A recent thread about Fairbanks-Morse locomotives brought up some interesting info about Alco and GE locomotives. It started me thinking about diesel locomotive turkeys. What can anybody tell me about some of the locomotives that looked better on paper, than in real service. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 locomotives that were disappointing to their makers: the Baldwin Centipede, the EMD second generation cowl passenger locomotive that like to derail on turns, and the recent EMD that fell out of favor in a hurry-SD60(?) or SD80(?). Any thoughts?
The one that pops up to my mind: EMD BL1/2
Also:
Krauss-Maffei
Baldwin RP-210 lightweight train
EMD LWT12 (AeroTrain)
Funny, the BL2s came to my mind, too.
I’d say that EMD’s 50 series fits the bill (it found favor with some operators, but then so did the Edsels!).
The SD90MACs have to be on that list, for sure.
As for GE: BQ23-7.
I forgot about the BL2’s -woof![(-D] Same for BQ23-7, although looks aren’t as important as operation. Is the 50 series the one that all the railroads turned back when their leases ended? SD90, I presume, has problems with the prime mover?
The Krause Maffei Hydraulics (in america)
C&O’s M-1 Tubines
Alco’s C415 and EMD’s RS1325.
GE U50C, though that was mostly due to the aluminum wiring.
Alco 855’s
EMD SD45X
The EMD SDP40F’s weren’t as bad as some people make them out to be - the derailment problems were caused more by poor track maintainnence than poor design. The Santa Fe had little trouble with running them at 90 MPH.
My vote goes to GM’s Aerotrain, the EMD LTW12.
And don’t forget that AT&SF and later BNSF ran the ex-Amtrak SDP40F units as freighters until about four years ago (and there may still be a handful out there in lease service, I can’t recall) with virtually no problems.
Second that. Had the incredible power of a Rambler with watered gas. Should have looked like an Edsel too, instead of an Oldsmobile. Just tilt the proboscis 90 degrees! Needs rhinoplasty baaaaaaaaaad! And such wonderful ride quality. Needs a dog painted on the side.
Close behind:
Bombardier LRC power units (you would have thought that by the 80’s the Canadians would have figured out about Alco prime movers…)
Budd SPV-2000 Hangar Queens
GE P30CH and E60CP. They even looked like the dogs they were.
Amtrak Acela. More buck for the bang. Too wide (can these guys measure?), overweight, bad brakes, and even they admitted to the Washington Post (no less) that they can get the same speed and schedule time out of a Metroliner at a fraction of the cost. Your tax dollars at work.
One of the things I have wondered for a long time is, what were the actual “failings” of the centipede?
Seems like every book I’ve ever read presenting itself as an authoritative reference on motive power makes an obligatory mention of the centipede, presenting it as more of a footnote than anything else, without any real facts or case history explaining why it bombed.
Forced to guess I’ve always assumed that the weight, distributed over so many axles, actually hindered adhesion, despite having so many extra contact points (wheels) from which to apply tractive effort to the rail.
Just curious.
To the best of my memory, what I recall reading, was that they were “maintenance hogs”, as they had so many more parts that were prone to failing if not maintined. Also, I seem to recall something about them prone to catching fire. The design somehow caused a situation where oil dripped on the electrical cabinets(?)
Re: Centipedes-- ISTR a 1970s or 80s TRAINS article in which the long rigid frame was accused of causing derailments. It was also mentioned that there were serious problems with leaking engine oil, to the point that it caused fires, and that the electrical systems were prone to shorts and flashovers. Undoubtedly someone out there will have better info than I, but that’s what I heard. [:)]
Budd SPV-2000 Hangar Queens Junk…bow wow…woof…gobble gobble.When you have to take the “self propelled”. out of SPV.You know you have big troubles.
I read in a book, maybe(?) Black Diamond, Black Gold(?), about the reson behind the Centipede development. It seemed to be a sound idea. It was designed ( I think) to drag PRR coal trains at low speeds. It just didn’t work as well as planned.
I’ve never heard of CN having any problems with their SD50F’s.
CP had a lot of early problems with their SD40-2F’s
The multiple wheels concept itself wasn’t flawed. The Milwaukee’s electric Centipedes were by all accounts splendid locomotives, albeit for passenger hauling. But their lack of multiple unit capability discounted them for freight.
Some of you guys are confusing “Edsel” with “lemon.” There was nothing intrinsically unsound with the Edsel; it’s just that not enough people wanted it. The Edsel was a marketing failure made notable by huge expectations that were not fulfilled, not a technical or mechanical failure, and many examples listed above were complete technical failures (or not; I’d disagree that the SD50 was a poor locomotive, just not as good a locomotive as it people thought it should be). In reality, an “Edsel” is an artificial construct, a strawman erected by the media and later burned down by the same people that built it.
Locomotives where manufacturer and media expectations came up well short include
F-M C-Line – too late!
F-M Trainmaster – too soon, too complicated, too expensive
Alco Century Series – expected to save the company; it didn’t
EMD SD90MAC – too big
GE AC6000CW – also too big
I don’t recall any hoopla at the time of introduction about the BL2, SD45X, RS1325 – no one expected them to do much and the SD45X was purely an experimental. Ditto with the U50C and C855 and BQ23-7 – everyone knew they were one-offs, at best.
I completely agree on Acela, SPV2000, LRC – the hoopla was vastly out of proportion to their impact or actual demand.
S. Hadid
The SD90H and the AC6000CW ran into the same problem. Neither ran well enough to justify the cost of re-engineering the engines to meet tier II emmissions standards. The demand was not there for them. GE got the AC6000s fixed, but it was too late by then. GM sold EMD off, and the new EMD is selling H engines for other applications and will make some of their development costs up, if not all of them. The Evolution power plant GE has could come out in the 16 cylinder format, at 6000HP, but GE people admit there is no demand for it at the price GE would have to charge for a locomotive equipped with it!
1435mm: I agree on what you say about Edsel verses lemon. Perhaps a better desription would have been to use the name “Pacer”.[:P]
What locomotives would you consider to have been “lemons” (Or Pacers)?
Can you elaborate on the idea of “too big”? Thanks