Nostalgia & History > EMD’s 50 Series....lemon or just lore?

For those of you who had first hand experience in the cab or in the shop with the GP50s and SD50s, were they really the disaster that some sources would have you believe?

I’ve read that the 60 Series supposedly corrected the mistakes of the 50s, but to those who operated them, did you feel the 60s were a good enough improvement, or, at the time, were you more satisfied to deal with a good ol’ 40 Series of the previous years?

Posted from iPhone

Within the Chicago area (flat terrain) the SD50's performed just like any other EMD product.

Posted from Android

My experience is as a senior level Mechanical Manager / VP with GP49's and SD60's.
No throttle time, so I can't speak to that aspect.

On Alaska Railroad the GP49's simply didn't fit in and were problematical as they aged. Some parts were getting hard to get or get in a timely manner, wheel slip issues due to snow / ice on the radar, high rate of failure with the D87 motors as compared to D78's on the 38's and 40's and just overall assorted bugs. By the time I got there they were stored or in work train service for the most part. I don't have costs available now, but they were more expensive to maintain all around and more trouble. I was the guy who was project manager of the sale of these units just before taking the job of General Foreman - Anchorage Shop. Much preferred the older GP38-2 / 40-2 locos. The SD70 fleet was great, especially with the radial trucks and the 1500 series switchers were very economical work horses. I don't recall much in the way of engine issues on the 49's, but by the time I got there they were not worked all that hard.

With SD60's my experience was that they were expensive and temperamental with the weakness in the control system and traction motor failures (D87's). 
I also had SD40-2's and an SD45 which the shop at least much preferred. The 60's had a very poor availability as compared to the 40's seeing many electrical issues especially ground relays. This was recently 2018 - 2021 so age would be a factor, but the 40's were older and some not having a lot of upgrade or rewire while others did. 

All things considered I'd take an SD40-2 as a running locomotive will always pull more than one broke down in the shop or crippled up on the main line. The budget numbers were much better also for the 40 series and I never lost a D77 / 78 TM in service over a two year period in mixed SD60 / SD40-2 service.  My understanding is that many SD50 / 60 users went to upgraded control systems to cure many of the ills. I never did solve the traction motor issue and had a plethora of vendors and finally developed a custom R&R spec. It got much, much better but was still not liveable. The 710G3B engine was good and strong and the AR-11 was good, or at least I never had any issues with it. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/21 18:42 by train1275.

I have never had a issue with a GP50 but all my experience with them is in switching or local service. My understanding is EMD/BN worked the bugs out of them in the 80's. When I started in 06 there were a bunch of former UP SD50's running around in lease service and I don't remember any issues with them. However they seemed to be the first lease units to disappear from BNsF a year or two later.

Echoing the earlier reply, I think I may speak for many a locomotive engineer from that era by saying that if given the choice between a SD50/60 or a SD40-2, many would choose the 40. Quite simply, they worked. And worked. Nothing fancy in their systems like later models.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/21 18:59 by irhoghead.

C&NW took delivery of GP50's and put them right to work in 4 unit sets on the Falcon TOFC trains west from Chicago at 70 MPH to the UP.   After a few months they stopped accepting new deliveries "until EMD can give us new units that will run".  I don't know what the problems were, however.

BN's GP50's were rated at 3600 HP initially, and while they ran well, they were suffering cracked pistons until they were derated to 3500 HP, and now much less.  The radar wheel slip system was never that good either.   SD40-2's were the best, they had nothing that failed regularly.  The SD70MAC's were and are great workhorses, but they had a lot of traction motor problems at first.  BSB     

From what I have read in multiple places was that EMD had pushed the 645 past it's limits when they tried to get 3500HP out of a 16 cylinder engine.
Lots of vibration resulted which resulted in things breaking. Derating back down to 3200HP or even 2500HP as BNSF has done with the GP25X seems to be working.

I liked the SD50 over the SD60. Why I just do but would take a SD40-2 anyday.

BigSkyBlue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C&NW took delivery of GP50's and put them right to
> work in 4 unit sets on the Falcon TOFC trains west
> from Chicago at 70 MPH to the UP.   After a few
> months they stopped accepting new deliveries
> "until EMD can give us new units that will run". 
> I don't know what the problems were, however.
>
> BN's GP50's were rated at 3600 HP initially, and
> while they ran well, they were suffering cracked
> pistons until they were derated to 3500 HP, and
> now much less.  The radar wheel slip system was
> never that good either.   SD40-2's were the
> best, they had nothing that failed regularly. 
> The SD70MAC's were and are great workhorses, but
> they had a lot of traction motor problems at
> first.  BSB     

That's a pretty good synopsis. It's pretty amazing looking back now that the BN's GP50's were rated at 3600hp. I kinda wonder what they were thinking! From an engineers standpoint that's too much poof for 4 axle DC power. Now that much hp with AC traction motors might be a fun experiment!

irhoghead Wrote: > ...  many a locomotive engineer ... given the choice between a SD50/60 or a SD40-2, many would choose the 40 ...

I will concur! In my first 4 years with MRL working in the Missoula ~ Spokane territory we had a great "testbed" for SD50 vs SD40-2s. A pair of SD40-2s coming east with the standard 100+ car grain empty, usually averaging about 3400 tons, could be pull the grade at Evaro, MT without any problems. But a pair of Oakway SD50s in the same circumstances were usually not trusted. As I recall, wheel slippage was one of the problems. And there was talk that they were just plain overrated in the HP department...

Lance/199

I never had any problems with them although the GP50's did shake and vibrate a lot when first delivered.  The crews even dubbed them "shakers" as they were referred to then.  That problem must have got corrected at some point because in later years I didn't seem to notice it as bad.  And the SD50's seemed to be about the same as the SD60's were.  You couldn't tell any difference from the cab anyway.  Worked a lot with both of them out on the coal line before the GE's showed up in 1989.  Ran them on the east-west mainline too across Iowa.  Both seemed to hold up rather well.  It should be noted though that the C&NW took good care of their power during the eighties and nineties.   Routine maintence was never skipped and Marshalltown, Co. Bluffs., and Proviso did a good job of keeping them in good working order.  I spent time hostling in two of the previous mentioned places and can attest to that first hand.  They were alright engines in my opinion and again, on the C&NW at least, they were taken care of properly and maintained.  That had to make a difference I would think.

Southern Railway went in heavily for the GP50's after heavy testing of their GP40X's and Santa Fe's GP40X's too.  The old Southern would stay with something and make it work.  The GP50's were Southern's flagship engines on my part of the system in the  railroad's final years.  They were well received by most of the engineers on my district.  The GP50's did  well on intermodals and priority hotshot freights.  Because of Southern's assigned locomotive pools, the GP50's wound up on some tonnage freights.  The Southern wanted to see if they could use three GP50's on a tonnage train in place of three SD's.  On the trips I was on, it worked; but it was a literal grind.  The GP50's strained their guts out on topping hills with tonnage trains.  I've seen those engines top hills with those tonnage trains as low as 8 mph, whereas the SD's would do 12.  The GP50's Super Series slip suppression system made it possible, and it got a work out. The sound and feel of those GP50's fighting a long hard grade in Super Series was memorable.  Some of us thought it strained the engines too much and wore their systems quicker.  With the GP50's you needed to keep them in pure sets for performance sake.  You had to keep them maintained, most especially the Super Series and the radar screens they used.  You didn't want to "gouge 'em out".  They were not GP7's.  Some of the GP50's remain with us in spirit today as cabbed slugs and 5800 class GP38-3's.

As for the 60 series engines, we received and reguarded these engines differently because they were not high hooded bi-directional engines painted in Southern "tuxedo" paint.  On my night run this week, I have enjoyed a Crescent cabbed SD60E.  These engines are my favorite current widenoses.  I like the big well-designed cab, the tough look, and the enhanced performance.
 

They were always questionable loaders as they were the first computer control units Santa Fe had. I once had a quartet of GP fifties on an unusually small thirteen five pack stack train out of the port of Los Angeles which COULD have been my fastest trip ever from LA to Barstow, one hundred and fifty miles, three hours twenty minutes switch to switch, BUT, and all three of my fastest trips had a BUT, I couldn't get one to load so speed up Cajon Pass was not quite maximum.
JB

The 50 Series was the first to receive a "farmed out" Turbocharger.  At first, the CNW units were
plagued by swallowing turbo blades which destroyed the prime mover.  I remember Jim Zito's
disgust at the problems with the 7000 numbered units.  While he did buy SD60s numbered 
8000, and they even appeared on the CNW calendar, GEs soon came to North Western.
I don't recall the remedy for the turbo problem, if GM started building their own turbos again,
or just made certain the quality of the turbo would prevent further failures.  IMHO, the 50 began
the demise of EMD.  They had gone from selling a tough,extremely reliable unit to something 
that was, at least for the 50s, questionable.  It is hard to regain trust once a product like the 50
was produced.  I personally don't think EMD ever recovered.  As I have told my students, "You
only have one time to make a first impression!"
SR2

SR2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 50 Series was the first to receive a "farmed
> out" Turbocharger.  At first, the CNW units were
> plagued by swallowing turbo blades which destroyed
> the prime mover.  I remember Jim Zito's
> disgust at the problems with the 7000 numbered
> units.  While he did buy SD60s numbered 
> 8000, and they even appeared on the CNW calendar,
> GEs soon came to North Western.
> I don't recall the remedy for the turbo
> problem, if GM started building their own turbos
> again,
> or just made certain the quality of the turbo
> would prevent further failures.  IMHO, the 50
> began
> the demise of EMD.  They had gone from selling a
> tough,extremely reliable unit to something 
> that was, at least for the 50s, questionable.  It
> is hard to regain trust once a product like the
> 50
> was produced.  I personally don't think EMD ever
> recovered.  As I have told my students, "You
> only have one time to make a first impression!"
> SR2


Please explain/elaborate on the "farmed out" turbocharger.  Also, I can't ever remember an EMD prime mover being "destroyed" from "swallowing turbo blades", which are aluminum anyway. Besides all that aluminum would have to pass through the after-cooler cores in order to even reach the cylinder liner ports.

My experiences were strictly from a sales and marketing standpoint.  Even then, I worked for a re-builder and not a OEM.  However I spent a great deal of time with carriers that operated these locomotives and in some ways competed with them.

Regarding the D87 traction motor, my experiences were basically in their early days of service.  They were quite well regarded and by 1987, you could not sell a class one an in-kind D77 motor overhaul.  Class ones only wanted D78's which were basically a D87 built on a D77 armature and stator frame.  The D87 was the first time that you could not mix motor types on a locomotive or in other words, an SD40 could not use a D87 nor could a SD50 use a D77.  How the D87's aged is not something I am familiar with but the D87 was not a point of contention with the 50's and 60's during my time.  Oddly enough, GE managed to produce a very poor motor in the late Dash 7's (the post 1981 Sentry Series units (B36-7's, C30-7A's, C36-7's)) which was the 752AF.  This motors had traction motor lead issues resulting from some very strange routing/positioning choices.  All resolved with the 752AG.

Someone stated that the 50's were the first computer controlled units.  With the exception of Seaboard System 8525 and 8526, (SD50's) this is incorrect.  The 60 Series units were the first with Micro Processors.

The 645F was clearly a stretch beyond it's capability.  However, EMD did not walk away from the problems presented by this design,  Both Conrail and CSX (and I am sure others) set up dedicated bays in their shops (Altoona and Huntington) where EMD personnel performed block modifications to these units.  In both cases, their fleets of SD50's went on to long productive lives.  When we (MK) sold CSX the 50 SD40-2 rebuilds in 1990, CSX speced 645F power assemblies in the units as it was a very well regarded power pack.  CSX's motivation was fuel efficiency and durability not horsepower.

I find it a bit amusing that the 50 issues are covered extensively yet no one every brings up the fact that GE's FDL was far from perfected in the 1980's.  As an example, no one bring up the 100% engine change-outs that were performed on the MP/UP C36-& fleet within 2 years of delivery

I do not mean to offend any individuals in particular but based on my discussions with the Class Ones, the product was not the issue when it came to EMD in the 50/60 era.  They seemed to feel that that EMD/GM was just a difficult company to work with in the Roger Smith era.  The decline in the locomotive business mirrors what was happening in the automotive world with GM.  CSX in particular resented some of their actions that dated back to when the ICC ordered the L&N/SCL to increase the amount of equipment in service.   I understand that EMD knew they were in the drivers seat.  Unfortunately for EMD, the CSX mechanical people seemed to all hail from the L&N.  They stated to me on a few occasions that they (EMD) was difficult wot work with and that it didn't help.  Bad memories die hard.