EMD Sale Confirmed

[AmtrakFan]

Well the people who got it Bridgestone Capital use to be the people who owned CNW.

[MEC407]

<i> Unless I'm mistaken, there haven't been any companies other than EMD and GE who have been able to get a strong foothold on the mainline freight locomotive market in recent years.</i>

Alstom, Bombardier, SLM, Seimens, and a few others I can't think of right now. The first two already have a foothold in the US market.

The original question was about the mainline freight locomotive market in North America -- I don't recall seeing any major U.S. or Canadian railroads buying mainline freight locomotives from Alstom, BBD, et al.

[videobruce]

he buying company wants profits or instant cash for what they paid.

Reganomics.
Just another bunch of Wall Street greedy yuppies.............

[Tadman]

Be careful, when you put up that kind of cash you are allowed to do anything within our laws that you want to. I always had an elementary school teacher that said "what's popular is not always what's right, what's right is not always what's popular" - in other words, what you and I would love to see (an rebuilt and revived EMC) might not be in the cards, and the people that put up millions of dollars to buy it have that right.

For those disappointed still, go out and rent "other people's money" with Danny Devito - great movie.

Finally, is there any industrial or factory environments left at EMD LaGrange or is it all office? I know lots got torn down in 1998 or so.

[Railpac]

I and many other people belive EMD has a superior product over GE. Good example: How many rebuilt or even UNrebuilt EMD GP7s, built in the late 40s, early 50s, are still in regular revenue service? A couple hundred at the least. Now, how many GE U25B's, released almost 15 years later, and a more "technologically advanced" locomotive, do you still see in regular revenue service, or service at all? None that I can think of.

Another example: To meet the EPA's Tier II emission standards, all EMD had to do was redesign the combustion chamber, and retune the turbocharger. GE on the other hand was forced to develop an entirely new prime mover design in order to meet the requirements. Not to mention almost every EMD two-stroke design (aside from the troubled 645F) is more maintenance free, and has a higher availability rating than any comparable GE four-stroke design.

As stated before, what killed EMD was marketing. GE was able to offer a cheaper locomotive, with a little bit more horsepower. GE locomotives are literally built to scrapped at the end of their usefullness, EMD builds their locomotives to be rebuilt several times, and provide several decades of reliable service before meeting the scrappers torch. GE locos look good on paper, but when it comes down to operation in the feild, EMD wins hands-down in most aspects.

If these new owners can find a way to make EMD locomotives cheaper, without sacrificing the quality EMD is known for, then EMD will quickly rise to the top locomotive manufacturer position once again.

[emd_SD_60]

I and many other people belive EMD has a superior product over GE. Good example: How many rebuilt or even UNrebuilt EMD GP7s, built in the late 40s, early 50s, are still in regular revenue service? A couple hundred at the least. Now, how many GE U25B's, released almost 15 years later, and a more "technologically advanced" locomotive, do you still see in regular revenue service, or service at all? None that I can think of.

BNSF still has some ex-CB&Q SD9's and NS still has a handful of ex-NKP SD9's also. All, to my knowledge, have never been rebuilt, at least BNSFs' (I think both railroads confine them to yard duties).

BTW good to see you back.

[signmasters24]

"EMD’s new initials will be…. EMD

LaGRANGE, Ill. – When the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of General Motors spins off into a separate company at the end of March, it will still retain its brand name, Electro Motive, and its initials, EMD. But the initials will stand for something else.

According to an EMD spokesman, the new company name will be Electro Motive Diesel, thus preserving the brand and its customer name recognition."

from: Trains News Wire
[/b]

[XBNSFer]

I and many other people belive EMD has a superior product over GE. Good example: How many rebuilt or even UNrebuilt EMD GP7s, built in the late 40s, early 50s, are still in regular revenue service? A couple hundred at the least. Now, how many GE U25B's, released almost 15 years later, and a more "technologically advanced" locomotive, do you still see in regular revenue service, or service at all? None that I can think of.

Another example: To meet the EPA's Tier II emission standards, all EMD had to do was redesign the combustion chamber, and retune the turbocharger. GE on the other hand was forced to develop an entirely new prime mover design in order to meet the requirements. Not to mention almost every EMD two-stroke design (aside from the troubled 645F) is more maintenance free, and has a higher availability rating than any comparable GE four-stroke design.

As stated before, what killed EMD was marketing. GE was able to offer a cheaper locomotive, with a little bit more horsepower. GE locomotives are literally built to scrapped at the end of their usefullness, EMD builds their locomotives to be rebuilt several times, and provide several decades of reliable service before meeting the scrappers torch. GE locos look good on paper, but when it comes down to operation in the feild, EMD wins hands-down in most aspects.

If these new owners can find a way to make EMD locomotives cheaper, without sacrificing the quality EMD is known for, then EMD will quickly rise to the top locomotive manufacturer position once again.

Actually, EMD HAD a superior product over GE - about TWO DECADES ago; their more recent offerings are inferior - like investments, "past performance is not a guarantee of future performance." Saying that TODAY's EMD products are better than TODAY's GE products based on comparisons between decades-old offerings from EMD vs. GE is like saying that TODAY's Chevy is better than TODAY's Toyota based on comparisons between 1960s offerings from both manufacturers. Seems sillier now, doesn't it?! Maybe the new owner can breathe some life into EMD, but GM was in the process of destroying it (like they've destroyed their core automobile business). EMD "superiority" last existed in models on the drawing board in the '60s (i.e., the DASH-2s that went into production in the early '70s), that is to say back when GM actually produced something that WAS a quality product. Talk up history all you like - today's GE locomotive is better than today's EMD locomotive - the RRs aren't buying all those GEs because they're enamoured with "inferior" products; far from it.

[GN 599]

Hmm never heard of a GP-7 built in the late 40's...Anyway on the BNSF we have re-built and non rebuilt SD-9's. There are 53 on the roster. Most of them are in yard service but they end up on the mainline from time to time. A few months back I met a southbound that had a Dash 9 with the 6137 (SD-9) as the DP consist. In a poll which motor would get the most votes as the ''better'' locomotive......

[Tadman]

With all due respect, xbnsfer, my job entails selling heavy capital equipment to steel companies. You would be shocked at the revolution the crane industry has undergone. Ten years ago, quality product - the SD40-2 of our industry - reigned, just as EMD did. The foreigners came in, and sold an inexpensive crane in the marketplace. It was poorly built and doesn't last past one service life - there's no rebuilds. Sound familiar?

Guess who is taking the market these days? The foreigners selling the cheapskate cranes. With no question, heavy industry does not always go for quality - in my experiance, 75% of the market for heavy capital equipment buys on price and maybe service. 15% buys on quality, price, and service. 10% only buys on quality alone.

So the argument of EMD vs. GE quality is irrelevant mostly - RR's are likely buying on price.

[GOLDEN-ARM]

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. Money is the only criterion now, for buying locos. Notice the hundreds of new GE's the BNSF has purchased, in the past few years. EMD's are still being purchased, but not in any significant amount. Their purchase almost seems to be mandated, perhaps as an anti-monopoly order, like the railroads experienced in the mid to late 80's, when GE's were mandated purchases, to keep EMD from monopolizing the market. I have opined many times, about the inferior quality of the GE products, but the answer is always the same: GE's are cheaper, and the railroads are thinking about moving todays train, not wondering about service life, availability ratios, and run to failure times, etc. EMD builds a better loco, hands down. GE builds a cheaper loco. I wish I could have back, every minute I have lost, waiting for a GE to load, either stopped, or at speed. All those minutes...........I would imagine all of those minutes, from all of those trains, from all of those crews adds up to a higher overall price, than the small difference between EMD and GE in the first place..............

[rdganthracite]

No doubt about it. The bean-counters hold control on the purse strings now. ................I wish I could have back, every minute I have lost, waiting for a GE to load, either stopped, or at speed. All those minutes...........(

As a customer I do not care whether one brand of locomotive loads up 10 second faster than another. I simply want my product delivered. It also doesn't matter to me if it takes just one locomotive, or a dozen because of reliability concerns, just so it shows up on time.

You are hired to move cargo from one location to another. If a different locomotive must be operated differently, then do so. That is what you are paid for. If you do not like having to operate different locomotives differently, find a different line of work. The railroad does not exist for your convenience. It only exists because some customer is willing to pay to have some product moved. If management decides that they want to purchase one particular brand of locomotive in favor of another that is their prerogative. If you do not like the decisions that your management is making, then buy the company and run it yourself. Or, again, find another line of work.

[Nelson Bay]

No doubt about it. The bean-counters hold control on the purse strings now. ................I wish I could have back, every minute I have lost, waiting for a GE to load, either stopped, or at speed. All those minutes...........(

quote="rdganthracite"][
As a customer I do not care whether one brand of locomotive loads up 10 second faster than another. I simply want my product delivered. It also doesn't matter to me if it takes just one locomotive, or a dozen because of reliability concerns, just so it shows up on time.


rdganthracite- You should care pal. Increased operating costs do get passed on.

[rdganthracite]

No doubt about it. The bean-counters hold control on the purse strings now. ................I wish I could have back, every minute I have lost, waiting for a GE to load, either stopped, or at speed. All those minutes...........(

quote="rdganthracite"][
As a customer I do not care whether one brand of locomotive loads up 10 second faster than another. I simply want my product delivered. It also doesn't matter to me if it takes just one locomotive, or a dozen because of reliability concerns, just so it shows up on time.


rdganthracite- You should care pal. Increased operating costs do get passed on.

I do care about costs. That is why we have everything delivered by truck. Rail doesn't seem to be able to provide reliable deliveries to anyone who does not ship in unit train quantities, and because of the inventory we would have to carry, is far too expensive. I can call a supplier 5 states away this afternoon and have the corn starch in my silo tomorrow if it is delivered by truck. If I specify rail delivery no one can tell me which week it will show up, much less have it spotted and ready to unload on a day that I specify. So we would have to have at least a month's supply sitting around eating up capital that could be put to much more productive use. Yes trucks are more expensive in the out of pocket cost, but when you figure in the inventory costs, and the loss of business when you have to shut down because the local crew just cannot seem to motivate themselves to bring any of the 20+ cars that have been sitting in the local yard waiting to be delivered for the last month , then truck deliveries are a bargain.

[Nelson Bay]

[
I do care about costs. That is why we have everything delivered by truck. Rail doesn't seem to be able to provide reliable deliveries to anyone who does not ship in unit train quantities, and because of the inventory we would have to carry, is far too expensive. Yes trucks are more expensive in the out of pocket cost, but when you figure in the inventory costs, and the loss of business when you have to shut down because the local crew just cannot seem to motivate themselves to bring any of the 20+ cars that have been sitting in the local yard waiting to be delivered for the last month , then truck deliveries are a bargain.

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.

Anyway I learned something new about the way railroads operate- I didn't realize the local crews decided what to haul and when to haul cars out the local yard. I always thought someone else decided what they do & when they do it. Live & learn, thanks!