Engineers. Which locomotive do you prefer?

Question

If you are a locomotive engineer on a railraod operating in the United States or Canada which make of locomotive do you prefer, and why? The General Electric, or the General Motors

Answer 1

This is an opinion. So for me I am a GM type. I have had so many problems with GE. I like GM because when you have to pull

out the bubble gum and pop sickle sticks to fix them most of the time what you are looking for is in the same place. On a GE of

the same type the starter switch my be in a different place on engines of the same year and type. Let alone if something is really

off kilter and you have to dig in to find it. But they are getting better. I know pop sickle sticks will no longer fix the new ones.

But I do not have to call the so called loco doc to install a starter fuse. The old road I came off of I was taught to fix em if you

could. And we had good training. The test taken with the round house back shop Foreman made the rules seem like a breeze.

We spent 6 weeks down there and the written took a week it was as thick as a Sears Wish Book. Some of these kids today cant

reset a PC. Oh well cant wait to quit.

The other side of the story I read that WW2 submarine crews loved the Bessemer and hated the GM because they could tie

down the overspeed and squeeze a couple more knots out when their life depended on it.

Best I remember the Alco was an opposing piston engine. I only ran one of them in Dallas in like 73 or 4. Then poof it was

gone. But it pulled good and kicked well. It was on the test but we spent little time with it. Because only that one was left.

Answer 2

It took a long time for GE to catch up to the locomotives created by EMD, and I never thought I would say it, but currently they have the superior product.

The old GE U-boats were primarily assigned to "flat land" routes of the old Southern Pacific, which is the carrier I worked for.  (As an aside, I am not now nor ever shall I be a Union Pacific employe.  As long as I live, SP lives.)  When we did see them on "the hill" between Roseville, California and Sparks, Nevada, you could pretty much count on it going belly up.  Their noisy, 4 stroke ex-Alco prime movers earned them the nick name of "egg beater," in addition to their nick name of U-boats, steming from the UB designation of their available modles of the time.  Their cooling system was not as well advanced as that of the GM engines in general, and the T2 "tunnel motors", with predictable outcome from the many miles of tunnel and snow sheds along the way.

I had always thought that if GM and GE merged, with EMD prime movers and the superior electronics of the GE design combined, a far superior locomotive would be the result.

The GE units of the time did have superior "creature comforts", with ducted A/C and heating systems, walk in toilets and better visibility, but they just couldn't be counted on for the heavy haul over the hill.  For reliability and performance however, GM built the best of the day.

Given a choice today, I would rather have a totally GE consist.  Even between the AC units offered by both manufacturers, I would still prefer a GE, especially where dynamic brake is concerned.  Their extended range portion of their system is phenominal, with little reduction in apereage right down to a near stop.

I think GM may have a slight edge when it comes to the power holding the rail, with its ability to have the wheels "track" through curvature.  Like I say, a "slight" advantage, but not enough to have me convinced they are near the efficiency of GE power.

When GE began to tout their new technology I was quite skeptical, convinced that they couldn't even build a decent toaster, let alone the marvelous power they produce today.  My appologies to the good folks of EMD at LaGrange, but you are no longer #1, at least in my book.

Answer 3

I'm not an engineer, but I work in the rail industry. For the record, GM sold EMD to Greenbriar Financial Corp. a couple years ago.

HOGHEAD pretty much nailed it on the head when he said an EMD engine with GE electrical would make for a superior locomotive. However the GE FDL series engine is not an old Alco engine. GE provided most of the electrical for the now defunct American Locomotive Corporation. GE purchased the FDL engine, and the Grove City, PA plant, from Cooper-Bessemer, but it was originally designed by Baldwin. The new GE HDL engine, in the Evo locomotive, was designed and is manufactured in Germany.

Up until the early 90's EMD built a far superior locomotive. The 2-cycle engine produced more horsepower per pound of fuel than the GE 4-cycle. In the 90's GE began getting more horsepower to the rails with superior electrical and electronic controls. Then came the EPA regulations on exhaust emissions. The 4-cycle clearly has an advantage and GE's new HDL engine is much "cleaner" than the old EMD 710 series engine. EMD designed a 4-cycle engine, jokingly called the "paper engine" because it looked good on paper, but performed horribly in the field.

Plenty of EMD's are still out producing power. Right now there is a demand for power.

Answer 4

general motor

Answer 5

I have only worked for BNSF since 2002, I became an engineer just over 1 1/2 years ago.

In the past 2 years with the new GE and Mac motors, I have to say I hate them both as with the new "wall" next to our seats and the new "old style" configuration of the controls its cramped and uncofortable...they did however make more cmfortable seats for us however.

If I had to pick I would go with the new GE.