SDP40F Question

[narig01]

The other comment I'll make is on some of the eastern runs on what was PC & then Conrail trackage  Amtrak didn't have much problem their. But had real problems keeping trains on time due to many slow orders(that were observed) caused by bad track.

       As I said was BN's problem a combination of things. That simply pushed things beyond a tipping point?

Rgds IGN

[Stevo3751]

I thought the problems the SDP40Fs had were blamed on the steam boilers. When Santa Fe rebuilt them in San Bernardino, they removed the steam boilers and never had many problems with them after that.

[narig01]

RE SDP40F's.   Some of the blame was put on something called a hollow bolster truck. I remember reading that there were complaints about the units having a very rough ride.

         I will comment this. Burlington Northern (pre BNSF merger)had the worst experiance with the units and Santa Fe the best.   Union Pacific engineers regularlly pushed the units as fast as they would go across Wyoming(I remember timing a trip at speeds in excess of 80 mph).

       In 1976 I had a USA railpass & I took a trip on the SF Zepher from Emeryville to Chicago. From what I remember UP's tracks across Wy were the best & the BN tracks from Denver East were the roughest.   Best part was watching a lightning storm in the Dome Obs lounge.

      My opinion was probably the combination of questionable tracking & rough tracks that had not been slow ordered may have just been a bad combination.   At the time BN was running a massive amount of coal across their tracks. BN had just opened up the Powder River basin a few years earlier.

       The other thing I remember was that the Engineer was the youngest (at 23 ) of any railroad engineer running passenger trains. The thing I think I heard was that the senior crews liked running the coal trains.     Denver East to Chicago was I think were BN was having most of the derailments with the SDP40F's.

       I do not remember BN having problems on the ex GN tracks.

Also the HT-C Trucks were being used on SD-40-2's & SD 45-2's. Amtrak was using a slightly different truck on their units(the above mentioned hollow bolster truck).

       The main reason Amtrak traded the units I think was a combination of cost ( I would suspect that EMD may have given Amtrak considerable amounts of trade in credit to avoid other complications) Also the F40's turned out to be the premier passenger unit of the era.

 

Rgds IGN

[dharmon]

Whoa...dude.....I mean I don't swing by real often..but ..whoa....a serious blast from the past.  I see the random post distributor has been re-energized.

This was one of my first posts on the forum.....weeeird...

Dan

I thought you must have given up entirely!

I don't think the forum has been the same since they split the topics.

I can't have seen this post the first time around, because somewhere I have the NTSB report which was really unsatisfactory, and it was only when someone mentioned the water tanks I realised what was happening - the FP45s had their water in split fuel tanks, something to do with having four more cylinders and no space above the frame.

Are you still with the USN? I seem to have become a permanent feature of the Canberra Defence offices, as soon as I reached the maximum age, they raised it by five years...

Peter

Peter,

 

Yep, still with the USN.  I hit retirement eligibility next year, so I'll see where it goes from there.   I figure I ought to figure out pretty soon what I want to do when I grow up. 

 

Dan

 

[AntonioFP45]

I was at the right place and time back in the late 70s in my teen years.  I befriended an SCL locomotive engineer who ran the Champion, and then the Silver Meteor after Amtrak eliminated the Champ. He had seen me often on the mainline and always returned my waves.  After he saw me one day with a camera at the station, he started asking me questions about photography. 

He ran the trains southbound from Tampa to St. Petersburg in the morning, and then made a return trip with a northbound Meteor in the late afternoon.  He often allowed me in the cab when he arrived in Tampa. He and the fireman were good, down to earth guys.   I took quite a few shots of the big SDPs. Inspite of the derailments, he told me that he liked those giants and was very impressed with their ability to take off fast with a long passenger train, whether single or double headed. Remember, the Silver Meteor was sometimes 17 cars long back in the 70s! Add to that this gentleman had also operated E units on the ACL and later SCL.  When the F40s finally showed up in 1981 on east coast LD trains, he was not happy with them at all and wished that Amtrak had kept the SDPs.  He's retired now but I stay in touch with him. 

As pointed out by a friend of mine, had Amtrak converted the big jacks to HEP, eliminated the split water tank and the twin steam generators on the skids, this locomotive's balance problems might have been virtually eliminated.  It could have been as respected in passenger service as the SD40-2 was in freight.  Amtrak's move seemed to be more "PR and political" then practical.

BTW:  Where can one find the info about the trucks being swapped on the 18 units after Santa Fe got them?

I'm hoping to eventually post my own photos online soon.  Lot of fond memories of these sleek cowls that I can never forget.

Now if only someone would produce a decent, model (flat-nosed version).

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=224925&nseq=5

 

[M636C]

Whoa...dude.....I mean I don't swing by real often..but ..whoa....a serious blast from the past.  I see the random post distributor has been re-energized.

This was one of my first posts on the forum.....weeeird...

Dan

I thought you must have given up entirely!

I don't think the forum has been the same since they split the topics.

I can't have seen this post the first time around, because somewhere I have the NTSB report which was really unsatisfactory, and it was only when someone mentioned the water tanks I realised what was happening - the FP45s had their water in split fuel tanks, something to do with having four more cylinders and no space above the frame.

Are you still with the USN? I seem to have become a permanent feature of the Canberra Defence offices, as soon as I reached the maximum age, they raised it by five years...

Peter

[dharmon]

Whoa...dude.....I mean I don't swing by real often..but ..whoa....a serious blast from the past.  I see the random post distributor has been re-energized.

This was one of my first posts on the forum.....weeeird...

Dan

[alcodave]

I always have thought they were cool looking locomotives and wondered why they seemed so short lived on amtrak. this thread was interesting.

[M636C]

Wow, a 2003 thread with last post in 2007!

There is a theory around these days that the SDP40F problem was not related to the special truck design but was due to the big water tanks located over the rear truck, as alluded to by beaulieu in the last post.

The high location of the water tank, and some weight transfer due to curving, and the resulting high centre of gravity turned the rail over under the trailing truck due to high lateral forces, which are pretty high on the leading axle of the trailing truck on a six axle unit anyway.

But since ATSF took out the water tanks, there would have been no problem, not that ATSF had any problems with the SDP40Fs which ran the Chief (or Southwest Limited) for years.

M636C

[beaulieu]

The SDP40Fs were retrucked. but only from the lighter weight Hollow Bolster Design to the standard design. All HTC trucks have unequal axle spacing, this is to allow all three motors to rotate in the same direction, the reason for wanting all motors to rotate in the same direction is to reduce weight transfer, which makes wheelslip worse. Now as to why some railroads had derailment problems with the SDP40F and others didn't,  the SDP40F was the heaviest passenger locomotive used in the US with the possible exception of the GE P30CH which was also trouble prone. Some people say yes but the FP45s and SDP45s didn't have nearly as much trouble, both models carried all their water low, this is not just because of the sloshing factor which is overstated, more important is the Center of Gravity effect, also the SDP40Fs had two steam generators vice one in the FP45 or SDP45. A higher Center of Gravity will cause a greater side to side transfer of weight. The Santa Fe had the best mainline track in the country at the time at least where the SDP40Fs roamed.

[eolafan]

Oh, here we go with the posts automatically repeating themselves again.

Oh, here we go with the posts automatically repeating themselves again.

[coborn35]

Uh-oh. RTAS again! ( Random Thread Appearance Syndrome)

[Anonymous]

One other problem the SDP40F had during its passenger days was that they had a 1500 gallon water tank for the steam generator mounted above the frame.Just imagine the forces placed on the trucks when they leaned into a curve at speed and all that water rolled to one side.Of course in freight service there was no need for the steam equipment.

[Anonymous]

One other problem the SDP40F had during its passenger days was that they had a 1500 gallon water tank for the steam generator mounted above the frame.Just imagine the forces placed on the trucks when they leaned into a curve at speed and all that water rolled to one side.Of course in freight service there was no need for the steam equipment.

[dharmon]

Thanks, another question answered. That little detail of the re-trucking seems to have been left out of what I have read about them, or more likely I just didn't assimiliate(sp) it. It just seemed odd to me that they were a problem for Amtrak, then suddenly were okay for ATSF to use.

[dharmon]

Thanks, another question answered. That little detail of the re-trucking seems to have been left out of what I have read about them, or more likely I just didn't assimiliate(sp) it. It just seemed odd to me that they were a problem for Amtrak, then suddenly were okay for ATSF to use.

[mudchicken]

One important point. Santa Fe re-trucked all 18 of the 5250 class SDP40F units with the regular "C" trucks with equal distances between the wheels, just like any other SD40 0r SD40-2. Also, it is well documented that ATSF tested the units in Illinois during the Amtrak crisis on the Pekin Sub, Marcelline Sub and ????.....see McMillan's Route of The Warbonnets and Trains back Issues...I seem to remember that the results were clear as mud/inconclusive. The deal happened more because ATSF needed road power, the SDP40F's were laid up (Amtrak dared not use them), and Santa Fe had dispatched the need for small switch engines by eliminating track that needed them. At the end, when BN 'Borg-ed" ATSF to become BNSF, there was only one end cab switcher left, #1460. It was a good trade. The SDP40-F's were just another SD-40 with a cowl. The only gripe was the front steps, which ATSF tried to fix by notching the noses. (Bad, but equal to anything GE put out)...They had the same 60:17 gear ratio as their near cousins and got up to 70-79 mph like any other ATSF road unit before the fuel crunch started to restrict speeds.

(The "beep"/ Baldwin mongrel experiment #1460 survived as a shop goat and the EMD 1420 (?)SW-900 wandereded around El Dorado KS as a lease engine in the refineries until it was retired and sold near the end.) Also, switchers are lousy road units unless you can do something about the coupler swing (the SSB-1200's were not not equipped with coupler swing restaints of any kind that I remember, they only found their way to Colorado by accident.)

[mudchicken]

One important point. Santa Fe re-trucked all 18 of the 5250 class SDP40F units with the regular "C" trucks with equal distances between the wheels, just like any other SD40 0r SD40-2. Also, it is well documented that ATSF tested the units in Illinois during the Amtrak crisis on the Pekin Sub, Marcelline Sub and ????.....see McMillan's Route of The Warbonnets and Trains back Issues...I seem to remember that the results were clear as mud/inconclusive. The deal happened more because ATSF needed road power, the SDP40F's were laid up (Amtrak dared not use them), and Santa Fe had dispatched the need for small switch engines by eliminating track that needed them. At the end, when BN 'Borg-ed" ATSF to become BNSF, there was only one end cab switcher left, #1460. It was a good trade. The SDP40-F's were just another SD-40 with a cowl. The only gripe was the front steps, which ATSF tried to fix by notching the noses. (Bad, but equal to anything GE put out)...They had the same 60:17 gear ratio as their near cousins and got up to 70-79 mph like any other ATSF road unit before the fuel crunch started to restrict speeds.

(The "beep"/ Baldwin mongrel experiment #1460 survived as a shop goat and the EMD 1420 (?)SW-900 wandereded around El Dorado KS as a lease engine in the refineries until it was retired and sold near the end.) Also, switchers are lousy road units unless you can do something about the coupler swing (the SSB-1200's were not not equipped with coupler swing restaints of any kind that I remember, they only found their way to Colorado by accident.)

[Anonymous]

Just did a little research and couldn't find anything bad the Santa Fe had to say about the SDP-40F's. But you have to take into consideration that they were in general freight service and probably had a speed restriction to a max. of 50mph anyway.

[Anonymous]

Just did a little research and couldn't find anything bad the Santa Fe had to say about the SDP-40F's. But you have to take into consideration that they were in general freight service and probably had a speed restriction to a max. of 50mph anyway.

[dharmon]

Not too long after Amtrak put the SDP40Fs in service, there were a couple of derailments which were blamed on the HT-C trucks they rode on. BN I believe it was, even banned them from their tracks and other railroads restricted the model to certain routes and speeds. NTSB? did tests to prove/dispove this theory, but it was inconclusive. Under pressure from the freight roads, Amtrak eventually traded in most of units to EMD to build F40s and 20 or so to ATSF for CF7s and switchers. I know they went through several rebuilds/modifications with ATSF, but served for many years. The question is did ATSF experience any of the problems Amtrak had with the HT-C trucks?

[dharmon]

Not too long after Amtrak put the SDP40Fs in service, there were a couple of derailments which were blamed on the HT-C trucks they rode on. BN I believe it was, even banned them from their tracks and other railroads restricted the model to certain routes and speeds. NTSB? did tests to prove/dispove this theory, but it was inconclusive. Under pressure from the freight roads, Amtrak eventually traded in most of units to EMD to build F40s and 20 or so to ATSF for CF7s and switchers. I know they went through several rebuilds/modifications with ATSF, but served for many years. The question is did ATSF experience any of the problems Amtrak had with the HT-C trucks?