Thanks for that link – that Henschel brochure is most interesting.
In respect of body styling, both Nohab and AFB deviated quite a bit from the EMD nose-end shape, and to my eye, not positively so. Henschel was somewhere in between with its AA units, although the TT12 nose ends did look more like a scaled-down version of the EMD original. In contrast, Clyde in Australia managed to retain close to the original EMD shape, even though it was working to what was more-or-less the same loading gauge as the European builders. One may ask what was Nohab thinking when it made its changes, particularly as the Clyde version was already extant. Actually, Nohab did a somewhat better on the nose ends of the SJ Ra class electric locomotive of 1955.
The shaped (two-plane) bodysides adopted by Henschel for the Egyptian AA16 and AA12 models were also found on its slightly later standard CM-gauge export diesel-hydraulic model, which was likely informed to quite an extent by the DB V160 class, which had been designed by Krupp although Henschel built some of the prototypes and I understand may have undertaken the work on optimizing the cardan shaft assembly.
Majorly different were the La Brugeoise-Nivelles (BN)-EMD models built for SNCB in the early 1960s. Here the body style was essentially prescribed by SNCB, and was very similar to that used by Cockerill for its builds of the same period, see the “Baldwin Export Locomotives” thread, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=160538
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Here is the BN-EMD AA12, SNCB class 212. The BN-EMD AA16, SNCB class 205, had the same basic shape.
By then, AFB was no longer building locomotives, and the EMD licence had passed to BN. As BN did not build electrical equipment, it subcontracted to ACEC, who was not only a Westinghouse licensee, but also a GE licensee by virtue of its acquisition of SEM, who inter alia had supplied the electrical equipment for the GE-design shovel-nose locomotives supplied to the Congo in 1954, mentioned in the ‘GE Export Diesels’ thread, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=159801
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Quite how ACEC managed those three licences for minimum interaction is unknown, although the existent extensive cross-licensing between GE and Westinghouse would have eased the situation between those two. These days there would be a whole corporate manual on the establishment and maintenance of firewalls. I can’t help wondering though whether the ACEC clones of the EMD traction motors were not a bit better. If you knew how to do a lot better – and clearly ACEC did - it would be hard to resist putting in a tweak here and a small refinement there.