I remember reading an article talking about Gensets talking about their rise an fall. When the first Genset, the two engine center-cab the UP was playing with was be demonstrated, it's creator, Mike Iden, was touting the ease of maintenance (like how you could pull a busted generator-set out and slide a new one in) and how it was going to get better fuel economy. It was felt the technology needed time to iron out the kinks, but railroads felt overconfident and signed up as quickly as they could.

From doing historical research, two patterns emerge when looking at class one railroad locomotive purchasing habits. 1. if it doesn't work as advertised almost immediately, it must not work at all. (and being unwilling to take a little time to tinker and adjust) and 2. taking a "it's a waste of money" attitude towards doing even a little more than basic maintenance on equipment. It's part of the reason ALCO failed, you read the class 1s' notes about them, they seem like garbage engines, yet when looking at ALCO heavy shortlines such as Arkansas and Missouri or GVT, they can't say enough good things about them. For a while I've come to think that ALCOs are good engines, they are just far less tolerate of being neglected compared to GE or EMD.