The same thing in the trucking industry. We have fleets that only have Cummins Cats or Detroits they all drive and require different maintance standards. Cats beat the hell out of and they will take it Cummins baby a rev it to the roof maintain it like a Rolls and it will run forever. Detroits check the fuel fill the oil screams like no tomorrow also easy to fix even the 60 series. Now if you are a mechanic trained on a Cat fleet and you go to Cummiuns fleet you are in trouble. The *** a parts like to be treated with kid gloves almost like a FM engine. Cats I had one while I was driving throw a rod out the side of the block and keep running til I got to the shop.
BigJim wrote: My post from another thread;They are fuel hogs and have a number of non-standard features making maintenance more difficult and non-standard.I worked in the RH for a year before going out on the road. One day we had a SD45 in the house for some power assembly changes. In the next bay was an ALCO RS11, also in for a power assembly change. I changed out five complete P/A's on that SD45. The Mac in the next bay only just finished the one P/A on the ALCO!
My post from another thread;
They are fuel hogs and have a number of non-standard features making maintenance more difficult and non-standard.
I worked in the RH for a year before going out on the road. One day we had a SD45 in the house for some power assembly changes. In the next bay was an ALCO RS11, also in for a power assembly change.
I changed out five complete P/A's on that SD45. The Mac in the next bay only just finished the one P/A on the ALCO!
But it is interesting that on the GB&W they could turn out ALC'o as quickly as we could turn out SD-45s . When the guys from the GBW came to the WC they had trouble adjusting to the EMD's
Granted the GB&W was an all ALCo railroad and the entire shop was setup to maintain only ALCo locomktives whereas on the WC we were barely setup to take care of our EMDs . Here in Maine we have a primarily GE fleet and the biggest challenge was getting the shop and the equipment setup to maintain the fleet , we still have alot of improvements to make but it is interesting to see how things are adapted and how timesaving shortcuts are implemented. A good example is when a GE has a piston crown failure , on an EMD the would mean pulling the power assembly, here the guys are clever enough to figure out that they didn't need to pull the whole assembly including the master rod or articulating rod ... they simply pull off the liner and change the piston crown , replace the rings , compress the rings and slide the liner back down . The job is done , including new rings and piston crown in about the same time it takes to change an EMD assembly but most importantly the entire job cost about $700.00 in material. On an EMD a new power assembly would have cost around $2500.00. So you see that no matter what kind of machine you have , as long as you have clever and motivated people you can adjust and adapt .
.
But I bet you loved those SD45s Randy ;)
Alec
Randy, your points were valid... I asked them the question simply because they were militant about their likes and dislikes. The electrician I talked to had worked in Altoona and was more comfortable with EMD stuff.
I'd suspect that this controversy will never die; it's kinda like listening to Ford and Chevy owners after you ask them the question who has the better truck.
Me? I am an EMD fanatic... simply because that's what I saw as a kid. That's certainly not a valid business reason- others here have brought those up.
Erik
erikthered wrote: The short line I recently visited here in the USA had a maintenance department that was militantly in favor of EMD. They had a collection of about a dozen or so locomotives that were still running about 50 years past their build dates.The reasons they gave me for the favoritism were as follows:1) They had gotten good deals from the locomotive brokers out there on EMD versus GE.2) They felt that the EMD locomotives were better built- "these things can take a ton of abuse and pull trains." one guy said. He felt that EMD's were more durable than GE's- his attitude was that GE's were "toasters". "Who are you going to trust more... a division of a company that made cars and trucks... or household appliances?"The only problem they had was finding parts for their locomotives to keep them up, but I suspect that they would have had the same problem keeping 50 year old GE's going too.Erik
The short line I recently visited here in the USA had a maintenance department that was militantly in favor of EMD. They had a collection of about a dozen or so locomotives that were still running about 50 years past their build dates.
The reasons they gave me for the favoritism were as follows:
1) They had gotten good deals from the locomotive brokers out there on EMD versus GE.
2) They felt that the EMD locomotives were better built- "these things can take a ton of abuse and pull trains." one guy said. He felt that EMD's were more durable than GE's- his attitude was that GE's were "toasters". "Who are you going to trust more... a division of a company that made cars and trucks... or household appliances?"
The only problem they had was finding parts for their locomotives to keep them up, but I suspect that they would have had the same problem keeping 50 year old GE's going too.
Not to discredit your sources but here are a few things to ponder;
GE , although they make household appliances, they have also been providing parts and support to the railway industry for almost 100 years . The new EMD locomotives have computer systems installed that are from 6 different manufacturers (siemans, detroit diesel, rockwell), and partds from allen bradly, square D etc.. ) whereas GE has thier own integrated system using all GE parts , granted the parts are expensive and difficult to get but an integrated system with one design purpose is much better than one that has been adapted to varying degrees of success.
I don't want to sound like a GE commercial but the fact is that as far as who builds the better locomotive , there are different things to consider . The GE locomotive is NOT more difficult to maintain than the EMD , it is simply DIFFERENT to maintain. I can tell you from experience that a correctly maintained GE can take more abuse than an EMD
I you owned a railroad that had a staff that was very familier with GE's they would have a very hard time maintaining your EMD' and vice'versa.
The locomotives are not better or worse than the others , just different beasts.. they still pull trains no matter what, and I'd take a 4400 over an SD80mac anyday !!!!!
Randy
wctransfer wrote:Great shots Pedro! Im not a fan of the 8 axles, so its good to see that unit practicly un touched! Alec
Great shots Pedro! Im not a fan of the 8 axles, so its good to see that unit practicly un touched!
Here is more one shot of a Conrail and TFM leading an empty train for iron ore load. MRS do not change the locos because it is broad gauge.
pedro
I think the most important thing about rebuilt units is the tradition of the company with GE or EMD, and also the cost to purchase old units in the second hand market. Here in Brazil, CVRD companies like EFVM and EFC have good tradition with GE, in spite of the big fleet of DDM45. That´s why they bought only GE to rebuilt to BB36-7. MRS also has a good tradition with GE and is buying a lot more in USA market in the last 5 years. FCA was the olny company to buy EMD to rebuilt here. ALL also buys only GE because they are less expensive and the shop facilities have a good tradition with them. In fact, they are easier to maintain then GM. Here is one exemple of the last MRS puchase in USA: the TFM and Conrail C30-7.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Thanks, WSOR. My maintenance buddies would be REALLY interested to know if you have any contacts in the spare parts biz... sounds like you would know a few.
erikthered wrote:The short line I recently visited here in the USA had a maintenance department that was militantly in favor of EMD. They had a collection of about a dozen or so locomotives that were still running about 50 years past their build dates.The reasons they gave me for the favoritism were as follows:1) They had gotten good deals from the locomotive brokers out there on EMD versus GE.2) They felt that the EMD locomotives were better built- "these things can take a ton of abuse and pull trains." one guy said. He felt that EMD's were more durable than GE's- his attitude was that GE's were "toasters". "Who are you going to trust more... a division of a company that made cars and trucks... or household appliances?"The only problem they had was finding parts for their locomotives to keep them up, but I suspect that they would have had the same problem keeping 50 year old GE's going too.Erik
A lot of the parts on EMDs interchange. A GP7 with a 567 crankcase could be refitted with 645 power assemblies. Water pumps are pretty much the same on a GP7 and a SD40-2.
GE made good electrical systems. EMD used GE electricals in the early days, before they made their own. GP30s with Alco trucks usually would pull a little more than those with EMD trucks.
foamer8101 wrote:Thanks,WSOR 3801 ,I KNOW I HEARD THAT GE CRANK CASES WERE PRONE TO CRACKING AFTER ABOUT 15-20 YEARS OF SERVICE DEPENDING ON HOW HARD THEY WORKED,ANYWAYS THATS WHAT I WAS TOLD. THANKS................. FOAMER8101
You haven't asked this one on the Australian Forum yet (or did I miss it?)
The basic problem is that GE crankcases are cast steel and are more prone to cracking, and more importantly can't be repaired as easily by welding as can EMD or even Alco crankcases.
The GE crankcases don't last as long as 15 years in really heavy use, such as with Hamersley Iron. The original Dash9-44CW units supplied in late 1994 have all had new crankcases fitted.
However, BHP Billiton (operating in the same area) are using rebuilt former Southern Pacific SD40s built more than thirty years ago still largely with their original crankcases.
This is reflected in the USA as well, very few GE units pre the Dash 7 era remaining and even the early Dash 8s are disappearing.
It is possible that GE will never match EMD in the number of units actually in service.
M636C
Here is the rumor I heard. It makes sense to me.
Most GE engines were financed be GE. When the end of the 15-20 year lease came up, GE brought the engines back in for dispostion. Helps GE not to have to stock obsolete parts, etc.
Most operating and mechanical people seemed to dislike GE prime movers. The electrical systems were/are quite robust.
I haven't run any GEs, so I cannot say if they are as poor as everybody says they are.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.