Who Is Getting SD-90 6000hp

[Anonymous]

Does anyone out there know if other roads like BNSF are looking to get any of the 6000hp SD-90's

[Jackflash]

Dont know for sure, but I doubt it...jackflash

[Anonymous]

According to both TRAINS and EXTRA 2200 South,not only are there no orders for 6,000HP units from either builder,but no prospects for any. In fact it's conceivable that many of the already delivered units may get new lower horsepower engines,as CSX has started doing with some of their AC6000CW fleet(being converted to AC4400CW's).UP bought significant numbers of AC60/44 and SD90/43 units,which were meant to be upgraded with 6000HP prime movers once the bugs were worked out,now it's almost a certainty that they won't be.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why anyone would want one. They wont run long enough to get to one of the railroads. That is why GE has sold some 6000 hp locomotives. They ran to the buyer and also was able to haul freight in revenue service.

[Anonymous]

I think that new railraod the "NORFORK AND WAY" ordered about 76 and a half units. GE is going to build another 150 for warrenty protection. :-)

[colsul]

Excuse my ignorance gang, but what are the main problems with the AC 6000's? Is it too high fuel consumption or were they rushed into service without the bugs being ironed out first? BHP runs a dozen of the GE 6000hp here in the North West of Australia pulling monster sized loads of iron ore, and they seem to love them.

[Anonymous]

Now, now...This is a family place!

[Anonymous]

The big complaints with the AC6000CW and SD90MAC-H have been numerous mechanical problems,excessive vibration in the cabs,and perhaps most importantly,excessive rail wear and actual damage to the trackwork.

[Anonymous]

uprr os using them now

[Jackflash]

I had 106 loaded coal cars and two AC6000 locos
the trailing unit was acting up and quit on a
up hill pull going into the power plant and the
whole train sat down, if I would have had three
SD 40s I would have pulled the train on in to the
plant, this is the problem with the high horsepower locomotives, the carriers want to
total the horsepower regardless of the units
pulling on the point, but...if one goes down
you dont go anywhere, this would be like if
you had four locomotives pulling and you lost
two of the four, you might loose one engine
but un likely to loose half of your power
unless all you have is two engines to start
with. Re-build and re-paint the SD40-2
and/or build some more as it is probably the
best locomotive to ever pull a train.
jackflash

[Anonymous]

I here you there. SD40-2 is one of the most reliable loco's out there. Up and BNSF is retaining quite a few for service. New technology is not necessary better reliability sometimes. Especially AC or 6000Hp power. GE is having problems with their powerplants, just like EMD. I don't know if anyone is a winner with 6000HP.

[oltmannd]

The problem with the SD40-2 vs a new unit is fuel consumption. It'll burn 20% more to do the same job. If you're in low utilization or part time service, it's no big deal, but if you're in mainline service you'll be burning 300,000 to 400,000 gallons per unit per year. At $0.70 per gallon, that's on the order of $50,000 a year.

Reduction in the number of units owned is also big incentive to purchase new ones. Fewer locos to inspect and fewer parts to maintain represents huge savings even if reliability isn't quite as good.

-Don

[Anonymous]

Huge credit to those SD40-2s. Let me tell you all. I live near Altoona, PA right above the Gallitzin Tunnels. NS and former Conrail SD40-2s are the helper units that push and sometimes pull heavy trains up and down the steep grades of this mountain. They usually sound like they are about to implode, and a few engineers have mentioned they are like riding in a tin can-big piece of junk, but when it comes to reliable service to get the job done, they never fail. NS has no AC locomotives, except for 16 SD80MACS, which it uses for local service only. I think AC would be the way to go with the mountain, but evidently those good ole SD40-2s do the job quite fine.

Last weekend home for a bit, took a walk down over the hill, heard a train for 25 minutes, then finally saw it, I could walk with it, that's how slow it was moving. There were 2 SD40-2s on the front, a new D9-40CW, and two GP 38s, which looked and sounded like they were going to implode. and on the back end, with the sand storm trail, needed for traction, another pair of the helpers SD40-2s.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I'm suprised that we haven't seen any SD40-2 being rebuilt with 12-710Gs rated at 3000hp or 16-710Gs rated at 4000hp. I mean with a few modifications a 16-710G should drop right into the engine compartment of a SD40-2 essentially making it a SD70-2. Or just use a 12cyl model and drop it into the compartment with even less modifications (I'm guessing) to keep the horsepower the same. I say this because I have seen 16-567 replaced with a 16-645. And the original GP40X (the single GP40 test unit built on a GP35 frame) had a 3000hp 16-645E3 in the same space that a 16-567D3A would have occupied in a standard GP35. Any other thoughts on this subject?[:)][:D][8D][;)]

[dekemd]

If I remember correctly, the AC6000 has the same prime mover as the AC4400. GE did a few modifications and basically oversped the thing to get the 6000 hp number. Works good for a while, but it just couldn't stay together in the long run. EMD developed a completely new engine, but there were some weak spots in the block design that caused the engine to blow the crankcase apart. EMD has a fix for their engine but by then most railroads had swore off 6000 HP units.

Derrick

[Anonymous]

Several reports suggest that GM is in serious talks with a couple of financial firms (no transportation connection) about selling EMD [:0][:(][:(!]. We could see an all GE market in the future, which is bad news for RRs, since many GEs have engine flaws, and maintainence issues. Here is an article from the Associated Press:

GM in discussions with investment group over sale of locomotive plant

The Associated Press
9/16/03 2:35 AM


LONDON, Ont. (CP) -- A U.S. investment group with $1 billion in its pocket is in "serious discussions" to buy General Motors' Electro-Motive Division.

The possible sale of the locomotive builder to an investment group, and not a manufacturer, has sparked worry among the division's 580 workers in London, 80 miles east of Detroit.

Berkshire Partners of Boston and Greenbrier Equity Group are the two companies involved in negotiations, the London Free Press reported Tuesday.

"There are serious discussions under way," a spokesperson for the investors said.

Berkshire and Greenbrier have more than $1 billion available to invest in transportation-related companies, according to Berkshire's Web site.

Greenbrier's partners include Jerry Greenwald, former chairman and chief executive officer of UAL Corp., parent company of United Airlines, and former chief financial officer of Chrysler Corp.

The investors spokesperson said no decision was imminent and union leaders would be involved in any final details.

"There is a carefully managed process under way. The union's view of the outcome is an important factor in any decision."

Canadian Auto Workers union leaders said they're worried about the possibility of an investment group buying the London plant.

"An investment group buying it isn't very good news," said Terry Mason, Local 27 plant chairperson. "They are interested in making money rather than locomotives. They may want to turn it over for a profit or split it up and sell off parts for a profit."

[Anonymous]

From the pages of London ONT newspaper


A U.S. investment group with $1 billion US is in "serious discussions" to buy General Motors Electro-Motive Division, including its 580-job plant in London. The possible sale of the locomotive builder to an investment group, not a manufacturer, has sparked worry among workers and prompted one city councillor to ask for quick action from city hall.

"I want the economic development people to move on this and not wait to find out in five or six days, it's gone," Coun. Bernie MacDonald said.

After calls from anxious workers and business leaders, MacDonald urged the mayor and London Economic Development Corp. last night to investigate the possible sale and meet new owners to ensure jobs stay in London.

"We will certainly do our part for that," Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco promised.

Berkshire Partners of Boston and Greenbrier Equity Group are the two companies involved in negotiations, The Free Press has learned.

"There are serious discussions under way," said a spokesperson for investors.

Berkshire and Greenbrier have more than $1 billion US available to invest in transportation-related companies, a Berkshire website says.

Greenbrier's partners include Jerry Greenwald, former chairperson and chief executive of UAL Corp., parent company of United Airlines, and former chief financial officer of Chrysler Corp.

The investors' spokesperson said no decision was imminent and union leaders would be involved in any final details.

"There is a carefully managed process underway. The union's view of the outcome is an important factor in any decision."

London plant union leaders said they're worried about the possibility of an investment group buying the plant.

"The concern is that it's not a Bombardier," said Terry Mason, Canadian Auto Workers Local 27 plant chairperson.

"An investment group buying it isn't very good news. They are interested in making money, rather than locomotives. They may want to turn it over for a profit or split it up and sell off parts for a profit.

"We've been through a rough couple of years and the defence division was sold."

Owned by automaker General Motors, which has been trying to focus on its core car and truck business, the locomotive plant was part of a sprawling Oxford Street complex that included GM's defence division until the company sold that to giant U.S. defence contractor General Dynamics last year.

The locomotive plant faces layoffs by year-end if new orders aren't brought in.

"Would we be surprised by a sale? Obviously not," said Tim Carrie, president of Local 27.

"It (London) has been up for sale for quite some time."

But there's no point worrying about rumours, Carrie said.

The CAW's contract with GM ends in 2005 and a new buyer would inherit it, Carrie said.

But MacDonald said he doesn't want to take any chances. London can't afford to lose any more companies, he said.

"(Some) just left and nobody really did much or said much."

A GM spokesperson said there was no announcement coming this week.

"There is certainly nothing to announce on this today or any time soon," said Curt Swenson, GM spokesperson in LaGrange, Ill.

CHRONOLOGY

- September 1949: Construction begins on General Motors Diesel Ltd.'s London plant on Oxford Street.

- June 1950: Production begins.

- Sept. 15, 1950: Canadian Pacific Railway takes delivery of first locomotives produced at the plant.

- July 1957: The Aerotrain, the forerunner of modern Canadian-built high-speed trains, is tested.

- June 1971: Terex, the world's largest dump truck, later renamed Titan, is tested and production planned.

- 1976: GM Diesel adds defence division.

- 1977: Company wins contract to supply Canadian Forces with 491 light-armoured vehicles valued at $170 million.

- October 1978: Transit bus line is shut down.

- September 1982: $625-million contract awarded to build 969 light-armoured vehicles for U.S. Marine Corps.

- January 1985: Production of Terex Titan stops.

- October 1987: GM Diesel awarded $17-million contract for 12 light armoured vehicles for the U.S. Marine Corps, an important step in what would become a huge contract.

- June 1991: Federal government passes Bill C-6 to allow export of automatic weapons. Sale of light-armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia depends on bill.

- October 1999: $20-million capital investment announced for London plant.

- August 2000: GM Diesel Defense Division changes name to GM Defense.

- November 2000: GM Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems land $6-billion joint contract -- the largest industrial deal in London's history -- to build 2,131 light armoured vehicles for U.S. Army.

- February 2002: GM Defense names London global headquarters for all GM Defense work.

- Dec. 6, 2002: About 870 workers in the Electro-Motive Division receive layoff notices, as the company winds down a massive U.S. railway order.

- Dec. 19, 2002: General Dynamics buys GM Defense for $1.1-billion US.


If one of these deals go through, it will be very sad news for the RR industry. What the HE double hockey sticks is GM thinking!!??[B)][V][V][V] Any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

I say drop motors back into the SD-40 2's and keep them running. Not like there are just a few out there. About EMD, there were rumors before about GM writing off the company long before this. It was like they were just in it to make a few more bucks (ha ha).

[Anonymous]

Hey Dekemd, the GE primemover in the AC6000 is a different design. It is not a turned up FDL. If I remember right it was a Deutz design. Looking at the thing, it is very different, twin turbos, etc. I think that GE was involved in a lawsuit against Deutz for the crappy outcome of their design. I was on a CSX unit with the big motor and was surprised that it seemed not to vibrate as bad as the 4400. Maybe because it was derated to 4700 ponies, who knows.
Ken

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railpac

Frankly, I'm suprised that we haven't seen any SD40-2 being rebuilt with 12-710Gs rated at 3000hp or 16-710Gs rated at 4000hp. I mean with a few modifications a 16-710G should drop right into the engine compartment of a SD40-2 essentially making it a SD70-2. Or just use a 12cyl model and drop it into the compartment with even less modifications (I'm guessing) to keep the horsepower the same. I say this because I have seen 16-567 replaced with a 16-645. And the original GP40X (the single GP40 test unit built on a GP35 frame) had a 3000hp 16-645E3 in the same space that a 16-567D3A would have occupied in a standard GP35. Any other thoughts on this subject?[:)][:D][8D][;)]

Well, there's a few problems. The engine will drop right in, but you won't gain anything except 3-4% in fuel economy. Much of the fuel economy measures on newer units are based on controlling auxiliarly HP, i.e. TM blower, cooling fans, air compressor, etc. Also, starting with the SD50, EMD went to a new main generator with two sets of windings so transition is made on the main generator rather than the traction motor connections. You'd also be missing out on a higher rated traction motor and wheel creep control for higher adhesion. So, to get SD60 performance out of an SD40-2, you basically be keeping the frame, cab, DB hatch, trucks and air compressor - everything else would have to be new - and that just gets you and SD60. If you want SD70 performance, you need new trucks and air compressor as well. Might as well just buy new.....

SD40-2s will soldier on in low fuel consumption applications for long, long time, however.

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Hey Dekemd, the GE primemover in the AC6000 is a different design. It is not a turned up FDL. If I remember right it was a Deutz design. Looking at the thing, it is very different, twin turbos, etc. I think that GE was involved in a lawsuit against Deutz for the crappy outcome of their design. I was on a CSX unit with the big motor and was surprised that it seemed not to vibrate as bad as the 4400. Maybe because it was derated to 4700 ponies, who knows.
Ken

Thanks for the correction. Just shows you can't believe everything you hear. I've never had the opportunity to compare the two. I don't see a lot of the AC6000s. A few come through every now and then, but there's more AC4400s around here than you can shake a stick at. Not a lot of variety. Did have two UP SD70MACs come through last week, which is really rare for North Carolina.

Derrick

[Anonymous]

The only major difference between a 645 and a 710 is the piston stroke is 1 inch longer which makes the engine 1 inch taller. All other engine dimentions are the same.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

The only major difference between a 645 and a 710 is the piston stroke is 1 inch longer which makes the engine 1 inch taller. All other engine dimentions are the same.

Exactly my point, with just a few modifications, a 710G would drop right into the carbody of a SD40-2, just like a 645 will fit in the place of a 567. SD70-2 the preformance and engine of a new locomotive, in a proven and known-to-be reliable locomotive the SD40-2.

[Anonymous]

Sounds good to me. When do we start ????????? LOL

[jgfuller]

Interesting that no one has mentioned SD70s. Big advantage I've seen is the radial truck. That, increased reliability, and better fuel economy would all be motivation to buy new SD70s, rather than rebuild 20-30 year old SD40s. Yes, they are new, but UP says the availability of their 1200 new SD70s is 96%. And they got these AFTER experiencing ACs of both builders. UP uses them in every type of road service. When SP got their 25, along with another 25 leased from EMD, the power delays at Roseville vanished! A fine locomotive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgfuller

Interesting that no one has mentioned SD70s. Big advantage I've seen is the radial truck. That, increased reliability, and better fuel economy would all be motivation to buy new SD70s, rather than rebuild 20-30 year old SD40s. Yes, they are new, but UP says the availability of their 1200 new SD70s is 96%. And they got these AFTER experiencing ACs of both builders. UP uses them in every type of road service. When SP got their 25, along with another 25 leased from EMD, the power delays at Roseville vanished! A fine locomotive.

Thanks from an ex-EMD engine support systems engineer!

The love of the SD40-2's is understandable. The issue with running a 710 in an SD40-2 is not having compatible engine support systems (radiators, oil and fuel filters, fuel pump etc.), generator, control system, etc. Plus the new 710 has electronic fuel injection, split aftercooling, and a ton of other refinements that are truly decades beyond the beloved SD40-2. The engine and locomotive go hand-in-hand for the most part. Our friend jgfuller's point is a good one. Focus on the SD70 reliability and keep them as simple as possible!

I was there for the big 6000 HP push and I knew it was going to be ugly on both sides. GE bought an engine off the shelf and got in the race quick but it was not meant to be on a locomotive. They had main bearing issues from the beginning. We on the other hand started from scratch with a new four-cycle design with a still developing locomotive (the phase II). The H-engine is a good engine but the whole locomotive has been plagued with issues. The SD90MAC-H's time may have passed, unfortunately.

With the emissions requirements the future is the H-engine. Look for it with 12 cylinders producing 4500 THP on something called an SD75MAC...

[Anonymous]

i think that the sd40-2 will always outperform any of these new a.c. traction units any day. yeah, they may gulp a little more fuel, but you need PERFORMANCE in a railroad. the sd40-2 was, and still is the answer. i think it is a little too late for enviromental concerns concerning this model. look at all the cars, trucks, jet planes, forrest fires, industries, spacecraft that pukes smoke in the air, and, all the years that diesl fuel has been burned, from locomotives in the past. does it really matter now? the planet is fine, the people are the ones in trouble. UP had an incident where the "wonderful" ac44's broke down, and what came to save the day? a single sd40-2, took that train to where it had to be. GE & EMD like to put crankshafts in 6000 hp blocks that can't crank out the juice, and, ...snap!! it is a shop unit once again. the sd40-2 and the c30-7 were, and are still the top models for these companies. but, there was always ALCO!!!

[Anonymous]

Well the passion for the SD40-2 is noteworthy, but its for Congress and the railroads to decide. And decide they will. We will sit on the sidelines and continue to watch. If the railroads overhaul SD40's, buy AC4400's or SD70's, or whatever, it will be for what works for that particular railroad or service. Back in the late 90's the CSX folks I worked with said they planned on keeping their SD40-2 fleet running as long as they could, and it still looks that way.

Let's remember history, the SD40's took many years to develop so maybe (just maybe) if the bugs get worked out 6000 HP locomotives will return. For now I wouldn't put my money on it. To answer the original thread question: no one that I know of (from my contacts back in LaGrange.)

Our point about the DC SD70's is that they are running very well, which is the ultimate goal. Maybe the C44's are too, I don't know. I would guess they are from the new BNSF orders. The point that we all agree on is that they have to run, whatever model, whatever manufacturer!

When I rode the 4300 HP SD90MAC's I thought it was incredable watching 185,000 lbs of tractive effort show on the screen while we were doing 1.1 mph in TH 8. Or when the crew of a CR eastbound manifest train didn't believe that they could stop the train with just the dynamic brakes of two SD80MAC's coming downhill into Altoona with our train still on the mountain. Or when we accelerated up the mountains of western MASS after having to stop on the grade (with all 10000 HP and 40 cylinders!). So keep in mind that this stuff is fabulous when it works, it may just take more time to get 6000 HP up to reasonable reliability. I don't expect the railroads to buy new ones but they haven't scrapped the ones they have yet. I know there are people in LaGrange and Erie working very hard on it.

[jgfuller]

Very interesting insights from one who has built the locos! ACs have worked very well in heavy haul service -- the problems so far seem more with the diesel rather than the transmission. 6k HP is a lot in a mobile environment. So far as I know, UP doesn't use their 70s much in coal service. And the tractive effort advantages of ACs in general service may be offset by higher first cost. As many of those posting have noted, it's the reliability of the 40 that is important. The 70 does all that, in a newer package. I'd predict that in time the 70 will supplant the 40 as an icon of consistency.

How have lower HP ACs fared, compared with the high HP models? Hooking up a 710 engine with an AC transmission and radial trucks sounds good -- I guess this would be an SD80MAC (or 70MAC), eh? UP shows having 300 SD9043ACs, with 4300 HP, but no other EMD ACs besides 62 6k HP models. And about 1000 GE 4k ACs, compared with 60 6k units. So this HP seems to work OK with either transmission. One had to wonder when EMD had to go to a 4-cycle design to get 6k HP -- good grief, an EMD that sounds like a GE!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgfuller

Very interesting insights from one who has built the locos! ACs have worked very well in heavy haul service -- the problems so far seem more with the diesel rather than the transmission. 6k HP is a lot in a mobile environment. So far as I know, UP doesn't use their 70s much in coal service. And the tractive effort advantages of ACs in general service may be offset by higher first cost. As many of those posting have noted, it's the reliability of the 40 that is important. The 70 does all that, in a newer package. I'd predict that in time the 70 will supplant the 40 as an icon of consistency.

How have lower HP ACs fared, compared with the high HP models? Hooking up a 710 engine with an AC transmission and radial trucks sounds good -- I guess this would be an SD80MAC (or 70MAC), eh? UP shows having 300 SD9043ACs, with 4300 HP, but no other EMD ACs besides 62 6k HP models. And about 1000 GE 4k ACs, compared with 60 6k units. So this HP seems to work OK with either transmission. One had to wonder when EMD had to go to a 4-cycle design to get 6k HP -- good grief, an EMD that sounds like a GE!!

The 4000-to-4400 HP AC's have been much more reliable but not quite as good as the DC fleets. So AC has been great for the railroads bottom line, three units replacing five DC's for unit trains, etc. Yes, especially in the coal business where higher HP (or top speed) is not needed. They may not run like DC's or the good old SD40-2's but most often the trains make it to their destination even if one of three units has failed. ...and those missing two units (#4 & 5) didn't burn all that fuel! If it wasn't obvious, fuel is the rr's #1 operating expense. The other point is that the AC's can struggle along at ridiculously low speed and still get home, when a DC consist would have stalled. You cannot burn up an AC motor and there are no "short time" ratings like the DC's.

What crossed the line was 2-for-1 replacement and/or single unit consists, with a less reliable 6000 HP unit. That creates more "dead-on-the-road" type failures. I haven't been around since they've been in prime-time but all you have to know are the MTBF (mean time between failure) numbers to know its been painful.

Again the theory was great, save over half the fuel costs every trip. That would pay for those 2-point-whatever million dollar locos in no time. [:I]However, the 6k HP units needed to run 25-40% BETTER than their lower HP brothers to avoid trains being broken down on the mainline. Any reasonable person knows that is a long shot given the additional variables of new engines and all the new systems that go with them. Again, I'm not around anymore to know where that line is so I don't know how close they are. I fear its not close enough.

BTW, the fabricated crankcase of the 2-cycle engine was at its limit and would have been way too expensive to make for that HP, so that as well as fuel efficiency and emissions lead to the cast crankcase, 4-cycle H engine. (I am not saying the 710 has emissions issues) It doesn't really sound like a GE but it is a long way from my favorite 20 cylinder 710's on the 80MAC's. Find those things and video as much as possible...[:)]