Locomotive "Edsels"

[Murphy Siding]

IIRC BL2s were in use for a long time.  Don't think they qualify as Edsels in nthat regard.

New Haven FL9s and EP5s (continuing the AMC thread) wer both full of "gremlins." 

 work safe

     But, aren't some of the FL9's still being used?

[YoHo1975]

I had some thoughts on already mentioned locos.

 

1: GP20, It was my understanding that EMD was afraid to put a Turbo on the 567 and the success of this engine was the proof that this worked. I don't think that qualifies as a Lemon. It's no Edsel either though not as popular as other models.

 2: GP35. I thought the problem with the 35 was the traction motors? I know that was the initial problem with the 40s. thought it was with the 35s too. In either case, over 1300 built and many still operating as is or after recent rebuilds. Certainly no Edsel and apparently no Lemon either.

 3: SD50. I think when Trains did an article on the A&O last year they made reference to the 50s and their issues. There was something odd with some of the plumbing and/or wiring I think and once that was replaced they were solid units. Certainly Lemons but they lasted a while once wrung out. Not Edsels. I feel like the GP50s were better received though they had issues too. They're still in revenue service as well though.

4: GP60M. This was a one off for Santa Fe and Santa Fe liked them well enough. The only credible mention I've personally seen about their bad ride characteristics was on Tales from the Krug and Krug basically stated he disliked the ride of all 4-axles units and this was no better. I'd be hard pressed to call that a specific issue for the 60M. This was the last 4 axle Freight unit, so of course it was an Edsel to a certain extent. BNSF still runs them and still up front. Saw a TOFC train a couple months ago with a solid set blasting through Fullerton the way God and Mike Haverty intended.

5: SD45X as was said, a 1 off, but the 45's were intitially popular, that pesky gas shortage in the seventies was their problem. The SD80 suffered the same problem. 20 Cylinders.

6: SD90/AC6000 Certainly no Edsel. I suspect we'll see the H-engine or it's decendent return some day, or maybe a 2-cycle replacement for the 710. It was too much HP. And I thought they already were Tier II compliant?

7: F40PH's I can't speak for other transit angencies, but Metra/RTA seems to love theirs and has had pretty much no major problems. Chicago is flat, but has temp extremes and such. They're getting the MP-36s now, but that was mainly to replace the old SDP40s or whatever they were. Between RTA and Amtrak you've got more F40s then all others combined right? and Metra has the largest fleet now. Both agencies were/are very happy with the performance, so I'd say they were far from Edsels.

 

As for some engines that may be Edsels. the GP49s and 59s come to mind.  

 

[coalminer3]

I belive there's a handful of FL9s around, but, IIRC, they have been rebuilt, upgraded, etc.

 

work safe

[Victrola1]

Narrowing the parameters from an Edsel, how about a Yugo?

Did anybody try copying a design at best mediocore and in turn produce an absolute bomb? 

 

[bobontroy]

As to the Baldwin centipede, I believe one major problem was that BLW never standardized their diesels.  They built them like steam, with each unit being somewhat different from others in the same class.  With wiring, etc. not being where or how the diagrams said it should be, maintenance had to be a nightmare.  EMD standardized while BLW still thought of locomotives as custom produced machines.

[Murphy Siding]

As to the Baldwin centipede, I believe one major problem was that BLW never standardized their diesels.  They built them like steam, with each unit being somewhat different from others in the same class.  With wiring, etc. not being where or how the diagrams said it should be, maintenance had to be a nightmare.  EMD standardized while BLW still thought of locomotives as custom produced machines.

     Welcome to the forum bobontroy.  I wonder if the centipedes would have been any better, if they had been built to some level of standardization?

[J. Edgar]

Some of you guys are confusing "Edsel" with "lemon."  There was nothing intrinsically unsound with the Edsel; it's just that not enough people wanted it.  The Edsel was a marketing failure made notable by huge expectations that were not fulfilled, not a technical or mechanical failure, and many examples listed above were complete technical failures (or not; I'd disagree that the SD50 was a poor locomotive, just not as good a locomotive as it people thought it should be).  In reality, an "Edsel" is an artificial construct, a strawman erected by the media and later burned down by the same people that built it.

Locomotives where manufacturer and media expectations came up well short include

F-M C-Line -- too late!
F-M Trainmaster -- too soon, too complicated, too expensive
Alco Century Series -- expected to save the company; it didn't
EMD SD90MAC -- too big
GE AC6000CW -- also too big

I don't recall any hoopla at the time of introduction about the BL2, SD45X, RS1325 -- no one expected them to do much and the SD45X was purely an experimental.  Ditto with the U50C and C855 and BQ23-7 -- everyone knew they were one-offs, at best.

I completely agree on Acela, SPV2000, LRC -- the hoopla was vastly out of proportion to their impact or actual demand.

S. Hadid

as defined "edsel"  the all time has to be the BL2....it was the engine the railroads were waiting for.............they just didnt know it  i.e. afraid of/refuse to change