EMD Sale Confirmed

GOLDEN-ARM wrote:No doubt about it. The bean-counters hold control on the purse strings now. The days of the chief of locomotives ordering locos, based on what he saw was needed, are gone.

Not quite, GA - Ive heard that at NJ Transit, although they ordered only about 3 dozen locomotives, did consult the mechanical department and the loco department if they wanted an EMD or GE powerplant. As far as I know, it wasn't a real big deal, as its not like EMD or GE built the loco, they just needed the powerplant provided (Alstom built the PL42's) to plop into the loco.

Hands down, no questions asked, EMD power was chosen, and a 710 was put into the '42's.

they still have their teething problems, but the 710 is one of hte few reliable things on the loco, its the dozens of computers are killing it..........but they are getting much better, one at a time.

And as a side note/question, don't the MP36's have new 645s in them as their prime mover?

Two brand new from the ground up commuter/passenger locomotives although not built exclusively by EMD, are powered by EMD. that should say a little something about the EMD vs. GE debate today.

Fun fact, though: The 645s in the Metra and CalTrain MP36s are built by GE. Somehow they ended up with the rights to produce it, although it's manufactured in Poland, not the US.

Nelson Bay wrote:
OK, now I understand. You don't care if it takes 1 or 10 locomotives to haul a train because you don't receive your shipments by rail. A 5 year old girl on my street doesn't care either. She sells lemonade for .25cents a glass and doesn't receive her supplies by rail either.

You totally ignore my point. Ten years ago we still received a numer of raw materials by rail because the service was still reasonably reliable. Sometime shortly after 1995 things changed drastically for us "minor" customers.

You say that the local crew doesn't make up what is or is not to be delivered. Perhaps that is what is supposed to happen. When I was trying to get our materials delivered and they did not show up I drove to the yard office and saw with my own eyes that our cars were on the lineup sheets for days on end. But the crew would not bother switching them into the local. I called the dispatcher and was referred to the yard clerk who showed me the lineups in the first place. I called the traffic department at corporate headquarters and was referred to the same clerk. At each point I asked what could be done to ensure that the crew included our cars. Every time I was told that nothing could be done, if the crew did not think that they had time for all deliveries that day they would leave some for later. No one seemed to care whether a customer received the shipment or not. I would much rather receive my shipments by rail. There is far less traffic to deal with, and fewer unloadings because the amounts in each car is much more than in a truck. Thak makes less chance for an environmental emission, or employee injury. Will I ship by rail again? Will you and your coworkers all ensure that deliveries are made in a predictable manner? If not, then you have made the answer no.

Also a personal example. I purchased for my farm 30 tons of rock phosphate directly from the mine in Florida. I specified that I wanted it packaged in 50 pound bags, palletized, and delivered by rail. It took about one week for the car to make its way from the mine in Florida to the local yard in West Virginia. When my tracking confirmed that the car was in the yard I drove down and saw it sitting in the middle of the yard. I talked with the yard clerk, and the crew on duty to get the car moved from the middle of the yard 4 tracks over to the team track. Even with daily calls and or visits it took 2 additional weeks to get that car moved into position so that it could be unloaded. I ask you, was I as the customer given proper service?

As you make your runs why don't you take note of at all the shippers that used to use rail and do not anymore. Then go and ask them why and what it would take to regain them as customers. Then do something about it to get them back as customers. That would go much further toward your job security than complaining that management hasn't purchased the equipment you prefer. If you want to claim that "it's not my job" then just look around at how many railroaders there are today as compared with 25 years ago. There has been too much "it's not my job", and unfortunatly not just in railroading.

byte wrote:Fun fact, though: The 645s in the Metra and CalTrain MP36s are built by GE. Somehow they ended up with the rights to produce it, although it's manufactured in Poland, not the US.

HAHAAH - so GE somehow ended up with the rights to produce the 645 - thats very ironic - well, if you can't beat them, join em i guess is their philosophy!!!

Why/how would GM/EMD allow the rights to such a signfiicant design end up going to their competitor???

That's kind of a wild goose chase in itself. I'm not sure this is completely how it happened, but here's how I remember it: EMD put up for sale some assets of their aftermarket parts division (the 645 design in question was in these assets). Morrison-Knudsen bought these assets, and used the rights to convert many SD45s to SD40-2-equivalent locomotives. When MK went bankrupt, their assets went up on the auction block, and GE was a bidder. One of the things they ended up with was the rights to produce the 645. What I don't know, however, is how both manufacturers are making it at the same time - EMD still produces it for export locomotives. Maybe that's why it's an engine built in Poland, and therefore can be made/sold without infringing on EMD's rights to build it (although GE may not even produce it anymore - the latest MP36 order [for GO Transit] is using actual EMD 710s, so I'm thinking the 645 isn't tier-II compatible).

JTGSHU said "Not quite, GA - Ive heard that at NJ Transit, although ".......
NJT???? Why would anyone think the miniscule road of the NJTROI was a "player" in the locomotive purchasing field? Most class ones have more locos on their dead-lines, than NJT has on it's entire roster. I was there, when Conrail was ordered to buy GE's. I was there, when the UP was ordered to buy EMD's. Soo Line refused the GE's, by letting CP Canada purchase their units, for use in Canda Bean Counters are the bottom line in the 21st century. The day of the Master-Mechanic, or Superintendent of Motive Power calling the shots, are gone. The little fleet of locos on NJT hardly qualifies as a "proof" that the bean counters are not in control. NJT is a Government entity, not a "real" railroad corporation. (don't start crying, I have two years of running Lackawanna Electrics up and down the Gladstone branch, and I enjoy the whole deal, Hoboken and Newark sides.) The class ones today don't have the people, or mindset, that railroads had only 20 years ago. WAY too many people, in the top tiers of management, are college boys, with little, if any time spent railroading. Used to be most, if not all the Brass worked their way up, through the ranks. That's what railroading was all about, not the "bottom-line" of today, which is pay a dividend, at any cost. Running the trains is secondary, today. Sad, but true. Ask a MM on a class one, what he would prefer to see, at the fuel rack, or in the shops. He will most likely say EMD, in the SD series. Reliable, powerful, quick and an excellent availability ratio. Just costs a little too much, as far as accouning is concerned. Why buy 100 engines, when you could get 120, for the same price? Never mind they will be slower, less reliable, depreciate quicker, and have a shorter lifespan. Today, they are cheaper, and that puts more pennies into the hands of the shareholders. Regards

The Polish built 645FZ crankcase is structurally quite different from the EMD 645F crankcase. It simply fits in the same space and accepts the same parts. The story of the development of the crankcase has been discussed previously on this website. GE obtained the design when they purchased several portions of the former MK Rail (Motivepower) operations from Wabtec a few years ago.

Mr. Rdganthracite, I'm sorry you've had that experience. I can assure you that if you dealt with any of the shortlines that I am familiar with, you'd have had excellent customer service. What you describe would turn anyone off.

There's talk of railroads turning away business because they don't have capacity for it. I have heard this of CSX. If your experience is recent, perhaps that might explain it.

Dave Becker

HAAHAHAH GA - very good points! NJT is of course not a big player in the "real" railroad world, although the fleet of locos, both electric and diesel is near 200! And funny you mentioned dead lines, as thats where most of NJT's EMD's came from (except the original 13 CNJ GP40P's and the F40's, and the new PL42's) the other units are rebuilt from others junk!!!

But my point was that at least SOMEWHERE, the maintence and reliability of past EMD products and reputation has come into play in current and probably future locomotives!

As a side note, the "non railroad" NJT's EMD's are relied upon much more so than any huge "real railroad" class 1 in a sense. Why? Because single units are used, day in and day out to move millions upon millions upon millions of people a year, with VERY few breakdowns (relatively) - no simple "isolating" the unit and letting the others drag the train home! You got one unit, running, day in and day out, making hundreds of station stops a day, 0 to track speed, 50, 60, 70, 80, and sometimes 100mph and right back down again every day, for 10, 20, 30, 40 years - lots of "city" driving! hahaha.

One of the trade papers cited four entities as "world class global suppliers" of railroad motive power. They are Alstom, Bombardier, EMD and GE.

I note that only two of the four currently build electric locomotives-and the other two are the only builders who in effect, construct the entire locomotive-engine and support systems, electric transmission and trucks/carbody.

According to a certain party, there never would have been any GE dual-mode passenger locos if not for the large Amtrak order that preceded them. On top of that, it has been said that GE 'bought' the Amtrak order.

Neither EMDiesel nor GE seem to be interested in bidding on potential passenger locomotive orders these days. I suppose this has become a niche business-with MPI being the big player.

It appears that EMDiesel has in effect co-opted GE's formula-which is good sized production runs of a small number of models.

NJTRO ? Like the MTA, I suspect NJTRO employs an outside consultant to do the conceptual design of their rolling stock. In the case of the MTA, the firm is Klauder. They may also consult for NJT. I don't know.

Having read some of these specs-I would say that each and every one of them favors an EMD or 'EMD style' locomotive. Seems like a can't lose proposition to me.

Before the Alstom order, NJT shown a favorable disposition towards electric locos procured from overseas. From where I sit, it wasn't much of stretch to go to Alstom (which by the way is a conglomeration of many old line European suppliers).

Based upon the outline drawings I have seen, the way that the engine and support systems are laid out is entirely consistent with EMD practice.
To a machinist who works on F40's, I would suspect there wouldn't be much in the way of 'new.'

On the electrical side, these locos use Alstoms' ONIX control scheme, which is somewhat generic to all their AC drive equipment-including NYCTA subway cars. Field proven.

So, I would guess that if there any 'teething' problems with these locomotives, they revolve around the controls, i.e., the computer(s).

Those 16-710 have a lot of history behind them.

When your freight car is late, you call the railroad. When your commuter train is late because the loco died-you call your state rep-who in turn calls NJT. Need I say more ?

JFD