Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Why so few SD.80 MACS?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Broncoman: If you're changing out all the power assemblies, there isn't a lot of difference between 16 and 20, other than 25% more work. If you're changing out all the main bearings, it's more of the same too. Gear train, auxiliaries, etc., aren't causing extra work because they're on the ends. You don't necessarily have a higher failure rate because you have more assemblies, or a longer crankshaft, either. <br /> <br />But all things are never equal. You would need to know which wears out faster, or which breaks more often -- the 12, 16, or 20. A 12-cylinder engine producing the same hp as a 16, with the same displacement per cylinder, is probably going to have a much higher wear and failure rate. It might be so much higher that it costs significantly more to maintain than the 16. Bear in mind that failures -- which are by definition unexpected -- are extremely costly because they tie up trains and main tracks and ruin schedules. One engine failure can easily cost $30,000 -- BEFORE you even fix the locomotive! I've watched it unfold in front of me as a train dispatcher: some dogged crews at $1000 a pop, a few incentive payments missed at $8000 each, a train you couldn't run because you didn't have the power -- there's $10,000 in car hire and maybe the freight runs by rubber that day, so there's $25,000 in revenue down the drain. <br /> <br />Oh, how you learn to despise an unreliable locomotive. Though it is truly fascinating to listen to the morning conference call afterward, especially if you're not in the mechanical department and find humor in someone else's tragedy and subsequent public humiliation. <br /> <br />The manufacturer extensively bench-tests an engine model to determine mean time between failures and the consumption rate on wearing parts. The customer obtains warrantees based on those tests. <br /> <br />You (the railroad) have to crunch the numbers: fuel consumption, failure rate, wear rate, parts cost, labor cost, availability cost, initial cost, opportunity cost, interest, taxes, fees, shop overhead, depreciation, etc., etc., etc., making a number of assumptions and guesses and estimates, and at the end of all that you arrive, one hopes, at a number that tells you which one to buy. Then you look around you at what your predecessor did, what the other railroads are doing, what you think your boss wants you to do, what you think your boss's boss wants him to do, and decide if you want to be a pioneer or not, knowing that pioneers sometimes discover gold mines and other times collect a large number of arrows in their back. There is no magic way of knowing which is better, and that is precisely why there have been 12, 16, and 20 cylinder engines offered recently. <br /> <br />I would not say which engine or locomotive is better. I would only report which one is selling better. That's all we actually know.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy