EMD and GE - Why so much anti GE feeling on the list? Light the blue touchpaper and retire

[traingeek087]

Mark is right, but I would just like to say to all of the people out there that GE needs to change it's looks once and a while. Same body, different motor. -8's,-9's They all look the same! but I will give them a positive those units do sound good.

[Anonymous]

I cant tell the differnece between the sound of a GE, and the guy down the road who thinks he's so cool, and he F&*&ed around with his car, and modified it and now it sounds like a Gigantic belender.

[traingeek087]

Well were not talking about loudness or blending, a EMD has a two stroke motor if I believe, and a GE - 4, that is why the GE has a chortle to it more.

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

MC --- or run them! S-12's, DRS 6-6-15's, DRS 6-6-16's and AS 616's.

Frozen Muddy Avion - Do you know where the Baldwins from the ONW and TRONA ended up? One of the ONW engines (originally an SP unit) has a blown turbo and is owned by the PNWR of the NRLHS, but I lost track of the others. Last I remember was someone in Texas buying them to use as an attraction someplace.

The 4 ONR Baldwins are in museums.Two are in Portola,at the Western Pacific museum,and two are in Campo,east of San Diego.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

MC --- or run them! S-12's, DRS 6-6-15's, DRS 6-6-16's and AS 616's.

Frozen Muddy Avion - Do you know where the Baldwins from the ONW and TRONA ended up? One of the ONW engines (originally an SP unit) has a blown turbo and is owned by the PNWR of the NRLHS, but I lost track of the others. Last I remember was someone in Texas buying them to use as an attraction someplace.

The 4 ONR Baldwins are in museums.Two are in Portola,at the Western Pacific museum,and two are in Campo,east of San Diego.

[:D][:D][:D] Thank you, kind sir. Now, where are the TRONA units?

[daveklepper]

Reports on GE sales of alternating current motored diesels indicates a lot of people must like the GE product today. Dave Klepper

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Reports on GE sales of alternating current motored diesels indicates a lot of people must like the GE product today. Dave Klepper

Well. thats because they are Cheap! - Cheaply purchased and Cheaply Made.

The difference $ between a Ge and an EMd - Many thousands of dollars.
The difference when your stuck in the middle of butt fudge Alberta, because the Ge won't Run - priceless.
Theres somehtings money can save you, for everyhting else there is EMD.

[kenneo]

Good shot, Kevin. Say hi to Christa. ... ... Shhhhh, but a small dog might be good for the both of you. They are permanent two year olds, forever. And will love you to death.)

[espeefoamer]

A question for you in the UK. Which is better, English Electric, or Brush?[}:)]

[M636C]

espeefoamer,

Now that's the sort of question that would have avoided a lot of the earlier unhappiness on this thread!

I don't count as being able to answer this from a UK perspective, but I certainly want to get my say in!

Now before I say my piece, I actually worked (for a short time) building English Electric locomotives in their plant at Rocklea, south of Brisbane, Queensland (Australia). So I'm biased, but I'll admit it at the beginning.

For those unfamiliar with British locomotives, Brush locomotives, with British built Sulzer engines, and English Electric locomotives during the period from the 1960s until the end of the 1980s had much the same dominant position as GE and EMD now have in the US market. There were other builders, but these were the ones that counted.

The earliest Brush road locomotives (or "main line" as we would say) were what became the Class 31. There were 263 of them (a big class by UK standards) and they had a Mirlees diesel engine, which was designed for Navy use and gave trouble in railway use. All of them later had English Electric power units installed, and they became very reliable power.

The next big Brush class was the Class 47, with a 2750 hp Sulzer engine, and they built 512 of those. Many of them are still in use, but a lot of those are being fitted with EMD 12-645E3 or 12-645F3 engines, because the Sulzer engine was not reliable enough.

English Electric built the Class 37, which is disappearing, but at the time the freight services were privatised, was regarded as the most reliable freight locomotive.

A Brush design, the Class 56, was similar to the 47, but was built with an Engish Electric engine (many of the locomotives were assembled in Romania), but was not as reliable as the real EE units.

The real success for Brush was the High Speed Train Power Car, later Class 43. These ran all over the UK on fast passenger service, and are still the main power on Western lines. Some of them had GEC electrical gear, but they weren't as good as the Brush units. The engine, a Paxman Valenta, was from a GEC subsidiary as well, but the real credit belongs to Brush, and to British Rail who were responsible for the carbody design.

Anyhow, that's my view, and I hope somebody understood what I was saying!

Peter

[daveklepper]

GE must be doing something right to sell all the AC locomotives they are selling. Dave

[rrnut282]

Mr Mud
In a previous post you mentioned 3 Lima Hamiltons within 10 miles of Connersville IN. I had an opportunity to operate one of those. There is also a 4th, though it is a Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton unit. All are in Connerville at the Whitwater Valley RR. One is operational (most of the time), one is in restoration and might be operational within a year, and the other two are stored. We also operate an Alco S2 and an EMD SD10 regularly.

[Anonymous]

One point that all are missing is that EMD is not made in America, GE is made in Erie Pennsylvania, Let's keep some employment in this country and American Railroads that buy equipment that is not made in the U.S.A should look to non-american frieght shippers. Don't forget even Toyota is made in the U.S.A. but Lionel Trains is not.

[Anonymous]

But Mark, Sir...

Goign back to an earlier post...

Your saying you bought Both GE's... EMD's...and ALCO's

Looking at it from the side of buissness ethics, Suppose you bought 10 of each... 10 EMD's ...10 GE's.... and 10 ALCO's.... Now you have 30 happily chugginag along locomotives, now assuming you were the manager or owner of this Railway, Obviously you or you would Hire someone to balance the books, right?

So lets say you keep having to spend Money, and more money into ALCOs because they keep failing, wouldn't it be Bad buisness ethics to purchase any more ALCOs if you have
to keep putting money into them.. and they kept failing.. lets say you need to purcahse 50 more locomotives.. and the 30 you previously bought, noly 1 alco is still operationg-- Smoking like hell, but opperationg, that would be, no offence, incredibly stupid to purchase any more ALCOs.

Why purchase a product when it is trash?

wouldn't the next 50 locomotives be 50 EMD's and 50 GE's and ZERO alco's??

[wabash1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lrcrocker

One point that all are missing is that EMD is not made in America, GE is made in Erie Pennsylvania, Let's keep some employment in this country and American Railroads that buy equipment that is not made in the U.S.A should look to non-american frieght shippers. Don't forget even Toyota is made in the U.S.A. but Lionel Trains is not.

this is the biggest line of bull for reasoning ever put out. Just because a company does some of its manufacturing in canada now we are to abandon them? I would agree if they was in mexico but not canada. For starters GM Ford and Chrysler all have plants in canada and have for over 35 years. I dont see you not buy thier cars and trucks. but then you say that toyota makes cars in the usa. cool so i am to go out and buy a toyota or a nissan or any of that other jap stuff? come on get real. you complain about some one moving part of the operation to canada where it cost more to operate but want me to buy jap . the big hole in your thinking is when they sell the jap cars where does the money go? not in the usa it goes back to japan. For decades we have been in partnership with canada and things are going very well its not a new thing since nafta. Only thing nafta did was bring in mexico to have a piece of the pie of what we been sharing with canada at a cost to the tax payers of both countrys.

If the truth be known the reason for going to canada is lack of workers. the employees calling in sick . the auto plants have been fighting this for years the GM plant in Ohio that made the camaro and firebirds was to close the union and the workers begged for a second chance to keep thier jobs. the company said we will give you 90 days to get it right. and for 60 days nobody saw a suit then unanouced the suits showed up. there wasnt even enough people showed up to start the line til 2nd shift they closed the plant shipped it to california and then mexico. ford has the same problem right now with a plant . and the workers begged to keep the plant open. they have and its a waiting game to see if the old ways come back. the railroads have the same problem the young guys dont want to work weekends. differance is we cant ship the railroads out of country.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

But Mark, Sir...

Goign back to an earlier post...

Your saying you bought Both GE's... EMD's...and ALCO's

Looking at it from the side of buissness ethics, Suppose you bought 10 of each... 10 EMD's ...10 GE's.... and 10 ALCO's.... Now you have 30 happily chugginag along locomotives, now assuming you were the manager or owner of this Railway, Obviously you or you would Hire someone to balance the books, right?

So lets say you keep having to spend Money, and more money into ALCOs because they keep failing, wouldn't it be Bad buisness ethics to purchase any more ALCOs if you have
to keep putting money into them.. and they kept failing.. lets say you need to purcahse 50 more locomotives.. and the 30 you previously bought, noly 1 alco is still operationg-- Smoking like hell, but opperationg, that would be, no offence, incredibly stupid to purchase any more ALCOs.

Why purchase a product when it is trash?

wouldn't the next 50 locomotives be 50 EMD's and 50 GE's and ZERO alco's??

Kevin [:)]


You are always telling us how bad Alcos are. But yet this is just your opinion. Now you and I have disagreed before. Even Ed and I have disagreed before. But the one good thing about it is that we all are still friends and email each other.

Back when someone emailed you and made a possible threat to you I didn't agree with you then but I defended you right to state your opinion. I still defend your right to have and voice your opinion.

And knowing you, I do know that you WILL state your opinion no matter who lies it or doesn't like it. And that my friend, is your right.

From people I have talked to personally, the engineers who ran Alcos liked them. They were excellent pulling machines which is exactly what they were bought for and accomplished. Railroads who maintained them found them to be reliable locos, and not only reliable but long lasting. Railroads who bought just a few and didn't maintain them didn't like them, but was that the fault of Alco or the fault of the maintaince practices? Even today you can find Alco pulling trains on short lines and regionals. Canada just in the last few years phased out most of the Alcos they were running in Class 1 service. An Alco that was maintained correctly is a good engine even today. The 251 engine is still in service in locomotives and marine applications and even used in other areas. The 251 engine was and is a good product. Now we all know that both EMD and GE have made some dogs. Just recently one of our engineer forum members made a comment that a certain GE model was gone now and he was very glad about that. Please consider dogging out EMD and GE for their bad products. Alco's 244 engine had some failures in piston rods and maybe some other areas. But the 251 engine was an excellent engine. Other countries bought Alcos by the hundreds. The "World Locomotive" was an Alco product. Alco was a leader in exporting locomotives overseas.

There are railroads who are entirely Alco powered, even today. You can still find Alcos in good shape around American and maybe Canada. Someone emailed me some pics of Canadians Alcos before I had my computer virus. Now they are gone, because I had to reformatt my hard drive. Give me an older but well maintained Alco and it will run and pull as well as any loco of its time frame. The older hoggers liked them. Try it you might like it toooooooooooo. Oh that was Mikey, not Kevin. Aww well, go ahead Kevin and give it a try. [:D]

[Anonymous]

Your right, perhaps I was a little Broad...

I kind of used the "meter stick to messure my thumb nail " approach...

Alco's made Ok locomotives overall, I'm not going to say they were anyhting to jump up in glourios song about, but some did what thyey wanted to do, and thats what we want.

When you fire one of those up, and it blows up or the wheels fall off, Then, my friend, we have a problem, because that was not the reason it was intended for.

Alcos, pushed and pulled, which is a knock-oof definiton of what a locomotive should do, they didn't do anyhting specacular, they didn't cook anyone breakfast in the morning, or read anyone a bed time story at night.

But - If they were so good, where is the company right now?

GE- Still makes Locomotives

EMD - STILL makes locomotives, winner of the Biggest locomotive award, the "DD" series, Howevre, I still say those are highly impractical.

ALCO- What was their production like last year? because For some reason, possibly a computer or a human error, i can't find the production Stats for 2003.

[tree68]

Alas, I couldn't find the production stats for Rogers, Lima, Baldwin, Pierce Arrow, or Studebaker, either.

It's probably safe to say that ALCO failed not so much because they didn't have a good product, just that they didn't have the right product at the right time, or perhaps not enough of the right product at the right time.

In a business where total production for a year rarely numbers in 4 digits, and individual units cost in the 7 digit range, there isn't much room for more competition. M-K isn't a player, tho I think they wanted to be. Just no room for expansion.

We see the same thing in the fire truck business. American LaFrance, once the premier marque in the fire apparatus business is now a unit of Freightliner, rescued from complete oblivion. Really, all that's left is the trademark. Seagrave is doing OK, as are some other regional manufacturers. Emergency One was able to get a good start because they offered a unique and efficient product as a reasonable price. They now command a substantial part of the market.

Unless someone comes out with a new locomotive which offers something EMD and GE don't, at a competitive price and with comparable reliability, AND it's something the railroads want, we have EMD and GE.

[jrw249]

I run AlCO's all summer on a tourist line andthey run very well for being 50 years old!!!!!!!!
However , I have no GE or EMD experience so I'm staying our of this ???????

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

It's probably safe to say that ALCO failed not so much because they didn't have a good product, just that they didn't have the right product at the right time, or perhaps not enough of the right product at the right time.

I don't understand.. did the locomotive not push or pull proerly.. what makes a locomotive not good for its time??

What makes the "right" product for the "right" time..?

They didn't have square wheels, like 7 Century Bc,

they didn't hover above the tracks, possibly in the year 3000

It pushed and pulled and smoked...a lot.

If ALCO was as good as everyone makes it out to be, It should still be present in todays common era or todays society..

MLW is long gone, packed up in 1986

Freight trains till continue to this day...
So somehting made theri products unworthy, and they couldn't compete, therfore they pulled an Enron special.

Now, the billion dollar question.. why did they fold up like an old card table?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jrw249

I run AlCO's all summer on a tourist line andthey run very well for being 50 years old!!!!!!!!
However , I have no GE or EMD experience so I'm staying our of this ???????

Kevin, You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare Alco to Enron. The two companies closed for different reasons.

Alco choose to close its doors. If they would have stayed around for another 5 years and had the Century line in the year 1973 (the year of the long gas lines and fuel shortages) the Alco Century line would have sold well. The 251 engine had better mpg then either the EMD or the GE engines then available. Alco sold a lot of locos overseas, more than GE or EMD. The 244 engine gave Alco a bad name amoung some railroads. After the 244 engine many railroads would not give Alco another chance. Too bad, they had a good product in the 251 engine and that engine is still available today. (The prime mover as an engine, just not as a loco.) But as someone said in another thread, railroads have long memories, and some just never would try Alco again. I can kinda see that tho. My Camero Z-28 was a high preformance vehicle. And a vehicle which was costly to maintain. It was a money pit almost from the word "GO". So I kinda stay away from Chevy. (OH NO, I just started a Ford vs. Chevy war. [B)] [:0] ) Also my father owned a S-10. It should have been painted yellow as he had nothing but trouble with it. As a matter of fact just last December he replaced it with a new Ford Ranger. I also have a Ford Ranger. I guess if we are tearing up companies for their bad products then Chevy should close any day now. At least that is my family's thoughts of Chevy. So I Guess Chevy and Enron are in the same boat. (Being facetious, yes I am.) Now is Chevy such a bad company because my family has had nothing but trouble with them. OR did we just happpen to get some of their worse products? Well I am not buying any more Chevys because their Camero Z-28s and S-10s were such a bad product. So they can close now, I won't buy any more. Now that is just the approach some railroads had. You can equate the Camero Z-28 and the S-10 to Alcos 244 engine. So is it fair to Chevy to say I won't buy any more? Is Chevy's product that bad? Since I had trouble with them I just will buy EMDs and GEs and forget about Alco(Chevy). btw my Ranger is six years old and has never had any major problems. I have put a new battery in it and a new serpentene belt. I replaced the belt before it was time, just to be safe. It gets the oil changed when needed. If it were a loco it would be a good one. [}:)] [:p]

[wabash1]

Between chevy and ford. My z28 costed nothing to run. and i ran it hard very good service from this the only thing i disliked about it was that it wasnt a firebird. I have owned gm products in the past and never had a problem with any of them. one year my brother inlaw got a ford ranger new i needed something bigger so i got the f150 and my father inlaw got the ranger also.all new. my truck was in the shop every week with the same problem for 2 months straight i finally got rid of it biggest lemon there was. i have owned a few fords some good some not. never a bad gm. but i know of others who couldnt keep a gm running. this isnt a gm vs ford thread. but in reality all i am saying is that from a performace view the ford did do what i wanted even though it went to the shop more than i got to drive it. my chevy no extra cost to it. now with the engines ge engines do what they was desinged to do even though they go to the shop for repairs every week. this is one factor that would keep me from buying a ge. on the other hand i never get a alarm from a emd product. get great service . to compare alcos i cant never ran one. dont care to . but if i was buying engines based on performance and reliability emd is the leader.

[tree68]

Jim pretty well summed up the ALCO issue - there have been reams written about it, but I don't want to spend the time rooting through my old magazines, etc.

The "long memory" explanation probably covers the "right product" point. Look at the problems EMD is still having as a result of the GP50. One bad product makes the whole line look bad. If you're hung up on the 50s problems, then EMD is not the right product, no matter how good the rest of the line may be.

The fact that ALCO quit on their own likely means they weren't making enough money to keep the plant open. If just a few more railroads had enough faith in the line to buy more, we might still be talking about the "big three" loco manufacturers, and not necessarily in the same order.

[Anonymous]

OK So i stop saying ALCO in a bad way...

What was their best locomotive? and what was their worst locomotive...?.

Where did the PA fall in?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

OK So i stop saying ALCO in a bad way...

What was their best locomotive? and what was their worst locomotive...?.

Where did the PA fall in?

Funny you should ask - slide on over to this thread:
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6853
All About ALCOs!

[Anonymous]

Wabash [:)]

Thanks for your comments. This is EXACTLY what I am trying unsuccessfully to get Kevin to see. Every company has a product they are not especially fond of and some that are good. We consistently hear of the poor quality of GE locos. Yet they are selling them. Even though the product is not a leader in quality they are a leader in sales. They are selling a poor quality product but are still in business. Just doesn't make any sense does it?
If Alco had been around the last few years they would have been selling locos and could have probally sold a ton of them. I remember being at the Arkansas Railroad Museum in the 90s and seeing the "Rent-A-Wrecks" that SP was using because they could not get hold of all the locos they needed. I remember they had trains setting in yards because they didn't have and couldn't get enought locos to pull them. Would Alco have sold locos in that time frame. Yes they would, if they were still here to sell them. But we had only 2 companies making locos then and they both were "backs to the walls" pushing them out the doors. Was GE a quality product then? A majority of the railroad engineers say "No". Is GE a quality product now? Again, a majority of the railroad engineers say "No". So why hasn't GE stopped making locos and closed its doors. Because railroads are buying them. Because railroads are buying them does that make GE a quality product? NO, it just means the railroads have only 2 choices and need something now. So they buy what they can get a hold of and use it. If a company closes its doors does that mean that is it a bad company or produced bad products. Again, NO. Alco sales were not great during the last years of operations but there were other problems within the company not related to sales. Some of the last locos Alco produced were excellent machines. Many are still around today doing the job they were intended to do, and doing it well. The Alco Century line of locos is a greately sought after prize amoung short lines and regionals. Why, because they were built well and do the job, and they are cheaper to buy. (And let's not forget the Century line was a good looking loco.)

[M636C]

In 1975, I was working for Mt Newman Mining in Western Australia. The company had six locomotives on order from Commonwealth Engineering, the Australian MLW licensee. At that time we had 45 units, all C636 or M636C types (an M636C is an M636 with Alco Hi-Ad trucks and a bigger radiator). Engine reliability was poor, and in fact we took three of the new engines to keep the 45 existing units running, meaning that the new units were coming into service with rebuilt engines.

In desperation, I rang Goninan, and asked if they would sell us three GE 7FDL-16 engines for the last three new units. In fact they would not, but GE mounted a sales campaign you would not believe, and Hamersley Iron then bought three C36-7s, the first in the world, and hand built with experts from Erie on the floor in Broadmeadow.

When these arrived, I was really keen to see them. But they were like the comments that the US engineers have been making. They were pretty much standard US units, with big, but not that big, radiators. On these units, the dynamic brakes were mounted under the radiators like older U-boats. This might be fine in New England in winter, but in tropical Western Australia in summer, you must be joking. So they arrange to drain the radiators during dynamic operation so the water wasn't heated up. To achieve this, they fitted another little radiator up forward over the air intake, where it could be cooled by the blower.

In the cab, the air conditioner projected so far down that they fitted it with padding. Being 6'4'' tall, I got to know the GE air conditioners quite well.

Later units were better, and now there are only a few changes required of Dash-9s and similar to work in WA. But the Alco and MLW units had nearly everything we wanted back in 1975, including GE dynamic brakes with their own fan motors, but the 251 could not take the beating at 3600HP.

Nearly all those Alcos and MLWs are still running, but with 7FDL-16s and complete Dash 8 hoods on the old frame. But the GE engine can't be rebuilt if cracks appear in the casting, so although it is more reliable, it might not cost less than the Alco.

If GE approach the US market as badly as they first did in Australia, the reason for unhappiness is clear.

Peter

[edblysard]

Peter just touched on a point no one bothered to mention.
Ever meet a Alco rep, or a GE service rep?
Bet not.
Call EMD, and one will be on your property next day, ready to answer any question you have, from how to get the best mileage out of your motor, to what parts your diesel shop should and shouldnt keep on hand.
Need a tech manual?
Overnighted.
Ever have a GE service rep ride with you?
In seven years, three EMD reps have ridden on my job, one last year to check out how the "new" GP 15 and GP 20s (MK1500 and MK2000Ds, built by MK under license)worked on switching
duty.

EMD even sent a video to us on their SD70 to help train our engineers, because they knew we would be using UP power a to work UP"s grain trains.

Dosnt sound like a lot, but some times the small stuff does make a difference.
Ed

[mudchicken]

Amen!, Ed.....[bow]

I have encountered GE reps and EMD folks, both with test locomotives & dynamometer cars. The GE folks left me with a bad taste in my mouth (excuses, hardly pro-active), the EMD folks were class acts. The EMD folks let us "in" on the new radial trucks while they were still in the initial design evaluationin the mid-1980's - Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Mudchicken

[Anonymous]

Now let me say I am not really trying to start a Ford vs. Chevy war. But I used those two knowing that someone would counter with just the opposite example. The same can be said with any company producing a product. Some products will be fine while others will be bad. Some of those products will slip by Q C and make it to market. Then people will base their opinion of the whole company upon one bad product. Only we are talking about railroads and locomotives.