Least Favorite Diesel?

[ericsp]

Since I am not a locomotive engineer or mechanic, my choice as to which diesel locomotive I like the least is based on looks. The award goes to the BL2. Maybe that is where they came up with the phrase "ugly enough to make a freight train take a dirt road". I remember hearing a rumor that they were so ugly that there was a railroad that would only run them at night. However, that is a poor reason to make a business decision, so I doubt it is true.

[railman]

I've never been a big fan of the GE modern units...they all look the same!!!

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, When I worked for the railroad I liked our railroads Geeps, (9's). They had one Alco C425. Athough as a railfan I loved it I hated it the few times we worked it as it's stairs were horrible.... like a ladder or bookcase... the best loco for switching was the CF7 we had it was tired as the engineers and mechanics told me but it has really nice steps easy to climb up and down and plenty of rom to ride the bottom step. I also asked the engineer if he prefferredlong hood forward or short hood forward. His response was he liked long hood for the high noses as it was easier to see arounf d the short hood when running in reverse...... he always preffered running forwards though

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

I guess what I meant by my question is that GE's originally had a reputation for being unreliable and unrebuildable and that railroad only bought GE's to have a "second source" for locomotives. Lately, however, GE's seem to own the new locomotive market and Amtrak has gone from all EMD to all GE.

Have GE's suddenly gotten better or does Amtrak have a lot of money to throw away?

Amtrak has money[?][:)]
I was thinking the taxpayers were taking care of them!

[#oops]

[Paul Milenkovic]

I guess what I meant by my question is that GE's originally had a reputation for being unreliable and unrebuildable and that railroad only bought GE's to have a "second source" for locomotives. Lately, however, GE's seem to own the new locomotive market and Amtrak has gone from all EMD to all GE.

Have GE's suddenly gotten better or does Amtrak have a lot of money to throw away?

[AlcoRS11Nut]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

The ones that catch fire.

That would be a "Toaster". Toaster is a slang name for GEs.

GE should have stuck to making toasters for the kitchen and not toasters for the rails.

Couldn't have said it better myself, I wish I thought of that.

[AlcoRS11Nut]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

What is the deal with GE's?

I heard that in the early 70's GE's had maybe slightly better fuel economy but that EMD's had them beat in terms of reliability, and that the only reason the railroad put up with GE is that they didn't want EMD to have a monopoly and raise prices.

I also heard that GE made an effort to go to railroad shops and give better instruction on how to maintain them -- the EMD's were what people were used to and the GE's were like "foreign cars." I also understand that GE now really has EMD on the ropes, that EMD had some stinkers in the GP50/SD50 series. But I also heard that the SD40-2 is considered the gold standard and as far as GE's of the same vintage, no one wants to talk about them.

And then Amtrak retires all of their F40's and buys all GE. While I am told the GE's are easier on fuel, what was wrong with the F40's? I live in a town served by Northwest Airlines, famous for their Twin Cities Scandinavean-heritage frugality, and they are still flying 60's vintage DC-9's over my head. Sure an Airbus is lower maintenance and a lot less fuel (and they have some of those), but the DC-9's are already paid for. What wears out on a locomotive that can't be replaced, especially when new locomotives are in the multiple-million dollar sticker price?

I just don't like them, never did (never will), also I hear they are P.O.S. and are the "disposable locomotive", use once and throw away. Not like an EMD or ALCo that is rebuilt and used forever like SP's SD7's, and SD9's.

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

The ones that catch fire.

That would be a "Toaster". Toaster is a slang name for GEs.

GE should have stuck to making toasters for the kitchen and not toasters for the rails.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. We had a GE toaster once and it cought fire. Fire must just be a normal GE thing.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

The ones that catch fire.

That would be a "Toaster". Toaster is a slang name for GEs.

GE should have stuck to making toasters for the kitchen and not toasters for the rails.

[choochin3]

Anything With A WIDECAB!!!!!

[Train Guy 3]

The ones that catch fire.

[TH&B]

Don't realy like the;

1) GENESIS
2) BLS2 , but of course now they are so rare that they are a novelty
3) F40 , too boxy and plain looking, I don't hate them but they are dull

[TH&B]

Don't realy like the;

1) GENESIS
2) BLS2 , but of course now they are so rare that they are a novelty
3) F40 , too boxy and plain looking, I don't hate them but they are dull

[Anonymous]

the least favorite diesel would have to be the B23-7 and the DD35a.[soapbox]

[Anonymous]

EMD's low nose SD24, and DD35, plus GE's U50C and Alco's C855. The history behind these locomotives are interesting, aside from their ghastly designs. GE's Genesis units aren't much better. Cesar Vergara's not much of an industrial designer. Where's Raymond Lowey when you need him???

[Anonymous]

I cannot if I try to like the BL-2.I from my childhood have loved the Funit be it
CN Rail or seeing model train f units with the Santa fe war bonnet.

Thank God for the freedom we have.

David

[Anonymous]

I once saw an FM on a submarine tender, it was three cylinders in a wey configuration with three crankshafts and six pistons. It was a horizontal engine, with a large bull gear driven by each crank. I think it was for a capstan or a winch.

The worst diesel? I've never worked on locomotives, but I can say the GM 6.2 litre is absolutly worthless.

[cprs8622]

I really dislike the AC4400, mostly because I hate desk top controls. I really like the NS Dash 9-40CW, there is still computer controls yet they have the standard control stand.

[mustanggt]

Those ugly F40PH's that metra uses.

[AltonFan]

I never much liked the looks of GP-30s, with that strange casing on the cab roof.

[wcfan4ever]

1. Genesis
2. Slugs(If you can consider them diesels)
3. F40's
4. F-Units, E-Units
5. Any New SD70ace...They look like crap, sure thier good, but the looks of them are horrible

[Paul Milenkovic]

What is the deal with GE's?

I heard that in the early 70's GE's had maybe slightly better fuel economy but that EMD's had them beat in terms of reliability, and that the only reason the railroad put up with GE is that they didn't want EMD to have a monopoly and raise prices.

I also heard that GE made an effort to go to railroad shops and give better instruction on how to maintain them -- the EMD's were what people were used to and the GE's were like "foreign cars." I also understand that GE now really has EMD on the ropes, that EMD had some stinkers in the GP50/SD50 series. But I also heard that the SD40-2 is considered the gold standard and as far as GE's of the same vintage, no one wants to talk about them.

And then Amtrak retires all of their F40's and buys all GE. While I am told the GE's are easier on fuel, what was wrong with the F40's? I live in a town served by Northwest Airlines, famous for their Twin Cities Scandinavean-heritage frugality, and they are still flying 60's vintage DC-9's over my head. Sure an Airbus is lower maintenance and a lot less fuel (and they have some of those), but the DC-9's are already paid for. What wears out on a locomotive that can't be replaced, especially when new locomotives are in the multiple-million dollar sticker price?

[traingeek087]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cdnlococo




Dear Sir,


For Looks alone AND I hear they were the Pits to work on, too. The Late Forties EMD BL2.


To be believed, they had to be seen.

I'm not the only one who doesn't like those. Never the less I would like to see one now a days, even though they are ugly.

[eolafan]

There is not a single diesel I don't "like" as just watching one...any one...in action is a pleasure, period. What I don't like is not having a train or diesel to watch.

[BaltACD]

Back in the 70's the terminal I worked in used Fairbanks-Morse almost exclusively.

Opposed pistons may have worked in the marine industry at constant RPM for hour after hour....In switchng service they belched oil all over the place....it didn't help any that the maintence personnel knew they were on the way out so as little maintainence as possible was done on them....truely horrible engines.

[kschmidt]

GP30, I guess it is that raised part above the cab. It kind of looks like "Frankenstein" or something. Just never liked the looks of thing.

Keith

[UPTRAIN]

P42DC, worst locomotive on the rails since the baldwin centepede, can't see out, the rear view mirror is on an angle, and they have poor tractive effort and an F40 could out pull one any day!!!

[broncoman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by traingeek087

QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

I never liked the looks of the F Units.

Have to agree. Was probably too young to appreciate them. Not against cowl units in general (Love CN variants), just don't like Fs, Es, or PAs.

Dude F units look good. I only wish Burlington didn't start trading in their F2s in 67 for GP40s. I wi***hose cool looking motors would have survived into the mid 70s. Could you see four of those on the front of a 60 car coal train? And what about BN 1+2? Those are cool looking engines if I ever knew one. The F unit is like the Cadillac of railroading! GOT TO LOVE THEM.

I like all engines. But one of my least liked ones is the BL2. Looks too european if anything. Take off the automatic coupler and put some bumpers on it and it's British! No offense to the Europeans because I'm not saying their locos look bad, it's just there's no EMD heritage to that engine. If you put it next to a F unit it would look like crap.

They did survive into the 70's and the 80's, and they looked really cool as CF7s..[:D]
I will say that the last trip that UP's E-9 made out here caused me to take a second look. Similar to that of a thorobread that had been put to pasture. They do look much better than anything AMTRAK uses these days. FP45 has charater, p42 doesn't. No style!

[Anonymous]

Dear Sir,


For Looks alone AND I hear they were the Pits to work on, too. The Late Forties EMD BL2.


To be believed, they had to be seen.