Western Railroad Discussion > Old EMD/GE vs New EMD/GE

Some interesting thoughts on SD70ACes versus ES44ACs in this thread:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3204690

I am wondering if there is also something of a natural pendulum over time (when it comes to quality/preference), considering the general success of the SD70M and SD70MAC. So, for those crews that have an opinion and care to share, how would you answer the question "what would you prefer to have on your train" in each of these scenarios:

1. SD40/SD40-2 versus U30C/C30-7
2. SD50 versus C36-7
3. SD60 versus C40-8
4. SD70M versus C44-9W
5. SD70MAC versus AC4400CW

I won't bother (re)adding SD70ACe versus ES44AC, since we pretty well have the answer from the previous thread! GE appears to win that battle by a mile.

If GE is preferred in general ever since the SD50 (mid-80s), what the heck happened to EMD to cause them to fall apart? I have read that the SD50 was nearly the nail in the coffin that did EMD in. GE also seem to greatly increase the quality of their products in the 1990s with the C44-9W and the AC4400CW. Were the isolated cabs on the SD70Ms and SD70MACs superior to the SD70ACes? Were they superior to ES44ACs?

Great discussion and a very interesting read for those of us that just take the pictures!

Kevin Morgan
Arvada, CO
ColoradoRailfan.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/13 12:44 by ColoradoRailfan.

ColoradoRailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some interesting thoughts on SD70ACes versus
> ES44ACs in this thread:
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3
> 204690
>
> I am wondering if there is also something of a
> natural pendulum, considering the general success
> of the SD70M and SD70MAC. So, for those crews that
> have an opinion and care to share, how would you
> answer the question "what would you prefer to have
> on your train" in each of these scenarios:
>
> 1. SD40/SD40-2 versus U30C/C30-7
> 2. SD50 versus C40-8
> 3. SD70M versus C44-9W
> 4. SD70MAC versus AC4400CW
>
> I won't bother (re)adding SD70ACe versus ES44AC,
> since we pretty well have the answer from the
> previous thread! GE appears to win that battle by
> a mile.
>
> If GE is preferred in general ever since the SD50
> (mid-80s), what the heck happened to EMD to cause
> them to fall apart? I have read that the SD50 was
> nearly the nail in the coffin that did EMD in. GE
> also seem to greatly increase the quality of their
> products in the 1990s with the C44-9W and the
> AC4400CW. Were the isolated cabs on the SD70Ms and
> SD70MACs superior to the SD70ACes? Were they
> superior to ES44ACs?
>
> Great discussion and a very interesting read for
> those of us that just take the pictures!


Your C40-8 comparison should match up to the SD60.

GE didn't really take the lead in domestic sales until 1987. They also were outsold by EMD in 1989. The lead they had in previous years was due to the huge Chinese C36-7 orders that was as more about politics and GE's huge effort to break into the Chinese market.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/13 09:30 by NYSWSD70M.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your C40-8 comparison should match up to the SD60.


Good point. Particularly considering we probably all know what would win between an SD50 and a C40-8! I changed the original question for those just coming in to the thread.

Kevin Morgan
Arvada, CO
ColoradoRailfan.com

ColoradoRailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your C40-8 comparison should match up to the
> SD60.
>
>
> Good point. Particularly considering we probably
> all know what would win between an SD50 and a
> C40-8! I changed the original question for those
> just coming in to the thread.

Yeah but we also know who would win between the SD50 and the C36-7!

NYSWSD70M Wrote:

> Yeah but we also know who would win between the
> SD50 and the C36-7!

I'd take the SD50.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Kevin;

Operating viewpoints are different from mechanical viewpoints. Both are different from railfan viewpoints. For example, even EMD lovers said GP20 and especially SD24's were terrible to work on. There's really pros and cons to each model.

EMD had quality control issues, morale issues but also corporate attitude issues. I never bought the "EMD's are better" line EVER. I know plenty of experienced train crews, mechanical people, etc.

Sales mean nothing. Few GP28's were sold by EMD, but that was a good locomotive. The fad at the time was turbo-charged units, so GP/SD35's sold WAY more. Per capita, more GP28's and SD28's are around.

brc600

ColoradoRailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some interesting thoughts on SD70ACes versus
> ES44ACs in this thread:
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3
> 204690
>
> I am wondering if there is also something of a
> natural pendulum over time (when it comes to
> quality/preference), considering the general
> success of the SD70M and SD70MAC. So, for those
> crews that have an opinion and care to share, how
> would you answer the question "what would you
> prefer to have on your train" in each of these
> scenarios:
>
> 1. SD40/SD40-2 versus U30C/C30-7
> 2. SD50 versus C36-7
> 3. SD60 versus C40-8
> 4. SD70M versus C44-9W
> 5. SD70MAC versus AC4400CW
>
> I won't bother (re)adding SD70ACe versus ES44AC,
> since we pretty well have the answer from the
> previous thread! GE appears to win that battle by
> a mile.
>
> If GE is preferred in general ever since the SD50
> (mid-80s), what the heck happened to EMD to cause
> them to fall apart? I have read that the SD50 was
> nearly the nail in the coffin that did EMD in. GE
> also seem to greatly increase the quality of their
> products in the 1990s with the C44-9W and the
> AC4400CW. Were the isolated cabs on the SD70Ms and
> SD70MACs superior to the SD70ACes? Were they
> superior to ES44ACs?
>
> Great discussion and a very interesting read for
> those of us that just take the pictures!

I got one. If you had a SD70ACe & ES44AC m.u.ed together on a 100 car loaded coal train say head from DENVER to DALLAS in you skipped the normal refueling spots, which one would run out of fuel 1st?

The SD70ACe would, The GEVO has always had slightly better fuel consumption numbers over the 710

I think the tide began to turn in GE's favor largely due to 2 factors that had nothing to do with product. GM's decision to transfer production from the LaGrange plant to London greatly reduced their capacity, leading to long lead times on new orders. Second, don't underestimate the influence that GE's very attractive financing programs had on the decision-making of the major R.R.'s at the time.

DPKrause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the tide began to turn in GE's favor
> largely due to 2 factors that had nothing to do
> with product. GM's decision to transfer production
> from the LaGrange plant to London greatly reduced
> their capacity, leading to long lead times on new
> orders. Second, don't underestimate the influence
> that GE's very attractive financing programs had
> on the decision-making of the major R.R.'s at the
> time.


The financing angle is overstated.

When EMD was selling to the Rock Island, financing was an issue. EMD could agree to make the lender whole by in effect "subsidizing the deal". This meant they would cover any cost between what the railroad could achieve on their own and what EMD wanted to offer them. The lender never "ate" the difference.

Now days, the railroads are healthy. For example, NS can get lenders to loan them money at prime. They do not need the builder to subsidized the deal.

ColoradoRailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1. SD40/SD40-2 versus U30C/C30-7
Never was around for U-series, barely for the Dash 7s. But from what little I've had Ill take the 40 series EMD.

> 2. SD50 versus C36-7
Neither, give me the SD40-2 from the last question.

> 3. SD60 versus C40-8
C40-8, Pull harder, better dynos, quieter. The 60 series hasn't aged well either, I've had a lot of them fail in big ways over the years. That said the standard cab SD60 ride better then the dash 8s do.

> 4. SD70M versus C44-9W
Both are good units. Again in my experience the GEs pull/stop better, but both do well. Just make sure they are weighted properly, the light early BNSF SD75/Dash9 and NS SD70 units wheel slip a lot.

> 5. SD70MAC versus AC4400CW
AC4400CW, just all around better then the 70MAC. That and I've had a lot of 70MAC units fail on me. Could just be a attribute of the heavy haul service everyone has them in, but the AC44 are in the same service generally and I don't have the same issues with them.


> Were the isolated cabs on the SD70Ms and
> SD70MACs superior to the SD70ACes? Were they
> superior to ES44ACs?

With the exception of the isolated cab EMDs, GE products have always been quieter then EMD products. With the ES44s, the cab is almost as quiet as a isolated cab EMD. The non-isolated cab SD70M-2/SD70ACe have to be some of the loudest units to be in. I never understood the backwards step EMD took here, some notches are downright painful to be in even with hearing protection.

On the subject of new Isolated cab (SD70ACe) vs old Isolated cab (SD60I/SD75I/SD70MAC/SD90 family)
The new cab is nice but the older cab is just downright silent. The issue is that no-one replaces the 4 rubber mounts that the older cab rides on. The cabs are still quiet but they bounce around like crazy. Time will tell if this becomes a issue on the new design.

GEs cab as far as I can tell is not isolated, however there is a gap between the electrical cabinet and the cab on the earlier AC units and the EVOs. The EVOs are almost as quiet inside as the isolated cab SD70ACe.

On a humoring closing note, in the decade+ I've been doing this. I've had 4 EMDs catch fire, but no GEs....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/13 09:18 by AfroRon.

AfroRon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ColoradoRailfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 1. SD40/SD40-2 versus U30C/C30-7
> Never was around for U-series, barely for the Dash
> 7s. But from what little I've had Ill take the 40
> series EMD.
>
> > 2. SD50 versus C36-7
> Neither, give me the SD40-2 from the last
> question.
>
> > 3. SD60 versus C40-8
> C40-8, Pull harder, better dynos, quieter. The 60
> series hasn't aged well either, I've had a lot of
> them fail in big ways over the years. That said
> the standard cab SD60 ride better then the dash 8s
> do.
>
> > 4. SD70M versus C44-9W
> Both are good units. Again in my experience the
> GEs pull/stop better, but both do well. Just make
> sure they are weighted properly, the light early
> BNSF SD75/Dash9 and NS SD70 units wheel slip a
> lot.
>
> > 5. SD70MAC versus AC4400CW
> AC4400CW, just all around better then the 70MAC.
> That and I've had a lot of 70MAC units fail on me.
> Could just be a attribute of the heavy haul
> service everyone has them in, but the AC44 are in
> the same service generally and I don't have the
> same issues with them.
>
>
> > Were the isolated cabs on the SD70Ms and
> > SD70MACs superior to the SD70ACes? Were they
> > superior to ES44ACs?
>
> With the exception of the isolated cab EMDs, GE
> products have always been quieter then EMD
> products. With the ES44s, the cab is almost as
> quiet as a isolated cab EMD. The non-isolated cab
> SD70M-2/SD70ACe have to be some of the loudest
> units to be in. I never understood the backwards
> step EMD took here, some notches are downright
> painful to be in even with hearing protection.
>
> On the subject of new Isolated cab (SD70ACe) vs
> old Isolated cab (SD60I/SD75I/SD70MAC/SD90 family)
>
> The new cab is nice but the older cab is just
> downright silent. The issue is that no-one
> replaces the 4 rubber mounts that the older cab
> rides on. The cabs are still quiet but they bounce
> around like crazy. Time will tell if this becomes
> a issue on the new design.
>
> GEs cab as far as I can tell is not isolated,
> however there is a gap between the electrical
> cabinet and the cab on the earlier AC units and
> the EVOs. The EVOs are almost as quiet inside as
> the isolated cab SD70ACe.
>
> On a humoring closing note, in the decade+ I've
> been doing this. I've had 4 EMDs catch fire, but
> no GEs....


Good summary. One thing I will add in the SD70Mac vs. AC4400 area. Some SD70Mac's are older/high mileage by virtue's of there earlier production.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/13 09:35 by NYSWSD70M.

NWRailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The SD70ACe would, The GEVO has always had
> slightly better fuel consumption numbers over the
> 710


Interesting when you consider how much more modern the HDL (Gevo) is vs the 710. The 710 in the 70 series is a 16 cylinder 2 cycle engine vs a 4 stroke V12 in the ES.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NWRailfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The SD70ACe would, The GEVO has always had
> > slightly better fuel consumption numbers over
> the
> > 710
>
>
> Interesting when you consider how much more modern
> the HDL (Gevo) is vs the 710. The 710 in the 70
> series is a 16 cylinder 2 cycle engine vs a 4
> stroke V12 in the ES.

It is about a 6% advantage.


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06/ges-evolution-20090618.html

Also the amount of cylinders do not matter, as a 12 cylinder Gevo is larger in terms of overall displacement vs a 16 cylinder 710.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NWRailfan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The SD70ACe would, The GEVO has always had
> > > slightly better fuel consumption numbers over
> > the
> > > 710
> >
> >
> > Interesting when you consider how much more
> modern
> > the HDL (Gevo) is vs the 710. The 710 in the
> 70
> > series is a 16 cylinder 2 cycle engine vs a 4
> > stroke V12 in the ES.
>
> It is about a 6% advantage.
>
>
> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06/ges-evolut
> ion-20090618.html
>
> Also the amount of cylinders do not matter, as a
> 12 cylinder Gevo is larger in terms of overall
> displacement vs a 16 cylinder 710.

Point being, after 75 years, the basic EMD design is still competive. The old 16 cylinder FDL was about five % better on average. Both are more costly to maintain than the contemporary EMD.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/13 19:32 by NYSWSD70M.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Good summary. One thing I will add in the SD70Mac
> vs. AC4400 area. Some SD70Mac's are older/high
> mileage by virtue's of there earlier production.

Like you said this is true for some but not all. The key thing is, I get 94/95 build CSX and UP AC4400CWs and they are holding up better then 03/04 build CSX SD70MAC.

Truth be told, be it SD70MAC, SD80MAC or SD9043, I'm just not really a fan. The DC units of the era are generally okay, but the AC units just didn't seem to have it going for them in various departments. It'd be interesting to have had one when they were BRAND new, a lot of the old heads I work with talk particularly highly of the "Mac-80s" when they were new.

I have really bad luck with the UP 9043s. Checking my time book in the past 7 years I've had them 23 times and of that 9 times they failed. Granted this is only a sampling compared to those who work for the UP who get them regularly, but still not a good showing. One time I had a pair of them and BOTH failed, not a good day for the railroad! (but good for my paycheck!)

Both the 80/90 series ride horrible. With very few exceptions the one thing EMD has always had going for them is they usually ride very well. Not true for the 80/90 series, above 40 MPH they both develop this "bucking" which can get painful/annoying. I know UP limited the H-engine 90s to 60MPH for awhile but I'm not sure if it was for that reason, I never got one in the lead.

I mentioned earlier how ATSF/NS got Dash9s and 70/75 series EMDs at really light weights, some of the NS SD70 only weigh 385K lbs and the ATSF units at 395K lbs. I'd really like to know why they did this, as the units are just about worthless in rain/snow/leaves. Someone posted a thread about this a few weeks ago but I don't remember any answers. Conrail was another road that got high HP 6 axles at fairly light weights. I know another forum member was critical of the carriers going to 432K lbs units but the extra weight really does go a long way towards making the unit stick in adverse conditions!!!

Oddly I have yet to get a BNSF C4, so no opinion on those yet, that day is coming!!!

On the subject of fuel economy, someone earlier in the thread posted how the EVO gets better fuel economy then the 70ACe. I distinctly remember reading this was NOT the case, it may have been in one of the industry mags or somewhere. I want to say that at least for the Tier 2 machines that EMD was getting somewhere around 2% better fuel economy then the GE machines. With Tier 3 and the fact that GE has gone to a high pressure common-rail injection system, this may have changed.

If there is one thing EMD does well, its build a prime mover. While I don't think highly of the current products, the engine is rarely the source of failure. Computers and Electrical gear are usually the downfall (and the cause of all 4 of my fires!) There is a valid reason why EMD still uses a 70+ year old 2 stroke design. Now if they could just up there game and build the rest of the locomotive to match, they are making progress.

AfroRon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Good summary. One thing I will add in the
> SD70Mac
> > vs. AC4400 area. Some SD70Mac's are older/high
> > mileage by virtue's of there earlier
> production.
>
> Like you said this is true for some but not all.
> The key thing is, I get 94/95 build CSX and UP
> AC4400CWs and they are holding up better then
> 03/04 build CSX SD70MAC.
>
> Truth be told, be it SD70MAC, SD80MAC or SD9043,
> I'm just not really a fan. The DC units of the era
> are generally okay, but the AC units just didn't
> seem to have it going for them in various
> departments. It'd be interesting to have had one
> when they were BRAND new, a lot of the old heads I
> work with talk particularly highly of the
> "Mac-80s" when they were new.
>
> I have really bad luck with the UP 9043s. Checking
> my time book in the past 7 years I've had them 23
> times and of that 9 times they failed. Granted
> this is only a sampling compared to those who work
> for the UP who get them regularly, but still not a
> good showing. One time I had a pair of them and
> BOTH failed, not a good day for the railroad! (but
> good for my paycheck!)
>
> Both the 80/90 series ride horrible. With very few
> exceptions the one thing EMD has always had going
> for them is they usually ride very well. Not true
> for the 80/90 series, above 40 MPH they both
> develop this "bucking" which can get
> painful/annoying. I know UP limited the H-engine
> 90s to 60MPH for awhile but I'm not sure if it was
> for that reason, I never got one in the lead.
>
> I mentioned earlier how ATSF/NS got Dash9s and
> 70/75 series EMDs at really light weights, some of
> the NS SD70 only weigh 385K lbs and the ATSF units
> at 395K lbs. I'd really like to know why they did
> this, as the units are just about worthless in
> rain/snow/leaves. Someone posted a thread about
> this a few weeks ago but I don't remember any
> answers. Conrail was another road that got high HP
> 6 axles at fairly light weights. I know another
> forum member was critical of the carriers going to
> 432K lbs units but the extra weight really does go
> a long way towards making the unit stick in
> adverse conditions!!!
>
> Oddly I have yet to get a BNSF C4, so no opinion
> on those yet, that day is coming!!!
>
> On the subject of fuel economy, someone earlier in
> the thread posted how the EVO gets better fuel
> economy then the 70ACe. I distinctly remember
> reading this was NOT the case, it may have been in
> one of the industry mags or somewhere. I want to
> say that at least for the Tier 2 machines that EMD
> was getting somewhere around 2% better fuel
> economy then the GE machines. With Tier 3 and the
> fact that GE has gone to a high pressure
> common-rail injection system, this may have
> changed.
>
> If there is one thing EMD does well, its build a
> prime mover. While I don't think highly of the
> current products, the engine is rarely the source
> of failure. Computers and Electrical gear are
> usually the downfall (and the cause of all 4 of my
> fires!) There is a valid reason why EMD still uses
> a 70+ year old 2 stroke design. Now if they could
> just up there game and build the rest of the
> locomotive to match, they are making progress.

Again, good assessment. In the past, you have been quite complementary of the NS 1000's. Do you still like these?

You mention the CSX 4700's. These units were a mistake on both EMD and to a lesser extent, CSX part. EMD rushed them by mutual understanding to meet emissions dead lines and the both paid the price or so it would seem.

Heavier units seems to been more of a practice that became common with the advent of AC traction. I wasn't around then but I remember reading about concerns with EL's SD45-2's weighing 400000 lbs. Of course, today's track is much better.

Posted from Android

AfroRon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Good summary. One thing I will add in the
> SD70Mac
> > vs. AC4400 area. Some SD70Mac's are older/high
> > mileage by virtue's of there earlier
> production.
>
> Like you said this is true for some but not all.
> The key thing is, I get 94/95 build CSX and UP
> AC4400CWs and they are holding up better then
> 03/04 build CSX SD70MAC.
>
> Truth be told, be it SD70MAC, SD80MAC or SD9043,
> I'm just not really a fan. The DC units of the era
> are generally okay, but the AC units just didn't
> seem to have it going for them in various
> departments. It'd be interesting to have had one
> when they were BRAND new, a lot of the old heads I
> work with talk particularly highly of the
> "Mac-80s" when they were new.
>
> I have really bad luck with the UP 9043s. Checking
> my time book in the past 7 years I've had them 23
> times and of that 9 times they failed. Granted
> this is only a sampling compared to those who work
> for the UP who get them regularly, but still not a
> good showing. One time I had a pair of them and
> BOTH failed, not a good day for the railroad! (but
> good for my paycheck!)
>
> Both the 80/90 series ride horrible. With very few
> exceptions the one thing EMD has always had going
> for them is they usually ride very well. Not true
> for the 80/90 series, above 40 MPH they both
> develop this "bucking" which can get
> painful/annoying. I know UP limited the H-engine
> 90s to 60MPH for awhile but I'm not sure if it was
> for that reason, I never got one in the lead.
>
> I mentioned earlier how ATSF/NS got Dash9s and
> 70/75 series EMDs at really light weights, some of
> the NS SD70 only weigh 385K lbs and the ATSF units
> at 395K lbs. I'd really like to know why they did
> this, as the units are just about worthless in
> rain/snow/leaves. Someone posted a thread about
> this a few weeks ago but I don't remember any
> answers. Conrail was another road that got high HP
> 6 axles at fairly light weights. I know another
> forum member was critical of the carriers going to
> 432K lbs units but the extra weight really does go
> a long way towards making the unit stick in
> adverse conditions!!!
>
> Oddly I have yet to get a BNSF C4, so no opinion
> on those yet, that day is coming!!!
>
> On the subject of fuel economy, someone earlier in
> the thread posted how the EVO gets better fuel
> economy then the 70ACe. I distinctly remember
> reading this was NOT the case, it may have been in
> one of the industry mags or somewhere. I want to
> say that at least for the Tier 2 machines that EMD
> was getting somewhere around 2% better fuel
> economy then the GE machines. With Tier 3 and the
> fact that GE has gone to a high pressure
> common-rail injection system, this may have
> changed.
>
> If there is one thing EMD does well, its build a
> prime mover. While I don't think highly of the
> current products, the engine is rarely the source
> of failure. Computers and Electrical gear are
> usually the downfall (and the cause of all 4 of my
> fires!) There is a valid reason why EMD still uses
> a 70+ year old 2 stroke design. Now if they could
> just up there game and build the rest of the
> locomotive to match, they are making progress.

One more thing. High pressure common rail is more about emissions than it is about fuel economy.

Posted from Android

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Again, good assessment. In the past, you have
> been quite complementary of the NS 1000's. Do you
> still like these?

Yes, very much so. Other then the computer systems, they are much better then any EMD product that came before them. Pull well, good dynamic, quiet, decent ride. There are a few other things I wish EMD would change but they are all little minor things.


>
> Heavier units seems to been more of a practice
> that became common with the advent of AC traction.
> I wasn't around then but I remember reading about
> concerns with EL's SD45-2's weighing 400000 lbs.
> Of course, today's track is much better.
>

I know BN got SD40-2 at 400K+, WM had some heavy SD35/SD40 and C&NW C40-8 were 420K lbs. But they all seem to be the exception, rather then the rule.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.
>
> One more thing. High pressure common rail is more
> about emissions than it is about fuel economy.
>
> Posted from Android

This is true, but the fuel-economy gains that were had when other engine family's went to a common-rail system are well documented. I'd be hard pressed to believe that GE didn't see some kind of improvement in addition to meeting emission requirements.