GE To Reenter Passenger Market

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What will be interesting as the years go by is to see if MPI can make a competitive freight model. MPI has effectively captured the current passenger market with the MP36s, and there is no threat from either builder. If they can enter the freight market with a model that sells as well as the MP36 does the days of EMD may be over...
 
Part of me has to wonder about how well GE is doing these days product wise versus EMD. In case you haven't noticed the Evolution Series has been beating the pants of the ACes and M-2s. Even traditionally EMD railroads like UP have been buying up GE's over EMD. I don't know that EMD in the post GM era is delivering the same kind of product that it used to back in the day.
EMD's engines have gotten progressively worse in nearly every aspect since the shift to computer control. The M-2s and ACes are deeply hated by every trainman I've talked to or heard from about them. The "Whisper Cab" is a joke... they're no quieter than an SD40. You can't effectively fit a single piece of paper on the conductor's desk. Any GE, even the crappy old ones, will hold a load better. And what reigns supreme in their flaws is every aspect of the computer system. FEC's M-2s were nearly returned to the factory due to all the software malfunctions (which even the smallest can render the entire locomotive useless). The only good aspect of the new EMDs I've heard from anybody is the new control stand, which is essentially a more modern version of the old EMD control stands (replacing desktop controls, making backup moves far easier). Of course, the GEVOs have this too.

And not only does GE currently make a MUCH better product (with normal, safe to use stairs and wider catwalks), but they just reintroduced the A1A style truck for cross country stack trains (the ES44C4), which is very mechanically similar to their new AC models. So a better variety of higher quality, interchangeable products vs. AC and DC highly technologically advanced models that won't even start. This is why down here, CSX's Hialeah yard keeps nothing but GPs and GEVOs.... Oh, and one SD70MAC. (Out of about 10 6-axle units, this is the ONLY EMD out of the bunch, excluding the times when a few SD40s stroll down).

The balance of power has shifted. EMD made arguably the best locomotives in the world up through the 70s, while GE's old U boats were pitiful. Nowadays, EMD makes expensive marvels of technology that won't move.
Very interesting observations. My trials and tribulations were mostly non-comfort cab days with GE's. I do know we made a study of injuries on older GE's compared to EMD and the difference was shocking (GE lost by light years.) With all the known faults it appears that GE sat down and tried to correct some of their past sins. This scenario reminds me of a Peugeot I once owned. Great riding car if you could ever get it out of the shop! But don't ask me to buy another one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My very limited experience would (as bad as it may be) put GM quality first, GE next, and then MRC. MRC, from what I've heard from their drivers, look nice, feel nice, but are very unreliable.
 
Part of me has to wonder about how well GE is doing these days product wise versus EMD. In case you haven't noticed the Evolution Series has been beating the pants of the ACes and M-2s. Even traditionally EMD railroads like UP have been buying up GE's over EMD. I don't know that EMD in the post GM era is delivering the same kind of product that it used to back in the day.
EMD's engines have gotten progressively worse in nearly every aspect since the shift to computer control. The M-2s and ACes are deeply hated by every trainman I've talked to or heard from about them. The "Whisper Cab" is a joke... they're no quieter than an SD40. You can't effectively fit a single piece of paper on the conductor's desk. Any GE, even the crappy old ones, will hold a load better. And what reigns supreme in their flaws is every aspect of the computer system. FEC's M-2s were nearly returned to the factory due to all the software malfunctions (which even the smallest can render the entire locomotive useless). The only good aspect of the new EMDs I've heard from anybody is the new control stand, which is essentially a more modern version of the old EMD control stands (replacing desktop controls, making backup moves far easier). Of course, the GEVOs have this too.

And not only does GE currently make a MUCH better product (with normal, safe to use stairs and wider catwalks), but they just reintroduced the A1A style truck for cross country stack trains (the ES44C4), which is very mechanically similar to their new AC models. So a better variety of higher quality, interchangeable products vs. AC and DC highly technologically advanced models that won't even start. This is why down here, CSX's Hialeah yard keeps nothing but GPs and GEVOs.... Oh, and one SD70MAC. (Out of about 10 6-axle units, this is the ONLY EMD out of the bunch, excluding the times when a few SD40s stroll down).

The balance of power has shifted. EMD made arguably the best locomotives in the world up through the 70s, while GE's old U boats were pitiful. Nowadays, EMD makes expensive marvels of technology that won't move.
Only one small observation; the torpedo rule was removed from the UP rule book because the crew could not hear the explosion from inside an air conditioned cab. Every "comfort cab" I ever ran was supremely quieter than any of its predecessors.
 
Only one small observation; the torpedo rule was removed from the UP rule book because the crew could not hear the explosion from inside an air conditioned cab. Every "comfort cab" I ever ran was supremely quieter than any of its predecessors.
My experience is limited to GP38-2s, GP40-2s, and GP49s versus SD70MACs, but I 100% agree with had8ley. Earplugs were a must on the GEEPs, but you wouldn't want to wear them on the MACs. Not only was exterior noise virtually gone (even when blowing the whistle, with all of the doors and windows closed, it sounded like the train was probably about 1/4 mile distant), the engine vibrations were virtually nil. Supposedly the isolated "Whisper Cab" had a slightly bouncier, rougher ride, which is (from what I'd seen) why EMD considered phasing it out, but I never noticed it--compared to the GEEPs, it was downright like a Mercedes with four-wheel independent suspension.

I'd heard the same thing about the Whisper Cab obsoleting torpedoes as had8ley, too.

FWIW, the Alaska Railroad had absolutely no problems with nor complaints from crew members about (that I ever heard) with the 24 SD70MACs (with desktop controls, not control stands) they had when I was there.
 
I actually prefer the P30CH, primarily due to its 6-axle bogie.
If this is the engine GE put out in the 70's it's the worse piece of trash Amtrak ever bought. They used to run the Sunset with an F-40 and this GE and guess what. There was a regular machinist who rode back and forth to Houston just to keep it going. I'm not much on engine ID numbers but this sounds like the "garbage trucks' as we used to call them. We actually had to pull #1 over the Huey P. Long bridge with a switch engine because they royally screwed up and put two of these GE junkers on at UPT (before the train ran to Florida thank goodness) and they konked out on the bridge~ about 6 miles from the diesel shop and NOUPT.
 
In posting the original blurb I had no clue it would foment such a lively discussion viz locomotive qualities. Always interesting and informative to hear from experienced trainmen. Thanks, guys!
 
I actually prefer the P30CH, primarily due to its 6-axle bogie.
If this is the engine GE put out in the 70's it's the worse piece of trash Amtrak ever bought. They used to run the Sunset with an F-40 and this GE and guess what. There was a regular machinist who rode back and forth to Houston just to keep it going. I'm not much on engine ID numbers but this sounds like the "garbage trucks' as we used to call them. We actually had to pull #1 over the Huey P. Long bridge with a switch engine because they royally screwed up and put two of these GE junkers on at UPT (before the train ran to Florida thank goodness) and they konked out on the bridge~ about 6 miles from the diesel shop and NOUPT.
Even worse than the E60C?
 
I actually prefer the P30CH, primarily due to its 6-axle bogie.
If this is the engine GE put out in the 70's it's the worse piece of trash Amtrak ever bought. They used to run the Sunset with an F-40 and this GE and guess what. There was a regular machinist who rode back and forth to Houston just to keep it going. I'm not much on engine ID numbers but this sounds like the "garbage trucks' as we used to call them. We actually had to pull #1 over the Huey P. Long bridge with a switch engine because they royally screwed up and put two of these GE junkers on at UPT (before the train ran to Florida thank goodness) and they konked out on the bridge~ about 6 miles from the diesel shop and NOUPT.
Even worse than the E60C?
I leave it at this... General Extortion...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GE has gotten better. the only problem with the E60's was they were too heavy for pax operation. whenever you base a pax engine of a freight engine it never works. look at the LRC locos they had problems at first but after some tweaking they worked great.
 
Most passenger locos are based off of freight designs. The F59PHi, the F40PH (a real workhorse if there ever was one) and the Dash 8-32BWH come to mind as relatively modern examples. The SDP40F was also a good engine, and would have served admirably if people hadn't been dumb enough to place the watertank so high up. A theoretical SDP40FH would have been fine. Santa Fe had no problem running them at speed on the Super-C freights once the water tanks were removed.
 
Most passenger locos are based off of freight designs. The F59PHi, the F40PH (a real workhorse if there ever was one) and the Dash 8-32BWH come to mind as relatively modern examples. The SDP40F was also a good engine, and would have served admirably if people hadn't been dumb enough to place the watertank so high up. A theoretical SDP40FH would have been fine. Santa Fe had no problem running them at speed on the Super-C freights once the water tanks were removed.
...Although newer 4-axle passenger engines based off of freight designs aren't exactly perfect. The F59PHI's monstrous size atop only four axles makes it slightly overweight and has lots of complaints from train crews. Even 4-axle Dash-8s and BNSF's GP60Ms have been noted for similar problems, since they were based upon 6-axle designs. (At least the Dash-8 was, may be wrong about the GP60s).
 
The concept of insisting on making money on a public service is not only ridiculous, but the very concept of trying is abhorrent. Would you suggest that we should not operate, say, sewage treatment plants if they do not turn a profit?
After having been the chairman of a Water and Sewer system, I can say with authority, that a sewage treatment plant could not loose even a penny. We would be required to either raise rates (if an operating deficit was projected) or raise taxes (if a capital deficit was projected).

Most passenger locos are based off of freight designs. The F59PHi, the F40PH (a real workhorse if there ever was one) and the Dash 8-32BWH come to mind as relatively modern examples. The SDP40F was also a good engine, and would have served admirably if people hadn't been dumb enough to place the watertank so high up. A theoretical SDP40FH would have been fine. Santa Fe had no problem running them at speed on the Super-C freights once the water tanks were removed.
...Although newer 4-axle passenger engines based off of freight designs aren't exactly perfect. The F59PHI's monstrous size atop only four axles makes it slightly overweight and has lots of complaints from train crews. Even 4-axle Dash-8s and BNSF's GP60Ms have been noted for similar problems, since they were based upon 6-axle designs. (At least the Dash-8 was, may be wrong about the GP60s).
The SDP40Fs were six-axle units, as were the P30CHs.
 
yeah but for some reason amtrak doesn't want 6 axle locos. they had the dash-8 special ordered with only 4 axles. do to fear the 6 axle locos were unsafe at Passenger train speed.
 
the old SDP40Fs that kept derailing before they figured out it was the water tanks they blamed the 6 axle trucks for the derailments. and i believe someone on here said that amtrak is not allowed to run 6 Axel locos cause the host RR's think the 6 axel is unsafe for pax speed.
 
the old SDP40Fs that kept derailing before they figured out it was the water tanks they blamed the 6 axle trucks for the derailments. and i believe someone on here said that amtrak is not allowed to run 6 Axel locos cause the host RR's think the 6 axel is unsafe for pax speed.
In the 70's host RR's would restrict 6 axle units to 45 mph in curves in hopes that they would stay on the rail.
 
There are lots of spurs, sidings and yards where 6-axle units aren't allowed due to the degree of a curve or switch. Maybe one reason Amtrak only wants 4-axle locos is to have an engine that can operate anywhere, without having to place a captive switcher.

And might it also have to do with weight distribution? More weight per axle means the wheel is less likely to slip, right? Passenger trains (especially corridor trains) need faster acceleration to a faster speed, meaning greater chances for wheel slip to occur (at least with a lighter train). In that case, 4 would be better than 6.
 
And might it also have to do with weight distribution? More weight per axle means the wheel is less likely to slip, right? Passenger trains (especially corridor trains) need faster acceleration to a faster speed, meaning greater chances for wheel slip to occur (at least with a lighter train). In that case, 4 would be better than 6.
Not necessarily. Remember, the E-series were all six axle, with the center axle having no motor. The flatland railroads went for these things in a big way, and ran them faster than anything running today outside the NEC. All axles powere, adhesion issues are for the most part low speed issues. They also become very high speed issues, but that is another issue altogether.

Yes, a lot of companies put either 40 mph or 45 mph restrictions on the SDP40's but not all. ATSF never did. They ran them at 90 mph with no apparent problems. The major problem appears to be that these things were before the concept of steerable trucks, so they became "track inspectors" due to their stiff trucks. If you did not have good ties under the high rail on the curve, these things would roll it over. The 70's was a time when a lot of railroads were trying to balance their budget on the backs of the track forces, and the chickens came home to roost. The passenger derailments got the publicity, but some companies were having trouble keeping anything on their tracks. The general deterioration of track conditions during this time is what led dirctly to the federal regulation of track standards. Before that, there was no government regulation that defined what speeds could be run on what condition track. It was entirely up to the railroads, themselves.
 
The 70's was a time when a lot of railroads were trying to balance their budget on the backs of the track forces, and the chickens came home to roost. The passenger derailments got the publicity, but some companies were having trouble keeping anything on their tracks.
That sort of problem appears to have dogged CSX until like last year :)
 
GE has gotten better. the only problem with the E60's was they were too heavy for pax operation. whenever you base a pax engine of a freight engine it never works. look at the LRC locos they had problems at first but after some tweaking they worked great.
The MLW (Alco 251 powered) LRC's had GE electrics, though. They could go like stink but there wasn't much room in the carbody fo the mechanics or electricians, especially a big one! There is one preserved in operating condition at Exporail, near Montreal. The LRC coaches are in heavy daily service and will be put through a mid-term rebuild.

Gord
 
Rather than start a whole new thread, why not just dredge up an older, related one? From the Erie, PA, Times-News:

GE Transportation pressing for Amtrak Deal

"Amtrak hopes to replace 54 of its oldest passenger locomotives, and Lawrence Park-based GE Transportation wants to bid for the contract. But at least for now, there's no money in the government's 2010 budget to pay for them.

"In what might have once seemed like an unusual collaboration, company officials and its main union are making a joint plea for Congress to include an appropriation for new locomotives."

Also this...

"GE Transportation recently signed an agreement with the Chinese Rail Ministry to jointly pursue opportunities in true high-speed rail, in which locomotives are capable of topping 200 mph.

"But the company is ready today to build machines that will run at 124 mph, and both Simonelli and Pifer [GE and union chiefs, respectively] are asking employees and members of the community to press lawmakers for Amtrak funding."
 
Rather than start a whole new thread, why not just dredge up an older, related one? From the Erie, PA, Times-News:
GE Transportation pressing for Amtrak Deal

"Amtrak hopes to replace 54 of its oldest passenger locomotives, and Lawrence Park-based GE Transportation wants to bid for the contract. But at least for now, there's no money in the government's 2010 budget to pay for them."
Remind me which 54 locomotives we're talking about replacing?
 
Remind me which 54 locomotives we're talking about replacing?
The oldest. Says so right there! :D

Probably safe to assume it's road engines up for replacement, not the pretty fair number of REALLY old yard switchers around.
I'm guessing "the oldest" road engines are the AEM7s ... but I'm guessing that's not what they're hoping to build, if they're looking at a max-speed of "124". I, for one, will not tolerate losing that 1 mph!

If it's safe to assume they mean "the oldest" road engine diesels ... then what are those?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top