Re: (erielack) EL GEs vs EMD/ALCOs

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

I find this hard to believe. I would think one of the quickest ways to kill 
your business would be to broadcast to existing and potential customers that 
you're not going to provide replacement parts. That approach might work for 
consumer electronics but it ain't gonna fly in the locomotive biz. The more 
likely reason is that, like many locomotives of the 60's and 70's, the GE's 
were prone to mechanical and/or electrical failure. GE acknowledged this 
deficiency in the mid-70's when they appended the "XR" or Extra-Reliability 
suffix to their locomotive line, but the evidence suggests it was more 
marketing than reality. GE didn't achieve a satisfactory level of locomotive 
dependability until the Dash-8's in the 1980's. Simultaneously, EMD 
evidently suffered a breakdown in corporate leadership as evidenced by the 
release of the highly-flawed 50-series, and GE achieved dominance of the new 
locomotive market.

EMD had a winner with the 567 prime mover, but since 2500 hp (with 
turbocharger) pushed the limit of this engine, the 35's were failure-prone 
also. So the 645 engine was developed to keep EMD in the horsepower race. It 
was a highly successful engine, but here again was problematic when extended 
to 20 cylinders with the SD45; reportedly the longer crankshaft was prone to 
failure. This is why the underdog SD40 eventually eclipsed SD45 in sales. 
Successor SD40-2 became the most successful diesel in US history, while the 
SD45-2 only sold to 5 customers (including EL, of course).

Alco had a number of problems; underlying it all was a failure to fully 
transition from a steam loco production mentality to a modern 
production-line approach to building diesels. More specifically, the 6-axle 
Centurys operated poorly on substandard track, which of course coincided 
nicely with physical plant deterioration in the late 60's, particularly in 
the Northeast.

OTOH, individual lines or models that were otherwise problem-prone could be 
made to last if you had skilled shop personnel who were devoted to keeping 
them running. That's why you still have old Alcos and SD45-2's kicking 
around, and is also illustrated by Paul's example of the U34CH's. That's 
also why European loco builders such as Kraus-Maffei (sp?) were unsuccessful 
here. In the state-supported European environment, freight locos had 
generally short overnight runs, then would spend the day being serviced in 
amply-staffed facilities. Here they tended to break down while attempting to 
complete 2,000-mile runs through extremes of heat and topography, ie the 
normal operating environment that US locomotives are designed for.

In summary, the most enduring locomotives are those that tend to perform 
reliably year after year without special TLC; the SD40-2 is a prime example.

Paul B

I seem to recall a discussion about this topic a couple of years ago and
the concensus was that GE wanted buyers to purchase a new locomotive
once the initial useful life was expended.  In order to accomplish this,
replacement parts were not made or stocked.  ALCO and EMD, however,
looked at the rebuilding market as a profitable income stream.

Now today, it is rare to see any older GE locomotives running/in
service, compared to all of the "ancient" ALCOs and elderly EMDs still
up and running.

Henry


 


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org
	To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------