BNSF AC4400CW

[Anonymous]

[%-)][bow][%-)]

Why buyed the BNSF now some GE AC4400CW´s?

Okay, they buyed three for testing some years ago, but this is no reason.

Why not some more SD70MAC? This model is also available, they own a huge fleet and maintenance is cheaper with not so much types in use?

Nobody tells or wrote the "Why"!

Because this are CTE´s and this function isn´t available from EMD?
Because the BNSF need some AC´s more and EMD could not deliver in a good time?

I find no logic in this doing - I think the Dash 9 is the "normal" BNSF engine and the SD70MAC is the "heavyduty AC".

[Anonymous]

[#ditto][#ditto][#ditto][#ditto][#ditto]

EMD rules!

[M636C]

Ulrich (and Mark)

Firstly, I didn't know that BNSF were buying AC4400CWs, could you say how many, and when they'll be delivered?

But, as you say, they bought three, presumably for testing, some time ago.

If you look at the technical features of the locomotives, SD70MAC and AC4400CW, what are the differences? Firstly, the AC4400CW is more powerful, with a horsepower up by ten percent. It has a different system of AC inversion. The GE locomotives have a separate inverter for each axle, while the EMD units use two inverters, one for each truck. This can't be a big problem, since BNSF own most of the SD70MACs.

If the order has just been placed, what other reasons could there be? Perhaps BNSF were offered the SD70ACe by EMD, and decided that these did not have as much in common with their existing SD70MAC fleet, and perhaps would be more susceptible to failure while the design was new and early problems were sorted out. So possibly, the option of "Buying more of the same" wasn't there any more. Perhaps EMD didn't want to build any more old type SD70MAC locomotives.

There is a lot in common between the Dash9-44CW and the AC4400CW, apart from the actual electrical equipment. The reason the Dash9-44CW has a smaller air intake than the Dash 8 is because that part of the unit is the same as the AC4400CW. If a maintenance fitter is familiar with the Dash 9, he'll be able to understand the AC 4400 as long as he has been instructed on the new equipment, and remembers that the heavy electrical switchgear and the air conditioner have exchanged places.

GE could build the locomotives fairly easily: just take a UP AC4400CW and put a BNSF gull wing cab on it. It is possible that GE could deliver earlier, and if the comments on other threads are true, the GE might have been cheaper.

Another point is that GE are introducing a new locomotive, which I've seen described as an EV45CTE. Suppose EMD couldn't deliver until tier II emissions compliance was compulsory (thus giving a locomotive that was quite different), but GE could deliver a locomotive very similar to the existing Dash 9 now, but if you wait you will have to take their tier II locomotive with a new 12 cylinder engine.

If that scenario applied BNSF would take the simplest option and buy the AC4400CW! Remember that he first SD70MAC was delivered more than ten years ago. It would not be possible today to buy the electronic components used in that locomotive, even if you wanted to.

It seems to me that BNSF might have taken the easy option, not the hard one!

Peter

[Anonymous]

Hi Peter,

in 1999 the BNSF buyed three AC4400CW´s,#5600 to 5602.
And then, starting at the end of 2002 the BNSF placed two more, more "real" orders: 145 engines:
5603-5717 - - 115 AC4400CW´s
and
5718-5747 - - 30 AC4400CW´s in TIER 2 GEVO configuration.

Okay the AC4400CW is common to the Dash 9 but when I have such a succesfull fleet of SD70MAC and need some more AC´s, I would buy some more SD70MAC!!!

Peter, I find absolute no logic in such a doing. And TIER 2 couldn´t be the reason: only the last 30 engines are TIER 2 and the AC4400CW isn´t very younger as the SD70MAC.

The only possible reason, I find and see, is that EMD have a lot of work with the completing of UP´s SD70M fleet and could not deliver more SD70MAC´s in a good time.

[Mookie]

Unless Mookie's glasses are dirty or her eyesight has completely failed - we see an occasional AC4400CW through here. And it is on the point, with an SD70 behind it.

So I know they are out there. Unless like I said.....

[SSW9389]

One of the reasons for BNSF buying strictly from GE lately is that GM awarded UP most of its automotive traffic in the west. Time will tell if GM changes this or if BNSF buys any more EMD locomotives.

[M636C]

Ulrich,

Since the order includes Tier II locomotives, that part of my scenario is clearly wrong. So I think we have to concentrate on purchase cost. Many of the EMD vs GE comments suggest that GE locomotives cost less.

This is likely to be greater for AC locomotives than for DC locomotives, because EMD locomotives use Siemens equipment, at least some of which is made in Europe, and the Euro has been rising relative to the US Dollar. All DC locomotives have US built electrical equipment.

GE locomotives are all built on the same frame, while the SD70MAC is about 500mm longer (1'8" for Americans) than the SD70M being built for UP, thus making it harder (and more expensive) to build both types at the same time.

So for EMD at the end of 2002 with the UP order still under way, EMD could not easily add SD70MACs into a SD70M production line. So they would have to quote both a higher price and a longer production time than GE.

BNSF had tested the AC4400CW for three years and must have been happy with them, so decided to buy more, despite having more EMD AC locomotives than anyone else.

I'm sure BNSF must have checked whether this was going to cost them more through the life of the locomotives, and must have decided that it wasn't. This would not be a good sign for EMD.

Peter

[Anonymous]

Peter,

yesterday evening I realized what I had wrote:
When the BNSF will have AC4400´s in GEVO configuration, this locos will have the new 12 cylinder 4400 hp diesel like the UP C45ACCTE´s !!!!

And I made a mistake in the deliverey dates - The first of the new ordered AC4400 wasn´t ready at Erie before 2003 !!! In 2002 the BNSF became only Dash9´s.

I found the roadnumbers on a BNSF webpage - in Diesel Era Magazine, I think 3-4/2003 was only an article about 50 AC4400´s that will be deliver to the BNSF.

SIEMENS: Siemens with the daughtercompany Krauss-Maffei built the new 300 km per hour ICE 3 passenger trains.
The DBAG (German railroad) had a lot of fun with this in the first time - problems, problems, problems! The ICE3 is an electronic monster!
Now, more than one year after the start of the system, the trains run well!

The line is only 1 kilometer away from my home and a fatal failure that requieres a pull with one of the dieselhelper units will be now every 10 to 12 days and 120 trains run each day - that is less than 0,5 % of the trains will have big trouble!

One reason is that Siemens couldn´t test the trains here under real conditions - the 300 km/h line wasn´t ready before 2002.

A friend of me is a ICE engineer (pilot???) and I got a cabride (cockpitride ???) with him.
300 km with a train and then in the cab are absolute great!

[M636C]

Ulrich,

I was going to answer this ten hours ago, but a friend took me out to photograph trains (I didn't argue much). We only saw four trains, including a passenger train two hours late - we think there may be speed limits due to high temperatures (35 deg C).

There is a picture of BNSF 5633 on page 2 of Diesel Era, July/August 2003. When I looked at it the first time, I probably didn't take in the full significance.

I haven't been to Germany since 1991, so I've only travelled on the original ICE trains.

At some time I will have to show you my videos of Cajon and Tehachapi. These were several years ago, but the Southern Pacific oil train climbing Tehachapi with ten SD45s impressed me quite a bit, although I'd never seen such dirty locomotives.

Peter

[Anonymous]

Hi Peter,

I got my Jan/Feb 2004 Issue of Diesel era today.

In this is the 2003 delivery recap.
The 30 GEVO´s to BNSF are right but the new AC4400 fleet was only 51 engines and not 115.

So, at the moment, 35 AC GEVO´s make fieldtests (30 BNSF and 5 UP).

I have a Sound CD with an Oiltrain, with a mixture of different EMD´s at the point (I think also a SD9) recorded at the grade near Blue Cut - GREAT !!!

And on video I have an SP train with three SD40-2 and one SD45 that start his next climb in Canyon siding after a train to West Colton had passed.
The hammering 645´s are music - heavy-metal but music!

Filming at Cajon today is bad - In Summit everything is behind that huge fence and because of the fires in the last years trespassing of the area is forbidden!
We will see .................

[Anonymous]

Ok - I just posted a new thread about 30 minutes ago - asking if anyone could give a recap of new locomotive orders for GE and EMD for 2004 (I haven't purchased the latest magazines in quite awhile - and I'm behind in this dept.) I was aware of the latest BNSF purchase including some GEVO units, and I'm aware EMD just completed some orders for NS and CSX. Can anyone help out? Thanks!

[Rodney Beck]

Hi my name is Rodney and I work for the BNSF as a conductor compairing the ac 4400's to the sd-70mac's their is no equal to the 70 mac they load up better than the ac 4400. The 70 mac does not have the wheel slip as the ac 4400 do i.e. pull aparts are more common with the ac 4400 as the 70 mac when it loads it stays loaded and will not unload as the ac 4400 do with wheel slip. Rodney

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that insight - just goes to show that numbers aren't everything - rated continuous tractive effort for the SD70MAC is 137,000 lbs., and 145,000 for the AC4400. Max. rated starting tractive effort is 175,000 for SD70MAC, 180,000 for AC4400. Question for you, Rodney, a two unit set of AC4400's is rated for 8,800 (hate to state the obvious), and 8,000 for two unit SD70MAC. Can you notice the difference in horsepower at higher speeds with the extra 800 hp (or extra 1,200 hp for three unit set)?

Also, in your opinion, do the AC4400's have any advantages over the SD70MAC - after all, the AC4400 has outsold the SD70MAC by a margin of greater than 2-1 (possibly close to 3-1). How about the rumor that BNSF switched over to the GE product in light of GM's switching of vehicle traffic to UP...

[Anonymous]

BNSF HAS DUMB EXCUTIVES THAT'S WHY BECAUSE I LIKE SD70MAC GE STINK LIKE TOXIC WASTE

[Anonymous]

Ok - I hear ya. I've been an EMD fan my whole life - even hated GE's when I was younger. However, whether this is taboo or not, I like both now. BNSF's exec's can't be that stupid (or else almost all other large railroad exec's are stupid too), as other roads like CN, CP, NS, KCS have overwhelmingly favored GE's in recent years. Even UP, which has bought SD-70M's like crazy, has still been purchasing a large number of GE's every year.

As much as I like the EMD's, the GE's can't possibly be that bad of a product. I used to visit Santa Fe's Corwith yard in Chicago quite a bit, and I also used to talk to a lot of Union Pacific and Conrail crews running westbound freights through River Forest into Proviso Yard - one thing I noticed was that even the engineers who personally liked EMD's better usually admitted (at least back in the pre-AC days) that GE's didn't load up as fast as the EMD's, but once those GE's got moving, they hauled the tonnage at higher sustained speeds over the road (usually comparing the 4000 hp Dash 8's with the 3800 hp 60 series - makes sense).

Look at UP and CP, which have large fleets of EMD and GE AC units. Although outright performance is not the only factor that goes into a purchase decision (price, perhaps politics as well), you can't possibly take the position that if GE's were so markedly inferior to EMD's that two large (and relatively successful) railroads, which could compare the two products in extensive, side by side testing, would consciously dump millions of dollars into complete garbage. Even the dumbest directors would have been fired by their respective boards of directors if that were the case.

Last point - I've been looking at tonnage charts in the CP employee timetable for the AC4400 and the SD90MAC (presumably those rated at only 4300 hp). On all subdivisions in the timetable, the AC4400 has a higher tonnage rating. Not only that, but CP continues to buy the GE's year after year, but no EMD's in several years.

I'm certainly not trying to convert any EMD fans into GE fans (I still lean a little more towards EMD myself). In my humble opinion, GE's don't get the credit they deserve, despite whatever weaknesses they might have.

[M636C]

Rodney,

Again, thanks for the comment about wheel slip on the AC4400. GE claim that their system is better than EMD because they have a separate DC to AC inverter for each axle, while EMD rely on a single inverter for each truck (three axles). On the other hand, EMD have their radar doppler speed sensing (called super series in the DC units) which works really well in my experience (which is limited to a couple of short cab rides).

Time will tell whether the SD70ACe or the ES44AC come out on top, but the good sales of the AC4400CW gives the GE a head start. But the GE has a new engine, and it will be hard to match the experience that's gone into the EMD710G.

Peter

[Rodney Beck]

Peter,

In my opinion about 3 weeks ago i was on a coal train with 2 ac 4400 the 8800 hp did not do as good as the 70 macs with 800 hp less tha the 4400. Still have the same wheel slip. Rodney

[broncoman]

I am assuming that the BNSF AC's are on regular Hi-Ad trucks not the steerables. Are there any CP or CSX train crews around who can tell if the wheel slipping problem is as much a problem on the AC4400s with steerable trucks, since that would be the last of the inequalities for a comparison of sd70's to AC4400s.
Also wouldn't the model change from AC4400 to ES44C be a forced change as the delivery date is the key to whether an engine needs to meet Tier 2 or not.

Dave

[M636C]

Dave,

Certainly the early BNSF AC4400 use standard trucks (at least, the only one I've seen a photo of did). In the case of BNSF, since they "volunteered" to take thirty ES44AC this year, GE didn't have their arm twisted behind their back for the change. But yes, it really is a forced change, and in that respect GE are taking a bigger risk with the ES units than EMD with the SD70ACe. If a major problem shows up down the track with the GEVO engine, (as it did with the HDL) EMD will be very happy. But that's what the various test units are out there to find!

The GE steering trucks have not been as successful as the EMD, and the second design has only appeared on the Australian units. CSX have been the main customer followed by CP. I'm not sure how much steering trucks improve adhesion, although on sharp curves it must help. But one wheel must have some slip unless the axle is sitting with the coned wheels providing exactly the correct rolling diameter for the different distances run by each wheel on the curve. Theory suggests that "creep forces" cause this to happen, but the traction forces are probably greater than those, and worn rail might prevent this happening anyway. Just having the axle running radially on the curve doesn't mean that neither wheel will slip, because the outer wheel will be following a slightly longer path. But the loss of energy in flange forces and flange wear is definitely reduced by radial trucks.

Peter

[Anonymous]

Maybe I´m wrong:

A bolsterless truck run better than a truck with a centerpin! A truck that has no central moving point runs better across the track than this with a pin. And I think that the Hi-Ad design allows a little "moving" of the axles.

When a RR will buy a SD70MAC they have no opinion between "only bolsterless" and "bolsterless and steerable". Must order the loco with HTCR II trucks.

An AC4400 coustomer has this opinion! Can order with Hi-Ad or with GE steerable trucks!

UP ordered three AC4400´s with the steerable trucks, tested them and rebuilt the three locomotives with Hi-Ad´s!

[M636C]

Ulrich,

I haven't seen photos of the three initial BNSF AC4400CW. I assume they had the original design of GE steering trucks?

Only CSX and CP seem to like that design. It is possible they have sharper curves than UP!

Peter

[hogger42]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Ulrich,

I haven't seen photos of the three initial BNSF AC4400CW. I assume they had the original design of GE steering trucks?

Only CSX and CP seem to like that design. It is possible they have sharper curves than UP!

Peter

They had the same old HI -AD truck. The KCS has the steerable truck also.

[Anonymous]

Hi Peter,

the BNSF AC4400 had Hi-Ad trucks, no GE steering trucks.

Pic of a AC 4400 5600 (the first BNSF AC 4400 - Built in 1999): http://www.qstation.org/5600/5600_2.jpg

At this page you find a photo of new AC4400 5611 (Pic 6) and of BNSF GEVO 5724 (Pic 8) !!!

http://westbnsf.smrn.com/railroad%20photos/bnsf13.htm

All equipped with Hi-Ad trucks!

At the photo you see the extreme modifications at the cooling compartment of the ES44AC!

BTW: I got my Trains issue February 2004 yesterday - first was lost in post service here.
I not agree that the SD70ACe is that step into the future.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by hogger42

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Ulrich,

I haven't seen photos of the three initial BNSF AC4400CW. I assume they had the original design of GE steering trucks?

Only CSX and CP seem to like that design. It is possible they have sharper curves than UP!

Peter

They had the same old HI -AD truck. The KCS has the steerable truck also.

The bolsterless Hi-Ad construction isn´t old !!!
A RR must find out what´s the best and when UP and BNSF made the decision for Hi-Ad they know what they do!!!

NEVER FORGET:
GE offers two different trucks "BOLSTERLESS HI-AD" and BOLSTERLESS AND STEERABLE".
EMD offers only the HTCR II !!! [:D]

[M636C]

Ulrich,

Sorry, I must have been too tired when I wrote my post! I meant to ask about the UP locomotives with steering trucks. I did look at the links to the BNSF photos. The view of the GEVO engine unit is interesting.

And Hogger42, thanks for reminding me about the KCS AC4400CWs!

The principle of the bolsterless truck really began with the CN MLW C630M in the late 1960s, and was only adopted by GE after they took over MLW and became the owner of the designs and patents.

This design principle is actually older than the Alco Hi-Ad truck, which did use some rubber in the secondary springing, but was a conventional bolster design.

The MLW truck still had a centre pivot, but it wasn't involved in supporting the carbody.

This pivot is no longer required in the GE Hi-Ad, but some drawings of the EMD HTCR II truck appear to show a central pivot of some kind. The rubber support springs of the EMD and GE designs are very similar. EMD do not produce a non-steering version of the truck, their only alternative being the bolster type HTC truck.

It does seem to be possible that the two GE designs are interchangeable, using the same rubber secondary springs in the same location. (I hadn't thought of this until you indicated that UP had rebuilt their units). This would be consistent with other GE locomotive characteristics.

Peter

[Anonymous]

At EMD´s homepage is a page about HTCR II truck:

http://www.gmemd.com/en/locomotive/innovations/radial_bogie/index.htm

It´s without bolster, read the text ! at the pic it looks like "with bolster".

An EMD customer has no opinion - Must buy HTCR II.
The steerable GE is an "EXTRA", Hi-Ad is the standard. Customer must make a decision!
Who knows what had happen if EMD also offer a cheaper non radial bolsterless truck as option! UP´s SD70 M with another trucks? Possible!

The three UP AC4400 with the steerable´s are from one of the first orders but not the three "First of all" locomotives, first numbered 9997 to 9999. I had seen a photo of such an unit but don´t ask....Sorry! But I´m sure it was the normal steerable truck design
Possible it was in an UP directory .

[M636C]

Ulrich,

A truck can have a pivot without having a bolster. In a truck like the EMD standard HTC truck, a cast bolster, shaped like a letter "H" sits on top of the secondary springs (which are rubber pads on the HTC). The pivot is in the centre of the "stroke" across the "H" which sits on the truck with the "stroke" parallel to the rails.

On the MLW/Dofasco truck, there is no bolster and the weight of the unit is transferred directly from the frame to the truck through rubber pads (actually "sandwiches" of multiple layers of rubber and thin steel sheets to stop distortion). All movement of the truck is taken up by the rubber pads. However, the traction forces from the truck to the locomotive frame are absorbed through a pivot point on the frame that "floats" vertically and does not take any of the locomotive weight. It mates with a bearing on a truck cross member that is spring loaded in both horizontal directions to allow truck movement, but the forward/backward springs absorb all the haulage forces from the truck.

I think the pivot on the HTCR-II truck (if that's what it is) acts in the same way, as well as locating the truck steering links on the body/frame.

In fact, all trucks must have some means of transferring the traction load to the frame. I don't know how the GE Hi-Ad does this, but the MLW solution is very likely. Remember that the first CN GE units built at Montreal used the MLW truck, so GE have direct experience of it. The Australian CM30-8 units, illustrated in green and yellow on the GE website under "Dash-8", also have MLW trucks.

Has anyone found photos of GE Hi-Ad trucks, not under locomotives, and viewed from above?

Peter

[M636C]

Ulrich,

I checked the GE truck photos in the "Field Guide", and noticed that the Hi-Ad photo shows two shock absorbers horizontal but at an angle to the frame side between the second and third axles. This is exactly the same arrangement as the shock absorbers on the MLW trucks on Montreal M636 locomotives. So although it isn't clear in the photo, I suggest that the pivot point on the GE Hi Ad is between the first and second axles, as it is on the MLW trucks. On the MLW trucks, the two shock absorbers "pointed" to the pivot
and I think the GE Hi-Ad is the same. This would mean that the pivot didn't take any load, but just the traction forces.

Maybe the EMD HTCR-II is the same?

Peter

Peter

[Anonymous]

Peter,

that with the missing pivot was a mistake by me!

When I think bolsterless, I mean a truck that absorbe the traction forces to the frame with a rod construction. The new, here in Germany built electrics of New Jersey use this arrangement. Our 220 km/h locomotive series 101 is the "mother" of NJT engines and use this arrangement too.
There are two rods at the end of the frame connected to a place at the frame. The Austrian electro type 1044 show the four rods, each truck has two, between the trucks very clear.

But your right, there is no rod construction for the traction force in this engines, must be a pivot !!!

[M636C]

Ulrich,

I made an error myself! The pin is on the truck and the bearing and springs on the frame, at least on the MLW trucks. By coincidence, I printed the diagram of the NJT ALP-46 (from the Bombardier website) today! I'll check to see if it shows the traction rods (at least that's what we call them here!).

Peter