Worst American Diesel power ???

So what was the reason for the broken crankshafts with the SD45. Or was it just rumor?  *EDIT: Here's what I found* :

From Utahrails net -

EMD and the railroads soon found that EMD's 20 cylinder diesel engine was successful in stationary and marine service, but not in locomotive service, due to torsional flexing in the engine's long crankcase. When the 20 cylinder engine is put into a locomotive, the extra length of the crankcase results in more displacement of the main bearings relative to the crankshaft as the locomotive frame twists as it moves over the rails. This additional displacement puts additional loads on the main bearings in the ends of the engine, causing them to prematurely wear out. EMD's solution for the problem was closer attention to preventative maintenance: to line bore the block about three times as often as EMD's very successful 16 cylinder engine. The same torsional flexing occurs in the 16 cylinder crankcase, but because it has a shorter length, the loading of the crankshaft bearings is reduced. When in stationary or marine service, the engine block doesn't get the same twisting loads due to frame flexing, so the 20 cylinder engines successfully remain in service for extended periods of time.

Many railroads found that the SD45's 20 cylinder engine was reliable, if they followed EMD's recommended level of increased preventative maintenance. But the 20 cylinder engine's real weakness was its increased fuel consumption: in idle, 6 gallons per hour for the SD45, compared to an SD40's 5.5 gallons per hour; and under load, 194 gallons per hour for the SD45, compared to an SD40's 167 gallons per hour. On some railroads, the SD45's increased horsepower compared to the SD40 did not justify its increased fuel consumption.

GE has been making locomotives since the late 1890's...The earliest were small electric locos made by a predecessor to GE, which GE absorbed around the turn of the century. It was the "Thompson-Houston Co." These early locos were really an outgrowth of the "trolley car business", for which GE provided motors and control equipment. The earliest GE locomotives were not made in Erie, they were made in Schenectady. The early locomotives were all "custom designs", and of course GE was a leading proponent of mainline RR electrification. That probably would have occurred at some point if not for the emergence of the diesel-electric.

GE got into the domestic locomotive business when it became apparent that Alco could not compete effectively in that market. The GE electricals, the same ones used for the U25, were reliable and trouble free, and Alco diesels had a reputation for good electricals. GE designed a control system for Alco, the amplydine system, that was complicated and could not be maintained by the traditional RR mechanics, so that did not help Alco's reputation. The heart of any diesel is the prime mover, however, and the Alco 244 engine was not good. The 251 was better but not great, and neither engine was competitive with an EMD 567.....

So what was the reason for the broken crankshafts with the SD45. Or was it just rumor?

Here is an excerpt from what is perhaps the definitive railfan article on the 645 by Preston Cook.

and “A” frame forward.

The full article can be read here.

http://www.epowerrail.com/wp-c...4/11/EMD645FINAL.pdf

It is worth noting that the SD45 outsold the SD40 and that the SD45's 20 cylnder engine consumed slightly less fuel per horsepower hour than the SD40's V-16.

However, the SD40-2 outsold the SD45-2.  By the 1970s most railroads decided that it was acceptable to give up some horsepower and therefore train speed to save fuel and have locomotives with smaller engines and radiators to maintain.

Virtually all SD45s saw 15 to 30 years of mainline service.  A few were still hauling trains with their 20 cylinder prime movers into the 21st century.  By any standard they were very successful locomotives.  The SD40-2 is perhaps the most successful of all time.

What do you think the underlying problem was in this area?

Did you follow the link to the article?  The next paragraph (p. 45) states:

Mark,

Come on, think about what you are saying! No automobile MANUFACTURER accepts trade-in autos, and then uses remanufactured components in new vehicles. Automobile DEALERS accept trade-ins and then resell them as used cars. There was not any comparison through out the auto industry to what EMD developed.  

Some of the 20 cylinder EMD designs were retrofitted with 16 cylinder engines, in particular the ex Erie-Lackawanna SD45's with the large fuel tanks. These ended their days in pusher service in the Altoona area, re rated to 3000 HP.

I remember that the 20 cylinder engine models were removed from EMD product offerings at one time....and re introduced some time (a few years?) later, but the RR's were reluctant to purchase.

Hot  - Was not the trade-in program used to encourage GP30 sales in about 1961? It's the concept (not where the trade in occurred) , which is borrowed from the auto industry which was a marketing technique to encourage the easier sale of automobiles......and locomotives, no?  I know history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Doesn't EMD's trade in program "rhyme" with the technique employed over on the automobile side? GM innovated such things as time payments in the 1920's, which Ford resisted. GM was a great and creative marketing company, in the past.

       And my question regarding financing - perhaps you can further illuminate this - did GM/EMD make financing for purchasing railroads available through a branch of GMAC? To my admitted limited knowledge, were not locomotive and other equipment acquisitions accomplished through bank loans and Wall Street financing during the steam era. I have a Key DRGW L105 4-6-6-4 with  a 1st National Bank of Chicago equipment trust plate on the model (neat detail with historical context) ! So, again, making financing easier for railroads, and auto purchasers, encouraged sales. Nothing wrong with employing good ideas from many sources!

You're right, trade-in program was for GP 20's, not 30's. Thanks for the interesting narrative on GMAC involvement.

IIRC, Milwaukee traded some FT types for GP9s back in the late '50s....before it was fashionable to do so.  This would make sense.  Now what would happen if you traded some Alco whatever....or worse, a Baldwin.  If it was a Centipede, it would likely derail getting it into the facility !  If you traded a GE 44 tonner, would you get a GP12.5 back ?

None EMD unit trade-ins only obtained a $5000 payment to the customer, in addition to the discount on the new locomotive purchase. However, remanufactured components from the "LRO Pool" would be used in construction of the new units.

EMD qualifying trade-ins were paid $20,000 for a "B" unit and $20,500 for an "A" unit, since an "A" unit had the mechanical speed recorder (either Barco or Chicago Pneumatic).

I wanted to provide some additional info re air start. At the same time the GE U30B and the Alco Centurys were being introduced as demonstrators, the Alcos were equipped with an approx. 60" diam ring gear on the alternator and used two air starting motors. The GE's at that time had the same ring gear, but the locos were upgraded with GY48 aux gen and exciter, with sets of staring windings in the GY48 exciter and aux generator, and these windings could rotate the alternator, and the engine coupled to it, via a "cloverleaf" shaped gearbox. (That's what we still call it...) So no more 60" dia ring gear...! When the U30's came back to GE for uprate and paint, to demo at 3300 HP, the engines were overhauled to be sure the demos ran perfectly. So the alternators were removed so the engines could be recycled. The alternator guys returned a recycled alternator to me late on a Friday afternoon. When we tried to button it up with the engine, it would not fit as it had an Alco ring gear and was from an Alco! So we sent it back for a GE alternator, and I spent the weekend in the shop with these three locos instead of drinking beer and winking at girls.....

The one piece ring gear, in addition to its high cost, required removing the alternator from the engine even if a single ring gear tooth was broken, which was surprisingly often. We even tried a two piece and then a three piece ring gear, so we would not have to remove the engine, but they got even more expensive! Then the air starter motors began to fail, and that was the end of that grand experiment.....

That post brought back some memories, especially of C630's with air start;  hearing those started up inside shop buildings might account for some of my hearing loss.....[ and to think I always blamed my ex ....... ]

Were any GE's, test units or otherwise, fitted with air start ?  I remember early [ say, 1st half of '67 ] U30's as having a pair [ I think it was ] of Leece-Neville electric starting motors;  as I recall the weak point in the concept was the Bendix drive not disengaging.  Did the air start units have similar problems ?

Best regards, SZ

Interesting side-chat on air-starts. One stationary generator I used to look after had an EMD 567 with a double-motor air starter. A two stage air compressor delivered abut 260 psi to the motors. Their howling usually managed to scare the pants off most innocent passers-by when a power failure cause an automatic start.

I can't recall which GE models had it, if any, but it would have been a model with an AC traction alternator since the GT598 generators on U25's and U28's had starting windings. I do recall significant production with the two Leece-Neville's. I do know that these were not successful, and thought that the reason was the cost and reliability of the large diameter ring gear. We started with a one piece ring gear, and the first one that chipped a tooth, we had to remove the engine to remove the ring gear. So then we cut the one piece ring gear into two 180 degr sections. There was still some interference of some kind, so we designed the ring gear with three 120 degr sections. (Those GE engineers are tough to get untracked if they think they are right!). The three section worked ok for removal, but the cost skyrocketed, and we had trouble filling repair orders when someone just need one, 120 degr section. So we added starting windings to the exciter and aux generator (GY48's), but the loco guys did not want the added cost for something that might be used once a month. So the final iteration was to upgrade the insulation of a smaller GY27, add starting windings to them, and use them to "motor" the alternator and of course the FDL. Although the ring gear was the principal failure mode, I do recall that the Leece-Neville cranking motors were not stellar either....

The BP20s never ran on Long Island. They ran out their miles on the NY&LB in New Joisey.

The LIRR was an early purchaser of FMs including C-Liners and hood units as well as ALCOs.

The more that I think about it, from 48 years ago, I believe that the GE's never had air start. They had Leece-Neville motors with the ring gear described above. I do remember that there was concern that the air supply was not sufficient to crank a GE FDL16 for the 30 seconds or so required to start the engine. It took this long because the early engine protection scheme you had to crank long enough to get the air butterflies in the intake manifold to open. (The reason for these was to positively shut off the air supply when the engine was stopped to prevent a crankcase explosion.) Obviously, these air butterflies were operated by oil pressure and were removed after a very short time.

My vote is for the GE U50C units that Union Pacific had in their roster from 1969 until all forty units were scrapped by 1978. Not only was it unsightly (looked odd compared to other locomotives of the era), but it was plagued by countless issues that tested Union Pacific's patience for years. More info below:

Credit to Wikipedia:

Development of the U50C was to the same UP specification that produced the EMD DDA40X "Centennial" units—a requirement for a high power locomotive for the railroad's high-speed freight trains. The span-bolster B+B-B+B design was not suited to this service, and the requirement for power at speed rather than low-speed hauling meant six powered axles would be sufficient.

The design incorporated extensive weight saving features. GE replaced the 16-cylinder prime movers of the U50 with advanced 12-cylinder engines, lighter and shorter. The engines were reversed in orientation compared to the U50 so the radiator sections were at the middle of the locomotive instead of the ends of the carbody. The shorter length required a wider radiator section design, as on the U33B and U33C locomotives.

The U50C was not successful. The weight saving measures taken to make the locomotive able to use six axles rather than eight caused problems, especially in the electrical wiring; Aluminum wires instead of the regular copper had been used, which proved prone to overheating. The U50Cs had many electrical fires as well as other failures; the UP rewired one unit with copper experimentally and considered having an outside contractor replace the wiring on all the units, but decided that the problems as a whole were too serious. The trucks suffered from stress cracks in the cast frames; the engines frequently developed low oil pressure; the cooling water leaked, and the dynamic brake grids were prone to melting down.

A business downturn in 1976 proved the end of the U50C in service; all were withdrawn, although many were stored in serviceable condition. No return to service occurred, though five were lent out as stationary power generators during a coal miners' strike in early 1978. All were sold for scrap during 1977-1978.

The seniority district on which I worked did a lot of switching (everywhere between Roaring Springs, TX to Tulsa, OK)  And, I have switched with a lot of different locomotives from an NW1 to an SD40-2.

I am not willing to say that a GP35 is the worst American diesel power, but I am willing to say that they were the most frustrating locomotive with which I ever dealt...come out on the throttle and it took them forever to load up and move.  In all fairness, they were quite old by the time I got to them.  Frisco GP35's had extra large fuel tanks which caused the main reservoirs to go on top of the long hood (torpedo boats).

Here is a typical 1980 road switcher scenario:

"That's good...need a pin"   wait 10 seconds...

"That's good...A-head"        wait 10 seconds...

"That's good...back up 4 to a joint"   wait 10 seconds...

"That's good...stretch on it"   wait 10 seconds...

"Whoa...pin didn't drop...back up 1 car"   wait 10 seconds...

and it doesn't get any better all day or night.

With a GP35 in the lead of a consist, the other units would bump it in the backside to get it moving before it ever thought about loading up and moving.

I have always wondered if all Geep35's wore out similarly in their senior years, or if they were always slow to load from the start?

Quien sabe?

.The LIRR was in need of a 2000 HP locomotive to handle Montauk trains in order to return the K4-s back to the PRR. This photo shows a PRR cab unit on the Long Island RR. It is an Erie built FM 2000HP cab unit. in Summer of 1949. The PRR had previously sent an Alco PA-1 to LI for test back in December 1948. Both of these tests were short stints. What is known is that shortly after the Erie built was on LI, the PRR placed the LIRR in Bankruptcy. In the coming year, the Trustees placed orders with FM which brought the 2000HP and 2400 HP C liners to the LIRR in the Tichy colors. All the K-4s on the LIRR went back to the PRR once the C Liners were on the LIRR in 1951. They were no longer needed for the Montauk trains as C Liners now were handling these trains.

Where was this taken and the direction; if you know? Thanks :-)

Believe its at Patchogue. From the track layout in the street, this might be a Westbound.

Yes, I understand these were break-down prone and difficult to work on, and not terribly effective - too big, too cantankerous - when running.  

LIRR Steamer, Thanks, yes it westbound at Railroad Ave. The ladder at far right is to the water tank and the steps lead to the Express House. PRR Erie built FM #4973 Railroad Ave view N Patchogue 6/1949 Archive: Art Huneke

My site: http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrcontents.htm scroll to Patchogue for more info;

I'll go against the grain and start putting NS Dash 9s and GEVOs. I swear, after they did the HP upgrade on them, I've encountered so many problems with them. Low water, water dumping, little to no loading.... the list goes on. Ya can't spell garbage without GE...

I love the SD70ACe fleet. Super comfortable and quiet, and they pull so well. Haven't had a major issue with one as of now. But ideally, I'd take an SD40-2 any day. Those things get beat senseless but yet they're mechanically more reliable than most modern power.

GE was at their best with straight electrics and gas turbines.  Diesel....Eeeehhhhh ! 

Their best Diesel to date was/is the 44 tonner !

Didn't the 44-tonner have Caterpillar engines?

Good thing it turned out that way.  When all of those solutions were being tried, it was rare that a road locomotive would be intentionally shut down.  However, with the fuel cost driving new thinking and today's fuel-conserving auto-start technology, GE definitely ended up with the most reliable engine starting solution.

44 Tonners could have a variety of engines...Hopefully you got two of the same in your chooch !

There were questions re the condition of the batteries on the old diesels as well. Railroads were (and are) notoriously bad at maintaining batteries on locomotives.

Funny that you bring battery condition up. When EMD was trying to get the railroads to accept air start, every one was against it, because their thinking was how easy it was to "jump start" one dead locomotive from another, by just using a welding machine or VERY long jumper cables.

Over the years, many railroads began to realize that it is actually much easier to "jump start" a dead unit with air start motors by simply connecting the main reservoir equalizing lines together, and charging the main reservoir on the dead unit, i.e no rarely found welders nor jumper cables out in the field.

Funny you should say that. There was a NS train sitting across from my work this afternoon. There were two Dash 9s spliced by SD60E, and the two GEs were idling and making some of the worst noises I have ever heard from an idling locomotive.  To top it off, every time the air compressor would kick in, it sounded like the one unit was going to stall out and die before stumbling back to idle.