Why the fuss over the SD50s?

I have read that CSX threatened to never buy E.M.D products after its problems with the SD50s. I also read that CSX was formed around 1982 if I remember correctly. This was a few years before the SD50s were built for the Chessie System and the Seaboard System. CSX was in control of the two railroads, but had not decided to merge them yet. Both the Chessie System and the Seaboard System purchased SD50s in numerical order starting with Seabord System 8500 and ending with Chessie System 8643. Later CSX decided to merge the two railroads and then started to complain on how bad the SD50s were. Why would CSX complain about units it bought and threaten to never buy from E.M.D again?
http://www.trainweb.org/csxphotos/html/SD50.html
I hope that most of the information is correct.

U-Haul wrote:Why would CSX complain about units it bought and threaten to never buy from E.M.D again?

Assuming that it's true, we have to believe it was because they weren't satisfied with the dependability of the units. Why is that difficult to understand? If you bought a new Chevy and had problems with it, wouldn't you consider going to another manufacturer the next time?

EMD's 50-series was known was its less-than-stellar reliability early on. Many railroads purchased SD50 and GP50 units before the demonstrators were even finished based soley on the reputation of the preceding 40-series. This led to some mistrust between the railroads and EMD but this was quickly rectified after the introduction of the 60-series. The proof, of course, is on the rails right now: how many '80s era GE units are still on the rails compared to the 50-series units that are left? Exactly.

U-Haul wrote:I have read that CSX threatened to never buy E.M.D products after its problems with the SD50s. I also read that CSX was formed around 1982 if I remember correctly. This was a few years before the SD50s were built for the Chessie System and the Seaboard System. CSX was in control of the two railroads, but had not decided to merge them yet. Both the Chessie System and the Seaboard System purchased SD50s in numerical order starting with Seabord System 8500 and ending with Chessie System 8643. Later CSX decided to merge the two railroads and then started to complain on how bad the SD50s were. Why would CSX complain about units it bought and threaten to never buy from E.M.D again?
http://www.trainweb.org/csxphotos/html/SD50.html
I hope that most of the information is correct.

Actually CSX vowed to never buy EMD's again after the delivery of its ten SD60's. The CSX SD60's were some of the earliest built and I guess the 710 prime mover was still suffering from teething problems. True to their word, it was some time before CSX bought another EMD product. and that was the SD70MAC's.

I think I read somewhere once that EMD tried to squeeze too much HP out of their 50 series engines without increasing cylinder displacement, resulting in an engine with alot of stress on it and thus not very reliable. Of course I could be getting confused with other models, but I think that was the deal.

roberttosh,

You are correct about the stress problem with the SD50 prime movers.

And, the SD50 units really soured CSX with their irregular performance levels and reliability, to the extent that the SD50's were relegated to low priority assignments where reliablity and performance weren't so important.

EMD worked to resolve some of the problems, to the extent that it is not surprising to see SD50 units on CSX's high priority intermodal trains as well as other assignments, pending their availability. So, it looks like the SD50 units have greatly redeemed themselves in CSX's view.

ACLfan

CSX did have a lot of problems with the SD50 fleet, some related to the additional stress on the prime mover but also lack of proper maintainence and really abusing the units in coal service. CSX in conjunction sent the entire SD50 fleet through an early rebuild and upgrade program when the units were only around 5 or 6 years old and this greatly improved the performance of these units. They are still an important player in the CSX locomotive fleet and can be found in service systemwide.

Bryan Jones

CSXT has begun derating SD50s to 3000 horsepower.

I believe EMD learned their lesson to a degree with these problems and increased cylinder displacement in the 60 series prime movers. You can only get so much more power from refining an engine over and over again and at some point you have to just make it bigger or risk chronic breakdowns.

The CSX SD50's had a fair number of issues but I didn't hear anything regarding the SD60's. What happened?

If you are referring to my post, I wasn't suggesting that there was a problem with the 60 series locomotives. I think they went to a bigger engine and that helped reduce some of the problems that were occuring with the 50 series.

CSXT's SD60s had some initial reliability problems; but the company implemented an improvement program that increased their reliability by 63.6% between June and November of 1991. Unlike the SD50s, the SD60s have microprocessor control systems; and so CSXT classifies them as "high adhesion" units. This made them particularly effective as helpers; and they were concentrated in that service from January 1997 into November 1999 and from March 2000 into September 2000. The most powerful helper consists that CSXT ever regularly operated were three-unit SD60s.

Bryanjones, I had heard about Chicago & North Western running their SD50s in coal service and (I believe) burning out the traction motors. After that the SD50s hauled intermodal trains. I had no idea that CSX began derating its SD50s to 3,000hp.

U-Haul wrote:Bryanjones, I had heard about Chicago & North Western running their SD50s in coal service and (I believe) burning out the traction motors. After that the SD50s hauled intermodal trains.

They were mostly bumped by the new SD60's. Yes they did burn out the motor.

Well let's see...

In the early 80s, EMD introduced a product that was not completely road tested in it turned out to be inferior (SD50) than what their competitors were making.

At the same time the parent company, General Motors, was turning out cars that never lasted more than 5 years. (I know I had a few..)

The GM company philosophy in the early 80s was "screw the consumer" we are #1. Then they lost market share, which they have never regained.

Bottom Line: Engineering technicalities aside, it would appear that "screw the customer" extended beyond GM in Detroit down to EMD in LaGrange. The big wigs heads were all too big.

Look at both GM and EMD now....