Re: GM
Stu did you ever work with a Jim Nelson at EMD?
Both Michael and Duke pretty well tell EMD's story. I have tried to forget as much of it as possible, but you are bringing me back a little. I worked extensively on the "H" engine the last couple years there; writing the service manual and maintenance instructions. Not a day went by that I wasn't out in the shop to view different stages of assembly. It was a design that didn't lend itself well to assembly line processes, rather was built something like the new Corvette C-7 engine - a dedicated team/crew on each individual engine. Therein may lie the problem unless they have resolved these issues since I left. I know they thought it crucial to bring the 12 cylinder version to market to address emissions concerns (specially in California).
One reason I have lost touch there is so many of the engineers have been let go by the new owners. I can't imagine how they are able to operate without these key people. The people that they have moved up to replace them are those that I thought would never amount to much as they were the types that always reinvented the wheel instead of checking the archives. They tend to waste a lot of time solving problems that had already been dealt with years ago (we all know the type). They also look to gain recognition by cost cutting in critical areas such as piston rings (big recent problem).
About GM's attention to EMD in years past, the most recognition we could hope for was 3 paragraphs and a photo in the Annual Report. Actually, we liked to think of it as non-interference. Besides, our main competition with GE was with Jack Welsh. We used to tape his picture to the wall and throw darts at it, Ha! He was a shrewd business man.
Regarding the AC locomotives, on paper it may look like GE's individual Inverters would be better, but EMD chose to go with proven European Technology to be first to the market. I also believe we had the better trucks with the articulated axles which performed better in low drag service on irregular track surfaces and curves. Combined with the flange oiling system, we also had addressed a high cost maintenance concern of the railroads - that of wheel wear. That was then, this is now. I imagine they have fallen significantly behind GE in recent years.
Thanks for the memories guys. Off to California tomorrow for a week with old friends - wonder if I should take my walker.
Stu Fox
One reason I have lost touch there is so many of the engineers have been let go by the new owners. I can't imagine how they are able to operate without these key people. The people that they have moved up to replace them are those that I thought would never amount to much as they were the types that always reinvented the wheel instead of checking the archives. They tend to waste a lot of time solving problems that had already been dealt with years ago (we all know the type). They also look to gain recognition by cost cutting in critical areas such as piston rings (big recent problem).
About GM's attention to EMD in years past, the most recognition we could hope for was 3 paragraphs and a photo in the Annual Report. Actually, we liked to think of it as non-interference. Besides, our main competition with GE was with Jack Welsh. We used to tape his picture to the wall and throw darts at it, Ha! He was a shrewd business man.
Regarding the AC locomotives, on paper it may look like GE's individual Inverters would be better, but EMD chose to go with proven European Technology to be first to the market. I also believe we had the better trucks with the articulated axles which performed better in low drag service on irregular track surfaces and curves. Combined with the flange oiling system, we also had addressed a high cost maintenance concern of the railroads - that of wheel wear. That was then, this is now. I imagine they have fallen significantly behind GE in recent years.
Thanks for the memories guys. Off to California tomorrow for a week with old friends - wonder if I should take my walker.
Stu Fox

Comment