On YOUTUBE there was a 1980 drawing of an EMD proposed SD40-2 dual mode locomotive. Is there anywhere that i could this drawing? Gary
Only railroad having a use for that would be conrail. Maybe the technical historical society wpuld have something. Which dual mode was being proposed?
shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15203/PB81191314%5B1%5D.pdf
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Was this supposed to be DC and DCC?
So. Looking at the document. I see in 1980, a lot of lines were thinking possible partial electricfication if they expressed interest in this type of unit. Not just conrail which had some electrified expennsy territory. This makes for a bunch of interesting what if ideas for model railroads. I am tempted to see if a kit ash could be done.
At last, the reply issue is supposed to be fixed for good!
The 'dual-mode-lite' SD40-2 was not developed by EMD, but as part of a project by Garrett AiResearch. There were four parts to the report, the last of which was not available on the Web until comparatively recently -- this is important because the detail design of the converted SD40-2 changed in the period between publication of the technical discussion (volume 2) and the inclusion of wayside storage (volume 4). While you should continue to study the large side elevation and diagram of the proposed locomotive, the actual appearance would have followed that of the drawing on p.43 of the PDF version of volume 4, which included AAR-recommended cab modifications. (A version even a few years later would have to be emended to feature an S.580 cab, not a terribly difficult exercise but one requiring some engineering care...)
There are several important reasons why dual-mode-lite train handling would involve consisting no different from the standalone diesel performance (i.e. no increased train resistance to 'take advantage' of the higher power available in electric mode). The expenses involved with switching and reblocking for this, as opposed to using the extra 'horsepower' for quicker acceleration to road speed or helping/snapping on grades, likely outweigh the nominal benefits of running longer consists per train only on electrified sections.
This is a blast from the past. I remember this topic being discussed many, many years ago. It stood out because Garrett AiResearch is the same company that mounted this HUGE turbo and intercooler onto my 87 Buick Ferrari eater. A gas-hydraulic loco if you will, instead of diesel-electric.
I thought it strange the same company went from turbos to diesel locos.
I also seem to remember - wasnt this about the same era Russ Rowland was showing diesel heads (and the world) the benefits of steam power (Re: C&O 614'T')?
railroads are always lqqking for 'bigger better faster'.... for pennies on the dollar!
So instead of pantographs, we got the safety cab. And the ACE-3000 was nothing more than a drawing. Some where later Catapiller power came into the frame as well as some strange looking road units.
I tell ya, if a kitchen sink could pull cars theyd put wheels under it! And more power to them. railroads have been one of the shining innovators in our countrys history. Look at all they have given us. Including the resources and power for you to be reading this, right now.
Clear Ahead!
PMR
EMD did built two electrics in the 75-76 time period that ran on PC and CR. In early Conrail they were considering extending the electric territory to Conway but that did not come about. The GM GM6C #1975 was built on a SD-40-2 frame and trucks.