I know that GM builds better locos for more $, and GE builds worse for less, but what else is there to it? I’ve heard that GE is more techie, but I’d like to know more.
Thanks,
Matthew
Well…there is the fact that GE is still in the locomotive business, and GM isn’t. [:)]. GM sold off EMD this year.
I wouldn’t simplify it to “better” and “worse” either, especially given that GE passed EMD in market share two decades ago. Were GEs truly “worse”, they probably would have lost ground instead of steadily gaining.
One operational difference is that GEs are generally said to have slower throttle response than EMDs. A technical difference is GE’s use of 4-stroke prime movers whereas EMD used 2-stroke up to the H engine in the SD90MAC. I don’t know whether this would be connected to throttle response or not. Alco used a 4-stroke design and I don’t recall hearing anything either way about their throttle response.
GMD is a Canadian company/subsidiary, G E is a US manufacturer and the leading locomotive builder in terms of number of units built. According to Tom Peters GE got into the business when a group of its employes disobeyed a directive “not to build a locomotive”. Business is stranger and more interesting than “Soap Operas”.
Will
Overdurff,
GE has been in the locomotive business for more years than EMD! They were building gas electrics before EMC and have been a major supplier of railroad locomotive electrical equipment for years. After WWII they jointly marketed ‘domestic’ production with Alco. They marketed their 44/70 ton line and ‘export’ line even during the Alco/GE partnership. After the Alco/GE split in the mid 50’s, they still supplied Alco with the electrical gear, and by 1960 had a new line of domestic locomotives(the ‘U’ series). GE has always had their fingers in locomotive production.
In the 60’s, the GE ‘Universal’ line was considered ‘cheaper’ and did cost less that a compareable EMD product. By ‘Dash 8’ production, GE had a product that was now the industry standard in North America. They have traditionally cost less than EMD products and that may be labor rate differences between the UAW(EMD) and the electrical workers union.
That said, both products currently are high tech and many times purchasing decisions are based on who has production floor space to build an order. BN tied up EMD production with their massive SD70MAC orders, and then tied up a lot of GE production with all of those ‘Dash 9’ orders. Once the backlog of BNSF SD70MAC orders were filled, UP jumped in with a 1000 unit SD70M order(GE was still pumping out 'Dash 9’s for BNSF). Overall production capacity for locomotives is much smaller now as EMD’s massive plant east of Chicago is a shell of it’s former self.
As mentioned in a previous post, EMD has been sold off by GM. Design/manufacturing of parts are done in the US, assembly is done at the London, Onterio plant. GE production is done at Erie. PA.
Jim
I did mean GMD, but I guess I missed the D. You can see it in my post, and I was quite suprised when I heard about that.
Matthew
Not to be political, GM is selling off almost everthing they got which included EMD, GE has been some what stable in the locomotive business and has been in the industry since around 1900. Remember EMD got bought by GM and now they dumped them. I could say more but Bergie would delete this because it would start a political issue.
Well yes they did…but that isn’t the whole story.
EMC was less than ten years old when purchased by GM, and continued as EMD for over eighty years, at least seventy-five of that building diesel locomotives - something GE didn’t get into in earnest until after the war. Previous to that GE was a supplier of electrical components (mainly to Alco) and a builder of electric locomotives.
The bottom line is both companies have a long history in the North American locomotive business, and it seems probable that EMD will continue to be a contender under its new ownership, even if GE continues to dominate. The market is unlikely to allow embrace a monopoly.