GE's, Then and Now
Phillips, III, J.A.
AAK-
Regarding present GE's troubles, IIRC there have been a few posts
recently regarding UP's rejection of payment for some of their GE
units, as well as the note from a UP employee confirmed a note
regarding APL requesting UP to refrain using them on their priority
intermodal traffic.
In the 'good old days' the NP threw their GE's (U-25Cs) right onto the
head of their priority 601-602 Seattle-Saint Paul trains. I havent
heard stories about disasters with their use in this service, or even
minor or major problems (though they may have existed.) I also dont
recall any road ever refusing payments on GE's Universal series due to
maintenance or design flaws.
While everyone has discussed GE's as less than reliable than EMD's in
an overall sense, unless Im out of the loop on a bit of history here
(which is entirely possible) it seems like that when a road holds up
payment for locomotives your reliability issue has gone from minor to
chronic, and-or threatening.
I suspect GE counts itself lucky to have capacity and good financing
packages on its side.
In defence of GE, I seem to recall they have led the industry with the
introduction of some improvements, (going from memory here) improved
wheel-slip and creep controls.
73s,
JP
--
Northern Pacific | http://pw2.netcom.com/~whstlpnk/np.html
Tell Tale Newsletter | http://www.employees.org/~davison/nprha/
Historical Association | http://pw2.netcom.com/~whstlpnk/nprha.html
|| N O R T H E R N P A C I F I C R A I L W A Y ||
Route of the Vista-Dome North Coast Limited
Charles Mutschler
Of course, GE could probably make a claim for length of service and
over-all dependability for some of their products that puts anything EMD
has built to shame. I'm referring, of course, to GE's electrics (motors,
they called them - locomotives burned coal in 1912 and 1915) built for the
Butte anaconda & Pacific and later for neighboring Milwaukee - the GE's
lasted nearly 60 years on the Milwaukee, a heck of a service life. In
fact, the only thing that could match it are a hand ful of steam
locomotives. :)
Cheers!
Charlie Mutschler
char...@wsunix.wsu.edu
-30-
Phillips, III, J.A.
Charles Mutschler wrote:
> Of course, GE could probably make a claim for length of service and over-all
dependability for some of their products... I'm referring, of course, to GE's
electrics...
But look at the time difference between when GE built their electrics
(Progressive Era) to when they built the Univseral series (The Age of
Plastic). Just another ode to the 'good ol' days' Im afraid.
;-)
Vincent Reh
I rode the Autotrain a few times and spoke with some enginemen about the
P30CHs. From what they told me, the GEs ran okay in spite of themselves,
i.e., even with oil and water pouring from all over the place, with flames
shooting out, big blasts of heavy black smoke, etc. I've often wondered
why Amtrak bought them, maybe they got them real cheap or GM wouldn't make
an SDF40PH. I liked the GEs just because they were different, a breath of
fresh air.
Well, maybe not.
Vince Reh
Grand Isle, Vt.
Donovan Gray
Locomotive diesel power discussions about the NP, GN and other Northwest
roads (nationally I suppose) in the 1960's, particularly 1965-70 are
interesting in that it was a period of major change for all locomotive
manufacturers. The ALCo-GE coalition disappeared, railroads were
comparing performances of U25Bs and GP35's (both their their own unique
problems) and the U25C-U33C series with the 16- and 20-cylinder 645's of
GM. The 645's was not as satisfactory an engine as the 567's or 710's.
So in a way, it's comparing apples to apples to compare GE and GM performance
during that time, but they were mostly bad apples on both sides of the
orchard.
So I'd suggest that period was an anomaly for both major power builders,
and the telling tale was in the rise of GE's dominance in the next two
decades that followed. But things seem to be balancing out a bit at the
moment, though I haven't seen recent orders from both builders to bear
that out.
Fred Hyde
At 10:40 PM 4/27/97 +0000, Phillips, III, J.A. wrote:
>Certainly EMD's GP-7s -9s, and SD-9s earned a good reputation, and Ive
>seen the SD40-2 praised to no end by certain folks in Sheridan, so why
>would EMD be offering availability agreements if they have a
>demonstrably superior product line?
>
>In the past, I dont recall that GE or EMD for that matter used to give
>any road more units than they paid for.
>
This was prior to the days of "customer service" and "product support".
>I dont think ensuring performance levels was part of the bargain until
>comparatively recent times, and its clear that both EMD and GE are
>doing it. Results of the diesel flubs of the past, or a change in the
>way business is done?
>
I think one difference is the way that GE and GMLG are "out-tech-ing" the
other. With more and more "bells and whistles" (couldn't resist) on these
new units, many technological advances that do not have extensive road
testing under the brutal conditions that today's railroads subject their
motive power to can and do fail (GE's AC4400 issues, for example). Rather
than anger RR managements and making those with the checkbooks look bad, GE
and EMD can and do provide "loaners" to assure customer satisfaction in
case failures occur that result in extended downtime (Can't recall what EMD
did with the CP "Red Barns; I figure that this generated some bad blood
between GMLG and CP, and who knows, may have resulted CP placing its first
big GE order). They call this "protection power"; GE did this on BNSF's new
C44-9Ws (the 1111-1123 are supposedly "protection" units that will stay on
BNSF, can't recall the terms).
Railroads invest major dollors in this equipment and in the age of "giving
the customer what they want" and "delighting the customer", customer
service, tech support and is absolutely essential. Shows that the
manufacturer will stand by their product in case of trouble.
>While the railroads may be the customer, their potential pool of
>suppliers is very limited. Railroads must have locomotives to meet
>their demands, and it looks like they are taking giant leaps away from
>major rebuilding programs and numerous company shops.
>
Rebuilding programs are examples of capital-intensive, labor-intensive
projects that are, to some RRs, not cost effective considering some of the
hulks they have to work with (I note Steve Lee's comments about a year ago
about the old CNW SD45s remaining on the UP roster as "junk"). However, one
road's junk is another's serviceable power (look at Wisconsin Central and
Montana Rail Link's successes with second hand SD45s). Rebuild programs can
work well provided that it is part of a company strategy. With the
proliferation of leasing companies, able to provide power quickly for long
or short-term, the major corporate rebuild programs have faded away or
moved off-site (MKM, VMV, to name a couple). Can't recall what SP paid for
each of its SD40M-2s (I think about $700,000) but this compares favorably
with the $1.5MM to $2MM sticker on a new unit. I recall that BN stated that
it paid $393,000 for a new SD40-2 or U30C in 1974.
Fred
AAK
> I recall that BN stated that
> it paid $393,000 for a new SD40-2 or U30C in 1974.
>
> Fred
Could be....but that seems awfully low to me. I'd have thought more
like $800,000+.
AK
Niagara Regional Rail Spur
Wouldn't these day be more like a million and a half?
Paul Duncan Niagara Regional Rail Spur
Welland, Ontario, Canada. Covering the Canadian Niagara Region Rail Lines
nr...@vaxxine.com http://www.vaxxine.com/nrrs/
============================================================================
Home Page Owner of:
Niagara Regional Rail Spur & Icon Warehouse - Icons for HTML Programming...
Providing professional web page design services to:
Re/Max - Fenelon Falls, ON and Welland, ON
Greater Niagara Model Railroad Engineers - Fenwick, ON
AAK
> If I recall correctly, EMD does this too.
Could be. I haven't heard that.
> so why
> would EMD be offering availability agreements if they have a
> demonstrably superior product line?
Are we talking about EMD guarenteeing availability or supplying extra
units to do it? There is a difference.
You were the one talking about the present. My comment was "Whadya
mean now" and I went on to describe events of the past. I make no
claims as to who's best _now_. I am not particularly fond of the
SD70MACs but think the Dash9-44CW pumpkins are good, so far. But so
are the SD75s and I have no GE ACs to compare. The Dash 9s ARE
getting rattles already, a GE trademark. The B39-7s have been good
engines. Slippery on anything but dry rail but what do you expect at
1,000 HP per axle. They also tend to drop like flies in extreme cold
though they did better this year than in the past so maybe they fixed
that. (Hmmmm, or did they send them south during that?)
But the U25s and U30s.....well I just had too many road failures on
those things, several times the rate of EMD contemporaries or even
earlier old EMDs. There were a few good U30Cs that were either lucky
units or they finally got the bugs out of the few remaining units
that lasted to the end. I must say though that I have _NEVER_ seen a
fire gutted EMD and I've seen a lot of GEs in this state. The U25s
had those long 16 notch throttle handles on them like we really need
the half notches. And try to switch with one of those. They also had
their own reverser handle that fit only them and a standard reverser
would not fit them. Real handy when you pick up somebody elses
trailing U25 and it does not have a handle on it. The U25s and U30s
often had trouble making transistion and would try 2, 3 or 4 times
before finally making it. Sometimes they never would make it so the
unit was basically useless above 30 mph. Turbos self destructed.
Can't recall that happening to an EMD although it surely must have
happened to others. The U series had "cold water cab heaters". When
it got much below freezing the hot engine water piped to the cab
heater was cold before it got there and the heaters blew cold air.
I've seen crewman get off U30s with newspaprs stuck in their pants
legs to keep warm. Never saw that on an EMD and they had hot water
heaters at that time too. The windows and everything else on the U
series rattled so loud you could not hear yourself think. The hood
doors would not stay latched. Walking back the catwalks you were
always closing doors in front of you and again on the return.
The U25s and U30s were really neat though when you went from #4 to #6
throttle. Black smoke boiled out of the stack and often
caught fire lighting up the night countryside for some distance.
The verticle steps were a hazard to get up and down and the catwalks
were narrower than EMDs.
Didn't BN derate the U33s to 3000 HP because of problems?
AK
Fred Hyde
At 11:17 AM 4/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> I recall that BN stated that
>> it paid $393,000 for a new SD40-2 or U30C in 1974.
>>
>> Fred
>
>Could be....but that seems awfully low to me. I'd have thought more
>like $800,000+.
>AK
Got this from a Trains article from that time.
Fred
Sean Graham-White
>> If I recall correctly, EMD does this too.
>
>Could be. I haven't heard that.
>
>> so why
>> would EMD be offering availability agreements if they have a
>> demonstrably superior product line?
>
>Are we talking about EMD guarenteeing availability or supplying extra
>units to do it? There is a difference.
Both GE and EMD offer protection units and guarantee availability, although
the later is much more common. The last protection units I can remember
coming from EMD were SD60Ms for Uncle Pete. Eight protection units were
contracted for among the SD90MAC orders as well, but was cancelled.
Availability can be guaranteed by providing protection units of the same
ilk (a la extra BNSF DASH9-44CWs) or by providing units from EMD's or GE's
lease fleets.
Both builders argue that their units offer superior performance and
supplying protection units may be just another way of winning a bid. Some
railroads may mandate that the protection units be of the same type as are
guaranteed, but I have no proof of that (although it would make a lot of
sense). Wouldn't you feel more secure knowing that a failing SD60M or C40-8
is being protected by another SD60M or C40-8 rather than a SD40 or C30-7?
Sean Graham-White
e-mail: ala...@interaccess.com
voice: 708-771-4922
Patrick Slayton
On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:57:39 -0400, Niagara Regional Rail Spur wrote:
>Wouldn't these day be more like a million and a half?
>
>At 11:17 AM 4/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>> I recall that BN stated that
>>> it paid $393,000 for a new SD40-2 or U30C in 1974.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>
>>Could be....but that seems awfully low to me. I'd have thought more
>>like $800,000+.
>>AK
I think I read something about SD 45s being around $28x,xxx. Isn't the
time frame about the same?
pat
Phillips, III, J.A.
AAK wrote:
> Are we talking about EMD guarenteeing availability or supplying extra units to
do it? There is a difference.
Both. Sorry if I didnt make that clear. See SG-W's post of today. He
seems to confirm theyre providing protection power and service
guarantees.
FH's post today seems to confirm GE and EMD have added these extras
within say the last decade or so, in a spirit of keeping the customer
satisfied and keeping up with the Joneses.
An alternative theory: perhaps an additional, and perhaps very
important, reason these sorts of things are now being done is not that
railroads have been handed bum steers from time to time, but the
ballooning of new unit prices (though this doesnt take into account
inflation).
Good post on the frailties and foibles of the U-boats. How old were
BN's U-25s when you climbed aboard? IIRC the NP received units about
15 at a time beginning in '64... roughly 10-12 years old by the time
you started? I wonder how many miles they'd piled on them by then. Ive
seen a few BN documents from the early 70s for their F-units, a few of
which had piled up 1M and 1.2M miles by that time (much longer time to
do it of course).
Ah, but didnt those big center windows provide a GREAT VIEW?!? ;-)
73s,
Virgil Staff
One factor in the reliability of the diesels is that the railroads kept
demanding more and more horsepower. So that with this the case, the builders
seem to have sold their units before they had been thoroughly tested. Of
course, there is no test so likely to be useful as that out in day to day
service on the main.
Virgil Staff
Virgil Staff
Concerning wheel-slip devices, etc. I don't know who manufactured the
I.D.A.C. wheel slip device, but the WP was very happy with those.
VCS
CWM
All of this needs to be kept in perspective. Both GM/EMD and GE have had
quality problems. No one questions that the U series was often viewed as
not being as good as the comparable EMD product.
While, I personally believe the EMD product was better, there is a good
bit of evidence to indicate that may not have been the case. On the few
roads that concentrated GE power in a few areas for maintenance, the GE
units are reported to have given good service. I have been told by
several people in the motive power department at the SCL that the MAIN
problem other roads had with GE power was one of experience, i.e. the
maintenance people were much more familiar with EMD power and simply
didn't know all the trick for GE they knew for EMD.
EMD for it's part has had problems. For example, the GP50s were troubled
locomotives. At one point, the MP got into some VERY unplesant
discussions with EMD about the GP50s. I have been told by someone who
was there, the GP50 problems were the reason the MP bought the B30-7s in
the mid 80s.
I think any unit that is in bad shape can have problems getting over the
road... (though the U25s seem to have been worse than average.)
Doubtless, some of the engineers on the list have a few horror stories
about poorly maintained locomotives....
Chuck
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Charles Mutschler wrote:
> Of course, GE could probably make a claim for length of service and
CWM
The railroads have an interest in maintaining competetion in the
locomotive market. They bought some GE power even when many thought is
was not as good as EMD power.... same with ALCO units in the 60s. The
last thing railroads want is a single supplier of locmotives. I think
the reasons for this are obvious to all so I won't repete them.
Also, a railroad will often go to the builder it views as second choice
if the builder of choice can't provide delivery when the rr needs the
power...
CWM
That sounds about right for 1974. You could buy a new six motor unit in
1984 for about $800,000, depending on what you ordered on it.
Alex Cavalli
I always love to hear the real railroaders on the list talk about their GE
experiences. Sometimes it makes software development look pretty good . .
well maybe not.
Still have a couple of questions though.
Several listers have mentioned that the GE's were not well known to the
shop forces and hence not maintained very well. Is it possible that the
GE's actually performed well under the circumstances? If they were poorly
maintained, then maybe getting any kind of work from them for a reasonable
lifetime says that they were pretty good machines. Not having "been there"
I'm just wondering.
If not, then it seems that the GE engineers let problems go unattended
across new model introductions. It's easy to see the certainty of problems
with new designs, but if the same problem recurs model after model, that's
just plain bad engineering (or engineers who are not allowed to do their
jobs properly). It seems that this continues to happen with GE locomotives.
Is that true? Anybody know why?
And, if GE locomotive problems are pretty well known in the industry, then
how did GE get the proverbial leg up on GM? Was it really the packaging
around the sale, or did the engines get better?
Alex
CWM
On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Alex Cavalli wrote:
> I always love to hear the real railroaders on the list talk about their GE
> experiences. Sometimes it makes software development look pretty good . .
> well maybe not.
The GE product (or any locomotive) is viewed differently by the crews and
railroad management. One of the reasons crews didn't like early GE four
motor units was the ride... the AAR type B truck did not ride nearly as
well as the Blomburg used by EMD. So early on, crews decided they didn't
like GE power. The later GE truck improved on the ride, but the Blomburg
B still rides better. One thing about railroaders, tradition is
important... and it became a tradition to dislike GE locmotoives.
Mangement, on the otherhand, is not much concerned about which unit rides
better... as long as they are both safe to use. It is not much of a
surprise that management is interest in ROI... acquisition costs,
operating costs, maintenance costs and residual value as well as
availability, pulling power etc. This is much different than the
considerations crews use to evaluate a locmotive.
> Still have a couple of questions though.
>
> Several listers have mentioned that the GE's were not well known to the
> shop forces and hence not maintained very well. Is it possible that the
> GE's actually performed well under the circumstances? If they were poorly
> maintained, then maybe getting any kind of work from them for a reasonable
> lifetime says that they were pretty good machines. Not having "been there"
> I'm just wondering.
I was told by the CMO of the Seaboard System that the SS GE units
performed as well as EMD units (remember different point of view than the
crews) for the Seaboard. I asked him why they did well for him and not
for other roads... He stated it was a result of concentrating GE
maintenance at a few (I think two) locations where the shop forces were
able to be experts at maintaining GE (and I suspect ALCOs before the
GEs.) He also commented, that while EMD had an advantage in mechanical
systesm, GE had better electronics.
> If not, then it seems that the GE engineers let problems go unattended
> across new model introductions. It's easy to see the certainty of problems
> with new designs, but if the same problem recurs model after model, that's
> just plain bad engineering (or engineers who are not allowed to do their
> jobs properly). It seems that this continues to happen with GE locomotives.
> Is that true? Anybody know why?
I would suggest GE has aggressively attacked the problems that were
viewed by railroad management as problems. Again, what are problems to
crews are not major problems to management (afterall, heater problems,
noisy cabs etc. don't have a lot of impact in an executive office.) GE
reliability is WAY up. GE currenlty has excellent electronics and
depending on who you talk to, has better quality control than GM/EMD
(though I think that may have been in part related to moving production
to Canada...... cheap forign labor......)
> And, if GE locomotive problems are pretty well known in the industry, then
> how did GE get the proverbial leg up on GM? Was it really the packaging
> around the sale, or did the engines get better?
Several reasons, first much improved quality, more production capacity
(i.e. better delivery) slight price advanagae, and better financing. GE
spent a LOT of money on improving their product and production facility
in the mid-late 80s. THe current situation is in part a result of the
investment.
Chuck
C. Jackson Wyatt III
CWM wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Alex Cavalli wrote:
>
<snip>
> > And, if GE locomotive problems are pretty well known in the industry, then
> > how did GE get the proverbial leg up on GM? Was it really the packaging
> > around the sale, or did the engines get better?
>
> Several reasons, first much improved quality, more production capacity
> (i.e. better delivery) slight price advanagae, and better financing. GE
> spent a LOT of money on improving their product and production facility
> in the mid-late 80s. THe current situation is in part a result of the
> investment.
One factor that immensely helped GE get back on its feet were the huge
orders in the eighties from the People's Republic of China starting in
1983. I am not sure what the final totals were, but by 1986 they had
amounted to around 420 units.
Jack
AAK
> And, if GE locomotive problems are pretty well known in the industry, then
> how did GE get the proverbial leg up on GM? Was it really the packaging
> around the sale, or did the engines get better?
They got A LOT better. And EMD got worse.
AK
AAK
> How old were
> BN's U-25s when you climbed aboard? IIRC the NP received units about
> 15 at a time beginning in '64... roughly 10-12 years old by the time
> you started?
About 10 years old, yes.
But we were also running Fs and geeps and SD9s that were that old.
The SD40-2s that I am running now are 22 years old. When were the
C30-7s built? Late 70s? I had one on the point yesterday and we went
up the hill at 10 mph in the red, she just kept slugging like an
SD40. 1:15 to go up the hill on a hotshot P-SPMSEH intermodal
where coal trains take 55 minutes. I love the power desk. I am truely
surprised we haven't lost all this business by now.
> Ah, but didnt those big center windows provide a GREAT VIEW?!? ;-)
Well, I trying to remember? Nowadays they stack so many accesories on
top of the control stand that the center windows are useless.
Pacesetters, Marys, DPU boxes, Electric brake boxes. 'Course on the
helpers all you could see out that big window was the back of the
caboose anyways. :-)
However for an ex-PC engineer used to running long hood forward GP9s
any low nose unit was great visibility. :-)
AK
AAK
> The GE product (or any locomotive) is viewed differently by the crews and
> railroad management.
> I asked him why they did well for him and not
> for other roads... He stated it was a result of concentrating GE
> maintenance at a few (I think two) locations where the shop forces were
> able to be experts at maintaining GE
BN stopped buying GEs before the BNSF merger.
BN maintained its U30Cs, C30-7s at Alliance where it was concentrated.
I had many more road failures of older GEs than comparable EMDS and
that is not a crew comfort item, unless you consider the time to
double.
If the main dislike of GEs were a crew comfort item and discomfort
bleeds over into a bad reputation for GEs then I would think that GE
should be more agressive in this area.
AK
Donovan Gray
On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Alex Cavalli wrote:
> If not, then it seems that the GE engineers let problems go unattended
> across new model introductions. It's easy to see the certainty of problems
> with new designs, but if the same problem recurs model after model, that's
> just plain bad engineering (or engineers who are not allowed to do their
> jobs properly). It seems that this continues to happen with GE locomotives.
> Is that true? Anybody know why?
>
> And, if GE locomotive problems are pretty well known in the industry, then
> how did GE get the proverbial leg up on GM? Was it really the packaging
> around the sale, or did the engines get better?
I'm reminded of the Morrison-Knudson U25B rebuilds with GM567's but
retaining the GE traction motors (750s?), and the crews saying the units
combined the best of both worlds. The power blocks were easy to maintain
and the traction motors would outpull GM's "all to hell." If only M-K
had put the generators next to the cab instead of the engines, they would
have been perfect. At run-8 the noise level was something else. But for
the majority of their trips between Bly and Klamath Falls, they ran with
the first unit in isolation.