SD20's are de-turbocharged SD24's rebuilt from ex-Southern and Union Pacific SD24's at Illinois Central's Paducah shops. They were rated at 2,000 hp, and hence, I assume, the designation SD20. During the rebuilding the dynamic brakes were removed and the cabs replaced (or added as the UP SD24's were cabless 'B' units I think), noses chopeed, and a new air intake and pressurized car bodies. SD18's had 1,800 hp, so I guess IC figured SD20 made sense, even though EMD called their 2,000 hp SD's SD38's. ATSF also rebuilt SD24's into SD26's retaining the turbo chargers and increasing the horsepower from 2,400 to 2,600 and adding a pressurzed car body and a larger fuel tank and moving the air tanks to the roof. CNW also rebuilt SD24's of UP heritage by de-turbocharging them and blanking the dynamic brakes, but I think they called theirs SD18's as they were very similar to an as-built SD18 and also rated at 1,800 hp.
Jason Kuehn
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 OK . . . I may have already answered this but I'm going to ask anyway: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=94122 The SP units are the only ones that seem to have this truck and the "elephant ears " Did this "new" truck design help in the way of adhesion or ride or nothing?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350 QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 I saw the " By By SD90MAC H2 " thread . . . I'm wondering did EMD ever implement it's 265H engine or is it still in R&D? If the units are coming out of lease then what will happen if 6000hp is going to be needed? Finally what are the main reasons for doing away with the SD90MAC , length , inflexibility , etc . . . Read the rest of that thread. Its been updated with new information.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 I saw the " By By SD90MAC H2 " thread . . . I'm wondering did EMD ever implement it's 265H engine or is it still in R&D? If the units are coming out of lease then what will happen if 6000hp is going to be needed? Finally what are the main reasons for doing away with the SD90MAC , length , inflexibility , etc . . .
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 Noticed this peculiar locomotive: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=77964 Any info on this loco NREX 9402? From thread 23009 on the MR Forum (October 2004): Please try to remember when you've had your questions answered before you re-post them as if they were new. To re-cap: 9402 is functionally an SD-40-2 on an ex-SP SD45-T2 (tunnel motor) frame. Note the bell bracket on the end of the long hood (presently without bell). I'm fascinated that the weight distribution on the trucks of this unit is still correct -- confirmation, perhaps, that most of the extra length in the tunnel-motor architecture is mostly air...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 Noticed this peculiar locomotive: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=77964 Any info on this loco NREX 9402?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie QUOTE: Originally posted by RI4310 NREX is rebuilding alot of old Southern Pacific tunnel motors with standard raidiators and the end result is a standard length hood on a looooong frame left over. theres some pics on railpictures.net. There primer gray with red lettering, looks weird like a liitle boy with daddys shoes on. Long live the rock. a couple of the older engines we see, do look exactly like the little boy and the big shoes. Like they were cobbled together by a committee... Hmm Iwaonder what kind of committee cobbled up the European locomotives or Russian tanks . . . Thanks for the visitation rights, so much trackage and haulage rights!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie QUOTE: Originally posted by RI4310 NREX is rebuilding alot of old Southern Pacific tunnel motors with standard raidiators and the end result is a standard length hood on a looooong frame left over. theres some pics on railpictures.net. There primer gray with red lettering, looks weird like a liitle boy with daddys shoes on. Long live the rock. a couple of the older engines we see, do look exactly like the little boy and the big shoes. Like they were cobbled together by a committee...
QUOTE: Originally posted by RI4310 NREX is rebuilding alot of old Southern Pacific tunnel motors with standard raidiators and the end result is a standard length hood on a looooong frame left over. theres some pics on railpictures.net. There primer gray with red lettering, looks weird like a liitle boy with daddys shoes on. Long live the rock.
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer I looked at both photos. Each one had the notation," 0 comments on this photo".
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod C42-8 is the Dash-8 series with 4200 nominal horsepower. C44-9WL is the special version of the Dash-9 series, 4400 nominal hp, W = wide cab, with the long 4-window cab. I believe the "L" stands for 'long cab' rather than 'light' (the units are 2000lb lighter than standard, according to guilford350's locomotive database, but I don't think this is significant enough to warrant a different designation by itself; I find no difference in the overall frame length or other running-gear spacing that might reflect an "L" for 'long'.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 How much horsepower on a C41-8W?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod Plenty of information on Centipedes -- just restricted to Baldwin fan community and esoteric history. There was very little of their technology that turned out to be useful for the kind of locomotives that prevailed... and have subsequently prevailed... in the marketplace. Engines used in the production Centipedes were typical 608 series; I think all SC and not NA. The chassis was derived from high-speed electric practice of the time (note that PRR, at about the same time the Centipedes were developed, had gone in the opposite direction as far as number of powered axles, with the DD2, but didn't have to accommodate two fairly big diesel engine/generators in a single carbody). All tankage was above the undercarriage, which presented some packaging and seal problems. Cabs AFAIK were comparable to other 'covered wagons' -- no inherent reason why they couldn't be large and spacious as desired; you'll notice they were arbitrarily made with a lower roof height than the 'rest' of the carbody. The articulated undercarriage was massive overkill for the amount of actual horsepower developed, and provided no meaningful gain over what could be achieved with a bunch of A-1-A Blombergs in practice. The fact that you don't see any other Baldwin production designs using it should be illustrative. Much of the unreliability was common to many Baldwins -- lots of little separate lines and routing for oil, for example, led to lots of big and little leaks when the engines got into regular service, indifferent maintenance, etc. If Baldwin had had a Dilworth doing their overall locomotive design, things might have been different. IIRC many of the 'unreliability' problems with the design were solved, but by that time the units were effectively orphans -- some of PRR's were derated and placed in helper service, which was a waste of their 100+mph capacity, but probably a reasonable use of their full-articulated chassis capacity. Baldwin did have one interesting use of the capability of the Centipede idea -- a 6000hp test locomotive in the late '40s that was intended to use modular transverse V-8 engine/generator sets. You slid in more or less power as desired for your intended service, a rather interesting idea then as now. I've read varying accounts of how this project effectively came to go nowhere. There's at least one good book on Baldwin diesels that will tell you all the stuff you're asking about. (I don't own it yet, but rather than do so and then violate the spirit of copyright, I'll just tell you to order it from Amazon or some other source that can procure it new or used)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.