I understood the 93 had significantly better traction control than earlier versions.
Probably (as it's been 10 years since the cl. 68). Good AC traction drives in good rail conditions with high axle loads are usually reckoned to boost usable tractive effort per axle at low speeds by up to about 50% versus a good DC drive, but less so in slippery rail conditions. If you can get close to cl. 66 performance for general freight with two fewer axles, motors and inverters (= less cost) why not?
A quick illustration of DC versus AC tractive effort for a couple of US diesel locos which are basically the same 6-axle loco, other than the AC version being about 4% heavier (and both are 30+ tonne axle load):
DC drive: GE ES44DC - Tractive Effort (starting) 142,000 lbs, Tractive Effort (continuous): 109,000 lbs @ 13.7 mph
AC drive: GE ES44AC - Tractive Effort (starting) 183,000 lbs, Tractive Effort (continuous): 166,000 lbs @ 13.7 mph
(data from
https://www.thedieselshop.us/DataGEIndex.HTML )
For fun, a quick US wet rails versus dry rails comparison i.e. a with long train drying out the rail head for the rear locos. Note the squealing/screeching of the controlled wheelslip is much louder in reality than it seems in the videos (I was there, holding brolly in one hand and camera in the other!):
DC front + DC rear:
DC front + AC rear, followed by AC front + AC rear (and at 11:50 there is a real DC screech-a-thon in pouring rain):