The older GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago.I know the railfans miss them,but what we have now is far better in every respect, fuel economy,reliability and comfort are all great.
ATSF 3759The oler GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago.
The oler GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago.
Actually I have operated Dash 8's in Australia and they were (are) great locos, mostly work Dash 9's now which are even better.
ATSF 3759 The oler GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago.
One of my responsibilities when I held the title of as manager of Projects and Standards for Brakes and Running gear (trucks, bearings, and suspension) for Union Pacific was to resolve problems related to locomotive ride quality. The railroad took the issue seriously - if a locomotive had ride quality problems at 70 mph crews would not operate at that speed and trains that required 70 mph to meet schedule would not make their committments to the customers. One of the worst "offenders" was the SD60 in standard and wide cab configurations. In addition to schedule issues, as time went on, several legitimate injury claims and lawsuits made it clear that the SD60 needed to be fixed. To give EMD truck design engineers a clear indication of what was acceptable ride quality on UP's transcon the GE Dash 8 was chosen by operating crews - if an SD60 coould ride like a Dash 8 consider the SD 60 fixed. This isn't to say the Dash 8 rode like a "Caddy" but Dash 8's were running at full speed through the curves where SD 60's at 70 mph were a "white knucle" experience.
I had EMD instrument the trucks of a Dash 8 and an SD60 and ran tests with the pair over several months as they developed the corrections to snubbers, shock absorbers, and lateral motion control until the data and actual human ride perception concluded that the SD60 rode as good as a Dash 8. The Union Pacific Dash 8 locomotives have the standard GE 3 axle trucks same as used on Dash 7 locomotives. With the introduction of the Dash 9 and AC locomotives the GE HI-AD truck opened a whole new set of ride quality and wheel/truck lateral issues that took its own intense investigation and corrective steps to resolve - another story.
tleary01 ATSF 3759 The older GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago. if an SD60 could ride like a Dash 8 consider the SD 60 fixed.
ATSF 3759 The older GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago.
The older GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago.
I have to agree with tleary for the most part. The Dash 9 was the first decent loco that GE built. However, the new EVO units are a step backward.
To add to what DP Man said, I have found that whether it is GE or EMD, if it is an ex-Conrail unit, it will ride like a buckboard. Even years and years ago before the merger, if you had a Conrail unit, 1.) it rode rough, & 2.) it slipped like crazy in power or DB. And all of this is at speeds of 50 mph and below.
.
The Railwolf ATSF 3759 The oler GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago. Oh I know full well the majority opinion of them from the engineers-I and many railfans will still miss them, though.
Your misguided love would be better adorned on anything EMD SD40-2 or older! Maybe then you will receive the sympathy that you seek.
Spoken like a true EMD fan, when I started out in the railways we were almost all Alco, we used to laugh at the EMD (we called 'em Clyde, because that's who built them in Australia) crowd. I had to work on Clyde's in later years, some were not to bad, then the first of the Dash 8's arrived, it was like a breath of fresh 4 stroke air, they still hold the title of the most reliable loco's we had (highest availability). Now I work mostly on Dash 9's (Australian Version) called NR's, we still have EMD's and are always used as bankers, (trailing units). Now we have the new AC units, but I have not worked on them. I guess we all have our favorite locos, not all the same ones, that would be boring.
Trev
tleary01The Railwolf LS&I lists 4 ex-BN C30-7's on its roster, not sure how long they'll last. A fair number were shipped to Brazil, where they were re-gauged (some were re-trucked) and are running on ALL and EFVM. EF Carajas also has some C30-7's and C36-7's operating on broad gauge. MRS operates a collection of various Dash-7's, both original and secondhand, on its broad-gauge lines. Actually quite a number of B30-7, C30-7 and C36-7 locomotives from BNSF (BN and ATSF), UP and NS owned by Helm, and Conrail (sold when NS and CSX split up locomotive assets) are alive and well in Brazil. Many have since been retrofitted with Locotrol-EB which is a combination of GE Global Signaling distributed power control and New York Air Brake CCB-2 Electronic Controlled Locomotive Brake. I personally worked on 2 groups of Helm C30-7 locomotives, one ex Union Pacific and the other ex Norflok Southern that went to MRS. I applied the Locotrol -EB hardware to the locomotives at Helm's Waycross GA shop but did not remove the 26L brake system, packed all of the remaining hardware (cables, connectors, etc) into the traction motor cooling ducts to keep it out of sight during shipment. The locomotives were brought through Brazil customs as being equipped with Locotrol-EB which saved custom fees vs shipping the equipment separetly. At the GE south America Shop in Belo Horizonte the 26L brake system was completely removed and the CCB-2 brake system was re-located to the brake compartment, cables were connected, antennas mounted, and wiring modified to convert the locomotives to full distributed power operation. An interesting side note: I had a dificult time explaning to MRS why on the ex NS locomotives the power contactor and traction motor cable tags designated the motors as #1 starting at the long hood end of the locomotive and #6 as the motor at the short hood end. They could not understand why a railroad would run a locomotive long hood forward.
The Railwolf LS&I lists 4 ex-BN C30-7's on its roster, not sure how long they'll last. A fair number were shipped to Brazil, where they were re-gauged (some were re-trucked) and are running on ALL and EFVM. EF Carajas also has some C30-7's and C36-7's operating on broad gauge. MRS operates a collection of various Dash-7's, both original and secondhand, on its broad-gauge lines.
LS&I lists 4 ex-BN C30-7's on its roster, not sure how long they'll last. A fair number were shipped to Brazil, where they were re-gauged (some were re-trucked) and are running on ALL and EFVM. EF Carajas also has some C30-7's and C36-7's operating on broad gauge. MRS operates a collection of various Dash-7's, both original and secondhand, on its broad-gauge lines.
Actually quite a number of B30-7, C30-7 and C36-7 locomotives from BNSF (BN and ATSF), UP and NS owned by Helm, and Conrail (sold when NS and CSX split up locomotive assets) are alive and well in Brazil. Many have since been retrofitted with Locotrol-EB which is a combination of GE Global Signaling distributed power control and New York Air Brake CCB-2 Electronic Controlled Locomotive Brake. I personally worked on 2 groups of Helm C30-7 locomotives, one ex Union Pacific and the other ex Norflok Southern that went to MRS. I applied the Locotrol -EB hardware to the locomotives at Helm's Waycross GA shop but did not remove the 26L brake system, packed all of the remaining hardware (cables, connectors, etc) into the traction motor cooling ducts to keep it out of sight during shipment. The locomotives were brought through Brazil customs as being equipped with Locotrol-EB which saved custom fees vs shipping the equipment separetly. At the GE south America Shop in Belo Horizonte the 26L brake system was completely removed and the CCB-2 brake system was re-located to the brake compartment, cables were connected, antennas mounted, and wiring modified to convert the locomotives to full distributed power operation.
An interesting side note: I had a dificult time explaning to MRS why on the ex NS locomotives the power contactor and traction motor cable tags designated the motors as #1 starting at the long hood end of the locomotive and #6 as the motor at the short hood end. They could not understand why a railroad would run a locomotive long hood forward.
ALL have 330 Dash-7's (C30-7, SF30C, C30-7A) operating in narrow and broad gauge. Many of these units was equipped with a microprocessor control system manufactured in Brazil and, recently, in 2008, 87 units received Locotrol-EB system.
Here's a photo of 9415 (ex-CR, C36-7 #6633) and 9413 (ex-Seaboard System, C30-7 #7016) being released at Campinas Shops, for their first trip activity:
MRS have many Dash-7's too. Here's a link that show some units:
http://sites.google.com/site/fcsanches/
FCA and EFVM operate 67 BB36-7's. EF Carajás have 9 C36-7's, upgraded from C30-7, but these units was manufactured at brazilian GE plant.
hugo yamamura ALL have 330 Dash-7's (C30-7, SF30C, C30-7A) operating in narrow and broad gauge. Many of these units was equipped with a microprocessor control system manufactured in Brazil and, recently, in 2008, 87 units received Locotrol-EB system. Here's a photo of 9415 (ex-CR, C36-7 #6633) and 9413 (ex-Seaboard System, C30-7 #7016) being released at Campinas Shops, for their first trip activity:http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=311297&nseq=4 MRS have many Dash-7's too. Here's a link that show some units: http://sites.google.com/site/fcsanches/ FCA and EFVM operate 67 BB36-7's. EF Carajás have 9 C36-7's, upgraded from C30-7, but these units was manufactured at brazilian GE plant.
When I was actively employed by GE-Global Signaling I was involved in the application of Distributed Poewer to the FCA, EFVM, and EF Carajas locomotives at Vitoria (EFVM and FCA), Divinapolis (FCA), Sao Luis (EF Carajas) and MRS (Horto Shop and GE South America Shop both located in Belo Horizonte). I retired shortly before the application to ALL Dash 7 locomotives was started. I only provided limited technical support for the Brazil GE service team that completed that application. In all of the inital Distributed Power applications GE provided the application engineering and technical support to get the projects started while the railroad's own shops completed the the majority of the applications using kits of the Distributed Power components and CCB-2 air brake systems with Brazil based GE service support and Brazil based Knorr Air Brake service support. EFVM and EF Carajas have also added new locomotives, GE Dash 9 and EMD SD70 to their fleet with Distributed Power and EAB applied at Erie (GE) or London Ontario (EMD).
Brazil - to their credit, has a strong policy of keeping Brazil work in Brazilian hands. Training the railroad and GE South America people to take over the ownership, service and technical support of the Distributed Power and EAB product held equal importance to the application engineering and start-up support I provided. (If only the country that I reside in would do as much for their legal citizens). The ALL application of Distributed Power to their Dash 7 locomotives was truly a "home-grown" project with minimal technical review by me located 10,000 miles from the work.
tleary01 [snip] . . . The railroad took the issue seriously - if a locomotive had ride quality problems at 70 mph crews would not operate at that speed and trains that required 70 mph to meet schedule would not make their committments to the customers. One of the worst "offenders" was the SD60 in standard and wide cab configurations. In addition to schedule issues, as time went on, several legitimate injury claims and lawsuits made it clear that the SD60 needed to be fixed. . . . [snip] . . . With the introduction of the Dash 9 and AC locomotives the GE HI-AD truck opened a whole new set of ride quality and wheel/truck lateral issues that took its own intense investigation and corrective steps to resolve - another story. [emphasis added - PDN]
Aside from the effects of bad ride quality on the crew, schedule, claims, etc. - would it not also indicate that there are severe wheel-rail dynamic interactions occurring, such as you note for the GE 'Hi- Ad' truck ? The jolting of the crew does not occur in a vacuum - it has to result from an equal and opposite force at the railhead, correct ? So I'm wondering if the instrumentation did indicate and correlate that was occurring, and whether the corrections to the various components that you mentioned actually addressed that manifestation of the problems, too ?
Thanks in advance for any response that you care to provide.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Aside from the effects of bad ride quality on the crew, schedule, claims, etc. - would it not also indicate that there are severe wheel-rail dynamic interactions occurring, such as you note for the GE 'Hi- Ad' truck ? The jolting of the crew does not occur in a vacuum - it has to result from an equal and opposite force at the railhead, correct ? So I'm wondering if the instrumentation did indicate and correlate that was occurring, and whether the corrections to the various components that you mentioned actually addressed that manifestation of the problems, too ?
Indeed the forces that are associated with ride quality complaints result from equal and opposite forces. Some of the forces are directed to the railhead, and also to the roadbed. Forces are directed to and from the locomotive carbody into and out of the truck suspension components, particularly components intended to control and snub lateral motion such as boslter to truck frame rubber "sandwitch" pads and lateral snubbers/shock absorbers. Excessive forces can over-work those components and result in early failure, then the problems become worse. For both investigations the locomotive only was instrumented there was no measurement of railhead/roadbed forces. However there is much more to the story, this thread may not be the best place to tell it. If you are interested you can respond using a new thread and I will take it from there.
Something else to keep in mind: The B36-7 was SBD/CSX's premier intermodal engine for years and they racked up miles like a passenger engine, maybe more. They were all pretty well used up by the time they were retired. This, as well as the fact that used GE's aren't all that popular, will limit their appeal on the secondhand market.
BigJimtleary01 ATSF 3759 The older GE units were unreliable and miserable to run not to mention they rode like a buckboard. They would jar your kidneys the whole trip.Filthy, stinking U-boats good riddance, sorry to tell you how most engineers felt about them.The older GE units were horrible to work on. The newer Dash 9 and newer are what GE should have built 30 years ago. if an SD60 could ride like a Dash 8 consider the SD 60 fixed. I have to agree with tleary for the most part. The Dash 9 was the first decent loco that GE built. However, the new EVO units are a step backward. To add to what DP Man said, I have found that whether it is GE or EMD, if it is an ex-Conrail unit, it will ride like a buckboard. Even years and years ago before the merger, if you had a Conrail unit, 1.) it rode rough, & 2.) it slipped like crazy in power or DB. And all of this is at speeds of 50 mph and below.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndIn fact, we used one of the SD60 demonstrators as a "standard" whenever we did comparative ride quality testing.
CSXT also used an SD60 when it did SD70MAC-T1 and SD70ACe ride-quality testing in 2004.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.