No, and apart from obvious “form follows function” sort of similiarities, there really isn’t anything that’s actually the same between GE and EMD locomotives body design.
Also in my reading, I understand that Budd had something to do with Amtrac’s rail cars design.
Budd has been involved in the design of rail passenger cars of all sorts since the Pioneer Zephyr in 1933.
Before then; see the Budd-Michelines including the ‘Silver Slipper’ described in detail in Trains in the early 1970s. Budd was involved with lightweight metal fabrication, notably in sheet material, even earlier than application to rail equipment. Google ‘Shotweld’ as a name for proprietary methods of spotwelded fabrication of thin-gauge stainless-steel sheet.
The cars mentioned here are the curved-side Amfleet cars built at the Budd plant on Red Lion Road in Bustleton. Some of their design was taken from the shells for the earlier Metroliner MU trains. I do think that saying Budd had ‘something to do with’ these cars is something of an understatement.
Don’t forget the role of Winton Engines, which became a GM subsidiary in 1930 and of EMCin 1935. And then there comes Fairbanks Morse, truly the odd man out.
Al Sloan consciously acquired Winton as a strategic asset in conjunction with EMC. Preston Cook pointed out that Charles Kettering pointed out the usefulness of EMC’s team, and the engine maker that ‘powered’ them; what might not be so clear is the amount of work Kettering and the wider GM organization put into developing and refining a high-speed two-stroke railroad engine, something Winton as an independent company would likely never do, let alone be able to refine into the 567. In my opinion this aspect is significantly underrated in conventional railfan histories.
It is, I think, more a mark of convenience that EMC’s name was changed to EMD; they were a functional unit of GM long before the formal recognition.
I will concede that FM did not make much of a splash as a locomotive builder. The OP engine is just another example of a good marine engine that was less than a roaring success as a locomotive engine.
Also, at 950-1100 RPM, I would hardly consider the 567, 645 etc. engines to be high-speed designs. The truck-size diesel engines used in gensets and the Siemens Chargers would better fit the high-speed designation.
Keep in mind that the definition between low, medium, and high-speed diesels has changed over the years, definitely since the introduction of the 201A or 567. If I recall correctly, even the Baldwin 600-series engines were considered ‘medium speed’ when introduced, slow-speed being reserved for things like direct-drive ship engines.
By modern standards, yes, even a GE ‘overclocked’ to 1050rpm would be considered ‘medium-speed’ – not that you’d have any preconceptions if you had to stand in the gangway next to one running into a load at that speed! I still have problems and doubts about running engines the size of a large QSK or C175 at “2000rpm” in railroad service, even for a short ‘boost’ period (as the original Chargers had to do to “make” the 125mph numbers, and about which EMD actually filed suit). But then again I’m still amazed that the 6.5TD in my '94 Suburban had a 4000rpm limiter setting; these things can be relative.
My understanding of the diesel engine speed categories:
0-100 RPM = low speed (think large marine engines)
100-1000 RPM = medium speed (most locomotive engines)
1000 RPM = high speed (Detroit, Cummins, CAT, etc)
What I was taught, and it may be wrong or ‘biased’ by industry, was that as changes in materials and design were brought about, the meaningful distinction of engines by ‘speed’ changed to keep the categories relevant. What I use is similar to the taxonomy in the current Wartsila “Encyclopedia of Ship Technology” (note the PDF download link for those like Leo Ames who might have further interest) which notes that cost-effective design speed for ‘low-speed’ designs may be considerably less than ‘allowed’ speed, but design characteristics of true medium-speed engines only become functionally relevant at the higher speed used as a criterion.