There were actually quite a few things railroads got upset with EMD
over. And, as many railroads as there were, there are likely some
fairly good apocryphal stories.
The one that is fairly true involves the early E units. The reason
the D&RGW didn't buy any was the insistence by EMD that they wouldn't
put dynamics in them and the D&RGW was very leery of the traction
motor robustness (actually, ALL of the electrical systems'
robustness). The D&RGW had the EMD salesman in the office in Burnham
discussing it and the EMD guy kept repeating the "same old lies" -
and the D&RGW guy simply said, "fine, we'll purchase something
else". The EMD guy didn't believe it, said so, and the D&RGW guy
took him to the window to show him the brand new PAs. Apocryphal,
but the underlying gist is dead on. They were simply tired of the
electrical systems and the PAs DID have some of the best traction
motors and the best electrical systems (all GE). Of course, there
were OTHER problems with them. But those issues continued for
EMD. And one thing any railroad man knew about the U-Boats - there
would be no need to worry about electrical systems. Or so they
thought (just as with any system, focusing on subsystems can really
blind you to the total system's qualities - good and bad).
One of the issues was the EMD tried to squeeze too much horsepower
out of the 547 - and the traction motors. That one issue was likely
the gate that they left open for GE, and GE drove the U-Boat right
through it. There comes a point where the reliability of a product
is hurt by attempting to grow it beyond it's capability. And EMD has
done that more than a few times. And paid for it more than a few
times. At times when they should have been perfecting replacements,
they held off way too long, relying instead on attempting to squeeze
a few more steps out of "the old reliable". Of course, all that is
in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20.
Any attempt to be critical of such things - whether it be a railroad,
supplier or customer - has to be put into context. And you have to
look at how the economy was performing at certain critical junctures
for EMD. And how their order book looked at other
junctures. Attempting to review their decisions in a vacuum without
looking at that context can provide you with the same false analysis
you might get by simply looking at passenger time tables through the
years. Yeah, the trains came on and off in the 1890s. But unless
you realize what completely unsettling events happened in the country
in 1893, your analysis of trains will be, at best, flawed. The same
would happen if you looked at how the original Burlington Zephyr
affected the railroad, railroads and the country and you didn't
include the Great Depression.
At 07:12 PM 4/30/2008, bigbearoak wrote:
>Ed -
>
>Thank you for a very cogent and interesting explanation.
>
>Could you elaborate on your statement that "...many roads were fed
>up with the tactics
>and products of EMD..."? Not too hard to guess about "tactics," but
>what were the
>substantive complaints about their "motors?" Knowing little about
>the history of diesels, I
>guess I'd assumed EMD was the standard - if not the gold standard,
>then at least by
>reputation more reliable than its competitors. Is that just a myth?
>Did they get lazy and
>arrogant after crushing BLH, FM and ALCO? Or were there basic
>problems with their
>designs?
>
>Grateful for any further clarification (however brief or long you wish).
>Jonathan Harris
>
>--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, Ed DeRouin <Ed@...> wrote:
> >
> > Brad and Others:
> >
> > The U23C locomotives. like the U25Cs, were purchased as replacement
> > power for SD9s. In the case of the U23C locomotives, the horsepower
> > was not of primary interest; attainable tractive effort with a
> > smaller prime mover was. Regardless of the alleged better deal from
> > GE, in that era, many roads were fed up with the tactics and products
> > of EMD and GE was the only other player. Forget Alco, they were in a
> > death spiral. By providing opportunity for GE by purchasing their
> > products, GE was able to improve, compete, and eventually outsell
> > EMD. That era is definitely outside that of the CB&Q, but the
> > purchases or leases of U25B and C locos, and later models, may not
> > have given the engineers the locomotive of choice, but sent a loud
> > message into the now empty offices in LaGrange. If you are unsure of
> > the impact of GE on the locomotive market, look at how Alco and EMD
> > responded when GE introduced the Universal line in 1961.
> >
> > Brad, your email caused me to smile because I never thought of the
> > Alliance or Sheridan Divisions as locations for speed runs. Recall
> > that in those days, the territory was a far cry from what is seen
> > today. IIRC, the line was single track, protected by ABS, and had
> > some controlled sidings with a low traffic density. Tractive effort
> > was what was needed to conquer the hills.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed DeRouin
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Bob Webber
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|