GP 9 : The best diesel ever built?

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding asketh:

"What didn't N&W like about the F-7's, that they did like about the GP-9's?"

Murph - N&W wasn't ready to dieselize in 1952 when the F7s were tested. They were ready in the later 1950s because the cost of running steam locomotives (dollars per gross ton mile per train hour) had finally gotten more than the cost of running diesels.

Maybe you don't realize it - few do - but N&W dieselized for cash - no loans or equipment trusts. This includes servicing and shop facilities. They bought the engines and everything necessary to support them outright.

The only N&W diesels of that era to carry equipment trust plates were a dozen or so GP30s to which the trusts were transferred from the Virginian rectifier electrics, so the rectifiers could be sold.

And the GP9 was a better engine mechanically and electrically than the F7. You'd expect that, with the intervening years. And N&W wouldn't have bought a cab-style unit, anyhow.

Old Timer

[AztecEagle]

I Concur.The GP7 and GP9 Hauled Freight From The Canadian Arctic to The Yucatan Pennisula in Mexico.The Espee Ran Geeps On The Former T&NO Lines(Sunset Route/Dalsa Line/Shiner Branch)Until 1993.Cabooses Wrere Still On Espee Freights on the Shiner Branch through Flatonia Until '92 or '93.My First Cab Ride Was In A GP 20 Though.

[edbenton]

Just remembe evreyone has their opion as to which engine is the best it like the ford V chevy or mopar everyone has their opions and beliefs. Every engine has its good points and bad points. EMD designed there for a longer life span. GE is designed for a shorter life to insure that GE gets new orders. The last big seller for EMD was teh sd-40 and all of its sisters now the cycle has come again and the sd70 series is big. GE went to the u-boats and then the dash-7 and then 8's then 9's. EMD every 30 or so years comes out with a huge seller that allows them to float for a few years. GE has a policy keep improving what we do and the customers will keep ordering newer models.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Yes you can find tehm by spectro however how many shops in the back woods have spectro ablity. I pulled wrenches and spectro is nice when you have it. I have seen blocks scored do to water contamination. The biggest issue on early FDL was the gaskets did not seat right. I would take an external oil leak which I can see to oil coolant in the crankcase anyday of teh week.

For sure. The lower liner seals on the GEs not a problem?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper


Also that summer I got to see (and I think ride in a dynamometer car behind) the F-7 A-B-B-A set that demonstrated on the N&W. Wihtout success at the time. But then seven years later, the N&W was nearly all-diesel with a fleet of .......GP-9's!

What didn't N&W like about the F-7's, that they did like about the GP-9's?

[daveklepper]

Regarding Road Freight Power, only the FT and possibly some F-2's had manual transition. The F-3 had automatic transition and all subsequent F models had it. The GP-7 had automatic transition. I ran one once on the Boston and Maine when I was a test engineer under Ernie Bloss and doing my Bacholor's Thesis at MIT on diesel locomotive load regulator controls. Also at EMD in the summer of 1952 I designed the circuits for reworking the B&O FT's to automatic transition. Other railroads may have used the rework also.

Before the FT was reworked to automatic transition, it could run with later power and did, but had to be the lead locomotive. The engineer would use manual transition on the lead locomotive (usually an FT-A plus FT-B) and the following units would use automatic transition. Obviously, this lacked flexibility, so the B&O asked EMD for a modification package.

Also that summer I got to see (and I think ride in a dynamometer car behind) the F-7 A-B-B-A set that demonstrated on the N&W. Wihtout success at the time. But then seven years later, the N&W was nearly all-diesel with a fleet of .......GP-9's!

[Anonymous]

Quoth edbenton:

"Remember the gp-9 had manual transition at first."

Not so, eb. Early F-7s and maybe GP-7s had manual transition, but the GP-9 was automatic from the first.

And the leaking propensities of the 567 engines are much overstated by oltmannd, et. al.

The U-25's engines were made originally by Cooper-Bessemer, which sort of threw them together knowing they weren't going to get a long-term contract to build engines for GE. They were unreliable. The same engine, under GE manufacture, was much more reliable. The Wabash had early U-25-bs and all were re-engined when GE took over building the FDLs.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

The tourist/educational rr I work for uses an ex-B&O GP-9. Next year is its 50th b-day. Its an amazing workhorse. Easy to start, never fails! Comfortable to sit in for 3 or 4 hours on a Saturday or Sunday. Oh, it actually SOUNDS like a locomotive! That "chug" is awesome!

[edbenton]

you have to remember when EMD started they had teh Winton 201 as their engine. Give GE credit they took the bull by the horns and jumped in with both feet. At the time they did come in GE was a smaller company than GM. If GM had been smart they could have undercut GE to the point that it would have bankrupted GE. Now the early GE's yed they had probelms but GE got thru them. EMD was getting lazy they did not want to turbo the 567 until forced by UP.

[arbfbe]

If the GP9 was the best diesel ever built then the GP38-2 must raise the bar even higher. It will do anything the 9 will do and do it better. The downside to a backwoods operation would be the circuit boards instead of hard wiring and relays but the after market can Fed Ex what ever is need to Dismal Seepage, OK whenever needed.

Of course with the right amount of work any GP9 can become a GP38-2 as well.

The U25B as the best diesel ever built? That is laughable. What a piece of rolling junk these units were. The throttles were absolutely uncomfortable to work with, the heaters were built just backwards, the carbodies and cabs leaked air and ratled all the time. Wheel slip reduced their load capabilities measureably and the trucks rode worse than a lumber truck. How GE ever managed to get to the 30 series amazes me. If Alco had not exited the market and the railroads had the option to buy from more than EMD then GE might have gone from the market. It took GE until the -7 series to build a product competitive with what EMD was building and finally the DASH-9 models to get something reliable in service.

[edbenton]

Yes you can find tehm by spectro however how many shops in the back woods have spectro ablity. I pulled wrenches and spectro is nice when you have it. I have seen blocks scored do to water contamination. The biggest issue on early FDL was the gaskets did not seat right. I would take an external oil leak which I can see to oil coolant in the crankcase anyday of teh week.

[oltmannd]

The 567 plain, A, and B were terrible leakers. The C engine and up were better. Leaks were detectable by spectro looking for the Chromate after the water boiled off.

[edbenton]

Yes I have never operarted a u boat however I have worked on both types of engines. The 567 had a nasty habit of leaking water into the crankcase and turning into mayonase not a god thing for main or rod bearings. The fdl on the other hand yes it leaked oil But it would not turn the bearings into so much scarp. It did have its problems and was not the best design when it came out. GE stuck with the same design and model of engine just made improments to it. EMD on the other hand had the 567 a-d series and then the 645 series a-d and now the 710 series and then the H series.

[oltmannd]

The U25B was inovative, but a miserable locomotive in just about every other respect. A slimy, oily, gooey mess of a locomotive to try to keep running. This thread is about the "best" - which presumably would include every aspect, not just design inovation.

[ValleyX]

You think people hate GE because they replaced Alco? I'm aghast.

As for the U-25-B, what a miserable engine to operate and its obvious that you never operated one, you are telling your very best mechanical opinion. That's ok but, as someone already pointed out, how many can you find today?

[edbenton]

Yes old timer the u-25 had its problems so does everything. Remember the gp-9 had manual transition at first. A 4 stroke never loads as fast as a 2 stroke do to simple mechanics. Yet around here a short line the IL Railnet RETIRED its CF-7 in favor of GE and I talked to a crew the GE actually rides better than the CF-7. But the biggest probelm everyone has with GE is they REPLACED ALCO!!!

[Anonymous]

edbenton -

There are a couple of drawbacks to the U-25-b that outweigh all those advantages you list.

First - with that 3-foot 16-notch throttle, they were more than unhandy to run; the GP9 was a very pleasant locomotive to run. Did you ever pick up and set out on line of road with a U-25? No contest, unless you were an octopus.

Second - they'd never load up fast enough to be a good switch engine, which a GP9 would do.
Third - compared to a GP9 with its Blomberg trucks, the U-boat rode like a log wagon.

GE might have gone to the railroads and asked them what they wanted, but they sure didn't ask the guys who were going to have to run them.

Old Timer

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

CSX rules4eva said:

"Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it's low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. "

The low gear ratio comment is not true. All of CSX's big ACs can cruise at 75 MPH, which is higher than the freight gearing EMD supplied with the orginal GP9.

62:15 gearing gets you 65 or 70 mph on a GP9, depending on how close to the edge you like to live. Not a big difference with the 75 mph AC loco limit.

Passenger gearing on a GP9 would generally get you 90-100 mph - quite a bit faster than 75 mph. Back when GPs were being purchased, many roads still had one or more divisions with train control that allowed operation >79 mph. I think that's what Sarah is talking about.....

Only somewhat true. The "speed limit" on an AC locomotive is not as directly gear-ratio driven as on the GP9. On GE AC's the speed limit is simply a programmable feature in the control computer. Both AC4400's and AC6000's have a traction motor capacity in excess of 110 MPH. However, the thought of a CSX 440,000 lb "rail crusher" AC60CW entering a curve at 110 MPH somewhat scares me...

[PBenham]

I neglected to mention that New Haven bought GP9s in their infamous 1956 diesel order, that almost killed their electrification!

[tree68]

Certainly can't question the points given - they would tend to point toward the U25B furthering the cause of, and improving, the diesel electric. But how many are still on the road?

[edbenton]

I know I am going to be drawn and quartered on this one. In my opinion the best engine is the U-25-B. Now before you get the rope ready here are my points for it. 1st with a pressuzied air intake system that used a single air filter. 2 pressurized carbody that kept dirt and junk from getting in the motoor in the first place. 3 It had the FDL-16 engine the same engine that with simple changes got all the way up to 4400 HP. 4 The first true second generation unit, without GE coming out with these the GP30 on up would not have come out when it did. GE forced EMD to come out with a better product than it wanted to. GM had gotten lazy on locomotive design. 5 GE went to the railroads and asked them what they wanted in a new engine andgave it to them.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

CSX rules4eva said:

"Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it's low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. "

The low gear ratio comment is not true. All of CSX's big ACs can cruise at 75 MPH, which is higher than the freight gearing EMD supplied with the orginal GP9.

62:15 gearing gets you 65 or 70 mph on a GP9, depending on how close to the edge you like to live. Not a big difference with the 75 mph AC loco limit.

Passenger gearing on a GP9 would generally get you 90-100 mph - quite a bit faster than 75 mph. Back when GPs were being purchased, many roads still had one or more divisions with train control that allowed operation >79 mph. I think that's what Sarah is talking about.....

[trainboyH16-44]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

I have never operated one, I do like them though. I grew up with Southern Pacific (and then San Joaquin Valley Railroad) GP9s powering the local trains. Coincidentally, I saw one today. Fortunately, SJVR still has two (1763 and 1764). Unfortunately, they sold off 1751, 1754, 1755, and (possibly) 1761 a couple of years ago. I suspect that 1751 and 1755 are now with Great Smokey Mountains Railroad. I hear that 1754 (the first SJVR locomotive I photographed) is now with San Pedro & Southwestern.

Hey Eric,
The Lake County Railroad just aquired former SJVR 1761 from Western Rails Inc of Spokane, WA and it is currently in service on the LCRR.

Thanks for the information. It looks like I will have to go up there some time.

I see they rebuilt and sold SJVR 1755 also. They probably also got SJVR 1751
http://www.westernrailinc.com/rebuild.htm


I also found a page that has SJVR 1761 on it..
http://www.westernrailinc.com/loci3.htm#gp9W

I wonder if all three of those GP9s headed north on the same train. If so I would have liked to have seen it.

What? They stole my paint scheme!

The GP9 is the best all purpose diesel in my books! The only one I like better is the SD40-2. The H16-44 you may ask? It cetainly is one of my favorites, but it was not popular for good reasons. I am not a sellout!
Matthew

[GP40-2]

CSX rules4eva said:

"Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it's low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. "

The low gear ratio comment is not true. All of CSX's big ACs can cruise at 75 MPH, which is higher than the freight gearing EMD supplied with the orginal GP9.

[oltmannd]

Sarah-

Your points are right on. If they weren't, the RRs would just be rebuilding GP9s instead of purchasing new!

A couple of points of clarification, though. The HTCR produces track forces very similar to a GP and high degree of curvature track. It's really not an improvement. It is a BIG improvement over the HTC and Flexicoil trucks, however.

An onboard flange lube system is something that can be added to any locomtive. They do save fuel, but are a huge pain to maintain - and since the "cost" occurs to the mechanical dept and failure does not stop a locomotive from pulling a train - but the benefit accrues to the transportation dept (fuel is in their budget), flange lube systems are often inoperative.

I have no idea how the HTCR would do at high speed (>80 mph). But at those speeds, the extra TE from a 6 axle is usually not needed and four axles rule the roost.

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

I still say it's the best ever deisel.

GP9's are best because it was more versatile and easy to use in the widest range of train services. Light enough for branch lines, quick enough for switching moves, fast enough for fast passenger trains, good for commuter trains, multiplied easily for more power and long consists, negotiates sharper curves and bad track then those big 6 axles, reliable, good visabilty when the short hood was cut down, long life , many still in use, some rebuilt extensively, some very original. What other engine type can or might meet or exeed all of this? Sure modern tech engines can exeed in limited types of train service of today but how will they stand up over 50 years? But to me an AC4400W or what ever they call them doesn't look like it could also handle fast passenger trains and they are terrible for switching already.

A GP9 was a product of its time but was usefull in all the times since. Todays engines are not even good for all of todays trains.

I still see alot of them in regular service on class ones and short lines. Although mostly in switching and roadswitchers, I still see them in fast freight and heavy freight.

I do have to agree with you on the GP9's diversified applications. Overall, I support you concept that the GP9 is an excellent locomotive. I do have to say that it was an excellent locomotive of it's time, it was considered to be advanced locomotive technology, all in one package. The GP9 is also a good locomotive to have for inter city passenger service, shortline applications, and switching movements. However, it isn't too good in terms of todays high speed intermodel, slow haul heavy freight, mixed freight, or any other form of present time mainline traffic.

In todays terms, it is considered outdated. Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it's low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. Also, the todays demads of hightened (spelling) freight traffic requires the the extra pulling power, at a relitivly low cost to that compared with useing a GP9 or five to match the horsepower of one modern locmotive. I'm going to also point out that many modern locomotives are euiped with steerable radial trucks vs. the ridged (spelling) design of the GP9. For example EMD's HTCR II truck allows the axles on the truck to align exactly to the curviture of the track, there is also a rail flang luber which prevents excessive wear on the rail and wheels of the axles, it also saves on fuel consumption. Unfortunitlly, (spelling) the GP9's trucks are not designed in this mannor and do tend to cause a high angle of attack on both the wheels and rail.

[DPD1]

I guess it depends on who you ask... A lot of guys I've talked to that have been around a while, really liked the SD9... and actually still prefer it over some of the modern power today. I've often heard old heads say they don't like any of the geeps, because the ride is rougher.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Well yeeeeeeeeeeees, I guess you could make a pretty good aurgument in favor of the Geeps but....

Lets not forget the venerable SW series, lots of them lasted a very very long time also doing work every day of their lives, just not as glamourously as Miss Highnose.

[:D] The elevators around here that don't have a GP 9 usually have an SW. Seems both are pretty much made out of the same parts?

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

I have never operated one, I do like them though. I grew up with Southern Pacific (and then San Joaquin Valley Railroad) GP9s powering the local trains. Coincidentally, I saw one today. Fortunately, SJVR still has two (1763 and 1764). Unfortunately, they sold off 1751, 1754, 1755, and (possibly) 1761 a couple of years ago. I suspect that 1751 and 1755 are now with Great Smokey Mountains Railroad. I hear that 1754 (the first SJVR locomotive I photographed) is now with San Pedro & Southwestern.

Hey Eric,
The Lake County Railroad just aquired former SJVR 1761 from Western Rails Inc of Spokane, WA and it is currently in service on the LCRR.

Thanks for the information. It looks like I will have to go up there some time.

I see they rebuilt and sold SJVR 1755 also. They probably also got SJVR 1751
http://www.westernrailinc.com/rebuild.htm


I also found a page that has SJVR 1761 on it..
http://www.westernrailinc.com/loci3.htm#gp9W

I wonder if all three of those GP9s headed north on the same train. If so I would have liked to have seen it.