What are the Popular GE Models since the U25B?

@prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Im curious of the Popular GE models since the U25B. By popular I am asking for the most Railroad purchases of these models and not necessarily the number of units produced.

The numbers produced will reflect the railroad purchases.  Who else is going to buy locomotives???

The GE page of The Diesel Shop would be a good place to start.

Rusty

Popular . . . hmmmmm.  Well, that might mean popularly purchased, or it might mean well-liked by the Mechanical Department, or, again, it might mean well-liked by the Operating Department.

From my perspective -- and this is only my opinion -- based on personal experience, and I'm pretty open minded about this subject, I would say this:

• Nerds:  The earliest GE Universal series diesels (U30B, U36C, etc.) were not the best ones.  Railroads tried them out, but they were always minority locomotives on the roster.  They were innovative -- 16-position throttles, lots of engine protective devices to prevent the engine from doing damage to itself if its operating conditions fell below a high level of operational satisfaction.  Crews generally did not like them.  Dispatchers did not like them.  Mechanical Departments were kind of on the fence.  GE established a good network of field service employees to help with improvements and customer satisfaction.  They had some nice features, but often had oily running boards from engine oil leaks, and flapping hood doors from the unsatisfactory early hood latches.  On the electrical side, however, they were almost indestructible.  Dynamic braking was strong, but the placement of the grids tended to boil the engine cooling water.  Cab doors felt flimsy.  I was not fond of them, except for their loud, chugging exhaust, which sounded very railroad-y to me.
• Being Tolerated:  The Dash-7 series (e.g., C30-7) did away with the 16-position throttle and some of the protective devices, and became more reliable.  The cab interior was improved, with the knee-breaker cab heater re-profiled and a nice AAR control stand.  With fewer protective devices, they were more reliable and evidently did not require all the earlier protection.  They gained a reputation for better reliability.  But the dynamic brake was still back in the radiator opening and served to make them run hot on long descending grades.  They used a new design exhaust opening that dampened the chugging that I liked.  I began to like them.
• Finally Being Allowed to Hang Out with some of the Cool Kids:  The Dash-8 series was the turning point.  GE negotiated maintenance contracts whereby GE supervisors and the railroad's own Machinists and electricians maintained the GE locomotives specified in the contract.  GE, finally finding out what it took to maintain their products, and not getting paid anything for any GE unit that failed in service, really went to work on constant improvement of their locomotives.  Also, about this time, GE embraced Six Sigma and began a process of measuring the quality of their locomotives.  EMD began to see its share of the market shrink, because, for the first time, there was viable competition.  The dynamic brake grids were now in a location behind the cab, with electric blower cooling.  Crews still complained about slow loading when the throttle was advanced, but that was, and is, not going to change, as it is designed to avoid wasteful visible black exhaust.  If GE's loaded quickly, the sky would look like Alco country.  Cab doors became much better.  GE Engineering and field personnel were accessible and open to special options that were requested by customers.  I liked them.
• Now They Are the Cool Kids:  The Dash-9 series has been quite popular with everyone at the railroad.  Retirements of older Engineers and their replacement with Engineers who were "made" on GE's has reduced the slow loading complaints to almost nothing.  Dispatchers have no complaints, which shows that these locomotives are reliable and not having many road failures.  They are cleaner, quieter, workhorses, and GE has finally become the "in crowd" on the campus/railroad.  I preferred them.

That's my take on it.

If you were asking about popularity from a railfan perspective, I can't add much.  The North American cab Dash-9 GE's don't really all look alike but they look enough alike that I don't have the same interest in critical detail spotting as I did when I was young and first generation cab units ruled the rails.  Paint might be one variant that would affect popularity.  Of course, you know what I think is the most popular paint on any locomotive.  However, behind the warbonnet would be the NS commemoratives, and the KCS Belle scheme. But I am not going to make the same mistake that some did when steam disappeared.  I'll still go to trackside when possible and keep watching and enjoying trains.

Excellent assessment Tom and a very objective explanation.  I hope that Wabtech continues to improve the Line.  In the 80's and 90's who would have guessed that EMD would be practically out of the business?

From a modeling perspective, outside of the U4CH, the U28CG, and U30CG none of the "classic" GE's really appealed to me much.  I think they were just between the era's I model.  I will say though that I would like to track down an Atlas Amtrak -8 as I rode behind several of those when they were new.

I did see a U30CG pass by the Newton KS station.  Odd looking!

Love the U28c  in either Northern Pacific or Burlington livery. They had the most macho looking trucks ever employed on diesel locomotives.

I'm with Tom, I still enjoy going down to my local BNSF station and watching the mix of traffic, locomotives and occasional interesting car - for example a 4 truck, drop-center heavy duty flat car spotted recently. Plus a pretty regular representation of friendly local fans - even an occasional older fellow - like me - who remembers steam!  Just wish laser technology could be employed to burn the hands off of taggers. Their garbage is not attractive, artistic or creative - not like the older graffiti of such stalwarts as "Waterbed Lou" or "Bozo Texino" !

The Pooches, the P30CH's looked European to me.

U34CH’s and many GE engines were numerous on the Erie Lackawanna and indirect spin off, NJT. 

Hoboken, 1987

For being General ELECTRIC, Some of their electric locomotives were not that great either. NH EP-5's had a problem with catching them self's on fire.  Amtrak's E-60's had reliability and tracking problems. Virginian / N&W/ NH/ PC E-33's had a issues, I imagine the Mercury tubes had something to do with it, and the locos were too old to convert to solid state diodes. They just kept getting passed around. I'm sure there were some other stinkers in there too. On the other hand, older AC electrics like the Milw. Bipolars were successful.

@Number 90 posted:

... From my perspective -- and this is only my opinion -- based on personal experience, and I'm pretty open minded about this subject, I would say this: ...

Fun, interesting read, Tom. It's good having you on our forum.

Anyway, I had a whole gaggle of U-Boats on my previous HO layout ... Conrail in New Jersey. U28, U30C/B, U33 ... in addition to earlier u-boats.  Partially because I did not see much of that on other folks' layouts ... regardless of roadname.

OK.  U34CH's in NJ were a success in passenger service.  U28 and 30CG on ATSF had truck issues.  P30CH on Amtrak the same.  What was the difference?  And ATSF had great track!

@Chuck Sartor posted:

For being General ELECTRIC, Some of their electric locomotives were not that great either. NH EP-5's had a problem with catching them self's on fire.  Amtrak's E-60's had reliability and tracking problems. Virginian / N&W/ NH/ PC E-33's had a issues, I imagine the Mercury tubes had something to do with it, and the locos were too old to convert to solid state diodes. They just kept getting passed around. I'm sure there were some other stinkers in there too. On the other hand, older AC electrics like the Milw. Bipolars were successful.

The PRR converted the E44's to solid state.  Then maybe the NH did not have the money....

EP5's?  A locomotive which was too complex for its time?

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

OK.  U34CH's in NJ were a success in passenger service.  U28 and 30CG on ATSF had truck issues.  P30CH on Amtrak the same.  What was the difference?  And ATSF had great track!

I suspect the issue was merely speed.  U34CHs were not intended for 90mph operations. They rarely exceeded 60 mph with the many station stops. 

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

OK.  U34CH's in NJ were a success in passenger service.  U28 and 30CG on ATSF had truck issues.  P30CH on Amtrak the same. 

How can you say the P30CH was NOT a success in Passenger service? That model far outlasted the SDP40F in passenger runs.

The U34s had an over speed set at 72-79 mph. That’s how fast they ran on the Southern Tier Line. They could go faster if the Engineer cut out the MU-2A valve (independent brake) nullifying the over speed protection...but that was frowned upon.

@prrhorseshoecurve posted:

How can you say the P30CH was NOT a success in Passenger service? That model far outlasted the SDP40F in passenger runs.

The P30's did have a speed restriction on some railroads coming out of some stations and curves.

But they did tend to be on AUTOTRAIN and the SUNSET.  Trains not known to be fast.

The U30C as a competitor to the SD40-2 and the ES44, now the ET44.  The AC4400 had advantages over contemporary EMD but also had some baggage to overcome.  Everything else was here and there by railroads that had been Alco and/or Baldwin fans and disliked EMD.

I thought the C30-7 was the competitor for the SD40-2.  The U30C was the competitor for the SD40.

@SPSF posted:

I thought the C30-7 was the competitor for the SD40-2.  The U30C was the competitor for the SD40.

I thought the Dash 7 line came out in 1997.  So the U30C and the C30-7 did compete with the SD40-2.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

I thought the Dash 7 line came out in 1997.  So the U30C and the C30-7 did compete with the SD40-2.

1976.  C30-7 (Dash 7) was a response to EMD's Dash 2 line.

Popular with who? To me, the wide-cab models all look alike and they all sound like someone shaking a coffee can filled with loose nuts and bolts. I do enjoy watching one cook its turbo, though. Lovely light show.

Give me a pre-1980, pre-exhaust silencer, pre-Q-fan SD40-2, SD40T-2, or SD45T-2 any day. 645s rock.

@Nick Chillianis posted:

Popular with who? To me, the wide-cab models all look alike and they all sound like someone shaking a coffee can filled with loose nuts and bolts. I do enjoy watching one cook its turbo, though. Lovely light show.

Give me a pre-1980, pre-exhaust silencer, pre-Q-fan SD40-2, SD40T-2, or SD45T-2 any day. 645s rock.

 

 

Better, loaded to the limit on a heavy train....

The Dash 7 GE's were basically U Line locomotives with areas redesigned for better maintainability, along with a slight nudge in HP.  But there were a massive number of changes, to the extent that GE engineers basically started with a clean sheet of paper.  The engine hood doors were relocated to permit removal of cylinder assemblies without hood removal.  The air compressor was "brought in out of the cold", with its own "room" heated by engine air.  (Air compressors were such a high maintenance item for the railroads that principal railroad overhaul shops - like Altoona, ran three lines, one for EMD engines, one for GE diesel engines, and one for air compressors.)  The GE Dash 8 with its motor driven air compressor reduced air compressor rotation by about 98%, and made all of those air compressor lines "go away".  The -7's received additional filtration, that GE called "baggies", and the old "panel bath filters that passed engine air over an oil bath were dispensed with.  There were literally "hundreds" of engine improvements, and these were cut into production as they completed life cycle and performance testing.  The Dash 7's also had changes made to the control system, and modularized "blue face cards" racked into panel assemblies became the norm.  This was also the era of the "AAR standard control stand".  On late U boats, GE dispensed with the old 16 notch throttle, felt necessary when 2500 HP U boats were MU'd with 1750 HP EMD's.  The odd throttle notches in the 16 notch did not increase engine speed but increased generator excitation that provided an interim step of tractive effort, and this was thought to improve the horsepower mismatch problem in train handling.  The Dash 7's also used an AC Alternator, which permitted a full parallel motor start with no need to reconnect the traction motors electrically as the locomotive increased speed.  (EMD's GP40 was the first in production with a traction alternator, although GE built an alternator for Alco for three Century 628's (from my memory) in the early 60's.)  Some of the other changes were the 17MM24 axle alternators, one on each axle, were no longer used, as they did not have the inherent sensitivity required for improved wheel slip systems.  Very sophisticated wheel slip systems and logic were developed to lay down the power without the need to derate the locomotive on bad rail.  GE finally abandoned its "dry" radiator system in favor of a "wet" system.  GE greatly improved its dynamic braking system including the grids to reduce grounds, and those systems were made more capable.  At about this time, the government established new rules for the operator's cab, and GE (and others) were forced by these rules to change the number and the shape of side windows.  (On railroads, "extra" windows were blanked off.)  There were some changes that appeared trivial but were important.  For example, the radiator inlet screens on U boats would become coated with wet leaves in the Fall and restrict air flow to literally "everything on the locomotive that needed an air supply", and that was everything.  The answer to this was really simple, and resulted in all of the equipment inlet screens having an "accordion style" or waffle design to prevent leaf accumulation.

In the middle of all this there was a race to be the champion in reducing fuel consumption...…...

Hudson 5432, we were waiting for you to join us with one of your always-informative and professional posts.  Thanks.

5-4-3-2 . . . There's something special about sequential numerals in a locomotive road number.

Number 90 

 ATSF ran through some very hot and dry parts of the country at high speed.

In thw middle of the summer, in the hottest part of the day, could locomotives lose power because the prime mover intake air, and/or engine cooling tempature was too warm?

Dominic, the overheating problem was at low speed when dynamic braking was in use.  At higher speeds the air flow over the top of the hood, as well as the radiator opening, was quite sufficient to avoid overheating.

Even on long descending grades of up to 50 miles where speeds of 45 to 70 MPH were allowed in 110 degree desert heat with dynamic braking in use, there was not any regular overheating.  It was on descending grades of 2% or 3%, where train speed was limited to 15 or 20 MPH, that the radiator fan had to provide the air circulation and the heat from the braking resistors sometimes outpaced the fan in the radiator compartment.

Many a Volkswagon Beetle made the trek across Death Valley on air cooling alone so I don't see how a diesel-electric locomotive couldn't beyond the dynamic braking aspect. 

@Krieglok posted:

U34CH’s and many GE engines were numerous on the Erie Lackawanna and indirect spin off, NJT.

While not completely accurate, I turned this MTH C30-7 into what I call a C34-7H for my NJT fleet.  Note the number.  I've shown this several times over the years on the forum.  Only one major problem with it I need to fix.  Well more than 1....

#90, Any idea why GE went with the overhead throttle system, when the ARR stand seemed standard, isn't that what GP-7's and F units used? Was there any advantage to that system, wad that used all through the U-25 series? Another question, if I may. Which was more popular, the u-25/28, B or C?

@Chuck Sartor posted:

#90, Any idea why GE went with the overhead throttle system,

What is an "overhead throttle system"?

when the ARR stand seemed standard,

The "AAR Standard Control Stand" design wasn't adopted until the early 1970s.

isn't that what GP-7's and F units used?

No, as the "AAR Standard Control Stand" design did not come out until the early 1970s, long after production of F units and GP7/GP9/GP20/GP30/GP35/GP40 series units had ended. 

Was there any advantage to that system, wad that used all through the U-25 series? Another question, if I may. Which was more popular, the u-25/28, B or C?

@GG1 4877 posted:

Many a Volkswagon Beetle made the trek across Death Valley on air cooling alone so I don't see how a diesel-electric locomotive couldn't beyond the dynamic breaking aspect. 

with respect Sir, and as much as I can guess..... (I just watch this forum for info.)

I wouldn't compare a lightweight car against a loaded train hauling or esp. descending a long grade with the brakes on. Maybe if you had some really large people crammed into that bug....

nah, forget that too. 

 I'd have to just guess about the heat generated and needed to be handled. I can't imagine a VW came into even a decent percentage of that. Time for some calculations....

@Engineer-Joe posted:

with respect Sir, and as much as I can guess..... (I just watch this forum for info.)

I wouldn't compare a lightweight car against a loaded train hauling or esp. descending a long grade with the brakes on.

To be completely clear we are talking about DYNAMIC BRAKE use, not necessarily the air brakes on the train consist.

Maybe if you had some really large people crammed into that bug....

nah, forget that too. 

 I'd have to just guess about the heat generated and needed to be handled.

The heat generated from the dynamic brakes? Or the heat generated from the prime mover? Or the heat generated from the little VW?

I can't imagine a VW came into even a decent percentage of that. Time for some calculations....

Good idea, i.e. time for some calculations.

Overhead throttle is similar to a steam loco throttle, Were they unique just the U25B? They moved horizontally, instead of vertical.

@Chuck Sartor posted:

Overhead throttle is similar to a steam loco throttle, Were they unique just the U25B? They moved horizontally, instead of vertical.

Must admit that those GE U25B units I was in back in the early 1960s, did NOT have any such throttle, i.e. "similar to a steam locomotive". I've been in, and ridden in, Fairbanks Morris Train Masters, Alco  PAs and FAs, and Baldwin diesel units, and never saw an "overhead throttle". 

In fact, even the early EMC SC and SW units with the direct mechanical throttle to the engine governor (which was infinitely variable) was NOT an "overhead throttle", but located just to the Engineer's left hand, in the control stand.

The throttles in early GE diesels (the U-boats) were not vertical. It was a long horizontal lever that extended out of a control stand in a fairly normal fashion.

I worked for the P&LE back in the 60s. Our road locomotives were a fleet of U28-Bs. No vertical throttles.

@Engineer-Joe posted:

with respect Sir, and as much as I can guess..... (I just watch this forum for info.)

I wouldn't compare a lightweight car against a loaded train hauling or esp. descending a long grade with the brakes on. Maybe if you had some really large people crammed into that bug....

nah, forget that too. 

 I'd have to just guess about the heat generated and needed to be handled. I can't imagine a VW came into even a decent percentage of that. Time for some calculations....

Joke fail.   Oh well.  I can respect that! Definitely an Buth calculation is in order.

I'd need to go look up the bhp to btu conversion rate but as you mention it wouldn't be close. 

OK. So what would have been the advantage to a extended throttle handle? Easier for switching? To accommodate the 16 position throttle? 

OK, after doing a little 'homework' I see from a picture of what I was talking about. The throttle cabinet was hung from the roof, and the throttle lever was at waist height. It was only used on the 2 high hood engines.

That "grapevine" throttle, to the best of my knowledge, appeared only on the first two U25B demonstrators, originally known as "XP-2400", and with road numbers 751 and 752.  I do not know what the limited number of high hood U25B's had, but do recall that UP had  a few 4? (These were the second set of GE demos), Frisco had 8 or 10 high hoods, Wabash had a few?   "Early production U25B's with low noses all had the 16 position throttle, with a "long and non-standard" removable reverse handle, and perhaps all U25B's had the 16 notch....

Locomotives do derate naturally due to temperature.  For example, the diesel engine gross horsepower rating point was at 1000 ft altitude and 60 degr F incoming inlet air.  Anything different and there was a correction factor.  Diesel locomotives also derate when the thermal limit of the various devices and systems of the locomotive are exceeded, in order to protect the equipment.  The most modern current designs, instead of "shutting down", modulate if possible in order to achieve "mission completion".