SD79MAC???

[athelney]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Junctionfan,

The power from an EMD locomotive is set by the type of engine, in a 90 series this would be 6000HP from the 16 cylinder 265H engine or 4300HP from a 16-710G3B.

But a cowl unit might be an F90 AC, if EMD used the system they have used before.

There would be no "M" since cowl units all have wide nose cabs (except the ugly MK rebuilds for NJT).

Peter

But F units are typically 4 axle locomotives. Would the F90AC designation still be used if it was a 6 axle?

The Milw had F40s for metra suburban trains, we had F45s and FP 45s... I thought F meant FULL carbody ?
The CN has SD50 F and SD60 F.. full carbody ... nobody knows what the hell is going on... I guess the candiens do things and think differently .
Randy

We have "Draper Taper" style bodies up here -- Eh

[Allen Jenkins]

F90H

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Junctionfan,

The power from an EMD locomotive is set by the type of engine, in a 90 series this would be 6000HP from the 16 cylinder 265H engine or 4300HP from a 16-710G3B.

But a cowl unit might be an F90 AC, if EMD used the system they have used before.

There would be no "M" since cowl units all have wide nose cabs (except the ugly MK rebuilds for NJT).

Peter

But F units are typically 4 axle locomotives. Would the F90AC designation still be used if it was a 6 axle?

The Milw had F40s for metra suburban trains, we had F45s and FP 45s... I thought F meant FULL carbody ?
The CN has SD50 F and SD60 F.. full carbody ... nobody knows what the hell is going on... I guess the candiens do things and think differently .
Randy

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Junctionfan,

The power from an EMD locomotive is set by the type of engine, in a 90 series this would be 6000HP from the 16 cylinder 265H engine or 4300HP from a 16-710G3B.

But a cowl unit might be an F90 AC, if EMD used the system they have used before.

There would be no "M" since cowl units all have wide nose cabs (except the ugly MK rebuilds for NJT).

Peter

But F units are typically 4 axle locomotives. Would the F90AC designation still be used if it was a 6 axle?

[M636C]

Junctionfan,

The power from an EMD locomotive is set by the type of engine, in a 90 series this would be 6000HP from the 16 cylinder 265H engine or 4300HP from a 16-710G3B.

But a cowl unit might be an F90 AC, if EMD used the system they have used before.

There would be no "M" since cowl units all have wide nose cabs (except the ugly MK rebuilds for NJT).

Peter

[Junctionfan]

Here is something interesting to think about for fun,

If EMD was to build an SD90 with a wide body like the CN and BC Rail C40-8Ms, what kind of hp do you thing they would be able to give it and what would this new model be called?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Is the SD70s the same dimensions as the SD80MAC and SD90MAC in length, width etc?

Hope this helps:

SD70/M/I - 72' 4" long
SD70MAC - 74'
SD70ACe - 74' 3"
SD80MAC - 80' 2"
SD90MAC - 80' 2"

SD70MAC - 10' 5" wide
SD80MAC ~ 10' 3"
SD90MAC ~ 10' 3"

[Anonymous]

Why doesnt EMD just designate by horsepower e.g. SD43AC? SD43ACe etc... Wouldnt this end all the confusion instead of confusing designations like SD9043AC convertibles?

Kraig

[Junctionfan]

Is the SD70s the same dimensions as the SD80MAC and SD90MAC in length, width etc?

[fuzzybroken]

Hmmm!!! Interesting discussion. I've always been intrigued by EMD's continual evolution of their model designations, I guess this is no exception.

-Mark
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to think that the SD70M-2 may be the SD70DCe.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

WHAT THE HELL IS AN SD70M-2?
I thought they where just SD70M's.

Courtesy of Train Web

EMD's Tier II emissions DC model will be the SD70M-2. It will replace all DC freight road locomotives in EMD's catalog. There are currently no demonstrators of this model.

Like the SD70ACe, it too will contain GM's 16-cylinder 710G prime mover rated at 4300 HP. It will be in the same SD89MAC style carbody as the SD70Ace.

No railroads have ordered the SD70M-2 yet, nor have any been produced. Official production of the type does not begin until 2005.

Source:
Sean Graham-White (Loconotes).

[Anonymous]

WHAT THE HELL IS AN SD70M-2?
I thought they where just SD70M's.

[oltmannd]

I find the idea of an SD70ACe much less scary than GEs GEVO. New engine designs always scare me. Both EMD and GE have a track record of problems each time the so much as tweak a proven design - the EMD 950 RPM "F3" and 4400 HP version of the FDL being prime examples. Despite all kinds of testing, there is always some unknow gremlin that pops up after you get several hundred in service for a couple of years. A 16-710 is a comforting thought.

[Anonymous]

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.

Seeing has how there have been over 1,200 SD70M's produced in just 11 years or so, I think the SD70ACe, and SD70M-2, might fare well against GE's GEVO locomotives.

[Anonymous]

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.

I see your point. The 75's were not really successful so I can see why EMD may not have wanted to associate a new line of locomotives with them, even though they had the same HP.

[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. Apart from smaller radiators (for the lower intended power, and a rearrangement of the inverters into the GE location (but not to the GE type of inverter) the two types are realy close in most repects.

Peter

[Allen Jenkins]

Well taken, and really, you know, these 4300hp engines are actually producing 4350+ horsepower, lets keep it a secrete, even if it's all over the computer, on the back wall, control pannel readout? (Hell, maybe 4400, with a little electronic enjector dribble), and anyway, the builder counts it as four-thousand-five-hundred horsepower, if you include all the traction technology! Allen.

[Allen Jenkins]

Oh, I understand now, yes, Mark, I participated in the acedemics of the subject, a expounding of what I've been thinking about the spec SD90Mac, the EMD Demo SD90H. Since I read the builders plate in 1987, at the open house, I've been intriged, about the big mac thing. All I wished to accomplish, is a correct " builders plate" recognition of any model. I admit wrong to add to any affectation for any inanimate object, and truthfully endorse your point of view. Your post caught me a little of guard, and I'm certainly glad for you clarification, Mark, Mr. Don Dover, said, "Knowing, Sharing, Doing is the Only Way!" Thanks for your contributions, You've made my hobby Better! ACJ.

[Anonymous]

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.

I didn't say it was necessary to redo model designations. I was simply making an observation. SD75=4300 HP, later SD70MAC's=4300 HP. It was just for fun... lighten up a little...[;)]

[Anonymous]

Shouldn't newer SD70MAC's with 4,300 HP be considered as SD75MAC's? And the SD70ACe has 4,300 HP also, so could it be considered as an SD75ACe?

[M636C]

The SD 90 MAC with 710 engine is closer to being an SD75 MAC than anything else. The SD75 upset the old "645" system where the addition of 5 to the model number meant a 20 cylinder engine. Thus the SD80MAC was a "+10" figure, which had previously implied a new model, rather than a larger engined version. The SD75 used the 950rpm 4300HP version of the 16-710 engine also used in the SD9043MAC.

There were no SD75MACs offered, which was strange, since the extra power would have made the loco more suitable for high speed work.

There were more SD9043MACs built than SD75s anyway!

Peter

[Anonymous]

I think it should have been called an SD80MAC.
The new EMD SD70ACe should be called an SD85MAC-II

[Kozzie]

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

Thanks for coming back Peter. [;)] [:)] That looks like one awesopme trip! [:0] [:)]

Pacific National's impending arrival here in Queensland for carrying freight to North Queensland got a lot of media attention up here, especially the effect on jobs in Queensland Rail now that it lost the deal with it's major freight shipper.

Dave

[Anonymous]

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?

Placed in safe keeping for comparitive and educational purposes of any and everyone that has an interst in such things.

[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

[Kozzie]

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

Peter! [:)] Good to see you on the Forum! [;)] Quentin and I have been wondering where you were. [:0] [;)]

The Queensland Rail AC units that you mention, are they the ones that are numbered from 4000?
I went up to Maryborough to the factory for the launch of these. Quite a beast for a narrow gauge railway! [:)]

Dave

[Allen Jenkins]

Marks' right, the SD38-2 was "Livin' on The Edge." The McLoud Railway, with their mountain logging concerns, and Duluth Missabe & Iron Range, with heavy tonnage ore trains are the best use of the item. The L&N ran 'em as road switchers, as they didn't wi***o invest in rebuild, now the CSX runs them and The Conrail units, as hump power. Always, in the past, railroads had to supply trade-ins, for component, such as truck rebuilds, and suffered the loss in availible motive power, which took months to prepare for. Why turn-in a Geep, which could be overhauled each million miles, for a new roadswitcher, which cost two or three times more? acj

[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