I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service. The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself. Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model.
It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either. From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags. This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units? It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.[8D]
Bombardier is actually a Canadian company, and already builds locomotives for EMD (if you look at a current EMD builder’s plate, it will list country of origin as a check one of Canada, USA or Mexico - Mexican built EMDs are built by Bombardier).
I have no doubt that should the North American Class Is communicate the desire for NEW four-axle locomotives to GE and EMD, they will be more than happy to provide them. They always have and always will!
I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service. The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself. Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model.
It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either. From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags. This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units? It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.
I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service. The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself. Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model.
It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either. From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags. This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units? It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.
also I would like to add to this that the SD70MAC and the various versions of the SD90’s all have their electric equipment made by Siemens. Keeping this in mind and having a European manufacturer with good North American experience my thinking was why not use a European design over here as well. Mind you it would have to be modified to meet North American requirements, but still it could have been an alternative.
Thank you for all the responses so far. The points raised are very interesting. As for the Diesel Hydraulics, I believe it was the wrong locomotive for the wrong application. The Hydraulics might have done better with a HEP unit in passenger service. Here in North America we really push the equipment compared to Europe. That is why the British Class 66 made by EMD is such a success.
My experience is from the steel industry and may be biased. Every time a European process was purchased engineering and maintenance personnel were assigned to reduce the maintenance and downtime that European steel mills favored. Don’t know the reason for that other than make work in Socialist countries but it was extremely excessive and many components were designed to fail. An example is a brick machine purchahed for Armco Middletown BOF shop that had over 400 limit switchs. Idea was this thing delivered bricks for relining vertically on a conveyer and then out to the end of an arm a man stood on and placed the bricks in their final resting position as this thing rotated and screwed itself vertically up every revloution. Within six weeks we had it down to 14 limit switchs and had replaced several weak components. I know when the PRR tried a French De Glehn steam engine the Frenchman commented, “You don’t move cars. You move houses”. The Europeans have developed superior electric engines but their other equipment isn’t that geat or rugged amd therefore dependable in my opinion.
There are several cultural factors involved. European railroads were willing to accept more down time for maintenance than American roads. Also, the cost of labor compared to the cost of fuel was lower than in North America. How engineers view the nature of their profession is also different. European engineers view themselves more as men of science, and seem to be more interested in getting an “elegant” solution; American engineers tend to be more interested in results, and are more willing to improvise and arrive at “inelegant” solutions that work.
The SD40-2 is an example of American Engineering in that everything not absolutely necessary to make it work was discarded from the design. Since then to either make small improvement in fuel efficiency, increase power or increase tractive effort has greatly complicated the design. Culturally, during WW 2 the German Navy kept large staffs busy designing the perfect battleship. The result was a design with the most armor protection, the most powerful guns and the most powerful propulsion plant for the highest speed. The problem was no capacity to build it or produce the steel for or getting a crew to man it or any fuel to get it to sea if it was built. I use to think it was a ploy to keep them from going to the eastern front but its part of a national contest for design superiority at least on paper. There use to be a contest between the Germans and the French and the British to design the most complicated diesel engine design. At this point MAN has bought out all its competitors except in Germany. Getting back to the SD40, operational results was the prime objective.
European railroad equipment is for the most part, built to a smaller loading gauge than that of most of North America. In addition, the rail network in Europe operates very differently than that in the U.S where heavy haul freight service is dominant. European builders have their strengths, particularly in electric motive power and passenger equipment, and those market segments are where they have had success on this side of the pond selling (or licensing to domestic builders) “Americanized” versions of their offerings…
Brian Hollingsworth’s book on express passenger steam locomotives offers some interesting insights into the regard in France for complex locomotives such as the de Glehn and later Chapelon machines.
Apparently France is lacking in coal supplies, so thermal efficiency was paramount. England went to four cylinder steam like the de Glehn designs, but opted for simple instead of compound operation because coal was somewhat more plentiful.
It had been suggested somewhere else that the reason that the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the wide spread use of steam power) happened in England and not France is that the early steam machinery was only marginally cost effective, but the abundance of coal in England tipped the balance towards using coal in steam engines (coal was a form of labor in that someone had to dig it out of the ground) over direct labor in the factories and mills.
Similarly, France is 80% nuclear on their electric grid. One could argue that France is “more progressive than we” on CO2 emissions, but the simple fact is that France went nuclear because they had to, much as they went for complex compound steam because they had to.
What is interesting from Hollingsworth’s book is reviewing the stats, and on comparing US Superpower steam against some of Chapelon’s creations. It seemed that Superpower needed about twice the weight, grate area, evaporative and superheating surface to get the same amount of “cylinder horsepower” as the French designs. I suppose if coal was relatively cheap and you wanted the weight for pulling tonnage, Superpower was a good design. But it is brute force in comparison.
Hollingsworth comments, however, that some post WW-II US-built Mikes they had in France were more cost effective than the best that Chapelon had to offer – what they gave up in coal consumption, even at French coal prices, they made up in lower mainten
BNSF is purchasing used GP-38s? Do you have a reference?
With the downturn in business, the GP-38s, GP-39Ms, and SD-40-2s are becoming rara avis, with hundreds of them in “stored, servicable” status. Our locals, and branch ‘line-hauls’, have almost eliminated them, in favor of newer GEs. I live on the BNSF “Hi-Line” in Montana and don’t miss the “Jimmy Junk”. We do see an occasional SD-70MAC, but mostly in ‘detour’ service on coal trains, like when MRL’s Mullan Tunnel caved in a few weeks ago.
Maybe the “Cash for Clunker EMDs” program is a good idea. Same with “Amfleet” cars!
Where are all the GEs of similar vintage to the GP38s, GP39E-M-Vs, and SD40-2s? U-boats, Dash 7s, etc.?
There are still places of lighter rail that the techno-toasters can’t go.
There are still how many older 4-axle engines around that could get refitted with the newer emission standard engines that importing European engines wouldn’t make any sense.
Brian Hollingsworth’s book on express passenger steam locomotives offers some interesting insights into the regard in France for complex locomotives such as the de Glehn and later Chapelon machines.
Apparently France is lacking in coal supplies, so thermal efficiency was paramount. England went to four cylinder steam like the de Glehn designs, but opted for simple instead of compound operation because coal was somewhat more plentiful.
It had been suggested somewhere else that the reason that the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the wide spread use of steam power) happened in England and not France is that the early steam machinery was only marginally cost effective, but the abundance of coal in England tipped the balance towards using coal in steam engines (coal was a form of labor in that someone had to dig it out of the ground) over direct labor in the factories and mills.
Similarly, France is 80% nuclear on their electric grid. One could argue that France is “more progressive than we” on CO2 emissions, but the simple fact is that France went nuclear because they had to, much as they went for complex compound steam because they had to.
What is interesting from Hollingsworth’s book is reviewing the stats, and on comparing US Superpower steam against some of Chapelon’s creations. It seemed that Superpower needed about twice the weight, grate area, evaporative and superheating surface to get the same amount of “cylinder horsepower” as the French designs. I suppose if coal was relatively cheap and you wanted the weight for pulling tonnage, Superpower was a good design. But it is brute force in comparison.
Hollingsworth comments, however, that some post WW-II US-built Mikes they had in France were more cost effective than the best that Chapelon had to offer – what they gave up in coal consumption, even at French coal prices, they made up in lower maintenance, although it was explained that the Mik
The question that needs to be asked is how maintenance-intensive were Chapelon’s designs? As mentioned previously, relatively high down time for maintenance is tolerated in Europe but a high-maintenance design would wind up parked in the weeds behind the shop in North America.
European technology is coming to North America through the back door. Siemens is responsible for the design of the electrical components on EMD’s AC-drive locomotives. MPI specifies MTU/Detroit Diesel power for its switchers, and MTU is a major German engine builder.
We are getting back to cultural differences again. Europe focuses on make-work and we focus on operations. The EMD FT was so successful in that it could streamline operations. Steam locomotives were designed for specific operations on particular gradients of the rail road system. The Santa Fe changing from 4-6-4’s to 4-8-4’s for more rugged territory comes to mind. The Pennsylvania confining certain designs to certain divisions where the diesel could go anywhere and do anything, particularly the higher powered road switchers which still operate today. Incidentally the MTU engines are supposed to be manufactured under license in Detroit by DD and the salesman claims that they have made some changes. (!?!). The are being used on locomotive in switching and work train service which is not very strenuous and stay close to a service area.
The older GEs are virtually all gone on the BNSF. There may be a few in storage, especially in southern California. Most have gone to re-builders or used loco dealers. Retirement/storage is based on fuel consumption, mainly, methinks, for locos that work 24/7.
Didn’t Roger Penske buy “Detroit Diesel” from the shambles that is now “Gummint Motors”?
An interesting development is the new GE ES-44C4s that BNSF bought (6600-series). Two pistons, on each side of the truck, pick up the idler axle of the A1A truck when higher loading is needed on the A axles. The ‘jury is still out’, but so far, so good, according to BNSF. Apparently it saves weight, and the expense of the third traction motor of a C-truck, especially for high speed service. Bears watching…
