News Wire: GE Transportation's break-up scenarios

2647 views
9 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
Moderator
  • Member since
    January, 2011
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 978 posts
Posted by Brian Schmidt on Friday, November 17, 2017 9:19 AM

ERIE, Pa. — GE Transportation will soon be sold or partnered away from the parent company. Wall Street analysts even seem to notice, along with historians, that the move brings an end to one of GE's oldest businesses. But what may happen next? ...

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/16-ge-possibilities

Brian Schmidt, Associate Editor Trains Magazine

  • Member since
    September, 2005
  • 965 posts
Posted by Lyon_Wonder on Friday, November 17, 2017 8:36 PM

Too bad Alco or MLW aren't still in business as potential buyers since we'd all know where GE's transporation division would have went had they decided to sell it off decades ago.

  • Member since
    March, 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 4,384 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 9:31 PM

Rumors that Wabtec may be interested.

https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/ge-transportation-acquired-by-wabtec/

Reports by Bloomberg of a potential sale of GE Transportation to Wabtec Corp. surfaced late Friday April 20, resulting in Wabtec shares gaining 4.5%. The potential transaction size is $6.8 billion, according to Bloomberg.

Jeff

  • Member since
    October, 2016
  • 167 posts
Posted by Saturnalia on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:47 PM

The North American locomotive industry is being drubbed all around right now. We have no real innovation in terms of capability for the last 15-20 years...4400 hp, six axles, 12-16 cylinders. We get it, it works, but innovation has been focused on...Tiers!

And all reports are that Tier 4 broke the model. They burn more fuel, drink oil, break more, are harder to fix, and they can't do anything the Tier 3s can't. 

Sprinkle in a fall in demand due to right-sizing of locomotive fleets and the cyclical nature of the business, and yeah, it's pretty obvious why GE would consider their locomotive business as a laggard to expel as they try to grasp their way out of their own internal mess. 

Nothing against any of the dedicated people who work at any of these companies...it's just the nature of the business cycle and where we are at in terms of the environment, internal combustion engines, and railroad operations. I don't think anybody really did anything negligent or anything in terms of running the business...circumstances have just caught up to GE, like they did to GM back in the day when they spun-off EMD. 

I think somebody like Wabtec will scoop them up, if Wabtec ultimately passes. Wouldn't take Siemens out of the question, but they're already busy swallowing Alstom. And then there is always venture capital perched high above Manhattan waiting for the next " opprotunity"

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,438 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:45 AM

Given that the W in Wabtech stands for Westinghouse, this means a major industry started by Thomas Edison is being sold to George Westinghouse....

This is something that is unlikely to have happened when both men were alive.

Peter

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,179 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:11 AM

Saturnalia
The North American locomotive industry is being drubbed all around right now. We have no real innovation in terms of capability for the last 15-20 years...4400 hp, six axles, 12-16 cylinders. We get it, it works, but innovation has been focused on...Tiers!

Well, EMD and GE introduced 6,000 hp locomotives in 1995. They had teething problems that were solved as the Chinese locomotives showed. The locomotives didn't meet the railroad's operational expectations so the horsepower race was of and the RR bought 4,400 hp locomotives.

So where should capability innovations have gone?

There were innovations like introducing new diesel engines, GE almost twice as the Tier 4 is quite different from the Tier 3. GE introduced the ES44C4 as AC replacement for DC locomotives. EMD introduced one inverter per axle instead of one per truck as before.

There are not only shareholders but people breathing the exhaust gases too.

Saturnalia
And all reports are that Tier 4 broke the model. They burn more fuel, drink oil, break more, are harder to fix, and they can't do anything the Tier 3s can't.

Can you provide a link? We had the discussion about fuel efficiency a few times and weren't able to find reliable information. Do they really drink oil, break down more often? Do you have reports you can share? Even if yes, you can't blame the locomotive builders. Going EGR without any SCR was a decision the RRs made though knowing the problems with EGR in the trucking industry.

Saturnalia
Wouldn't take Siemens out of the question, but they're already busy swallowing Alstom.

Siemens Alstom will not be a Siemens subdivision. It will be an independent French company with the headquarter in France listet at the French stock exchange and led by Alstom's CEO.

I don't see a reason why Siemens should buy GE. I think they have the expertise to build heavy haul locomotives. What they are missing is an EGR only Tier 4 diesel engine. But perhaps time will eliminate this need. CARB already asked for a Tier 5 which according to their proposal would have limits that highway trucks already have. So only time will tell if EGR is a dead end.
Regards, Volker 

 

BDA
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 12 posts
Posted by BDA on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:21 PM

The emissions situation is that your EPA/CARB organisations forge legislation without much regard for how easily it can practically be implemented .

Necessity is supposed to be the mother of invention but the complexity is something else .

Of course having tighter control over what an internal combustion engine huffs out often means degraded efficiency because the focus is compliance where once it was all about power and fuel efficiency .

The car and truck world is no different , what is different is that road vehicles now have shorter lives and are turned over more frequently .

The complexity in cars now means that they devalue faster and often aren't economic things to fix after relatively short lives .

At the moment the large US Operators appear to have lots of spare power standing around and they have the opportunity to rebuild pre loved possibly up to Tier 3 standards which has a reasonable ratio of power to fuel consumption .

The alternative is to buy expensive problematic hungry horsepower , why would you bother . To get a 70 or 90 MAC up to 70ACe spec isn't chicken feed but living with it afterwards would look a lot better than crossing fingers with these Tier IV wonders .

As for usefull technology the Roads seem happy with the 44-4500Hp 200 odd metric tonne locos - and thats probably around the limits of what can be achieved in an AC unit with around 32 metric tonne axle loads . If some significant improvement in traction control can be found then the horsepower requirement may creep up again .

Here in Australia most of the national standard guage isn't built like your 30+TAL permanent way , mainline locos here have more like 21-23 tonne axle loads and still use the same 7FDL16s and 710 12s or 16s .

Here we may one day have heavier perway and be able to take advantage of the extra adhesion it allows . In the US the answer may be even heavier perway and higher axle loads to be able to get more horsepower to the rails to pull heavier loads . It begs the question - what is the next size up rail from 68 kg/meter or similar in imperial measures ?     

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,567 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, May 01, 2018 6:04 PM

BDA
The car and truck world is no different , what is different is that road vehicles now have shorter lives and are turned over more frequently .

The complexity in cars now means that they devalue faster and often aren't economic things to fix after relatively short lives .

US automotive vehicles are generally not subject to 'short lives'.  Short lives were the cars from the 50's-60's-70's and early 80's.  By the middle and late 80's the manufacturers had figured out how to comply with emissions and develop power and fuel economy at the same time.

Personnaly I got ride of my 2003 Dodge Durango, it only had 359K miles on the clock and the drivers seat belt stoped extending.  Engine never had the heads off or had any other kind of failure - replaced a sensor or two and the accessories (alternator, A/C compressor, water pump, radiator) as well as the normal consumables brakes, tires etc.

In the locomotive world I will agree that development for the past two decades have been focused on meeting the Tier requirments rather than R&D on improving the overall operating package.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

BDA
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 12 posts
Posted by BDA on Friday, May 04, 2018 2:10 AM

I was refering to cars and trucks made in more recent times - say 3-5 years old .

I don't think they'll have long lives like say 10-15 years . They run lean and hot and most controls are electronic rather than mechanical or hydraulic . Lots of extra sensors and probes all over their engines for more accurate engine/trans control . Lots more to be problematic and failure prone - just like these Tier 4 offerings .

The no 1 issue these days is exhaust emissions compliance because without it nothing else matters .

I see people screaming here when they buy the SUV equivalent of Ford Rangers and cop the Add Blue DEF crap . I can't see the aftermarket supporting spares for all these unique sensors probes and modules . I hear horror stories of what people are charged to replace things like common rail fuel injectors let alone injector pumps .

No wonder your North American Operators with stacks of "used power" are dragging them out and rebuilding them into something they can work on and live with . I'm surprised that there is not much talk of what its like to run and support these T4 ACes and ET44s , in time we will hear of what the reliability and running costs are like compared to the T2/3 equivalents . Highly probable that they won't be as real world operator friendly as a Dash 9 AC conversion or a 90ACU or a 70 MACe . At least with them you know what you're getting , what reliability and what the life cycle costs are like .

 

  • Member since
    October, 2015
  • 70 posts
Posted by longhorn1969 on Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:26 PM

What would be funny and ironic..........................................if GM bought GE's locomotive business.

I hope the Webtec deal goes through.

 

Join our Community!

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

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy