Pump
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C The standard EMD locomotive for Europe is a JT42CWR. It has a 12-710 G3B and six motors (DC as it happens). In Queensland, Australia we have GT 42 CU AC units that apart from being 3'6" gauge, ARE effectively SD69 MAC units, complete with steering trucks and AC motors. They are rated at 3030HP. There may not be a need for such units in the US, since they would cost nearly as much as an SD70ACe. They are the largest and heaviest diesel locomotives in Queensland, and are more powerful in terms of loads hauled than 3MW 25kV electric locomotives. Peter
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill So ... once it is agreed what these should be called, what is to be done with that information?
QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C Dave, Yes those locos are the QR 4000 class, and a few more are being built for Pacific National for use in Queensland. We think those may be a "PN" class, but wait and see. I've just got back from a drive to Port Hedland and back, about 16000 km all up, 10000 in Western Australia alone. I saw lots of trains, nearly everywhere. Including the ARG S class, a double ended DC version of the 4000, model JT42 C. They are about to be renumbered, but we don't know for sure what! Peter
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Why is it necessary to redo the model designations? One of the worst confusions already inflicted on rail enthusiasts is the notion of some enthusiasts beginning around 1975 that they can "do better" than the manufacturers and the railroads, and began applying their own designations. It got very old at Trains answering letter, after letter, after letter, from fans who didn't understand why the railroad painted one thing on the side of the locomotive cab, when some railfan book asserted it was quite another. A locomotive model is whatever the builder and the manufacturer decide to call it. And if that doesn't fit with our ideas of symmetry and order, we're helpless to do anything about it. Discussions of what a locomotive "should" be named are academic and mean nothing in the real world -- but it does further enforce the view among railroaders that railfans are only interested in superficialities and trivia, and think they're smarter than the people who actually do the job.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C I think EMD selected SD70ACe to indicate derivation from a well known successful predecessor, rather than from the relatively little known SD75. The SD90 with the 4300 HP engine is the real origin of the SD70ACe.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Assuming the price is right, and there are no design or production problems of a serious nature, the SD70ACe might do even better in the market than the SD70M, the locomotive that really put EMD back into the game.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. WHAT THE HELL IS AN SD70M-2? I thought they where just SD70M's.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.