SD 80 MAC's

[GMS-AU]

Are SD80MAC a success? As they are a very small group they seem to be relegated to secondary or helper status on CSX and NS. NS almost seems to despise them. I heard they had a few bugs when they first arrived on Conrail. Are they now working OK, do they pull well? If EMD is still having problems with its SD90MAC does this make the SD80MAC EMD's most successful high horsepower locomotive to date, seeing as they are up and running and have been for a number of years? What do engineers think of them and are they fuel hungry or just what you would expect from a 5000 hp locomotive. [8][?]

[oltmannd]

Well, the SD80MACs probably would have been judged more "sucessful" if Conrail was still in one piece. They were a good fit for mechandise freight service on Conrail, particularly the Pittsburgh Line between the Harrisburg area and Pittsburgh. Conrail had plans to keep buying more and would have had a decent sized fleet by now - maybe several hundred.

What separated them from the SD90s and C6000s was they didn't have a new engine design. The 710 was already a proven design and the 20-710 had a good installed base in barge and stationary power service. The electronic fuel injection system had some early problems, but the engine was otherwise no problem. Some of us felt that there was even some room to squeeze a bit more HP from that engine - perhaps up to 5500 HP or so.

The first batch had some problems, but none that couldn't have been worked through over time. However, interest in doing this waned when NS and CSX stepped in and changed the locomotive orders to suit their tastes and the SD80MACs became odd balls on their rosters.

[Anonymous]

Ok then here's the Million dollar Question...............................
If the SD80MAC & the SD90MAC where NOT so sucessful then what does EMD expect from the SD70ACe & the SD70M-2?

[oltmannd]

...sales!

They can no longer sell the SD70MAC and SD70M acc't Tier II emissions regs.

Generally, the AC units are for unit trains and the DC for intermodal and merchandise. The SD80s and 90s were targeted for merchandise traffic, but only CR bit on the 5000 HP model and UP and CSX were burned by unreliable 6000 HP diesel engines.

[Anonymous]

The SD80MAC is an orphan on NS because of its AC traction-- the only units on the roster so equipped. The SD70M has found a place on NS rails (though obviously not to the extent of the D9-40CW), but NS has avoided its own purchasing of AC traction power. By concentrating SD80MACs in Western PA on coal branches, I wouldn't think it means the units are not considered successful in the work they do. It also makes sense to stock parts for these units in one location, such as Altoona, which is close to their assignments.

Doug Wonders

[dwil89]

I know one reason they use them on the Secondaries around Johnstown is the good pulling power, plus the radial trucks..Before the steerable trucks came out on six axle locomotives, Conrail primarily used GP38's and 38-2's on the Coal branches out of South Fork and Portage because of the tight curves. Add to this, the low permissable track speeds on the South Fork Secondary where there are some decent grades, which prohibit loaded drags from getting a good run at the hill. The 80 MACS are needed for their grunt, although I have still heard of some instances of loaded coal drags stalling on the grades on the South Fork Secondary. You will also see SD40-2's and GE Dash-8's and 9's used on this branch. I chased an empty hopper train down the branch last week which had a combination of 80MACS, SD40-2's and GE's. Dave Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown

[Anonymous]

While I was working at the UP Roseville shops, I asked an EMD service rep. about the 80-MAC. He said that they were not having any crankshaft problems with the 20-710 as opposed to the 20-645. There were also a couple of units out running around that were tweeked up to 6000hp. just to see if they could handle it.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what the Railroads think of them, but the SD80MACs are the best diesels out there, IMO.

[Anonymous]

IIRC CNW had some on order, and CSX and CP were interested in them. Conrail had 28 more on order, CR might have ordered even more, we will never know for sure.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dougal

IIRC CNW had some on order, and CSX and CP were interested in them. Conrail had 28 more on order, CR might have ordered even more, we will never know for sure.

Had those other 28 units been ordered, they would have been numbered 4130-4157.

[Anonymous]

i worked around the ns sd80macs for a couple of years as a jitney driver assigned to the shelocta coal trains. these trains have used sd80macs almost exclusively since january 2001.

i have heard of no major problems with the mechanical aspects of these units. but the crews and maintenance people at conway do not seem to be adequately trained on the software that runs them. EMD has been out to fix software problems at least once that i know of.

i've seen these units do some amazing things during my time on the sheloctas. they are strong enough to break a rail under the right conditions, especially the 80 year old rail on the shelocta runner. i've seen 3 of them start 100 cars of coal on a grade approaching 2%. it is a shame there are not more of them.

the second batch of 28 were actually ordered by conrail. EMD assigned an order number to them before they were cancelled. there were also reported to be options for a total of 106 of them.

[espeefoamer]

I wi***he SP had bought some SD80s.Three would look awesome pulling a piggyback train through the Tehachapis[8D]!!!

[dwil89]

Yeah, Conrail had ordered more 80 MACS, but if I recall correctly, CSX and NS requested the order be changed, so Conrail ordered SD70 standard cabs to NS specs and SD70MACS to CSX specs...They were the last new Locomotives painted in Conrail colors. Dave Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown

[GMS-AU]

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the input. If the 16-710 can be made as a low emission engine then could a 20-710 be made emission compliant as well? I remember seeing pictures in Trains of the SD 80's making it to WC, was that in run through? Maybe GM makes too good a product and its locomotives last too long.

[dwil89]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GMS-AU

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the input. If the 16-710 can be made as a low emission engine then could a 20-710 be made emission compliant as well? I remember seeing pictures in Trains of the SD 80's making it to WC, was that in run through? Maybe GM makes too good a product and its locomotives last too long.

From what I read, the 16-710 is what EMD is banking on now....It does not appear that the 20 cylinder will be made tier two compliant, so my guess is that the 90MAC will disappear from the US catalog.....The 20 cylinders, especially in SD45 days also earned a reputation as a fuel hog and 4 more cylinders to maintain,,,I believe that either CR or NS had lent the 80MACS to WC for awhile several years ago. Dave Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown

[broncoman]

Bear with me for a minute the question will come back to the topic...sort of:

Are Railroads required in any states to do opacity checks?
If so, since EMD picked 16-710 to make Tier 2 compliant is it an inharently cleaner motor?
If question 1 is yes have opacity (or NOx tests for that matter) tests been done on 12-645s and 20-645s, 710s shown them to be dirtier based on firing order or timing.
I am curious if there is a big difference or not. Have seen some diesels in the same family have huge differences in emissions as such.

Dave

[GMS-AU]

In responce to the previous post I believe GM has stayed with what it knows and that is the two stroke design. It seems that GM has not perfected the 4 stroke to such a stage although it claims to have the engines working in other enviromentssuch as Marine and power generation. The two stroke has seemed to almost dissappeared as now even in the small boat outboard engine has gone to four stroke designs. When GM owned Detroit Diesel it even chose to go to four stroke for its truck engines, which it called its 60 series, this appeared about the same time as the 60 series locomotives. Was there a connection here? The 60 series truck engines are now just as popular as the old two stroke engines and GM has since sold Detroit Diesel to Penske Industries and then has gone to Daimler-Chrysler who have now stopped two stroke manufacturing all together. Parts are still available as there are still thousands of units in use and the US Military being one of the big users. So it seems EMD is one of the few bastions of two stroke diesel design. I'm no engineer but I think the problem with two strokes is too much of the engine perfomance is left to chance, during the two strokes taken during running. A four stroke engine can be controlled more during its four cycles of running. EMD has simply chosen to stay with a proven design that is well known by its market as well and poured heaps of money into keeping it emmision compliant. Thats why I thought a 20 cylinder or a 12 cylinder for that matter could be compliant with current emission standards. The design of the engine is pretty much the same if it is 8, 12, 16 or 20 cylinder design. I see the 20-710 is still offered for sale by EMD for power or marine use on its website so the engine is still alive in some form. I welcome any others input if I have any details wrong.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman

Bear with me for a minute the question will come back to the topic...sort of:

Are Railroads required in any states to do opacity checks?
If so, since EMD picked 16-710 to make Tier 2 compliant is it an inharently cleaner motor?
If question 1 is yes have opacity (or NOx tests for that matter) tests been done on 12-645s and 20-645s, 710s shown them to be dirtier based on firing order or timing.
I am curious if there is a big difference or not. Have seen some diesels in the same family have huge differences in emissions as such.

Dave

Yes but it depends on the location. Down in L.A. they do smog checks on locos all of the time. Up in Roseville we didn't do it very often

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by c636

The SD80MAC is an orphan on NS because of its AC traction-- the only units on the roster so equipped. The SD70M has found a place on NS rails (though obviously not to the extent of the D9-40CW), but NS has avoided its own purchasing of AC traction power. By concentrating SD80MACs in Western PA on coal branches, I wouldn't think it means the units are not considered successful in the work they do. It also makes sense to stock parts for these units in one location, such as Altoona, which is close to their assignments.

Doug Wonders

The SD80MACs are true orphans on NS. You woudn't spend what those locos cost and put them in that low utilization captive service. Every now and then a pair get out on a merchandise freight out of Conway - that makes me smile.

[espeefoamer]

Several years ago, I toured a Coast Guard vessel.When we got to the engine room, I noticed that the ship was powered by 4 20 cylinder EMD 645s.

[dwil89]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by c636

The SD80MAC is an orphan on NS because of its AC traction-- the only units on the roster so equipped. The SD70M has found a place on NS rails (though obviously not to the extent of the D9-40CW), but NS has avoided its own purchasing of AC traction power. By concentrating SD80MACs in Western PA on coal branches, I wouldn't think it means the units are not considered successful in the work they do. It also makes sense to stock parts for these units in one location, such as Altoona, which is close to their assignments.

Doug Wonders

The SD80MACs are true orphans on NS. You woudn't spend what those locos cost and put them in that low utilization captive service. Every now and then a pair get out on a merchandise freight out of Conway - that makes me smile.

I think, that if they wanted to utilize a locomotive in a certain area due to proximity to parts access, they could do so with a more suitable locomotive.....Taking the highest horsepower locomotive on the roster, and using it to shuttle 15 car locals betwwen Altoona and Johnstown is a bit of overkill.....Although, thier grunt does help on the South Fork Secondary..It seems like NS was searching for something suitable for them to do, so they replaced Geep 38's on locals, and mine runs with these monsters!....It does free up the larger quantities of GP38-2's that were required on the mineruns for service elsewhere, but a SD60M or GE Dash-8 would do so too. I wonder what other reason NS has for being hesitant to run these like Conrail did..... It's like using a Kenworth Tri-Axle dump truck to haul what a much smaller and less expensive rig would do.....I guess NS is waiting for the leases to expire so they can turn them in...Dave Wililiams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown

[dwil89]

Fuel Consumption vs Benefits.......I puuled out my NS Rosterbook which has a fuel consumption chart on its locomotives....An SD80MAC uses less fuel in an hour at low idle than a SW1500! 3.6 GAL/HR for the 80 vs 3.8/Hr for a SW1500. Even an SD40-2 low idle is 4.1 GAL/HR. At Full load, an 80 MAC uses 237 GAL/HR vs 90 GAL/HR for a SW1500 and 168 GAL/HR for a SD40-2. However, Conrail bought the 80MACS for unit reduction, as 2 80MACS were supposed to be able to replace 3 SD40-2's, and the AC Traction was touted as having higher tractive effort and lower stall speeds. Perhaps, this is a major reason that the 80MACS are used on the South Fork Secondary Coal Branch. It has a pretty good grade coming North toward South Fork between Paint and Summit, plus low permissable track speeds...10 or 15 mile an hour I believe. The AC Traction would provide more tractive effort and lower allowable spe without overheating the traction motors, since the train can't get a run at the hill with the low speeds permitted.... I guess we can armchair quarterback on this for months to come, unless someone from NS tells us the exact reason for using the 80 MACS as they do. Dave Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonjohnstown

[GMS-AU]

One more thing, any ideas how CSX views the SD 80MAC's. They have some 70 MAC's so there should be some commonality of parts etc? Are they based at Grafton with the 70's?

[M636C]

GMS-AU

The SD70MAC and the SD80MAC belonged to different locomotive generations. The SD70MAC was the last of the 50/60/70 line and the SD80MAC was the first of the 80/89/90 and current SD70ACe/M-2 line.

The larger and different radiators, with larger fans are the most visible change. Much of the equipment would be similar, and it is possible that the AC traction equipment would be interchangeable, as long as there were no changes in production over the period of building. The 710 engine components, except for the crankshaft, should be interchangeable.

In my experience, the main trouble with the 20-645E3 was torsional vibration in the long crankshaft. EMD knew this and fitted a harmonic balancer to the crankshaft. After a period in service this device became ineffective and had to be replaced. If this wasn't done, the torsional vibration was transmitted to the alternator, giving it a hard time. In bad cases you might break a crankshaft.

I visited La Grange in 1977 and about a third of engines being overhauled were 20-645E3 models, far greater than their proportion in the fleet. This wasn't more than a very small proportion of the 20 cylinder engines in use, of course, so most of them were out there working. But a higher failure rate does increase maintenance costs.

I assume that EMD had an improved harmonic balancer on the 20-710 G3, and that this problem was reduced. It is possible that the SD80MAC was a better buy than the SD90 MAC in a power/operating cost comparison, but since nobody bought, or even absorbed both types we may never know!

Peter

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GMS-AU

One more thing, any ideas how CSX views the SD 80MAC's. They have some 70 MAC's so there should be some commonality of parts etc? Are they based at Grafton with the 70's?

I think CSX doesn't care too much for the SD80MAC, they care more for the AC4400CW, AC6000CW, and the SD70MAC. I've only seen two out of my years railfaning in the Philly area #s 804, and 812. These locomtives are ex- conrail units at that. However, CSX co- owned Conrail loves the SD80MAC. I would also say that the 80MAC's parts are more common to the upgradable SD90MAC., than the SD70MAC. For example: the dynamic brake box on the 80mac and 90mac are located under the oversized radiators, to isolate the brake box noise from the cab. On the SD70MAC the brake box is located directly behind the cab on the left side od the loco.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

GMS-AU

The SD70MAC and the SD80MAC belonged to different locomotive generations. The SD70MAC was the last of the 50/60/70 line and the SD80MAC was the first of the 80/89/90 and current SD70ACe/M-2 line.

The larger and different radiators, with larger fans are the most visible change. Much of the equipment would be similar, and it is possible that the AC traction equipment would be interchangeable, as long as there were no changes in production over the period of building. The 710 engine components, except for the crankshaft, should be interchangeable.

In my experience, the main trouble with the 20-645E3 was torsional vibration in the long crankshaft. EMD knew this and fitted a harmonic balancer to the crankshaft. After a period in service this device became ineffective and had to be replaced. If this wasn't done, the torsional vibration was transmitted to the alternator, giving it a hard time. In bad cases you might break a crankshaft.

I visited La Grange in 1977 and about a third of engines being overhauled were 20-645E3 models, far greater than their proportion in the fleet. This wasn't more than a very small proportion of the 20 cylinder engines in use, of course, so most of them were out there working. But a higher failure rate does increase maintenance costs.

I assume that EMD had an improved harmonic balancer on the 20-710 G3, and that this problem was reduced. It is possible that the SD80MAC was a better buy than the SD90 MAC in a power/operating cost comparison, but since nobody bought, or even absorbed both types we may never know!

Peter

Peter-

The 16-645E3s have the same style viscous crank damper on them. On Conrail, the big problems with the SD45s were things other than crankshaft problems, i.e. radiators, elec system (SD45s had field shunting)...

Conrail opted for the 20-710 instead of either EMD's or GEs 6000 HP offering because we didn't want to deal with the all the problems that inevitably occur when you're first with a new engine design. It seemed that everytime EMD or GE "improved" their engine design and increased output, there were always follow up issues and headaches. The idea of a totally new design was downright depressing to the mech dept. A secondary issue was tooling required to do maintenance. No need for specialized mechanical tooling at each shop.

I had a chat with a shop supervisor at Conway where they maintain the SD80MACs about a year ago and he told me that they were generally reliable with no major issues.

[oltmannd]

Very good points.

The extra HP you got with the SD45 was not matched by an increase in adhesion/tractive effort. The extra 600HP by itself didn't balance the headaches you also got (leaky radiators, more complex elec system - field shunting, and a few other problems I've forgotten about)

It wasn't until the builders improved adhesion/TE, that the HP/unit started to increase again. To make AC power universal, you really need a 6000 HP diesel engine. The RRs are still waiting for a good one....

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

QUOTE: Originally posted by GMS-AU

One more thing, any ideas how CSX views the SD 80MAC's. They have some 70 MAC's so there should be some commonality of parts etc? Are they based at Grafton with the 70's?

I think CSX doesn't care too much for the SD80MAC, they care more for the AC4400CW, AC6000CW, and the SD70MAC. I've only seen two out of my years railfaning in the Philly area #s 804, and 812. These locomtives are ex- conrail units at that. However, CSX co- owned Conrail loves the SD80MAC. I would also say that the 80MAC's parts are more common to the upgradable SD90MAC., than the SD70MAC. For example: the dynamic brake box on the 80mac and 90mac are located under the oversized radiators, to isolate the brake box noise from the cab. On the SD70MAC the brake box is located directly behind the cab on the left side od the loco.

You haven't seen very many because CSX on has 12 of them. All twelve came from the Conrail buyout. From what I've seen, CSX uses them just like a 70mac or AC4400. If it's there and they need power, they'll hook it up. I've seen them on coal drags, mixed freights, in pusher service, and for locals. It's kind of strange seeing a huge 80mac pulling one two-bay covered hopper.

CSX has had a few problems with them. The 812 was in the shops in Alabama last year to get a new prime mover. Not sure what happened to the original, but it had to be replaced. Unfortunately, while waiting on the new motor to get there, they painted over the beautiful Conrail scheme, with the "Dark Future" CSX paint.

Derrick

Derrick

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

GMS-AU

The SD70MAC and the SD80MAC belonged to different locomotive generations. The SD70MAC was the last of the 50/60/70 line and the SD80MAC was the first of the 80/89/90 and current SD70ACe/M-2 line.

The larger and different radiators, with larger fans are the most visible change. Much of the equipment would be similar, and it is possible that the AC traction equipment would be interchangeable, as long as there were no changes in production over the period of building. The 710 engine components, except for the crankshaft, should be interchangeable.

In my experience, the main trouble with the 20-645E3 was torsional vibration in the long crankshaft. EMD knew this and fitted a harmonic balancer to the crankshaft. After a period in service this device became ineffective and had to be replaced. If this wasn't done, the torsional vibration was transmitted to the alternator, giving it a hard time. In bad cases you might break a crankshaft.

I visited La Grange in 1977 and about a third of engines being overhauled were 20-645E3 models, far greater than their proportion in the fleet. This wasn't more than a very small proportion of the 20 cylinder engines in use, of course, so most of them were out there working. But a higher failure rate does increase maintenance costs.

I assume that EMD had an improved harmonic balancer on the 20-710 G3, and that this problem was reduced. It is possible that the SD80MAC was a better buy than the SD90 MAC in a power/operating cost comparison, but since nobody bought, or even absorbed both types we may never know!

Peter

Peter-

The 16-645E3s have the same style viscous crank damper on them. On Conrail, the big problems with the SD45s were things other than crankshaft problems, i.e. radiators, elec system (SD45s had field shunting)...

Conrail opted for the 20-710 instead of either EMD's or GEs 6000 HP offering because we didn't want to deal with the all the problems that inevitably occur when you're first with a new engine design. It seemed that everytime EMD or GE "improved" their engine design and increased output, there were always follow up issues and headaches. The idea of a totally new design was downright depressing to the mech dept. A secondary issue was tooling required to do maintenance. No need for specialized mechanical tooling at each shop.

I had a chat with a shop supervisor at Conway where they maintain the SD80MACs about a year ago and he told me that they were generally reliable with no major issues.

I wasn't aware that the 16 cylinder had the same viscous damper! My reference to it came from some technical discussion in a journal where the Danish State Railways were complaining that on their 20 cylinder locomotives (Class Mz model JT30C) that the damper appeared ineffective, and EMD wouldn't give them any technical assistance. They pulled one apart and decided it had failed, and installed a new one.

I think that the torsional vibration on the longer 20 cylinder crank caused the damper to be working much harder, resulting in earlier failure. This may have been overcome simply by improved design and materials by the time the SD80MAC appeared.

There is certainly nothing to suggest that the SD80MAC was less successful than the SD90MAC, and Conrail had been running lots of 20 cylinder EMDs since they were formed. There is nothing to stop EMD qualifying a 20-710 to current emission requirements if somebody wanted an SD80 MAC now.

Peter