM

Buy American!  Buy General Electric!  Forget the rest...

Bill Hays

  • Member since
    May, 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:12 PM

BNSF is purchasing used GP-38s?  Do you have a reference?

With the downturn in business, the GP-38s, GP-39Ms, and SD-40-2s are becoming rara avis, with hundreds of them in "stored, servicable" status.  Our locals, and branch 'line-hauls', have almost eliminated them, in favor of newer GEs.  I live on the BNSF "Hi-Line" in Montana and don't miss the "Jimmy Junk".  We do see an occasional SD-70MAC, but mostly in 'detour' service on coal trains, like when MRL's Mullan Tunnel caved in a few weeks ago.

Maybe the "Cash for Clunker EMDs" program is a good idea.  Same with "Amfleet" cars!

Bill Hays 

  • Member since
    December, 2004
  • From: WSOR Northern Div.
  • 1,543 posts
Posted by WSOR 3801 on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:18 AM

BNSFwatcher

BNSF is purchasing used GP-38s?  Do you have a reference?

With the downturn in business, the GP-38s, GP-39Ms, and SD-40-2s are becoming rara avis, with hundreds of them in "stored, servicable" status.  Our locals, and branch 'line-hauls', have almost eliminated them, in favor of newer GEs.  I live on the BNSF "Hi-Line" in Montana and don't miss the "Jimmy Junk". 

 

Where are all the GEs of similar vintage to the GP38s, GP39E-M-Vs, and SD40-2s?   U-boats, Dash 7s, etc.? 

There are still places of lighter rail that the techno-toasters can't go. 

There are still how many older 4-axle engines around that could get refitted with the newer emission standard engines that importing European engines wouldn't make any sense.  

Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com

  • Member since
    January, 2008
  • From: Asheville, North Carolina
  • 71 posts
Posted by Alan Robinson on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:52 PM

Paul Milenkovic

Brian Hollingsworth's book on express passenger steam locomotives offers some interesting insights into the regard in France for complex locomotives such as the de Glehn and later Chapelon machines.

Apparently France is lacking in coal supplies, so thermal efficiency was paramount.  England went to four cylinder steam like the de Glehn designs, but opted for simple instead of compound operation because coal was somewhat more plentiful.

It had been suggested somewhere else that the reason that the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the wide spread use of steam power) happened in England and not France is that the early steam machinery was only marginally cost effective, but the abundance of coal in England tipped the balance towards using coal in steam engines (coal was a form of labor in that someone had to dig it out of the ground) over direct labor in the factories and mills.

Similarly, France is 80% nuclear on their electric grid.  One could argue that France is "more progressive than we" on CO2 emissions, but the simple fact is that France went nuclear because they had to, much as they went for complex compound steam because they had to.

What is interesting from Hollingsworth's book is reviewing the stats, and on comparing US Superpower steam against some of Chapelon's creations.  It seemed that Superpower needed about twice the weight, grate area, evaporative and superheating surface to get the same amount of "cylinder horsepower" as the French designs.  I suppose if coal was relatively cheap and you wanted the weight for pulling tonnage, Superpower was a good design.  But it is brute force in comparison.

Hollingsworth comments, however, that some post WW-II US-built Mikes they had in France were more cost effective than the best that Chapelon had to offer -- what they gave up in coal consumption, even at French coal prices, they made up in lower maintenance, although it was explained that the Mikes were that good because Chapelon had made some steam passage "tweaks" on them.  Kind of like a big-bore V-8 with tuned headers being more effective than some fancy small displacement overhead cam multi-valve exotic European mill.

Chapelon's last designs were very high horsepower, on one case demonstrating an output of 40 horsepower per ton of engine weight. How many American steam designs could manage that? A 500 ton simple articulated such as a Challenger type would have to produce 20,000 horsepower to match it. Yes, these locomotives were comparatively small, between 80 and 120 tons or so, but they could fly like the wind with comparatively heavy loads. Restricted to small size by the European loading guage, I wonder what would have happened if Chapelon would have been able to use his talents here with our larger loading guage?

After studying some of the work done by Chapelon and other English and Continental engineers I have to take my hats off to them as well as ask myself whether diesels would have taken over as soon as they did if we on this side of the Atlantic had been a bit more appreciative of what others were doing rather than our too-common "not invented here" thinking.

Yes, conditions on European railroads are different and thus European equipment often isn't a good fit if just picked up and dropped into American operation. But we shouldn't sprain our arms patting ourselves on the backs, thinking we have nothing to learn from elsewhere.

Alan Robinson Asheville, North Carolina
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 8,189 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:09 PM

The question that needs to be asked is how maintenance-intensive were Chapelon's designs?  As mentioned previously, relatively high down time for maintenance is tolerated in Europe but a high-maintenance design would wind up parked in the weeds behind the shop in North America.

European technology is coming to North America through the back door.  Siemens is responsible for the design of the electrical components on EMD's AC-drive locomotives.  MPI specifies MTU/Detroit Diesel power for its switchers, and MTU is a major German engine builder.

Paul The commute to work may be part of the daily grind, but I get two train rides a day out of it.
  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 375 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:16 PM
We are getting back to cultural differences again. Europe focuses on make-work and we focus on operations. The EMD FT was so successful in that it could streamline operations. Steam locomotives were designed for specific operations on particular gradients of the rail road system. The Santa Fe changing from 4-6-4's to 4-8-4's for more rugged territory comes to mind. The Pennsylvania confining certain designs to certain divisions where the diesel could go anywhere and do anything, particularly the higher powered road switchers which still operate today. Incidentally the MTU engines are supposed to be manufactured under license in Detroit by DD and the salesman claims that they have made some changes. (!?!). The are being used on locomotive in switching and work train service which is not very strenuous and stay close to a service area.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    May, 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:12 PM

The older GEs are virtually all gone on the BNSF.  There may be a few in storage, especially in southern California.  Most have gone to re-builders or used loco dealers.  Retirement/storage is based on fuel consumption, mainly, methinks, for locos that work 24/7.

Bill

  • Member since
    May, 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:21 PM

Didn't Roger Penske buy "Detroit Diesel" from the shambles that is now "Gummint Motors"?

An interesting development is the new GE ES-44C4s that BNSF bought (6600-series).  Two pistons, on each side of the truck, pick up the idler axle of the A1A truck when higher loading is needed on the A axles.  The 'jury is still out', but so far, so good, according to BNSF.  Apparently it saves weight, and the expense of the third traction motor of a C-truck, especially for high speed service.  Bears watching....

Bill

 

  • Member since
    May, 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:31 PM

Isn't the idea behind "GenSets" to have a second (and third) engine to kick in when more power is required, and shut down when not?  What would the advantage of a single-engined GenSet be?

Bill

  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 375 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:39 PM
Roger Penske back in the 80's was an Detroit Diesel Allison distributer in New Jersey. At that time DDA had been losing money for several years and Penske with Daimler- Benz (MTU) backing bought a majority share and within a year showed a $40,000,000 profit. Penske had a tie in with EMD in that they built the larger diesel generator packages along with Allison gas turbines in their Cincinnati plant. They also had service contracts and sold EMD parts from Lodi NJ. In 1990 GM officially announced that EMD was for sale but I guess Penske was busy enough with what he had. Foreign engine manufactures have bought up American truck builders such as Volvo buying White Motors and Komatsu scooped up International Harvester's former Construction equipment and Hough Division from Dresser Industries to instantly put them in position to compete with Caterpillar. If Daimler Benz- Daimler Chrysler-Daimler Benz didn't fool around with Chrysler but got EMD they would be in the locomotive business.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,444 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:28 PM
Daimler-Chrysler was in the locomotive business, but they got out of it, they had bought Henschel, then they merged their railway business with ABB to form Adtranz. Both then decided to get out of the railway business and they sold Adtranz to Bombardier.
  • Member since
    December, 2004
  • From: WSOR Northern Div.
  • 1,543 posts
Posted by WSOR 3801 on Friday, September 11, 2009 12:34 AM

BNSFwatcher

Isn't the idea behind "GenSets" to have a second (and third) engine to kick in when more power is required, and shut down when not?  What would the advantage of a single-engined GenSet be?

Bill

 

Fuel saving.  When it is broke, it doesn't consume any fuel. 

Emissions regulations are forcing the use of less-robust prime movers,  and increased shop time to keep all the gewgaws emissions-compliant.  Over-the-road trucks are dealing with this stuff first, but EPA and CARB mandates are bringing the problems to the railroads in short order.  Emissions will go down, because nothing will be moving. 

Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com

  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 375 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:51 AM
We'll have to start a new post on Gen-Set locomotives, a fascinating subject itself. Back to Europe. I did a little checking and it looks like EMD was very influential in getting Europe dieselized as far as it goes as they started to electrify their main lines after WW 2. They could do that since they were nationalized railroads. In countries that didn,t have the were with all to do so the diesel locomotive looked very attractive. Nohab of Sweden built locomotives with EMD components that looks like a double ended F unit back in the 50's that some of which are still running or are preserved and run throughout Europe. Romania, Ireland, Norway and the former Yugoslavia have been and are good EMD customers. Vossloh has 2 models of diesel electric built with EMD components in 3000 hp and 4000 hp units. Their smaller diesel hydraulic units come with either CAT 3500 series engines or at long last MTU engines probably from Germany but with the value dollar it might be cheaper to get them from Detroit. GE is moving into this market but their engines are too large apparently to fit the English loading gauge so they are building some units with Genbacher engines from Austria. EMD has been hugely successful with the English market Class 66 and are designing an enlarged version for the continent that can accommodate dynamic braking and a better cab.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 1,949 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:53 PM

creepycrank
We'll have to start a new post on Gen-Set locomotives, a fascinating subject itself. Back to Europe. I did a little checking and it looks like EMD was very influential in getting Europe dieselized as far as it goes as they started to electrify their main lines after WW 2. They could do that since they were nationalized railroads. In countries that didn,t have the were with all to do so the diesel locomotive looked very attractive. Nohab of Sweden built locomotives with EMD components that looks like a double ended F unit back in the 50's that some of which are still running or are preserved and run throughout Europe. Romania, Ireland, Norway and the former Yugoslavia have been and are good EMD customers. Vossloh has 2 models of diesel electric built with EMD components in 3000 hp and 4000 hp units. Their smaller diesel hydraulic units come with either CAT 3500 series engines or at long last MTU engines probably from Germany but with the value dollar it might be cheaper to get them from Detroit. GE is moving into this market but their engines are too large apparently to fit the English loading gauge so they are building some units with Genbacher engines from Austria. EMD has been hugely successful with the English market Class 66 and are designing an enlarged version for the continent that can accommodate dynamic braking and a better cab.

 The relationship between the UK  rail industry and EMD is interesting.From my reading as early as the 1950's one of the major British locomotive manufacturers (English Electric?) attempted to negotiate an agreement with EMD to use engines and electrical gear in units built over there. But the British Government who had nationalised the rails (British Rail) nixed the idea as "not invented here". Eventually in the 1980's, a couple of construction materials firms that had an agreement with British Rail to operate their privately owned equipment on BR rails with BR crews bought the first EMD units imported into the UK (Class 59s). When privatisation (via open access) took hold EMD became the industry standard in the UK..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Erskine, Scotland
  • 41 posts
Posted by kbathgate on Monday, September 14, 2009 7:42 AM

In the 1950s there was no way that British Railway would have been allowed to buy foreign equipment if there was a domestic alternative, and at the time Britain was one of the world's largest builders of steam locomotives.  Britain was almost bankrupt after WW2 and the balance of trade was a major concern for the government.  British manufacturers were strongly encouraged to focus on exports, and even private companies struggled to get import permits for equipment.  EMD would have been an obvious source for prime movers etc. when BR decided to convert to diesels, but this would only have been allowed by the British government if they were built under license in the UK (as per MAN/North British Locomotive and Maybach/Bristol-Siddeley).  IIRC EMD were not keen on license-building arrangements at the time - which cost them some significant business (e.g. India's decision to go with locally assembled Alcos instead).  As BR was under government control, the government insisted that the dieselisation programme support as many British manufacturers as possible to encourage them to develop new diesel technology which could be exported.  This led to an almost unbelievable proliferation of manufacturers being involved in dieselisation: Beyer-Peacock, Birmingham RC&W, Brush Traction, Clayton Equipment, English Electric (Vulcan Foundry, and Robert Stephenson & Hawthorn), Metropolitan-Vickers, North British Loco and Yorkshire Engine all built diesel road locomotives for BR in the period 1957-68, on top of which BR themselves built their own locomotive designs at no less than 7 separate works (Crewe, Darlington, Derby, Doncaster, Eastleigh, Horwich and Swindon).  It will be apparant that this was not very efficient, and after the feast of orders in the steam-diesel transition era dried up virtually all of these builders pulled out of the locomotive market - only Brush is still in the picture, and on a fairly small scale.

EMD broke into the UK in the 1980s by providing a SW1001 for use by Foster Yeoman at a quarry with none of the usual loading gauge restrictions (incidentally this locomotive was badly damaged not too long ago when it ran away from the quarry and encountered a tunnel).  When Foster Yeoman and a couple of other private firms reached agreement with BR to have their own road locomotives they went to EMD for class 59s because none of the few survivng British manufacturers could offer the specified service availability.  At the time BR was buying British built class 58s (BREL) and 60s (Brush Traction).  The choice of class 66s after privatisation reflects the highly satisfactory performance of the 59s, but also the fact that most of BR's freight sector was initially sold to Wisconsin Central who were obviously familiar with EMD.  IMHO it also reflects the fact that successive British governments have stopped supporting British manufacturing industry and that the privatised rail operators have absolutely no national pride, which is why since privatisation all new locomotives have been built in Spain, Canada or the USA, and passenger stock is increasingly built in Germany, Austria, Spain and Japan (the governments and rail industries of which countries do still support their domestic manufacturers).

I wouldn't have thought that North American manufacturers had much to fear from European imports as to compete in the North American market they would have to develop completely new models, and a German built locomotive is unlikely to be any cheaper than a US/Canadian one.  Chinese manufacturers may be a different matter as if the price can be kept down then someone may try a few, and if these prove to be successful then they will have broken into the market.

Keith Bathgate
  • Member since
    January, 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 375 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Monday, September 14, 2009 1:43 PM
EMD has partnered with DLW (Diesel Locomotive Works) to build under license EMD designed locomotive with 710 engines for over 10 years now. The production rate has been pretty slow but there have been recent announcements by EMD about further cooperation for new models and to step up production. The market for diesel locomotives is expected to grow rapidly in India and GE is trying to get into this market. How much is actually produced in country is not certain. I think DLW is building all the pieces including the diesels from from EMD plans. There was also some mention of "Technology sharing" and since an awful lot of Indian engineers trained in this country, probably an useful source. I think both EMD and GE have similar agreements with builders in China. If there is any compitition it would be in 3 rd world markets such as Africa.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 357 posts
Posted by Mario_v on Monday, September 14, 2009 4:32 PM

I would sy it in a little different manner ;

Vossloh is actually working toghether with EMD, wich supplies the 'core' part of the locomotive (see it here, http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/en/products/diesel-electric_locomotives/euro4000/euro4000.html, here http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_Espana_EURO4000_freight_us.pdf and here http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_Espana_EURO4000_passengers_us.pdf ), and the rest of the engineering side (trucks, carbody) being done by the company. Technically speaking, these engines are soome sort of SD70, but adapted to Europe's norms and operating procedures.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Trains free email newsletter
NEWS » PHOTOS » VIDEOS » HOT TOPICS & MORE
GET OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Connect with us
ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER

Loading...