Sulzer Diesel Railroad Engines

[Anonymous]

Mudchicken [:)]

Marty [:)]


I have been wanting to start this thread for some time and Mudchicken reminded me of it tonight by posting in the large car thread. [;)] Thanks Mudchicken. [:)]


In the large car thread Mudchicken said the Sulzer diesel was not a success here in the states. However, a broker for railroad equipment claims the Southern Pacific tested 4 of them and their testing was successful. But these four units remain parked and for sale. The broker claims that even though the testing was successful that the railroads decided the change over to maintain them would be too much of a problem.

I would like to hear all sides of this story. This could prove to be interesting but we will have to wait and see about that. [;)]

I am hoping that Marty may have ran across them and might give us some info about them.

Also maybe some of the other forum members have some dealings with them. [?] [?] [?]

[M636C]

Jim,

Sulzer engines have been used in locomotives all over the world in quite large numbers, including the first fast passenger diesel locomotive in France in 1938, contemporary with the early E units. A number are still used in Eastern Europe and in China, and until recently they were used in England.

This was the 12 LDA28 model which developed about 2500 HP and consisted of two six cylinder engines built together, side by side as a single unit, and geared together to drive a single generator. As you can imagine, this was an expensive engine to build and maintain. A later vee type engine, the LVA24, was built in the 1960s but wasn't a success.

Sulzer tried again in 1978 through Morrison Knudsen, who rebuilt four SP U25s with an eight cylinder, in line engine model 8ASL25/30 of 2800 HP. The numbers in Sulzer engine models refer to the bore, or bore and stroke in centimetres. These engines are generally similar in bore and stroke to the new GE and EMD four stroke engines.

MK also rebuilt four SD45s for Santa Fe and another four for UP from 1980 to 1982, using the bigger 16ASV 25/30 3600 HP engine. UP scrapped their units but Santa Fe converted theirs back to standard SD45s with EMD 20-645E3 engines in 1985.

MK also converted one GP9 with a 6ASL engine, but did not sell it.

Caterpillar tried similar conversions with no greater success, so it wasn't just a problem with imported engines. The poor acceptance of new engines from both GE and EMD in their 6000HP locomotives probably indicates that the present EMD and GE engines have been developed to take account of specific US operating conditions, and are a hard act to follow.

Some European engines still attach their access covers with fifteen studs, nuts and washers around the edge, rather than a single spring loaded handle in the centre. There are probably many other features that would cause problems in running maintenance on a day to day basis, and result in longer down time. The Sulzer probably showed up well in fuel consumption, but would have shown higher maintenance and spare part costs than GE or EMD.

Anyway, that's my view.

Peter

[mudchicken]

M636C

Santa Fe's experience with the Sulzers was that they went through crankshafts and main rod bearings with frightening regularity and required more attention from ATSF's mechanical shop forces than they had the time for. (injectors were not highly thought of either, but may have been a function of a minority make not understood by the shop forces) The only one of the Sulzers seen with any regularity by me, a Santa Fe employee, was the 5855 with "Sulzer powered" just below the road number on the cab. The other three must have gotten trapped at Cleburne, Argentine or San Bernardino in the LUBO (Laid-Up-Bad-Order) dead lines.... railroad ASDE's hated to see them coming on their territories...

[M636C]

Mudchicken,

Thanks for your comments. I was basically filling in details for anyone not familiar with the beasts in question. You reminded me that no other Sulzer AS engines had been used in rail service anywhere, and bearing failures are likely when you apply an engine that hasn't been in such strenuous service before.

The big Caterpillar 3600 series have been tried from time to time, also by MK, but these engines which run really well in fast ferries and even Frigates as cruise engines, have been replaced by EMD 645Fs in the former 5000HP units. Rail use requires special qualities in engines only gained with experience.

I also don't know what happened to the SP units. They might be stored somewhere.

Peter

[Anonymous]

I was going to provide a link to a broker for these engines but when I went to the website of the broker I found the engines are no longer shown on the website.

I may have said Southern Pacific tested them, but now think it was Santa Fe. Memory fades with time, you know memory fades with time, oh, did you know that memory fades with time. [:D] [;)] [8D]

[Anonymous]

There were two main dislikes with the Sulzer engines they were the cost and quick availibility of parts. You had two choices for shipping, air freight or by intermodel container. They also just couldn't hold up to our fine maintenance practices.

And the last I heard the GE's were sitting on a disconnected spur in Oakland Ca. still for sale.

P.S. They're still in their red and orange livery [:D][8D]

[jchnhtfd]

My recollection (hazy) is that the fundamental problem with them was, as mudchicken noted, cost of maintenance. 'Way back in the dark ages of diesels (1929!!!) CN had a nifty pair of diesels, number 9000. They had Beardmore engines which , like the Sulzers (and the Maybachs on the Krauss-Maffei diesel hydraulics) were marvelous examples of engineering and design. They were also, like the two others, an absolute bear to maintain. End of story. EMD and GE (and Alco -- whatever else the 251 did, it ran) built and build engines which can run millions of miles in very hard service and keep going. Which is what is needed.

[Anonymous]

It still all boils down to parts availibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No parts, no good !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kenneo]

Parts availability, new cost, familiarity of mechanics with the beast and the down time. From what I understand, they were OK for a four axel unit, but the cab interiors were designed by a real dumb-wit. Heaters venting high in the cab and air conditioners venting low, real up-front thinking.

When SP took them out of service, they required that they be dismanteled. This is the "Case of the Four Popsicles That Won't Melt". Now, where is Perry Mason when you need him?