Who Is Getting SD-90 6000hp

[Anonymous]

About those SD80MACs. I see them from time to time here in PA around Altoona, usually for local service or to the engine house in Cresson for maintence. I also see them on branch lines moving unit coal trains. I wonder why NS doesn't utilize those 5000 hp. locos for thier mainline freight or intermodal operations ? ? ? I bet it has something to do with what has been the topic of this subject; reliability. I am sure in the future the SD80 and 90 MACs as well as the AC6000s will be running strong and reliable, but it is a fact that locomotives are not perfect, and from time to time one here and there is going to fail, and taking 6000 hp from a consist is maybe too much, but at this point how hard is it to have a supplemental locomotive(s) on the scene to help out the fallen friend. The SD40-2 is used for everything, and is from my reading on here pretty reliable. I am sure that years from now, there will be little to no more SD40-2s, so sorry for all you loving fans (including myself) of these great machines. RRs will continue to use them, but they will be phased out just like all other old locomotives. A main reason for this I can think of is the old Standard cab, and of coarse the new and more efficient and effective locomotives offered by both EMD and GE. Modern times change, what was then and now a great quality mover, will be no more, and SD40-2s will be a thing of history. Only Time will tell how well the 6000 hp units perform. They obvisouly need improvements and attention. Will they replace the pair of SD40-2s that pu***rains up and down this mountain grade here in PA ? ? ? NS can at least be given credit where it is due-----they don't own one 6000hp unit...... smart move or not ? ? ?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SSW9389

How many miles did GE and GM put on the 6,000 horsepower units before production began? Back in the old days significant demonstrator tours were the order of the day before production of new units began.

The SD80 demos did a lot of running at Pueblo and later were sold to Conrail. I believe the 6000 HP SD90 demos were built for UP and ran a year or so before the rest were built and delivered.

The history of demos isn't all that great. The SD45 demo'd all over the place but the early production were still dogs. Ditto for the GP40, though this is not a widely know, the early production models were terrible.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railpac

Ok, so maybe we can't just drop a 16-710 into a SD40-2, however if we remanufactured (different from a rebuild) a SD40-2 with the right cooling systems, oil and fuel equipment, and computers, to the specifications of an SD70, it would be cheaper than a new SD70, or any new loco for that matter. The only drawback would be not being able to place the HT-R (i think thats the name) radial truck under the SD40-2, because the HT-C uses a different connection. Also, what about just dropping a 12-710 into a SD40-2, same horsepower, same electrical output, it wouldn't need much modifications to the existing systems, right?

Doing the radial trucks would be fairly easy - it's not as bad as replacing Alco tri-mounts with EMD flexicoils - and that's been done (see Conrail 6 axle slugs). The rest would be hard - you'd literally be throwing away just about everything but the cab.

Traction/companion altenator - need new higher capacity
Traction motor blower - need 2 AC motor driven to replace mechanical
Engine - need new
Air compressor - need new motor driven to replace mechanical
Cooling fans - need new multi-speed high capacity
Radiators - need new/split cooling
DB hatch - need new higher capacity
Inertial filters - maybe
Long hood - highly modified to accomodate new equip arrangement
Cab and Short Hood- relocate to keep wt balance
couplers and draft gear - keep
Traction motors - need new
Electrical cabinet - need new
Lube oil cooler - maybe keep
Expansion tank - maybee keep
Main res. - keep
26L air brakes - keep
Control stand - rewire
AC cabinet - replace
Fuel tank - maybe could live with 4000 gals
Trucks - new radial
Frame - might require lenghtening to fit all the components

You can remanufacture an SD40-2 to "like new" for $750,000 or so. If you add in all the new components you'd need, you'd be pushing $1.5M which is what a new SD70 costs!

You COULD remanufacture and SD40-2 into an SD70 but you wouldn't save $50.

Now, dropping a 16-710 and EM2000 control system into an SD50 - that might be a viable rebuild.

[SSW9389]

How many miles did GE and GM put on the 6,000 horsepower units before production began? Back in the old days significant demonstrator tours were the order of the day before production of new units began.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so maybe we can't just drop a 16-710 into a SD40-2, however if we remanufactured (different from a rebuild) a SD40-2 with the right cooling systems, oil and fuel equipment, and computers, to the specifications of an SD70, it would be cheaper than a new SD70, or any new loco for that matter. The only drawback would be not being able to place the HT-R (i think thats the name) radial truck under the SD40-2, because the HT-C uses a different connection. Also, what about just dropping a 12-710 into a SD40-2, same horsepower, same electrical output, it wouldn't need much modifications to the existing systems, right?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

This is an interesting thread which raises a few questions.
Is inverter technology still evolving/improving? Are the high power GTOs getting any better? Is the control system improving/evolving as microprocessor technology improves?

Inverter technology has kept evolving, especially in Europe, where almost all new locos (except for EMDs) are AC powered. Current locomotives have better (and faster) microprocessors, water or air cooling (instead of boiling refrigerant cooling), and IGBTs instead og GTOs (lower power losses).

But the point is still this one: will a 6,000 hp locomotive ever be as reliable as two 3,000 hp locos?
When Boeing developed the 777, very reliable turbines had to be developed in order to use just two big (instead of the four smaller turbines from the 747). The odd thing is that one of the available engines for the 777 is made by ... GE!!

[oltmannd]

This is an interesting thread which raises a few questions.

1. Are the AC locomotives living up to their promise of reduced traction motor maintenance cost? TM maint is about 1/3 of the total cost of maintaining a DC loco. It should be much less for AC. Is it?

2. Is inverter technology still evolving/improving? Are the high power GTOs getting any better? Is the control system improving/evolving as microprocessor technology improves?

And, a comment.

I suspect the 6000 HP AC is dead for the time being, but I suspect we'll see a comeback by the end of the decade. First, EMD and GE have to finish maturing their new diesel engine designs. Sounds like GE is on the way with their new 12 cyl EVO locomotive design and EMD will follow suit. That give you more-or-less proven AC propulsion at the 4500 HP level mated to an engine that still may need some tweaking. Once the engine designs are mature, the next logical step is to go to 6000HP. A 6000 HP AC locomotive will be marketable as a 2 for 3 replacement of C40s and SD60/70s. A pair of them would become an "universal" locomotive consist, able to pull any train, just about anywhere, greatly simplifying the locomotive distribution problem and improving locomotive productivity.

[Anonymous]

But the GE "Evolution series" has a 12-cyl 4400 hp engine. GE never says what kind of engine it is, so I guess it's a smaller version of the HDL (aka Deutz) engine, but they don't say it because ot its bad reputation.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by crblues

i think that the sd40-2 will always outperform any of these new a.c. traction units any day. yeah, they may gulp a little more fuel, but you need PERFORMANCE in a railroad. the sd40-2 was, and still is the answer.

Wow! Sounds just what they used to say about GP9s when the 40 series was introduced! (you know, 2 GP9s will trump an SD40-2 any day of the week) The GP9 is far simpler in design than an SD40-2 (battery field, not turbo, etc) and on the rare chance you'd lose one of six in the consist, you'd hardly notice it!

Sure, they sip a little more fuel, but reliability is the name of the game, right?

[Mookie]

Good assumption - BNSF Hobson Yard - Lincoln NE. And yes, they do seem to keep everything segregated according to what they are hauling.

Jen

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Ok - that is clear enough. But freight back here is almost never behind an SD70 - always a Dash 9 or SD38 and SD40's. But then we haven't had a mountain here in just ages. I noticed this weekend, most of the freights were Dash 9's with SD's as helpers.

I appreciate the explanation!

Jen

Jen,
I assume you are referring to BNSF and since they don't have any SD70 DC's it is likely a good example of using DC's for freight, even in DPU, and AC's for coal. I must also assume that the SD's in helper service are MAC's, which they are well suited for. BNSF does a good job of keeping their fleet in the specific services.
Thanks,
Brad

[Mookie]

Ok - that is clear enough. But freight back here is almost never behind an SD70 - always a Dash 9 or SD38 and SD40's. But then we haven't had a mountain here in just ages. I noticed this weekend, most of the freights were Dash 9's with SD's as helpers.

I appreciate the explanation!

Jen

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

A question from the curious one. Why would you need more horsepower when the SD70MAC with a unit on the head end and on the rear end, seems to move a lot of coal across Wyoming and Nebraska and on east. Is it because of mountains? I am trying to follow this, but it is a little over my head.

Jen

Good question. For that situation you do not need more horsepower. I have seen 6000 HP units in bulk service (coal, soda ash, etc,) on the UP but it has been used more in intermodal service where speed is needed. The physics is a little complicated but: HP=speed. Getting over a mountain with a coal train is more forgiving without a tight schedule. Sometimes the railroad will add or remove a unit but overall the DPU operation is great because it keeps a lot of tonnage moving without pulling out the drawbar. As long as the train can keep some speed up the hill it will get to where it needs to.

One point to remember, you can only get 6000 HP with AC, otherwise the wheels would slip or the locomotive would have to be too heavy for the track. Sorry, more physics. The best way to think of it is like traction control on a car, it keeps the wheels from slipping and it provides the most traction. AC allows a lot of pulling power, even if the speed is low.

[Mookie]

A question from the curious one. Why would you need more horsepower when the SD70MAC with a unit on the head end and on the rear end, seems to move a lot of coal across Wyoming and Nebraska and on east. Is it because of mountains? I am trying to follow this, but it is a little over my head.

Jen

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgfuller

Very interesting insights from one who has built the locos! ACs have worked very well in heavy haul service -- the problems so far seem more with the diesel rather than the transmission. 6k HP is a lot in a mobile environment. So far as I know, UP doesn't use their 70s much in coal service. And the tractive effort advantages of ACs in general service may be offset by higher first cost. As many of those posting have noted, it's the reliability of the 40 that is important. The 70 does all that, in a newer package. I'd predict that in time the 70 will supplant the 40 as an icon of consistency.

How have lower HP ACs fared, compared with the high HP models? Hooking up a 710 engine with an AC transmission and radial trucks sounds good -- I guess this would be an SD80MAC (or 70MAC), eh? UP shows having 300 SD9043ACs, with 4300 HP, but no other EMD ACs besides 62 6k HP models. And about 1000 GE 4k ACs, compared with 60 6k units. So this HP seems to work OK with either transmission. One had to wonder when EMD had to go to a 4-cycle design to get 6k HP -- good grief, an EMD that sounds like a GE!!

The 4000-to-4400 HP AC's have been much more reliable but not quite as good as the DC fleets. So AC has been great for the railroads bottom line, three units replacing five DC's for unit trains, etc. Yes, especially in the coal business where higher HP (or top speed) is not needed. They may not run like DC's or the good old SD40-2's but most often the trains make it to their destination even if one of three units has failed. ...and those missing two units (#4 & 5) didn't burn all that fuel! If it wasn't obvious, fuel is the rr's #1 operating expense. The other point is that the AC's can struggle along at ridiculously low speed and still get home, when a DC consist would have stalled. You cannot burn up an AC motor and there are no "short time" ratings like the DC's.

What crossed the line was 2-for-1 replacement and/or single unit consists, with a less reliable 6000 HP unit. That creates more "dead-on-the-road" type failures. I haven't been around since they've been in prime-time but all you have to know are the MTBF (mean time between failure) numbers to know its been painful.

Again the theory was great, save over half the fuel costs every trip. That would pay for those 2-point-whatever million dollar locos in no time. [:I]However, the 6k HP units needed to run 25-40% BETTER than their lower HP brothers to avoid trains being broken down on the mainline. Any reasonable person knows that is a long shot given the additional variables of new engines and all the new systems that go with them. Again, I'm not around anymore to know where that line is so I don't know how close they are. I fear its not close enough.

BTW, the fabricated crankcase of the 2-cycle engine was at its limit and would have been way too expensive to make for that HP, so that as well as fuel efficiency and emissions lead to the cast crankcase, 4-cycle H engine. (I am not saying the 710 has emissions issues) It doesn't really sound like a GE but it is a long way from my favorite 20 cylinder 710's on the 80MAC's. Find those things and video as much as possible...[:)]

[jgfuller]

Very interesting insights from one who has built the locos! ACs have worked very well in heavy haul service -- the problems so far seem more with the diesel rather than the transmission. 6k HP is a lot in a mobile environment. So far as I know, UP doesn't use their 70s much in coal service. And the tractive effort advantages of ACs in general service may be offset by higher first cost. As many of those posting have noted, it's the reliability of the 40 that is important. The 70 does all that, in a newer package. I'd predict that in time the 70 will supplant the 40 as an icon of consistency.

How have lower HP ACs fared, compared with the high HP models? Hooking up a 710 engine with an AC transmission and radial trucks sounds good -- I guess this would be an SD80MAC (or 70MAC), eh? UP shows having 300 SD9043ACs, with 4300 HP, but no other EMD ACs besides 62 6k HP models. And about 1000 GE 4k ACs, compared with 60 6k units. So this HP seems to work OK with either transmission. One had to wonder when EMD had to go to a 4-cycle design to get 6k HP -- good grief, an EMD that sounds like a GE!!

[Anonymous]

Well the passion for the SD40-2 is noteworthy, but its for Congress and the railroads to decide. And decide they will. We will sit on the sidelines and continue to watch. If the railroads overhaul SD40's, buy AC4400's or SD70's, or whatever, it will be for what works for that particular railroad or service. Back in the late 90's the CSX folks I worked with said they planned on keeping their SD40-2 fleet running as long as they could, and it still looks that way.

Let's remember history, the SD40's took many years to develop so maybe (just maybe) if the bugs get worked out 6000 HP locomotives will return. For now I wouldn't put my money on it. To answer the original thread question: no one that I know of (from my contacts back in LaGrange.)

Our point about the DC SD70's is that they are running very well, which is the ultimate goal. Maybe the C44's are too, I don't know. I would guess they are from the new BNSF orders. The point that we all agree on is that they have to run, whatever model, whatever manufacturer!

When I rode the 4300 HP SD90MAC's I thought it was incredable watching 185,000 lbs of tractive effort show on the screen while we were doing 1.1 mph in TH 8. Or when the crew of a CR eastbound manifest train didn't believe that they could stop the train with just the dynamic brakes of two SD80MAC's coming downhill into Altoona with our train still on the mountain. Or when we accelerated up the mountains of western MASS after having to stop on the grade (with all 10000 HP and 40 cylinders!). So keep in mind that this stuff is fabulous when it works, it may just take more time to get 6000 HP up to reasonable reliability. I don't expect the railroads to buy new ones but they haven't scrapped the ones they have yet. I know there are people in LaGrange and Erie working very hard on it.

[Anonymous]

i think that the sd40-2 will always outperform any of these new a.c. traction units any day. yeah, they may gulp a little more fuel, but you need PERFORMANCE in a railroad. the sd40-2 was, and still is the answer. i think it is a little too late for enviromental concerns concerning this model. look at all the cars, trucks, jet planes, forrest fires, industries, spacecraft that pukes smoke in the air, and, all the years that diesl fuel has been burned, from locomotives in the past. does it really matter now? the planet is fine, the people are the ones in trouble. UP had an incident where the "wonderful" ac44's broke down, and what came to save the day? a single sd40-2, took that train to where it had to be. GE & EMD like to put crankshafts in 6000 hp blocks that can't crank out the juice, and, ...snap!! it is a shop unit once again. the sd40-2 and the c30-7 were, and are still the top models for these companies. but, there was always ALCO!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgfuller

Interesting that no one has mentioned SD70s. Big advantage I've seen is the radial truck. That, increased reliability, and better fuel economy would all be motivation to buy new SD70s, rather than rebuild 20-30 year old SD40s. Yes, they are new, but UP says the availability of their 1200 new SD70s is 96%. And they got these AFTER experiencing ACs of both builders. UP uses them in every type of road service. When SP got their 25, along with another 25 leased from EMD, the power delays at Roseville vanished! A fine locomotive.

Thanks from an ex-EMD engine support systems engineer!

The love of the SD40-2's is understandable. The issue with running a 710 in an SD40-2 is not having compatible engine support systems (radiators, oil and fuel filters, fuel pump etc.), generator, control system, etc. Plus the new 710 has electronic fuel injection, split aftercooling, and a ton of other refinements that are truly decades beyond the beloved SD40-2. The engine and locomotive go hand-in-hand for the most part. Our friend jgfuller's point is a good one. Focus on the SD70 reliability and keep them as simple as possible!

I was there for the big 6000 HP push and I knew it was going to be ugly on both sides. GE bought an engine off the shelf and got in the race quick but it was not meant to be on a locomotive. They had main bearing issues from the beginning. We on the other hand started from scratch with a new four-cycle design with a still developing locomotive (the phase II). The H-engine is a good engine but the whole locomotive has been plagued with issues. The SD90MAC-H's time may have passed, unfortunately.

With the emissions requirements the future is the H-engine. Look for it with 12 cylinders producing 4500 THP on something called an SD75MAC...

[jgfuller]

Interesting that no one has mentioned SD70s. Big advantage I've seen is the radial truck. That, increased reliability, and better fuel economy would all be motivation to buy new SD70s, rather than rebuild 20-30 year old SD40s. Yes, they are new, but UP says the availability of their 1200 new SD70s is 96%. And they got these AFTER experiencing ACs of both builders. UP uses them in every type of road service. When SP got their 25, along with another 25 leased from EMD, the power delays at Roseville vanished! A fine locomotive.

[Anonymous]

Sounds good to me. When do we start ????????? LOL

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

The only major difference between a 645 and a 710 is the piston stroke is 1 inch longer which makes the engine 1 inch taller. All other engine dimentions are the same.

Exactly my point, with just a few modifications, a 710G would drop right into the carbody of a SD40-2, just like a 645 will fit in the place of a 567. SD70-2 the preformance and engine of a new locomotive, in a proven and known-to-be reliable locomotive the SD40-2.

[Anonymous]

The only major difference between a 645 and a 710 is the piston stroke is 1 inch longer which makes the engine 1 inch taller. All other engine dimentions are the same.

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Hey Dekemd, the GE primemover in the AC6000 is a different design. It is not a turned up FDL. If I remember right it was a Deutz design. Looking at the thing, it is very different, twin turbos, etc. I think that GE was involved in a lawsuit against Deutz for the crappy outcome of their design. I was on a CSX unit with the big motor and was surprised that it seemed not to vibrate as bad as the 4400. Maybe because it was derated to 4700 ponies, who knows.
Ken

Thanks for the correction. Just shows you can't believe everything you hear. I've never had the opportunity to compare the two. I don't see a lot of the AC6000s. A few come through every now and then, but there's more AC4400s around here than you can shake a stick at. Not a lot of variety. Did have two UP SD70MACs come through last week, which is really rare for North Carolina.

Derrick

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railpac

Frankly, I'm suprised that we haven't seen any SD40-2 being rebuilt with 12-710Gs rated at 3000hp or 16-710Gs rated at 4000hp. I mean with a few modifications a 16-710G should drop right into the engine compartment of a SD40-2 essentially making it a SD70-2. Or just use a 12cyl model and drop it into the compartment with even less modifications (I'm guessing) to keep the horsepower the same. I say this because I have seen 16-567 replaced with a 16-645. And the original GP40X (the single GP40 test unit built on a GP35 frame) had a 3000hp 16-645E3 in the same space that a 16-567D3A would have occupied in a standard GP35. Any other thoughts on this subject?[:)][:D][8D][;)]

Well, there's a few problems. The engine will drop right in, but you won't gain anything except 3-4% in fuel economy. Much of the fuel economy measures on newer units are based on controlling auxiliarly HP, i.e. TM blower, cooling fans, air compressor, etc. Also, starting with the SD50, EMD went to a new main generator with two sets of windings so transition is made on the main generator rather than the traction motor connections. You'd also be missing out on a higher rated traction motor and wheel creep control for higher adhesion. So, to get SD60 performance out of an SD40-2, you basically be keeping the frame, cab, DB hatch, trucks and air compressor - everything else would have to be new - and that just gets you and SD60. If you want SD70 performance, you need new trucks and air compressor as well. Might as well just buy new.....

SD40-2s will soldier on in low fuel consumption applications for long, long time, however.

[Anonymous]

Hey Dekemd, the GE primemover in the AC6000 is a different design. It is not a turned up FDL. If I remember right it was a Deutz design. Looking at the thing, it is very different, twin turbos, etc. I think that GE was involved in a lawsuit against Deutz for the crappy outcome of their design. I was on a CSX unit with the big motor and was surprised that it seemed not to vibrate as bad as the 4400. Maybe because it was derated to 4700 ponies, who knows.
Ken

[Anonymous]

I say drop motors back into the SD-40 2's and keep them running. Not like there are just a few out there. About EMD, there were rumors before about GM writing off the company long before this. It was like they were just in it to make a few more bucks (ha ha).

[Anonymous]

From the pages of London ONT newspaper


A U.S. investment group with $1 billion US is in "serious discussions" to buy General Motors Electro-Motive Division, including its 580-job plant in London. The possible sale of the locomotive builder to an investment group, not a manufacturer, has sparked worry among workers and prompted one city councillor to ask for quick action from city hall.

"I want the economic development people to move on this and not wait to find out in five or six days, it's gone," Coun. Bernie MacDonald said.

After calls from anxious workers and business leaders, MacDonald urged the mayor and London Economic Development Corp. last night to investigate the possible sale and meet new owners to ensure jobs stay in London.

"We will certainly do our part for that," Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco promised.

Berkshire Partners of Boston and Greenbrier Equity Group are the two companies involved in negotiations, The Free Press has learned.

"There are serious discussions under way," said a spokesperson for investors.

Berkshire and Greenbrier have more than $1 billion US available to invest in transportation-related companies, a Berkshire website says.

Greenbrier's partners include Jerry Greenwald, former chairperson and chief executive of UAL Corp., parent company of United Airlines, and former chief financial officer of Chrysler Corp.

The investors' spokesperson said no decision was imminent and union leaders would be involved in any final details.

"There is a carefully managed process underway. The union's view of the outcome is an important factor in any decision."

London plant union leaders said they're worried about the possibility of an investment group buying the plant.

"The concern is that it's not a Bombardier," said Terry Mason, Canadian Auto Workers Local 27 plant chairperson.

"An investment group buying it isn't very good news. They are interested in making money, rather than locomotives. They may want to turn it over for a profit or split it up and sell off parts for a profit.

"We've been through a rough couple of years and the defence division was sold."

Owned by automaker General Motors, which has been trying to focus on its core car and truck business, the locomotive plant was part of a sprawling Oxford Street complex that included GM's defence division until the company sold that to giant U.S. defence contractor General Dynamics last year.

The locomotive plant faces layoffs by year-end if new orders aren't brought in.

"Would we be surprised by a sale? Obviously not," said Tim Carrie, president of Local 27.

"It (London) has been up for sale for quite some time."

But there's no point worrying about rumours, Carrie said.

The CAW's contract with GM ends in 2005 and a new buyer would inherit it, Carrie said.

But MacDonald said he doesn't want to take any chances. London can't afford to lose any more companies, he said.

"(Some) just left and nobody really did much or said much."

A GM spokesperson said there was no announcement coming this week.

"There is certainly nothing to announce on this today or any time soon," said Curt Swenson, GM spokesperson in LaGrange, Ill.

CHRONOLOGY

- September 1949: Construction begins on General Motors Diesel Ltd.'s London plant on Oxford Street.

- June 1950: Production begins.

- Sept. 15, 1950: Canadian Pacific Railway takes delivery of first locomotives produced at the plant.

- July 1957: The Aerotrain, the forerunner of modern Canadian-built high-speed trains, is tested.

- June 1971: Terex, the world's largest dump truck, later renamed Titan, is tested and production planned.

- 1976: GM Diesel adds defence division.

- 1977: Company wins contract to supply Canadian Forces with 491 light-armoured vehicles valued at $170 million.

- October 1978: Transit bus line is shut down.

- September 1982: $625-million contract awarded to build 969 light-armoured vehicles for U.S. Marine Corps.

- January 1985: Production of Terex Titan stops.

- October 1987: GM Diesel awarded $17-million contract for 12 light armoured vehicles for the U.S. Marine Corps, an important step in what would become a huge contract.

- June 1991: Federal government passes Bill C-6 to allow export of automatic weapons. Sale of light-armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia depends on bill.

- October 1999: $20-million capital investment announced for London plant.

- August 2000: GM Diesel Defense Division changes name to GM Defense.

- November 2000: GM Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems land $6-billion joint contract -- the largest industrial deal in London's history -- to build 2,131 light armoured vehicles for U.S. Army.

- February 2002: GM Defense names London global headquarters for all GM Defense work.

- Dec. 6, 2002: About 870 workers in the Electro-Motive Division receive layoff notices, as the company winds down a massive U.S. railway order.

- Dec. 19, 2002: General Dynamics buys GM Defense for $1.1-billion US.


If one of these deals go through, it will be very sad news for the RR industry. What the HE double hockey sticks is GM thinking!!??[B)][V][V][V] Any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Several reports suggest that GM is in serious talks with a couple of financial firms (no transportation connection) about selling EMD [:0][:(][:(!]. We could see an all GE market in the future, which is bad news for RRs, since many GEs have engine flaws, and maintainence issues. Here is an article from the Associated Press:

GM in discussions with investment group over sale of locomotive plant

The Associated Press
9/16/03 2:35 AM


LONDON, Ont. (CP) -- A U.S. investment group with $1 billion in its pocket is in "serious discussions" to buy General Motors' Electro-Motive Division.

The possible sale of the locomotive builder to an investment group, and not a manufacturer, has sparked worry among the division's 580 workers in London, 80 miles east of Detroit.

Berkshire Partners of Boston and Greenbrier Equity Group are the two companies involved in negotiations, the London Free Press reported Tuesday.

"There are serious discussions under way," a spokesperson for the investors said.

Berkshire and Greenbrier have more than $1 billion available to invest in transportation-related companies, according to Berkshire's Web site.

Greenbrier's partners include Jerry Greenwald, former chairman and chief executive officer of UAL Corp., parent company of United Airlines, and former chief financial officer of Chrysler Corp.

The investors spokesperson said no decision was imminent and union leaders would be involved in any final details.

"There is a carefully managed process under way. The union's view of the outcome is an important factor in any decision."

Canadian Auto Workers union leaders said they're worried about the possibility of an investment group buying the London plant.

"An investment group buying it isn't very good news," said Terry Mason, Local 27 plant chairperson. "They are interested in making money rather than locomotives. They may want to turn it over for a profit or split it up and sell off parts for a profit."