Seems to me that these EMD models are going to fare poorly as preservation candidates.

NS has a program to convert their GP fleet to GP-38 variants at Juniata.

CN's SD fleet is now being sold off, mostly for scrap.

Progress Rail has re-engined a few SD's with CAT engines.

DPK

NS is also rebuilding their SD50s into SD40Es.

MPI is using the 645's in all of their junk... There are tons of them preserved. ;-)

CSX is changing out the engines on their fleet to 3000 hp E3C's.

Looks like a plain vanilla GP or SD50 is going to be a rare bird.

DPK

I will make the observation:

If the model in question is, in fact, a "dog" or "lemon," does it really warrant preservation, no matter how "cool," dynamic, sexy, or [fill in the blank] it may look/sound? See also Alco PA1, PRR T1, Baldwin Centipede, UP/GE gas turbines and U50C.........

Bluntly put, the SD50 is somewhat largely responsible (along with creative financing decisions) for the later success of the GE Dash 8 series, and the series' almost-fatal impact upon EMD. Indeed, would EMD still be a GM division today were it not for the failings of the 50-series?

The best preservation candidate for the SD50 series? One that lived out half or more of its life rebuilt with an older engine design, retired after years of work in helper service or its third or fourth owner. Mark one now for eventual preservation at Altoona, Baltimore, Utah, or wherever else works...........

I dont really see what difference that makes..
who says only "successful" locomotives should be preserved?
and who defines "successful"?

By that logic, no Edsel should exist in any automotive museum.
or Delorian, or Corvair..etc..
but those models are important to automotive history *because* they were "bad"! ;)
I dont know much about automotive museums, but I bet at least one or more of each of those is already in a museum somewhere..

Should we scrap the two D&H Baldwin Sharks? ;)
the Baldwin Shark was not at all successful..

If I had my own railroad museum, I would definitely want a Conrail SD50 or two..
because those were the first locos I ever saw new..to me, they defined the 1980's..thats reason enough for *me* to preserve one! ;)

Scot

In the case of a fairly recently made artifact, such as an SD50, most real museums with look at the significance of the artifact as the prime factor in the decision to preserve. Popularity or engineering success should not factor into the equation. Basically, the history must be saved with an objective eye, warts and all. In the case of the SD50, I think most of us agree that it was a quite significant in the industry.

Popularity and success change over time. We seem to have managed to not save a whole lot of GE Uboats and -7s, in relation to EMDs, simply because most railfans do not think much of GE - ugly, crummy engineering, unreliable, sounds terrible, you name it. What will it be like 30 years from now, when the kids of today are running the rail museums? To them, GEs are not looked down upon like we generally do. I bet they will be quite annoyed...

--
Will

FWIW, the SD50 was technologically significant- as it introduced the concept of 'controlled wheelslip' in order to maximize adhesion*' Totally invisible to the naked eye.

On the other hand, that model featured the relocation of the dynamic brake grids from over the engine (the age old EMD location oh hood units) to a position behind the cab. Easily referenced against an SD-45 or other earlier EMD model.

Seems to me that this model was introduced when investment in EMD was at an all-time low eb, as the CEO was busy spending (lots of) money on GM's auto business. We all know how that turned out.

At the same time, GE was investing heavily in the loco business-both in R&D and on additional production capacity. While the expenditures at Erie turned out to be more in the way of incremental projects, they did increase capacity at Grove City (diesel engines) substantially.

Don't know a whit about how these things were financed-other than the fact that NS (and predecessors) used to pay cash for their purchases vs. the industry standard finance leases.

The reason for the dearth of preserved U -series is that many of them went back to the builder in trade on newer units. There was almost no secondary market for U-series retired off the class I's.

The Dash-7's have been a bit more popular in that regard, as many have gone off to second lives in South America and Asia. The upwardly spirally prices on good, used EMD power have also resulted in quite a few B-B Dash-7's shuffling off to second lives on shortlines. Not unlike what happened with Alco Century units some 30 years ago.

DPK


*Invented by EMD employee, historian and railroad photographer Bruce R. Meyer

U. S. Patent Number 3,982,164.

Keep in mind though that the 50-series were not the first to use the technology. It was installed on the GP40X test units operated by UP, SP, ATSF, and SRR and some other 40-series units.

The 50-series control system had a lot of very unusual problems in its early days. If anyone plans on restoring one of these for operation they need to know that the control system modules cost a fortune now and are getting very hard to find.

PC