Nostalgia & History > What happened to Electro Motive?

This is meant to be another one of my insightful, thought provoking posts, so let's stirr the pot and have a discussion. I just picked up the Classic Trains magazine speial issue on the F-unit, and what I marvel at is how a company could possibly go from being a powerhouse and envy of an entire industry to a subsidiary shadow of it's former self and the butt of jokes. As per a recent article on the Trains Magazine website, and posts here as well, EMD is neither capable of nor is going to be selling and Tier 4 compliant diesel locomotives. Now a number of reasons can be to blame: them basing all hopes on the 710 architecture, relying on 2-stroke power cycles, well I have a different theory, and flame me all you like for my opinion but as a 26 year old here is how I can view the history and interpret. First off this is an example of how a government body can regulate something to the point of stifling the very forward march of technology they are trying to spur. Now I should point out clean-air is something we should all arrive for and encouraging the the manufacturers who create machines and anything that creates emissions to try and make them as clean and efficient as cost and performance allow. And that is exactly the problem with the tear for EPA standards for diesel locomotives even General Electric has admitted that fitting the GEVO with a Tier 4 compliant system comes at a fuel economy, reliability, and power deficit, granted a small 5-10% but still. So to sum up, to get cleaner remissions out of diesel locomotives they are essentially making them worse performers, a zero sum gain in any investors eyes.
The second cause of what may seem to be EMD's demise at least is how I look at it we are simply reaping seeds that were sewn in the 70s. Allow me to explain what I mean, we all know post 1971 you could not buy a muscle car with a big block engine in it and we all know the reasons why, well this shift accompanied a slide in build quality and reliability of all cars across the board. As sales slumped so did profits, and one of the worst hurt by this was GM, and admit it some of the biggest piece of junk cars some of you have owned were probably late 70's-80's GM's weren't they? i.e. Chevy Vega, Cavalier, Cadillac Cimarron. I don't know of anywhere else you could buy a V8 that produced under 200hp. Anyway back to the topic with the horrible circumstances GM found itself in with their automobiles they were keen to trim the fat and keep profitable and we all know that by the late 80s LaGrange assembly was closed and EMD assembly was moved to London, Ontario and I believe it was the decision that GM made then and GM's decision to sell EMD that were the poison that have sickened EMD. so in an indirect way GM's poor management decades earlier and it's ties to GM which look like a double edge sword, are what has made EMD as we know it now a joke. But things have changed dramatically, look at a lot of GM's new vehicles there are very few of them that I would be unhappy owning, just take a look at the new Cadillacs, the new Corvette, the new Camaro! what EMD needs most of all is the injection of creativity, money, and allegiance the General Motors cars are starting to receive now. I think EMD and GM need eachother again.

Related to this topic is it time that we start considering putting limits on what the EPA can regulate and not regulate? as cited earlier General Electric has admitted that creating cleaner emissions actually robs fuel economy and reliability from the locomotive. Is it time that we start analyzing what we really want from our locomotives? is it fuel economy? Performance? Emissions?

Posted from iPhone

I'd love to hear a few of the expert's opinions on this matter, for I too, have been rooting for EMD to turn around under CAT. I'm personally tired of seeing exclusively GE's on the BNSF transcon between Tulsa and Enid.

I'd say we have a similar problem in the automotive industry. With the push to get lower emissions, higher performance, and better fuel economy, we're getting much worse cars. The biggest piece of crap out of all of it is Direct Injection. On paper it's a technology that's perfect, in the real world every manufacturer has injector and high pressure fuel pump issues. Beyond that, carbon buildup in the intake and cylinder head is the biggest problem. Now that GDI is so mainstream, in a few years consumers are going to have 60,000 mile carbon cleaning services. Why? Because the CAFE standards are unreasonable and are making even economy cars into vehicles few can afford to fix.

The root of all of this is the lack of balance--everyone wants everything, NOW. A balance of performance, economy, and emissions; with a balanced design comes reliability. But the cutting edge technology out there is always sacrificing something.

If you're building a locomotive that creates less emissions but burns more fuel because it has to work harder to do the same amount of work, in the long run doesn't it come out even? If not even worse?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/15 12:39 by myjbh1989.

The EPA is a gov't entity that has approximately 80% of its members people that belonged or associated with likes of the sierra club and other aggressive environmental groups. When they were give "rule making" authority it in affect made the above the law of the land and they could and did do anything they wanted to regardless of the results. They spew out directives on engines that they have no idea whether or not they are attainable. It has hit EMD in the face but, they are hopeful that within about a one to one and half years their 4 cycle engine will comply. While GE thinks theirs will be proven a Tier 4 engine, and they say it is, this year they have not completed the testing necessary to be sure of that holding up. The way EPA operates it is/was only a matter of time until one of their regulations could not be complied with. You are seeing the first of that right now.

Even rules that have been proven to have no good affect, 10% alcohol in gasoline, remain in affect along with the costs of them even though the EPA now admits the alcohol has not been effective. When you have people running the show like that you can only expect more.

Railroads and engine makers of locomotives and even other type engine manufactures need to start making forceful demands up their elected senators and congressmen to rein in that bunch. Now before I am called crazy by greenies I will say the EPA did a good job of cleaning up a great number of things in the past. However, it now appears protecting their jobs is more on their mind than common sense.

I will never understand the logic of these new "greener" engines. They burn more fuel to do the same amount of work and require more maintenance, yet are better for the environment. I have been battling this for years in the trucking business. Common sense tells me if I'm putting more fuel in the tank to do the same work, I'm creating a bigger environmental footprint. Not to mention computer and other expensive issues related to these engines.

To provoke thought, and to ruffle a few feathers, no doubt, I present my contrary view...
Stringent and ever-increasing Standards create innovation, I would argue. Look at Tesla. Without CAFE standards going up, there'd be no reason to change-no reason for Tesla to exist. GM built the EV1 with some brilliant designs and that was with lead-acid batteries...they quickly realized the end their (and the oil companies) normal way of profitability would end with this car and quickly decided to cancel the leases and scrap the cars... Go watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" and then we can discuss if these MPG restrictions are a bad idea or not...I long for the day I can get a car that gets 100mpg.Or have electric charging stations for my Tesla (which I'm waiting for someone to buy me). OR--and here's a novel thought--have VIABLE Rail public transportation at high speeds... As far as junk cars today versus back then, I've had Subaru's and each one of them has lasted 200k+ miles plus without any major engine repairs...My parents drove a Pinto...enough said. I don't buy the argument that today's cars are crap, and especially because fuel mileage regulations are to blame...

Back to the locomotive problems...
EMD for too long was in limbo at GM, eventually sold to a holding trust fund that included Berkshire Hathaway for a bit in the interim and eventually sold to Cat.
That foundering from not having a direct purpose and being treated as a sideline business by GM directly affected their ability to recruit talented engineers and designers, who instead went to other companies, like GE..and now Cummins, who has a diesel locomotive testbed in construction.

You badmouth the muscle car era and yes, there were major issues with the AUTOMOTIVE industry, but just because GM built cars AND Locomotives doesn't make their quality issues the same. Look at the SD40 and the entire EMD 38-40 line...They were built in the late 60's through the 80's, They're still running today--and provide what I would guess to be about 1/3 of the motive power fleet for north america to this day.
SO, yeah GEVO's are everywhere--and GE has done good work preparing for the Tier 4...and EMD and their employees were in limbo waiting to see who/what was going to happen with their jobs...hard to be innovative on a ship with no rudder!
I also think EMD will just try to beef up a stock CAT tier 4 prime mover for locomotive use...And they've still got the F125 project and the Metra F40 rebuild program. so they're not out.
I'm sure these same arguments about "what happened" could be made about ALCO, Lima and Baldwin while they focused on building steam engines when this upstart Electro-Motive got started...Innovation is change...change is inevitable.

I'm Donning the flame-retardant undies now...

CAT did not buy EMD to own #2. Their decision on Tier 4 was to take the time do it right. They did not want to do something down and dirty ending up with another SD50. Rome was not built in a day, and businesses are not turned around in a day. The best is yet to come.
ALLEN

Dr. Loco, Alco's downfall was in stressing innovation over reliability. The 270
engine would have blown the EMD 645 out of the water but by the time the engine
came to fruition the dollars spent in modernizing the line into the Century series
sank the company. They went from bullet proof to bullet target in just over 10
years. The comments made about CAT taking time to do it right make me chuckle,
yah, a lot like their efforts in truck motors.

Out

What we really need is a replacement for the internal combustion engine.

DubyaM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What we really need is a replacement for the
> internal combustion engine.

Individuals and companies have been searching for that holy grail for years...and yet simple physics continue to rule.....the internal combustion engine is hard to beat in regards to a mobile/cost effective power source.

Maybe someday the technology will exist....but in the meantime I know tier IV is a bad recipe. I deal with a number of tier 0-IV machines and without a doubt, the higher the tier...usually the higher fuel burn and maintenance cost. Frankly, we are rebuilding the older machines to avoid the DPF and other items.

Think of it this way...how well would you perform if you had a tube running from your rear-end to your mouth? That is how a EGR essentially performs.

Posted from iPhone

Perhaps it's a result of GM dumping EMD like it did with Saturn?

Frame-5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> First off this is an example of how a government
> body can regulate something to the point of
> stifling the very forward march of technology they
> are trying to spur. Now I should point out
> clean-air is something we should all arrive for
> and encouraging the the manufacturers who create
> machines and anything that creates emissions to
> try and make them as clean and efficient as cost
> and performance allow. And that is exactly the
> problem with the tear for EPA standards for diesel
> locomotives even General Electric has admitted
> that fitting the GEVO with a Tier 4 compliant
> system comes at a fuel economy, reliability, and
> power deficit, granted a small 5-10% but still.
> So to sum up, to get cleaner remissions out of
> diesel locomotives they are essentially making
> them worse performers, a zero sum gain in any
> investors eyes.


You are basically right. I have had discussions with a very high official with a Japanese recreational marine boat and motor division. He said that it boils down to the old 80/20 rule--the first 80% of emissions are relatively easy to clean up while the last 20% are by far the most expensive and least cost effective as the law of diminishing returns comes into play. The same is true for locomotives, cars, and even consumer lawn equipment.

I recently purchased from Home Depot a replacement Ryobi motor and shaft for my yard blower and trimmer attachments. The thing was returned the same day because it did not have half the power of the original that it was replacing. After reading the instructions I saw that catalytics had been added to the emissions system. I will be buying my replacement from a pawn shop to get the older, more powerful motor.

The EPA is definitely a department of government where the employees with a certain leaning philosophy have overrun the organization and are forcing their views through edicts and not law with no concern for the mandated costs or diminishing returns on those affected. Everyone has heard the horror stories about basically mud puddles being ruled as "wetlands" by the EPA.

> The second cause of what may seem to be EMD's
> demise at least is how I look at it we are simply
> reaping seeds that were sewn in the 70s. Allow me
> to explain what I mean, we all know post 1971 you
> could not buy a muscle car with a big block engine
> in it and we all know the reasons why, well this
> shift accompanied a slide in build quality and
> reliability of all cars across the board. As
> sales slumped so did profits, and one of the worst
> hurt by this was GM, and admit it some of the
> biggest piece of junk cars some of you have owned
> were probably late 70's-80's GM's weren't they?
> i.e. Chevy Vega, Cavalier, Cadillac Cimarron. I
> don't know of anywhere else you could buy a V8
> that produced under 200hp.

I turned 16 in the late '70s so I remember that era well. In my junior year of high school, I bought a 6 month old 1979 Trans AM. That car was built solid with an Olds 403 V8 and lasted for over 200K miles. I maintained it very well but most purchasers of American made cars did not "baby" their cars while buyers of imports tended to baby those cars more so. That may have been part of the reliability difference, however the speed at which GM, Chrysler(the K-Car had to be the worst of the bunch), Ford and AMC had to develop fuel efficient vehicles probably had the most to do with the reliability issue. The increasing price of gas, the relatively new EPA rules, and increasing level of imports all combined to create the perfect storm for the domestic manufactures to have major problems during the late '70s and early '80s.

Anyway back to the
> topic with the horrible circumstances GM found
> itself in with their automobiles they were keen to
> trim the fat and keep profitable and we all know
> that by the late 80s LaGrange assembly was closed
> and EMD assembly was moved to London, Ontario and
> I believe it was the decision that GM made then
> and GM's decision to sell EMD that were the poison
> that have sickened EMD. so in an indirect way
> GM's poor management decades earlier and it's ties
> to GM which look like a double edge sword, are
> what has made EMD as we know it now a joke. But
> things have changed dramatically, look at a lot of
> GM's new vehicles there are very few of them that
> I would be unhappy owning, just take a look at the
> new Cadillacs, the new Corvette, the new Camaro!
> what EMD needs most of all is the injection of
> creativity, money, and allegiance the General
> Motors cars are starting to receive now. I think
> EMD and GM need eachother again.

A lack of focus can harm any company and I believe that the upper levels of GM management did not have sharp focus on EMD. This creates upper management issues which trickle down the system of the division be it GM with EMD or AMF with Harley Davidson. Also, during the early time of loco production in London, GM was making nice profits by building military vehicles in LaGrange(the particular model slips my mind now, but it was a profitable contract which helped make the locomotive assembly move a good decision for GM).

A factor often cited for GE's rise to #1 loco builder has been their favorable financing/leasing offers vs. EMD's offerings. In the corporate, free enterprise world the bottom line is paramount so management will go with the perceived lower cost option virtually every time. With upper management being rewarded for current quarter, Wall Street numbers, short term costs trump long term nearly every time(this form of compensation is largely attributed to the fed's high taxes placed on "regular" compensation of higher income earners, thus the stock option to reduce or avoid the taxes--a perfect example of unintended consequences).

Over time, the EMD has proven to be the more durable locomotive. I have never seen comparison numbers, but I doubt there is one GE rebuilt for every 20 EMD's going thru major overhauls thus new life. Look at how many U-boats/Dash-7's are on the rails today in comparison to the number of GP30/38/40's and SD40's still running the rails. Even the GP7/9's rolling today outnumber them.


>
> Related to this topic is it time that we start
> considering putting limits on what the EPA can
> regulate and not regulate? as cited earlier
> General Electric has admitted that creating
> cleaner emissions actually robs fuel economy and
> reliability from the locomotive. Is it time that
> we start analyzing what we really want from our
> locomotives? is it fuel economy? Performance?
> Emissions?


It is well past that time! The inmates are running the asylum. However, do not expect anything to change with the current crew in DC.


>
> Posted from iPhone


Jay

I think the EPA has done more harm to the auto industry as well.
I used to have a 97 Buick LeSabre with the 3.8 engine, big car, heavy and at times I got 33mph on the highway with it.
Chatting with the service manager at the dealer last year he said the owners of the new Buicks are lucky to get 25. All from the wisdom of the EPA, plus adulterating our gasoline with ethanol which knocks the efficiency of the engines.
Maybe next year, they will mandate 200MPG by 2020.

Frame-5

I'm probably talking out of turn here, and I'm not speaking directly to your conversational points.

The people who know what's going on aren't able/going to say anything about what the logic is. We work for our employer, and we have a confidentiality agreement that we signed, as well as understanding the hazards of half-facts getting to the regulators (it's not just the US EPA, or CARB, the whole world is emissions regulated in one form or another), and facts getting to competitors too early. We'd love to hash on some of this stuff.

But we can't. So you're stuck with observing the outside facts that are available and speculating. Honestly, gossip can be fun if it's done respectfully, and sometimes it's right!

krm152 has it right. We don't play for #2, and we play a long game. That's a known fact in the marketplace.

My suggestion is this: Go look at the equipment Cat is introducing in construction and what's going on "under the hood" on those. That's the technology base that got joined to EMD's solid technology base in 2 cycle medium speed diesel engines.

There's a LOT of fun speculation to be had there.

SR Krause
Chillicothe, IL

Steve Krause
Chillicothe, IL

myjbh1989 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd say we have a similar problem in the
> automotive industry. With the push to get lower
> emissions, higher performance, and better fuel
> economy, we're getting much worse cars. The
> biggest piece of crap out of all of it is Direct
> Injection. On paper it's a technology that's
> perfect, in the real world every manufacturer has
> injector and high pressure fuel pump issues.
> Beyond that, carbon buildup in the intake and
> cylinder head is the biggest problem. Now that GDI
> is so mainstream, in a few years consumers are
> going to have 60,000 mile carbon cleaning
> services. Why? Because the CAFE standards are
> unreasonable and are making even economy cars into
> vehicles few can afford to fix.
>
> The root of all of this is the lack of
> balance--everyone wants everything, NOW. A balance
> of performance, economy, and emissions; with a
> balanced design comes reliability. But the cutting
> edge technology out there is always sacrificing
> something.
>
> If you're building a locomotive that creates less
> emissions but burns more fuel because it has to
> work harder to do the same amount of work, in the
> long run doesn't it come out even? If not even
> worse?

Got three rigs with EFI in them all work great no problems either. Worked on EFI where I used to work or rather didn't due to never had any issues and it was a fleet of Ford vans large enough we did our own Ford warrantee work.

I love CAT, but I dont think even they can revive EMD!! I hope they prove me wrong!! When GM sold EMD it should have been a sign to all that the end was near!!

Posted from Android

I remember comments from senior SP locomotive people about GP-60 build quality: when they went to La Grange to see what was going on they found EMD workers sleeping (literally) on the job. Speaks to both leadership and quality issues.
As to the EPA: I am really, really glad for the cleaner water and air of 2015 as compared to my youth in California. If you doubt the value of this outcome, take a trip to any number of locations outside the US, Canada, and Western Europe. My personal samples are from Latin America and China but nothing I have heard about India or Eastern Europe makes me think they are even beginning to do the right thing there either.
We'll work our way out of this folks, have some faith.

While the emissions and fuel consumption issues with EMDs 2-cycle engines can't be ignored, an industry management professional recently gave me a different view of how GE took over the locomotive market. They changed their business model and cut a different deal with the carriers. EMD sold locomotives. GE decided to switch to selling horsepower hours instead of locomotives and took responsibility for repairs and downtime as part of the sales agreement. Getting both guaranteed horsepower hours for their money and being able to turn maintenance over to an outside contractor looked like a pretty good deal to the railroads.

I've slowly learned that success and failure often haves less to do with products than with business practices -- and especially with making "deals." I can think of other examples of both success in failure in other industries from automobiles to software that have less to do with products than with contract agreements with customers, suppliers and union labor. Studebaker and Microsoft come to mind.

D F W

The SD40-2 was both good and bad for EMD. The good we all see and know. A well-built locomotive that served the railroads well and sold like hotcakes. The bad came from EMD resting on their laurels while riding the wave of sales. Combine that with a downturn in business and EMD had written their own epitaph. GE's Dash 7 line was being upgraded and the improvements were a testbed for the Dash 8. All the while EMD came out with the 50 series, which performed worse than the 40 series it was to replace.

When GE is able to build a locomotive that has the smoother ride of an EMD the market will make another turn. And it won't be a good day for EMD.

Fred in Wichita

Some uniformed opinions:

It appears the demise of EMD was due to a combination of management indifference,
poor product and bad financing options. How many times have you heard veteran
engineers say, "The SD40-2 was the best locomotive, period." Yet the SD50, supposedly
and improvement, was considered a big dud, and the SD60 only marginally improved it.

While I am also pulling for Cat to revive EMD, or Progress Rail if you prefer, given
the EPA mandates, this could be a long, slow process.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA