METRO wrote:Chevy Novas (true lemons): F40PH (when used in heavy commuter service), Cheers!~METRO
Cheers!~METRO
I think the people at Metra might disagree with you on that that.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
PBenham wrote:The SD90H and the AC6000CW ran into the same problem. Neither ran well enough to justify the cost of re-engineering the engines to meet tier II emmissions standards. The demand was not there for them. GE got the AC6000s fixed, but it was too late by then. GM sold EMD off, and the new EMD is selling H engines for other applications and will make some of their development costs up, if not all of them. The Evolution power plant GE has could come out in the 16 cylinder format, at 6000HP, but GE people admit there is no demand for it at the price GE would have to charge for a locomotive equipped with it!
1435mm wrote:I'd disagree that the SD50 was a poor locomotive, just not as good a locomotive as it people thought it should be.
A few years ago, I was talking to a UP engineer. He said that UP was getting rid of its SD50s. I asked if that included the ex-DRGW SD50s. He said no. If I remember correctly, the reason why is that they were later models, therefore something was different, unfortunately I do not remember what that was. So, it sounds like eventually the SD50 overcame its problems.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
My vote goes to the FL9 and GP35.
The FL9 was a dual mode locomotive that rarely was.
The GP35 was a case of stretching straight DC too far - too much main gen voltage, too many games played trying to keep that voltage down (a zillion steps of field shunting plus transition). Plus, trying to wring out a bit too much HP from the 567 engine.
Woof, woof.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ericsp wrote:He said that UP was getting rid of its SD50s. I asked if that included the ex-DRGW SD50s. He said no. If I remember correctly, the reason why is that they were later models, therefore something was different, unfortunately I do not remember what that was. So, it sounds like eventually the SD50 overcame its problems.
He said that UP was getting rid of its SD50s. I asked if that included the ex-DRGW SD50s. He said no. If I remember correctly, the reason why is that they were later models, therefore something was different, unfortunately I do not remember what that was. So, it sounds like eventually the SD50 overcame its problems.
Have fun with your trains
vsmith wrote:CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track
Pathfinder wrote: vsmith wrote: CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track WHAT????!!!!! When did CP get Turbo Trains? I want one for my layout, way cool! Hopefully Rapido will make the CP version.Oh, you meant CN Turbo Train . Oh well, and here I was soooo excited
vsmith wrote: CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track
Most of locomotives mentioned here had a reason listed for why they were an Edsel (or...lemon...or Pacer...or Nova...etc...). A few made people's lists without any explanation. Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned? U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?
Also, Krauss-Maffei makes most lists as "underperformers". I wonder if they might have worked out a railroad with an easier profile?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
This engine would also be a lemon then the GP20 only made because UP forced EMD to turbocharge the 567 engine.
Murphy Siding wrote: Also, Krauss-Maffei makes most lists as "underperformers". I wonder if they might have worked out a railroad with an easier profile?
I think in their native Germany they were treated more gently. In the 1950's the W. German Railway introduced the V200 class, a 2000hp B-B loco weighing 80 tons. These were regarded as successful at the time, so much so that the Western Region of British Rail the design for their D800 "Warship" class diesel hydraulic locos. (See my post on the British Operations forum regarding these that I posted yesterday). But whereas the V200 were limited to 75mph the Western Region saw fit to authorise the "Warships" to run at 90mph (and a lot of over enthusiatic drivers took them up to 100mph+) and in the summer of 1958 operated the fastest schedules on BR with them. But it was not to last. Soon problems which the Germans had not experienced started to crop. Eventually these were solved but at a considerable cost. During the summer of 1968 the Swindon built Warships did clock up the highest mileage of any 2000+hp diesels on BR (except for the Deltics!) but their high running costs resulted in them all going by the end of 1972.
Back in Germany the V200 class became extinct in the late 1980's but a number of examples are still running with Open Access operators in other European countries.
Differing points of view:
The FL-9's were not lemons. But they were rated at less horsepower than the diesels and especially the electrics they replaced, and so they could not do the job on anything like a unit for unit basis. Then, maintenance was cut to the bone. They were really the first successful dual power passenger locomotive in North America, and it is quite amazing that even after their official retirement, they occasionally show up in passenger service on the Waterbury and Danbury Metro North (ConnDot) branches, and a few a still officially active in work-train service. Pretty darn good for a 50-year-old locomotive.
One issue, again, was that the vendor to EMD for the change-over switches and gear went out of busiiness and replacements were hard to come by as normal wear and tear required replacements.
Also, the very clever EMD-designed double-sprung third rail shoes that permitted electric operation on both the New York Central and the LIRR third rails required maintenance of both the shoes and the third rails. All had to be kept within tolerances for the pick-up to work properly. Penn Central would do track maintenance in the Park Avenue Tunnel, not provide the design ramps at the ends of the gaps where the third rail was missing, and wham! a shoe would be klocked off the next FL-9 to run down the track.
There is a good book out on the subject: Diesels to Park Avenue
Also, the Alcoes on the New Haven, the road switchers, the DL-109, and the FA and PA's during the early days, benefited from excellent maintenance and gave good service. But once mainenance standards fell, the GM's became the favorites very quickly, especially the GP-9's.
I rode the Boston - New York Turbotrain numerous times. Definitely NOT a lemon. And it ran on DC electric successfully without problems, first into GCT, then with a change in third rail shoes, into Penn. The two real problems were (1) only two of a kind, specialized maintenance, and (2) rotton fuel economy. It was not like the earlier experimental lighweights, but rode pretty well and reasonable and high speeds over reasonable track.
The Edsel was mechanically just another Mercury, and no better or worse, without any technilogical improvement, and the Mercury and Lincoln both looked a lot better in most people's eyes, certainly mine!
daveklepper wrote: Differing points of view: The FL-9's were not lemons. But they were rated at less horsepower than the diesels and especially the electrics they replaced, and so they could not do the job on anything like a unit for unit basis. Then, maintenance was cut to the bone. They were really the first successful dual power passenger locomotive in North America, and it is quite amazing that even after their official retirement, they occasionally show up in passenger service on the Waterbury and Danbury Metro North (ConnDot) branches, and a few a still officially active in work-train service. Pretty darn good for a 50-year-old locomotive. One issue, again, was that the vendor to EMD for the change-over switches and gear went out of busiiness and replacements were hard to come by as normal wear and tear required replacements. Also, the very clever EMD-designed double-sprung third rail shoes that permitted electric operation on both the New York Central and the LIRR third rails required maintenance of both the shoes and the third rails. All had to be kept within tolerances for the pick-up to work properly. Penn Central would do track maintenance in the Park Avenue Tunnel, not provide the design ramps at the ends of the gaps where the third rail was missing, and wham! a shoe would be klocked off the next FL-9 to run down the track. There is a good book out on the subject: Diesels to Park Avenue Also, the Alcoes on the New Haven, the road switchers, the DL-109, and the FA and PA's during the early days, benefited from excellent maintenance and gave good service. But once mainenance standards fell, the GM's became the favorites very quickly, especially the GP-9's. I rode the Boston - New York Turbotrain numerous times. Definitely NOT a lemon. And it ran on DC electric successfully without problems, first into GCT, then with a change in third rail shoes, into Penn. The two real problems were (1) only two of a kind, specialized maintenance, and (2) rotton fuel economy. It was not like the earlier experimental lighweights, but rode pretty well and reasonable and high speeds over reasonable track. The Edsel was mechanically just another Mercury, and no better or worse, without any technilogical improvement, and the Mercury and Lincoln both looked a lot better in most people's eyes, certainly mine!
I will grant you that much of my disdain for the FL9 comes from my experience with them on Amtrak Empire Svc trains and MN Harlem trains in the 1970s. MN did not seem to have much of a clue about keeping them going. The six that Amtrak had rebuilt and maintained at Rensselear seemed to do better - in fact were the only ones I can ever recall clearing Park Ave tunnel on electric. The farthest we ever go on an MN FL9 was the end of the platform!
But, from a design standpoint, there were very complicated. They basically used DB grids with taps and a rotary program switch like a DC MU car to control voltage when on third rail. It's almost as if EMD did the design by cobblng together parts they had laying around.
Then there is the suspension. Not exactly high speed passenger quality. The front truck was a two axle Flexicoil. Not nearly as good laterally as the swing-motion Blomberg. The rear truck was a three axle Flexicoil - designed for freight service. Not nearly as good as the A-1-A trucks on other passenger units - no swing hanger, again. The locomotives had a reputation for hunting and PC limited them to 80 mph. We did some ride quality tests on the Amtrak ones at 90 mph and they rode OK. The rear truck was a bit bouncy. Amtrak kept a good 1:40 taper on the wheels, so hunting wasn't evident at 90 mph. I suspect PC had trued the wheels at 1:20.
vsmith wrote: As for the FL-9 I would be hard pressed to call any locomotive a failure if the last units were only retired just this last year! Thats a phenominal record!
edbenton wrote: This engine would also be a lemon then the GP20 only made because UP forced EMD to turbocharge the 567 engine.
I thought EMD put those into production, because UP had such good experiences with the turbocharged units?
Murphy Siding wrote: Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned? U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?
Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned? U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50?
The U-boats were mentioned here-
Particularly nasty "lemons" were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren't too thrilled by their low reliability).
I remember reading an article (on Western Pacific ?) that said the railroad did not want EMDs leading when they were mixed in a consist with GEs.
The GP60M was too heavy, because Santa Fe wanted the safety cab on a 4 axel locomotive. This resulted in a rough riding locomotive with an inadequate fuel supply. Did they have any other problems ?
nanaimo73 wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned? U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50? The U-boats were mentioned here- Particularly nasty "lemons" were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren't too thrilled by their low reliability). I remember reading an article (on Western Pacific ?) that said the railroad did not want EMDs leading when they were mixed in a consist with GEs. The GP60M was too heavy, because Santa Fe wanted the safety cab on a 4 axel locomotive. This resulted in a rough riding locomotive with an inadequate fuel supply. Did they have any other problems ?
I have heard nasty things about NS's GP60s, too. They SHOULD have been pretty good locomotives - don't know what the issues are. They do need yaw dampers to keep the ride decent at high speeds, though.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: vsmith wrote: As for the FL-9 I would be hard pressed to call any locomotive a failure if the last units were only retired just this last year! Thats a phenominal record! A few things to remember, the first two FL9's also served as demonstrators, presumably NYC and PRR were the intended customers but they never bought one; FL9's were niche locomotives and lasted as long as they did because no builder offered a locomotive to fill that niche until GE came out with the Genesis line; their field of service gradually shrank as they got older.
It's interesting that the 1st 2 demo units were built with Blomberg trucks - but had 3rd rail issues. EMD had to come up with the one of a kind "road" two axle Flexicoil as a replacment.
They did look neat, particularly in the NH paint, but woof, woof!
mudchicken wrote: Alco Century Series C-628, C-630 demonstrators which failed right & left while out west. (Santa Fe & UP dropped orders)...exit ALCO in the US
I didn't know that Santa Fe took a look at Alco's C628 and C630 demos on the posibility of placing an order or two. Interesting!
UP bought ten C630s, that wound up on the Duluth Missabe & Iron Range, before heading north to the Cartier Railway.
nanaimo73 wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Anyone care to give a thought to why the following were mentioned? U-boats, Alco C-628/C-630, SD24, GP60m, and SD50? The U-boats were mentioned here- Particularly nasty "lemons" were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren't too thrilled by their low reliability).
I do remember reading some not so flattering things about the bigger U-boats lack of traction on wet tracks.
Missing from this discussion are the French Turbo trains that used to operate in Midwest corridor service. Some also ran on New Your Empire service?
Amtrak has had bad luck with their locos. From the SDP40 to the F40 to the GE models. Nothing that has the smooth look of a E or PA unit.
Wdlgln005 wrote: Missing from this discussion are the French Turbo trains that used to operate in Midwest corridor service. Some also ran on New Your Empire service? Amtrak has had bad luck with their locos. From the SDP40 to the F40 to the GE models. Nothing that has the smooth look of a E or PA unit.
Amtrak had some bad luck with the SDP40F, much of which was the result of running over less than optimum track. No bad luck with the F40PH's, 20 years of reliable service in a lot of high-speed running is not to be sneezed at. The jury is still out on the various Genesis models.
As far as looks: while I don't particularly care for Cesar Vergara's designs, I agree with his point that we should not replicate the past. While the F40PH and the other EMD cowl designs are boxy looking, they do have an appeal of their own. Also remember that the compound curves of the bulldog nose are expensive to produce compared even to an Alco flatnose. Production costs are part of any design, and Vergara's comments concerning industrial design are worth listening to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.