IIRC, “too big” generally falls into two categories -
Too much HP in one place - the 6000 HP Diesels, the U50’s and DD’s. The idea of one locomotive to do the work of two (or three) was inviting, but the reality of losing all 6000 HP in one package if it fails is discouraging. Better to have two 3000 hp locomotives. Then if one fails (or is in the shop for maintenance), you still have the other. The concept could be applied to steam as well, although most steam locomotives were purpose built for their application - which is why you saw Mikes on plains branch lines and Mallets slugging it out in the mountains. I’m sure there were mistakes made there - wrong locomotive for the wrong place.
Physically too big. This takes a number of forms - heavy and long (especially wheelbase) being prime suspects. Even today, UP has to consider carefully where their steamers go. It still applies to the world of Diesels. I’m sure there are lines where an SD70 would fear to tread.
The opinions expressed regarding the Centipedes are not reality based. They were 6000 hp units originally intended for passenger work but the turbochargers were not up to the task and they were downrated to 5000hp and utilized mainly in pusher service. The original Baldwin design called for several transverse mounted small engine, generator and drive wheel combines that could be switched out as a module. As it turns out they were not built that way. The curvature was so great on Horseshoe curve that the air blower in the carbody didn’t line up with the duct in the truck causing overheating of the traction motors. The great number of wheels was the undoing. A centipede as a 4-8-8-4 had 48 brake shoes alone! It was one of the PRR’s experiments that was retired early as EMD got the bulk of the orders in the form of GP-9s which were far more flecible in assigning power. As I recall the PRR had 267 of them.
Too big = more horsepower (and price!) then is justified by the work it does. Tractive effort is limited by maximum permissible weight and maximum attainable adhesion and thus is not a meaningful improvement over a AC4400CW or SD70MAC. The extra 1600 horsepower would be meaningful at higher speeds but at a cost that made sense. It might have helped had the availability and MTBF been better, but even if GE and EMD had been able to match the performance of the AC4400CW and SD70MAC the economics still aren’t there.
C415 was a LEMON, several design flaws that ALCO should have known better.
The BL2 and RS1325 were definitely not lemons. The BL2 was a great branch line unit and the the RS1325 just not enough horsepower over the SW1200(RS) and/or not enough under the GP7’s that were still plentiful. IMHO.
I had two different friends who owned Pacers. They both bought them because they were ugly. They both would be inclined to believe they were lemons. A co-worker of mine had one of the Vegas. He called it The Oil Eater.[xx(]
Ford Edsels (good engines, overhyped and or unwanted): BL2s (yes they were hyped in print media as were all other early EMD products,) Acela, Alco Centuries, GE U36B, FM C-line, FM Trainmasters, SD90s.
Chevy Novas (true lemons): EMD Aerotrain, Baldwin Xplorer (for NYC), SD24, F40PH (when used in heavy commuter service), GP60M, U50C, Budd Metroliners, Budd SPV, Baldwin Transverse-Mount Concept Model.
Methinks you are confusing the Bipolars and Little Joes.
The Milwaukee Little Joe’s had the same wheel arrangement as the Baldwin Centipedes, but my recollection was that they were about ten feet shorter. The Joe’s did have some problems handling 10 degree curves (one reason why the 8 degree max curvature of the Cadotte Pass line would have been nice), but were very successfull running MU and hauling freight. They weren’t often used as pushers, which was one of the downfalls of the Pennsy’s application of their Centipedes (the articulated frames worked better under tension than compression).
The Great Northern W-1’s were a similar arrangement (B-D+D-B instead of 2-D+D-2), were even lomger than the centipedes and apparently worked well over the Cascade tunnel line.
Particularly nasty “lemons” were GE U28, U33, and U36 models. Fried traction motors and overheating prime movers were constant problems with these locomotives (both UP and SP weren’t too thrilled by their low reliability).
I think the AC6000CW and SD90MAC-H could be made EPA Tier-2 compliant (they would be very useful in high-speed intermodal service).
Well for the Metra it all depends on route, what I was going more on here was GO Transit’s and the New York MTA’s experiences.
Since the F40PH does not have a dedicated engine for the HEP generators, the main diesel engine has to keep high RPM to provide power for the train, this sectioning of power means that not all HP is avalible for traction at a time. This was particularly problematic also regarding the issues of noise and wear, since the engines were going at all times (most of the time nearly flat-out on the GO Transit.)
I’m not sure exactly how Metra got such good preformance from theirs, but I’d love to know.
A few years ago, I was talking to a UP engineer. He said that UP was getting rid of its SD50s. I asked if that included the ex-DRGW SD50s. He said no. If I remember correctly, the reason why is that they were later models, therefore something was different, unfortunately I do not remember what that was. So, it sounds like eventually the SD50 overcame its problems.
The FL9 was a dual mode locomotive that rarely was.
The GP35 was a case of stretching straight DC too far - too much main gen voltage, too many games played trying to keep that voltage down (a zillion steps of field shunting plus transition). Plus, trying to wring out a bit too much HP from the 567 engine.
I believe the early SD50’s had no end of problems with the electrical system, which was why UP bought a lot more SD40-2’s than SD50’s. The DRGW units were later-build models with improved electrical systems that did pretty well on DRGW’s mountainous routes, so that’s why they’re staying on the UP roster.
Lemon = Aerotrain, despite its then futuristic appearence, it was underpowered, used GM bus bodies and seat for passenger cars that were simply retrucked with single axle bogies that road like hell, the cars were noisy as hell, and the effect was as uncorforatble as hell. It sent commuters running like hell from it.
Edsel = Maffei hydrolic units, these actually did work, they’re still very common in Europe, but were so different mechanicly and maintanence-wise that ended up being unpopular with crews and roads that tried them. Also add:
DD-35/DD-40/U-50…just a little toooooo biggggggggg
UP Gas Turbine…just a little tooooo thirtsyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
CP Turbo Train - finicky ride about anything less than perfect track