The blue-and-white CEFX scheme is also similar to that used by Northshore Mining - formerly Reserve Mining - on their lines in northeastern Minnesota.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/741847/
The CEFX is a nice idea. Actually that CEFX paint scheme is very similar to what I wanted to for the Trans Pecos scheme. The gray trucks, fuel tank, underbody and blue carbody are exactky the same. The only difference is I wanted a white cab (like the old Milwaukee Racine & Troy scheme of the 80s) with black chevrons on the nose, and a yellow sill stripe.
Dakota
The backstory I had in mind for this line was that it was pieced together sometime in the 1940s from two struggling short lines that had been built in the early 1900s. One ran from Odessa south to Apline, and the other from Alpine south to the mines at Terlingua. They were both bought out by Jetexas Company (I think I've settled on this name from the 1956 movie Giant) to use as a way to transport oil from local Jetexas Oil fields to interchanges with the Southern Pacific in Alpine and Texas & Pacific in Odessa. The mines at Terlingua (bought out by Jetexas Co. in the 1970s) expanded over the years after more discoveries nearby to become the line's core money maker, especially after pipelines were built to carry most of the oil in later years. Frac sand in recent years remains a tie to the original concept of serving the Jetexas fields.
I represented periodic new power purchases based on some of the other mining railroads often doing the same thing (Cumberland Mine of US Steel, Kennecott Copper, etc.). All the new power the railroad would've purchased are SD9s to dieselize with in the mid-1950s, the SD38-2s or SD40-2s in the mid-late 1970s, and the AC4400CWs around 2004 or so.
6-axle passenger diesels, like EMD E-units had an unpowered 'idler' axle; the middle axle of each truck was unpowered. This proved to cause troubles with them in tackling grades, their motors tended to overheat. Railroads traversing the Rockies, like Santa Fe and Great Northern, moved their E-units to flatland trains, and used F-units with 2-axle trucks instead.
Since all three axles in an EMD SD-unit are normally powered (a very few railroads did buy ones with an idler axle to spread out weight for use on lightly-built branchlines), they don't have problems with grades so that shouldn't be a factor in whether to use GPs or SDs. At one time, GPs were favored for high-speed freight trains, but in recent decades two 3-axle trucks seem to be used for most any kind of freight work.
how hilly will your railroad be? Topography will have input to your decision. GP engines may be a better choice. is your rr a short line bought from an existing rr? If so the original engines would probably come from that rr as well as the crews as they would be knowledgable about operating on the rr.
"A somewhat lightly powered C-C design, the SD38 was rated at only 2,000 horsepower but could produce a continuous tractive effort rating of over 82,000 pounds (and 90,000 starting) using GM's D77 traction motors.
This made the locomotive ideal for heavy drag service, particularly in the movement of commodities such as coal and ore."
https://www.american-rails.com/37703.html
I would go with SD-38 / SD-38-2 for the railroad, but perhaps use leased AC4400s. Several manufacturers have made CEFX lease engines in the blue paint scheme. (I have one of the Kato ones that is quite nice.)
A couple of iron ore railroads have used these engines in recent years, hauling ore trains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPd4VLFCW8
BEAUSABREThey put tractive effort ahead of horsepower to pull heavy trains at low speeds (and also found a home as hump pushers).
looks to me that the SD-38 has less tractive effort (90 vs 92000 lbs) and less horsepower (2 vs 3000) than the SD-40. looks like the SD-40 is designed for higher tonnage at higher speeds
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Since the locomotives got bumped from coal traffic, I'd go with SD38's. They (along with their SD39-2 cousins) were specialized machines. They put tractive effort ahead of horsepower to pull heavy trains at low speeds (and also found a home as hump pushers). Look at the majority of buyers of SD38's and SD-38-2's - Bessemer & Lake Erie; Elgin, Joliet & Eastern; Kaiser Bauxite; Orinoco Mining; Penn Central; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Duluth, Messabi & Iron Range; Reserve Mining; US Steel; Yankeetown Dock - all coal or ore carriers, with the exception of PC (they bought their's for hump duty)
"Much like its SD38 predecessor, the SD38-2 was envisioned as a medium horsepower, high tractive effort machine, designed to haul heavy tonnage at relatively lower speeds. In contrast to its SD40-2 and SD45-2 brethren, which were optimized for hauling tonnage at higher speeds across all types of operating profiles, the SD38-2 was more at home lugging heavy commodity trains at low speed, or shuffling long cuts of cars in yards. While it wasn’t the ideal choice for blasting high-priority TOFC trains across the country, it would be right at home dragging a heavy iron-ore train up a 2% grade. Powered by the same basic 16-645 prime mover that drove the SD40-2, the SD38-2 lacked turbocharging, which kept its horsepower (HP) at 2,000, as opposed to the 3,000 of the 40-series.
The lower HP rating suited its intended duty just fine however, and the lack of a turbocharger simplified maintenance and reduced overall costs. Externally, the SD38-2 was very similar to the SD40-2, with the primary spotting features being a pair of radiator fans instead of the trio used on the SD40-2 (1,000 fewer HP didn’t require as much cooling), and it had a pair of small, oval stacks coming from its prime mover’s exhaust manifold instead of the single large rectangular stack coming from the turbocharger on the SD40-2. Lastly, the SD38-2 featured a large boxy housing on its roofline, just behind the inertial air filtration compartment, that housed groups of filter elements for engine combustion air.
While the overall number of SD38-2s built was but a tiny fraction of what EMD produced for the wildly popular SD40-2, the SD38-2 was sold to a wide variety of owners, representing most of the major carriers of the time during its production run from 1972 to 1979. Its performance characteristics were reflected in the roads that ordered them; Bessemer & Lake Erie and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern were tied for the most by an original owner, and utilized them in the heavy terminal switching and drag freight service those roads handled. At the other end of the service spectrum were roads like Chicago & North Western and Southern Pacific, which ordered SD38-2s for heavy yard switching and hump duty, already having plenty of higher-HP units on their rosters, like SD40-2s, for handling higher-speed road applications."
My initial response is...
What's wrong with a dozen or so SD-9s.... purchased second hand from the T&NO ?
Sorry, ....I'm a fan of anything Sp... and anything SD-9 ...
Rust...... It's a good thing !
I tend to skew more constricted when I comes to such things but two points:
The Cumberland Mine Railroad bought a 40-2 and two 38-2s new back when it started up in 1976. They've only got 17 miles of track and 2 online customers.
300 miles puts them at half the size of the Iowa Interstate. I don't consider that small. Those guys have 42 locomotives and bought 20 ES44ACs new.
For a new small railroad it sure has a ton of financial backing for NEW motive power. I would have guessed a new road would be one foot on the banna peel. A cost savings would be to standardize on manufacturers and type to keep parts and service down.
Higher elevation operations is better with a supercharged two stroke engine over a turbo charged four stroke engine. Putting a turbo on the two stroke is a plus. But I digress. Today's electronic controlled engines will self adjust as condition will allow with no loss of performance.
Pete.
Seeking some suggestions for motive power on a modern protofreelanced railroad. I'm settled on AC4400CWs for the newest power, but wanted to represent some of the older units still on the roster. I'm stuck between either SD38-2s or SD40-2s that would've been purchased new by the railroad in the mid-late 1970s. I'll give some background details to the railroad:
Called the Trans Pecos Railway, named after the region of Texas it operates within. Wholly owned by a fictional Texas mining and energy company (yet to be named).
•Almost 300 mile system running from Odessa, Texas south to Terlingua, Texas near the Mexican border. Era would be present day.
•Carries lignite coal from 3 mines around Terlingua to interchanges with the Union Pacific at Alpine, Texas and Odessa, Texas, as well as an online power plant near Odessa.
•Also serves a few of the oil fields around Odessa as well as the recently discovered Alpine area oil field. Most of the operations in modern times would be frac sand and occasional machinery/infrastructure material deliveries.
The lignite coal and frac sand unit trains would be the bread and butter of the small railroad. There would be a bit of local switching around Odessa.
The AC4400CWs would handle all the coal traffic, but I want the older units to be left in charge of most of the frac sand and miscellaneous traffic.
I'm not sure if a company like this would've chosen SD38-2s for their coal trains or went with SD40-2s when buying new power in the 1970s. The line would be maintained to Class 3 specs (40mph), but I was wondering if the higher altitude of the area (almost 5,000ft at Alpine) would diminish the performance of the non-turbo SD38-2s in heavy drag service?
Just wanted to pick your brain for a moment.