by Herr Spreng
The GE locomotive design group was separate from and shared no personnel with the Alco design group. The chap who ran the U25 group was said to be somewhat enamored with the EMD way of doing things on the electrical end.
The goal on the electrical side of the U25 was to make it 'simple' like an EMD. Some of the devices even had EMD names,e.g., the start contactors CK1 and CK2. All of the 'junk' that caused problems on the Alco road units was eschewed and replace by 'off-the-shelf' assemblies. Case in point: The Woodward PG-R governor replaced the GE governor and control panel.
Another goal-never realized-was a permanent parallel traction motor coonection arrangement-hence the application of the large GT-598 DC machine with a GY-50 three-field exciter.
The strange irony was that the EMD equivalent, the GP-35, had a complicated (and troublesome)transition scheme that mirrored some of the shortcomings of the Alco-GE road passenger units with the multi-point field shunters.
The goal on the electrical side of the U25 was to make it 'simple' like an EMD. Some of the devices even had EMD names,e.g., the start contactors CK1 and CK2. All of the 'junk' that caused problems on the Alco road units was eschewed and replace by 'off-the-shelf' assemblies. Case in point: The Woodward PG-R governor replaced the GE governor and control panel.
Another goal-never realized-was a permanent parallel traction motor coonection arrangement-hence the application of the large GT-598 DC machine with a GY-50 three-field exciter.
The strange irony was that the EMD equivalent, the GP-35, had a complicated (and troublesome)transition scheme that mirrored some of the shortcomings of the Alco-GE road passenger units with the multi-point field shunters.