Worst American Diesel power ???

by far the RS-1 switcher has got to win the prize for ugliest. However, I read that they were very reliable in the real world. As far as the one I really don't want on my roster? I'd have to say the U36-B, never cared for those.

I'm not much of a fan of Baldwin diesel locomotives, and for the most part the railroads weren't either...

Jeff C

FM Trainmaster. Great concept, poor long term application for a locomotive. Very powerful, but totally impracticable impractical to maintain long-term. 

Gilly

(I love auto-correct spelling)

I heard an awful lot of grumping from the C&O crews about their GP30s. Claimed the lead truck (under cab) was always prone to excessive wheel slip and subsequent shut down.

Neil   

The early GE U-boats of the 1960's were not one of GE's better ideas. The higher horsepower units were especially unreliable.

There is a reason why there are still hundreds of SD40's running around (3,000 HP C-C trucks) while the only place you can find a U-30C (also 3,000 HP on C-C trucks) is in a museum or scrap yard.

What about centipede's? I heard they were a maintenance nightmare.

By far centapede locomotive brought by NELM,PENN and SAL railroads.I was told by a retired sal railroad employee.They were a nightmare for repairmen hard on the track.He then said"The e and the ft,gp locomotives got the job done."As a kid I saw 1 e unit but not up closse.We were crossing the tracks to pick up from cheerleading.By the looks of that locomotive I would not want work on its insides.

Anything GE up until the Dash 9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!etc., etc.

Baldwin yard switchers were considered an OK investment, until BLH quit, and the parts started to dry up.  The 'Pedes were just the opposite by all accounts. Pennsy crews reported that it was nearly impossible to get a set up to Gallitzin with all four engines still afloat.  Used in snapper duty (pushing) the front truck would derail coming out of HSC's 9 degree curve. Replacing brakes meant ripping the power trucks apart. Fuel and air lines were done individually by specific shop personel, however they felt worked best on a given day.  Many smaller repairs would require the prime movers to be partially or fully removed from the carbody. Wiring was also inconsistantly run, and placed in areas where fuel and lube contamination was a sure thing. On the Penn, two units of this class were coupled with certain components shared between the two. If one failed, the other could be wiped along with it. PRR sent a pair back to Baldwin in 1951 to see if it could be "re-engineered"  Answer: a resounding NO !  The fix was worse than the disease!  These clunkers were condemned to pushing out of Philly in the late '50s, where they caused the least amount of headaches per mile. Here was a Diesel so bad they were considered more expensive to operate than steam helpers...and this is by the Penn, who absolutely hated steam from around '54 onward. If there's a bigger Diesel disaster, I've yet to hear about it!

Rich,

The reason there are no U Boats around is that I was in a meeting where our GM, by the name of Marion (Rick) Richardson told us in Marketing to "find a way to get them all back and gone". Someone performed an analysis that said we would never catch EMD in reliability, even with a new model, while there were U boats on each RR...it was mathematically impossible, even if our new deliveries were "perfect". (This guy was literally "something else...) So GE took three for one and even four for one as trade ins on Dash 7's. The fact that there was now a Penn-Central with most of the U boat fleet on the individual "pre P-C" railroads made our job easier. It was at this time that I managed to get a U25B NYC #2500 trade-in "hidden" until the local NRHS Chapter could buy it. One other U boat escaped, a NH unit, and that was it.

The Dash 7's were much better and designed for maintainability, but were still not the equal of an SD40, but we were much closer. We pulled ahead with the Dash 8 and the AC4400's solidified our market lead, and the new EVO's are even better.

I was in another meeting with "Rick" that he threw me out of when he pulled the attendees as to whether the looks of a locomotive were really important. I was the only one who raised my hand.......

Oops !  How could I forget the fabulous aluminum wired U50C  ???!  I'm sure all the Uncle Pete guys will have a bundle of tales about this gem.  I wonder if some of the other '60s weird-Os were as bad.....like the Alco DH643, and Alco C855. 

I have always liked EMDs and the crews I have talked to seem to like them, too. It speaks for itself when you see the market for the older EMD models and the rebuilding programs that focus on them. Look a NS today - there has to b a good reason they have scarfed up so many newer EMDs for their rebuilding programs but it is really interesting to study the ones hat never made it in the market and why. How the old line team engine builders flopped but a car builder and an appliance mfr. succeeded !! !

I was in a ship's engine room many moons ago that had four FM OP engines geared together. I can't imagine the mechanic's nightmare when working on one inside a locomotive shrouding.

I vote for the Centipedes.  Big locos on a good concept.  But they were just very disappointing in so many respects.

I have heard that GP-35's had a bad habit of exploding their primary traction motor wiring right off the motor. Also the Alco SP diesel hydraulics had a very short lifespan.

 And while not a diesel, the NH EP-5 electrics liked to catch fire and toast themselves.

Interesting because I've talked to several NS crews about this within the last week...Modern day on Norfolk Southern I hear more complaints about:

Ex Conail Dash 8 Wide Cabs (crews hate desktop control and noise!)

Ex Conrail SD60M/Is (see above)

SD60E rebuilds (loud and don't run worth a sh-t)

2700 series SD70M-2s... again, loud and will stall out if you look at them wrong. Crews HATE them!

EX UP SD9043MACs are earning a BAD reputation on the CNO&TP. A train started up Erlanger Hill with two of them on the point of the consist along with a Dash 9. By the time they got to the top all they had was the GE. These things can't be rebuilt fast enough. 

On the plus side the pride of the current NS fleet:

8000 series ES44ACs - most say they are near "dangerous" good at pulling a train and are quiet. Engineers love an 8000 in their consist - just ask!

1000 series SD70Aces - pull great but aren't near as "comfortable" as an 8000 GE

8889 and above Dash 9-40CW - as much as us NS fans get tired of seeing them, they're comfortable, still pull well (20 years later) and they know how to run them.

6600 series non rebuilt SD60 standard cabs - because they're predictable and like an old pair of gloves, just put them in on and work. a lot of the "old school" engineers said they could move more freight with three SD60 standard cabs even if they have to run long hood forward!

quote:Ex Conail Dash 8 Wide Cabs (crews hate desktop control and noise!)

Ex Conrail SD60M/Is (see above)

I have to disagree if you mean to say that the SD60I was noisey. Those "Whispercab" units were the quietest units I've ever run. That is with the windows closed.

Wasn't there that small matter about the EMD SD45's breaking their own crankshafts? My brother was extremely disappointed that the N&W 1776 was a cosmetic restoration only. He had run that unit. 

Gilly

Baldwin's attempt at high horsepower diesels was short lived. DR-6 and variants. Pennsy BP 20 of which there were 18 A units and 9 B units used in commuter service Long Island.  Would not MU with anything other than their sisters, quickly had mechanical problems.

Weaver model of the BP 20

The BP20 BLWs actually worked OK on the NY&LB...at least as far as a Baldwin can work OK.  One saving grace was the two air compressors...not a bad thing for a commuter locomotive.   I gotta inject one thing on the FM Train Master.  By the time this model hit the streets in mid '53, FM and their high cost OP engine was a known quantity.  a lot of roads sampled the TM but didn't bite.  OTOH, if you wanted 2400 big ones right now, this was your chooch. You knew what you were getting and were prepared to pay for it!

The worst diesel locomotive ever when delivered new was the Alco C855 for Union Pacific.  It was built as an A-B-A set, numbered 60, 60B, and 61.

After being delivered in Omaha and set up, the set was placed on a west bound freight train, with much pomp.  As the train left the units went through the first stage transition, and then the electrical cabinets on all three units exploded!  A switcher was sent out to tow the train back to the yard.

Upon inspection it was discovered that the electrical cabinets were wired backwards.  So much for Alco quality control.

Stuart

Just a question...  GE supplied the electronics for ALCO?  How long has GE been making locomotives?

A short Wikipedia clip on the U25B   ???1956???

Since 1913... 

After some rebuilding:

Still exists in operable condition at the Minnesota Transportation Museum.

Rusty

GE made the Milwaukee Road's box cab electrics of 1916 - they ran until 1974. Believe they were utterly reliable. GE 44 tonners were long lived, too. So GE did some things right!

Well, not actually "wired backwards" but, the traction motor shunting contactors were incorrectly wired so that the first step of transistion resulted in the TM field shunts being connected directly across the main generator output. Must have been a heck of a thrill for the cab crew when the doors on the lower outside of the electric cabinet blew open and set fire to the surrounding grass beside the right-of-way.

I may have the only known photos of the three C855s Mu'ed together on one train, upon their departure from Council Bluffs. The UP never allowed all three units to operate together afterwards. 

The first MAINLINE domestic (i.e. USA) diesel electrics built by GE were the U25B's. production started in late 1959, with no orders until late 1960, and the first deliveries in 1961. Talk about a big bet...!

Although the engine was a design originated by Cooper-Bessemer, CB did not have a 16 cylinder engine, only 8's and 12's. (That is why that old covered wagon demonstrator that was painted for the Erie RR had two 12 cyl engines and two eight cylinder engines.) So GE Erie designed the 16 cylinder version of the FDL, and it was on load test after 1954. Its first commercial application was the XP-2400 demonstrator, released as a U25B, road numbers 751 and 752.

When I started work at GE, our market share was 6%. Alco was also 6%, and EMD was 88%. It was a tough uphill climb......

To clarify some remarks above, GE did not assemble the electricals for Alco, but Alco bought the components like the CM53 and CM55 contactors, etc. Alco did their own electrical control design. GE did provide a schematic. GE did build the Alco governors, the MG6 and MG8, and they were a disaster. GE supplied the traction motors and gearing to Alco, using the GE752 traction motor. It was bulletproof. Not well known, but GE supplied the traction motors and some electrical equipment to EMC in the 1936 era, including the GE716 traction motor. The original EMD D7 traction motor was based largely on the GE716 design. Finally, I believe that one of the Chief Engineers at EMD, was it Dilworth, spent the early part of his career at GE Erie. One important reason why EMD was able to displace steam was that EMD used the multiple unit control scheme devised by GE Engineer Herman Lemp. This permitted EMD (and all manufacturers) to offer relatively low HP locomotives, 1350 HP in a single unit, in multiples under the control of one engineer, to displace modern high HP steam locomotives.

Finally, I can assure you all that while GE may have been known as an "appliance manufacturer", the locomotive business is about as far from appliance manufacturing as you can get and still be on this planet.....

In my opinion, not having ever run any of these, the worst locomotives ever built were the Baldwin "babyface". The Alco PA's were not "stars" either, at least on NYC. The NYC operating people were told to "never" let them out in pairs"....so all latter day assignments it was always one PA and one EMD E7 or E8. On NYC, the PA's were also based at Harmon but were run on trains such that they could be turned at Albany, but every once in a while one would appear west of Buffalo. On the NYC they had 244 engines, which were poor. I think on ATSF and SP a number were re engined with 251's and they were better. They were used in sets of two on NKP, and I think they were successful for at least three reasons...NKP maintenance level was better than NYC, the schedule was "leisurely", and NKP passenger trains were not long.

The Baldwin sharks were criticized but worked pretty well here on the PRR in mineral service. There were two gripes about them: With their air throttles they would not MU with anything else, and, the air system often froze up and when maintenance would use a torch to thaw the air lines, they often melted the traction motor cable insulation, causing grounds. The only way to restore one of these to service if it froze up was to pull it into the house to thaw for a few days. Fortunately, there was reduced mineral traffic off Lake Erie in winter so there were usually a few lying around......

F-M was already on the skids when I became interested in this stuff, but their reputation was also poor, although NYC used them in yard service at Buffalo and was apparently satisfied with them.

Every diesel model ever made has both strengths and weaknesses. From time to time one of the weaknesses was major, and that is what everyone remembers.....

I could have said "a car company and a light bulb manufacturer"  LOL.  I don't dislike GEs, I have always liked EMD styling and they certainly seem to get the job done and the huge number of rebuilds and the number of really old EMDs says something about the basic designs and quality of the product. I also think that GE became the #1 builder of diesel RR engines as much by EMDs decline due to the pee poor management at GM at the time plus GE was out to take over. A friend who worked in engineering at GE said that they lost money on the big orders the got but would make it up on parts and service contracts. Every mechanical apparatus as complex  and hard working will have strengths and weaknesses. Some more than others.

Kinda interesting to contemplate how much of EMD's success, beyond unquestionable engineering superiority, was the employment of GM's automobile marketing techniques: fancy custom paint jobs, older model trade-ins.

Sorry Mark, but that "older model trade-ins" program did NOT originate out of GM in Detroit. The Gentleman responsible for the LRO (Locomotive Replacement Order) program was Mr. Milton H. Gardner, located right there in the Main EMD Sales Department offices in McCook. Milt Gardner even developed which "traded-in" locomotive components would/could be completely remanufactured, i.e. NOT just rebuilt, for incorporation into the "new unit" in order for a customer to obtain financing on their "new units". 

I believe some of the Baldwin diesels had an air-motor starter that was horrific to work with. 

I also heard part of the reason the sd45 never really caught on was that the extra cylinders tended to result in broken crankshafts.  I did see two Conrail SD45's in pusher service on the horseshoe curve one time however.

Since 1892 if you include mining and industrial locomotives. here's a link to a free download of THE BOOK on early GE locomotives.

https://archive.org/details/mi...dustrialha00generich

I vote for the Centipedes.

Can we agree that the Baldwin centipedes hold the title for worst American Diesels?

Big locos on a good concept.

I'd go further and say that they were an outdated concept poorly executed.  There are good reasons why you don't see any other American Diesels of that era built with massive cast steel underframes. 

The Alco C855 and the GE U50C look like the contenders for second place.   Based on their explosive first impression I would have to give the nod to the C855.

When I started work at GE, our market share was 6%. Alco was also 6%, and EMD was 88%. It was a tough uphill climb......

Would the GP50 and SD50 be in contention for the title of biggest market share killers?  Or should that title go to the management that decided to end locomotive production at La Grange

Hot:  Was Milt Gardner locked in a closet and only allowed to leave to go to the washroom?  Maybe he observed auto industry techniques and thought "Huh, wonder if that would work here?        !!!!!             Or did GM/EMD invent trade-ins, later used by the auto industry.....I ask jestingly.

Hot:  Did EMD/GM offer direct financing to purchasing railroads? As opposed to the railroads obtaining equipment trusts from banks or Wall Street?

On The Long Island RR, the Baldwin diesels that were rostered and operated were 5 switchers, 4-  660 HP and 1 -1000 HP. This later unit proved the ideal HP for road freight power so additional 1000HP Alcos S class switchers were ordered for this use. The PRR did not send over Baldwin passenger cabs to the LIRR.

The last diesels ordered by the PRR specifically for the LIRR was a group of 5 RS-1s . They were steam boiler equipped and delivered  in the dark green with gold letters PRR colors . PRR placed the railroad in Bankruptcy in 1949 shortly after these were delivered so within months they were repainted into the TICHY colors. Until the RS-1s arrived, All locomotive hauled passenger trains on the LIRR were steam powered.

I believe that was one of Alco's problems, as their electrics were all supplied by GE, essentially a competitor in later years.

Hey Rusty, what are the monstrosities on each end? Motor blowers with headlight attached?