Why so few SD.80 MACS?

[kenneo]

Scott Lothes --

The POTB almost idin't continue with SD9's because of the tight curves. 3-Axel trucks have a tendency to straighten out curves like the POTB has.

But, the alternate choice being GP38's, had a MCS that was too high to lug the tonnage necessary, but a 2-Axel trucks do go around those curves better. We used a rule-of-thumb of 6 cars for a SD and 4 for a GP for dry rail. You can double the hill and make the trip, but not more than that. A triple kills you at Cochran on the third trip unless you have 90 minutes left and can make Timber. You really want to make Timber.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by UPTRAIN

The SD80MACs were jsut not what the RRs wanted......the C&NW ordered like 20 or 40 but they merged with the UP before the order could be made and was canceled.

According to Bob Keller, in the January 2003 issue of Classic ToyTrains Magazine, page 98, he writes,

'In the world of real railroading the 5,000-horsepower SD80MAC was an interim design fielded by General Motors, sold while the company finished up work on a newer 6,000-horsepower prime mover.

The SD80MAC used AC traction motors and a V-20 prime mover. The locomotive has an adhesion rate of 35 percent, compared to 25 percent from and SD60 or 18 percent from an SD40-2. According to the Field Guide to Modern Diesel Locomotives, 30 SD80MACs were built, 28 for Conrail and two demonstrators for EMD. (Conrail later added the two demos to its fleet).'

I know that some of the stuff I quoted rehashed things already mentioned in the previous posts, but the fact remains that EMD never intended to field the SD80MAC as a widely-available locomotive. Having said that, I still think it's a very nice looking locomotive.

[Anonymous]

I'll vouch for the ride quality of SD40-2s, Mark! I once had the pleasure to ride one through southwest Montana at 40mph on relatively old, jointed rail. Aside from the flanges bottoming out on a few joint bars (don't hit your head on the cab roof!), it rode quite well.

To take one more step on the SD70MAC - AC4400 debate, from my experience, mine run crews in Appalachia *vastly* prefer the flood loading capabilities of the GEs. They can really get down and crawl without much throttle tweaking, and fine speed adjustments are possible, which really comes in handy when the loader bogs down (which it will). Hopefully EMD addressed this in the SD70ACe.

Also, since I'm jumping in late (very interesting thread, by the way), I couldn't help but notice someone mentioned the POTB earlier. Now there's a railroad! Just to hear those old 567s beating a fast cadence up the Salmonberry Canyon was easily worth the hike and the drive down the logging roads. I never realized it takes Run 7 just to get a light SD9 up the hill, though! Wow. Now I understand why those Dash 7s didn't last long. When somebody told me they couldn't pull themselves up the grade, they literally must not have been kidding.

In October and November when the leaves fall down along the river, it isn't uncommon to triple the hill with a decent-sized train. I even heard one tale of it taking five trips -- that crew didn't make it to Banks! I'll bet the POTB's ongoing struggle to survive might make for an interesting story.

And speaking of locomotives that sound good, for a year I lived in an apartment on the east side of Cleveland that bordered the rapid transit, NKP and the Cleveland Shortline (CSX). NS had a slight EB grade out of their East 55th St. yard (I say "had" because the yard is now closed), and were never ones to overpower anything. You could always tell by the bark when there was a GP38 in the consist. I once saw them send a loaded coal train out behind four of 'em. You could hear those babies coming from a mile away!

Scott Lothes
Cleveland, OH

[Anonymous]

I don't know if turning wrenches is easier than being an editor, but it's certainly greasier than being an editor. Locomotive dirt never comes off. And you might as well count on a big gash, crunch, or gouge anytime you take a wrench in hand. I recall one really frustrating day in Idaho laying in puddles of ice-cold water on the floor of an F-unit with an electrician, fishing around in the dirt in the bottom of the electrical cabinet trying to isolate a ground in the Tow-Motor switch (the big air-operated switch that changes the traction motors from power to dynamic braking). I sat up to get a tool and creamed my head on one of the open electrical-cabinet doors above me -- 16 ga. sheet metal right on the corner. That made me decide to lay back down again for awhile because it hurt like hell.

That night in the motel I took a long shower and wondered why the hair on the right side of my head was stuck together -- grease? I got out and looked in the mirror and the whole side was matted in dried blood. I never realized it because I was wearing a wool cap. It was about that time that I seriously began thinking that this wasn't very much fun.

My favorite units:

For a short line, from a maintenance and operation point of view, I thought Santa Fe's CF7s couldn't be beat. After one look in their electrical cabinet, you thought you'd died and gone to heaven. But they still had BC engines, which weren't as desirable as C engines because you had more internal water leaks. The first ones to come off Santa Fe were very very good, but the tail-end Charlies were picked over. There aren't many CF7s still running now because they've finally worn out, and you're cheaper buying a good GP38 than putting a lot of effort into a CF7. Their frames were suspect at best, and some of them I saw had cracked and begun to sag.

For a powerful, reliable, rugged, work-all-day switcher, the SW1200. You almost never see these going cheaply. If they have MU on them, they are exceptionally desirable. These will probably still be running long after I'm dead. They're that good. I know a lot of people who respect the Alco switchers too, from HHs to S6s, but parts are a problem.

For pure running satisfaction, assuming you don't have to switch anything, the F unit. Comfortable, warm, sound fabulous, good view. My first really good train ride was on a three-unit set climbing over the Kenai Range between Anchorage and Seward on a fall morning, and moaning back down the 3% in dynamics that night. They sounded good with the cab window open, and because the fireman was back nursing the steam generators all night long, I got the left side to myself. F units are no fun to work on, the first time you have something heavy to change out, like a radiator core or a power assembly. You practically want to start all projects by pulling the roof hatch off, and for that you need a crane. You wonder why anyone bought a single one of them the moment they could buy a GP7 instead.

For maintenance misery, anything with an old, crispy electrical cabinet. You're afraid to touch anything lest some more insulation fall off. I did not like GP7s at all from an electrical point of view; the cabinet is difficult to access. GP9s were laid out better. If you had a real shop with high-level platforms, power-assembly changeout was duck soup. Doing it on a spur outside is almost as bad as trying to do it inside an F unit.

For train-riding (if you can't have an F unit), any SD40, 45, or Dash-2 version is a fine, fine choice, assuming it's not a hot, humid day. They've got a great view, excellent riding qualities even on poor track, and good ventilation. They'll just swim through a rough spot that you think you're about to overturn on in a AC4400CW. The 45s have a much deeper, louder sound than the 40s and are more fun to listen to. The non Dash 2s are all-relay: listening to the relay cascades when the unit sets-up in power or dynamic, or makes transition, is one of those distinctive sounds of railroading that you remember forever.

For a nasty hot Louisiana summer day: anything with an air conditioner. Period. Accept no substitute. Otherwise, around 6 a.m., all the flies that live in the toilet room wake up to keep you company, and the stench is awful. Crews on KCS, when I worked there, went through contortions to make sure that if they had one of our 2000s available (AC4400CWs), to get it on the lead, and I even saw a crew choose to run one of them long-hood-forward for over a hundred miles rather than put the trailing GP40 in the lead.

There's not much difference between a SD70MAC and an AC4400CW from the left-hand side of the cab, except the EMD vibrates a lot less and the third seat has a little more leg room. Engineers tell me they like the AC4400CWs dynamics better, but the SD70MAC loads faster. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

For a poor ride: GP40s, GP50s, and DASH 8-40Bs. Bouncy and rough. I never rode an LMX B39-8, but I always heard they were the all-time worst riding locomotive ever, because of their huge nose overhang. The ride of a Genesis unit is not as good as an F unit, and it's like looking out of the viewblocks in a tank. In short, a lousy view.

[kenneo]

[#ditto]

Yeh! What he said!

Just shows to go ya what experience in magazine making can do for you at the keyboard.

[jeaton]

Sounds almost as complicated as being an editor.

[broncoman]

Mark,
Thanks for the information. In your time working for the railroads what in your opinion were operational dogs and what did you find that worked or where in the exceptional category . If you can't answer I completely understand.
Thanks again,
Dave

[Anonymous]

Broncoman: If you're changing out all the power assemblies, there isn't a lot of difference between 16 and 20, other than 25% more work. If you're changing out all the main bearings, it's more of the same too. Gear train, auxiliaries, etc., aren't causing extra work because they're on the ends. You don't necessarily have a higher failure rate because you have more assemblies, or a longer crankshaft, either.

But all things are never equal. You would need to know which wears out faster, or which breaks more often -- the 12, 16, or 20. A 12-cylinder engine producing the same hp as a 16, with the same displacement per cylinder, is probably going to have a much higher wear and failure rate. It might be so much higher that it costs significantly more to maintain than the 16. Bear in mind that failures -- which are by definition unexpected -- are extremely costly because they tie up trains and main tracks and ruin schedules. One engine failure can easily cost $30,000 -- BEFORE you even fix the locomotive! I've watched it unfold in front of me as a train dispatcher: some dogged crews at $1000 a pop, a few incentive payments missed at $8000 each, a train you couldn't run because you didn't have the power -- there's $10,000 in car hire and maybe the freight runs by rubber that day, so there's $25,000 in revenue down the drain.

Oh, how you learn to despise an unreliable locomotive. Though it is truly fascinating to listen to the morning conference call afterward, especially if you're not in the mechanical department and find humor in someone else's tragedy and subsequent public humiliation.

The manufacturer extensively bench-tests an engine model to determine mean time between failures and the consumption rate on wearing parts. The customer obtains warrantees based on those tests.

You (the railroad) have to crunch the numbers: fuel consumption, failure rate, wear rate, parts cost, labor cost, availability cost, initial cost, opportunity cost, interest, taxes, fees, shop overhead, depreciation, etc., etc., etc., making a number of assumptions and guesses and estimates, and at the end of all that you arrive, one hopes, at a number that tells you which one to buy. Then you look around you at what your predecessor did, what the other railroads are doing, what you think your boss wants you to do, what you think your boss's boss wants him to do, and decide if you want to be a pioneer or not, knowing that pioneers sometimes discover gold mines and other times collect a large number of arrows in their back. There is no magic way of knowing which is better, and that is precisely why there have been 12, 16, and 20 cylinder engines offered recently.

I would not say which engine or locomotive is better. I would only report which one is selling better. That's all we actually know.

[broncoman]

To the guys that wrench on loco out there is it really that more mainenance on a 20 cyl than a 16. If this is the case wouldn't the 12 cyl H and the GE-EVOs be the hot ticket.

[kenneo]

Naw, not a Bloodynose. Daylight! Ever see SP Daylight Alco P's pulling the City of San Francisco? Sometimes with a Daylight and or a Pennsylvania Pullman? Now THAT was color!

[espeefoamer]

I really like the SD9043MACs on the UP.I think it is too bad we never got the chance to see one in SP's grey & scarlet.

[kenneo]

Peter, I remember something about that, but it is from a long time ago. Do you have any source material, like a book or a magazine article?

All I could remember for sure was that Baldwin was working very hard on perfecting a fine-grain casting method to control the unequal expansion that occlusions from the standard casting method permitted. Company quit business before they could get any real progress. This would have solved most of their problems. I guess the Belgians didn't do much better? [?]

[M636C]

While this is a late comment for kenneo, and not quite on the subject, Cockerill in Belgium did build a V-16 version of the Baldwin engine, which they called the 240CO.
It was put in a locomotive, but it was not a success, since locomotives of that power were not needed in Belgium, and not all the engine problems had been solved. It shows that had things worked out differently, the Baldwin could have continued into the 1960s and 1970s.

Peter

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by craltoonafish

There is still chance to catch SD80MACs in full conrail paint. I just saw a few here in Cleveland Ohio on CSX not to long ago.

I was fortunate to see one in Conrail Blue yesterday heading east in Sidney, Ohio.

[UPTRAIN]

But from a sound stand-point THE 20 CYLINDER RULES!!!!

[UPTRAIN]

The SD80MACs were jsut not what the RRs wanted......the C&NW ordered like 20 or 40 but they merged with the UP before the order could be made and was canceled.

[kenneo]

Maintenance costs are an important part of the locomotive purchase decision. 20 cylinders cost more to keep up than do 16, and 16 cost more than 12. Baldwins last engine design put out 200 HP per cyl when the highest EMD and ALCO could do was about 105. The "16 Series" Baldwins and the Shark's put out 1600 HP with an 8 cylinder in-line engine. Had Baldwin been able to fix their engine problem, they had a V-16 penciled out that would have put out 3200 HP and could have been available in the late 1950's. As it was, they had 2400 HP units available prior to 1950.

What if. What if. If beggers were choosers, they would have horses.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

derailed 1999----------

The following is EXCEEDINGLY simplified to illustrate the principle involved:

Those extra 700 HP do add up, but in a manner not easily seen. What happens, is if, for example, your 4000 HP motor can pull 4,000 tons over route A, then your 4300 HP motor can pull 4,300 tons, then your 5000HP motor can pull 5,000 ton. Over a days time, say out of North Platte, that saves at least one train per route and probably more. Crew costs will exceed your increased up-keep costs, your fuel is about the same cost per HP, so you save money.

From a maintenance stand point, the 20cyl sucks!!![}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

becouse once word got out to the other rail roads from the conrail crews that they are nothing more then over priced junk...the other rail roads did the smart thing....BOUGHT GE'S
hahahahahah
csx engineer

Very funny. No wonder CSX trains derail so often. I wouln't complain about Norfolk Southern anymore. Also, if you want the cheapest locomotive for horsepower, BUY MORE GREEN GOATS!. Conrail was going to buy 100 more SD80MACs, and C&NW, CP Rail, and CSX were going to place orders on the SD80.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Eric,

If you are talking drag tonnage ratings, you are incorrect. That is strictly a function of weight on drivers and adhesion.

You are right if you are talking trains that need to make speed and are dispatched on HPPT basis.

Mac

HPPT. Because it is different than drag tonnage, I put in the disclaimer. Usually, it is my experience that Horse Power Per Ton is used for dispatching purposes for pigs and manifest trains with the exceptions of such operations as unit trains which are loaded to the max for what the units will start moving.

[PNWRMNM]

Eric,

If you are talking drag tonnage ratings, you are incorrect. That is strictly a function of weight on drivers and adhesion.

You are right if you are talking trains that need to make speed and are dispatched on HPPT basis.

Mac

[kenneo]

derailed 1999----------

The following is EXCEEDINGLY simplified to illustrate the principle involved:

Those extra 700 HP do add up, but in a manner not easily seen. What happens, is if, for example, your 4000 HP motor can pull 4,000 tons over route A, then your 4300 HP motor can pull 4,300 tons, then your 5000HP motor can pull 5,000 ton. Over a days time, say out of North Platte, that saves at least one train per route and probably more. Crew costs will exceed your increased up-keep costs, your fuel is about the same cost per HP, so you save money.

[Anonymous]

Example: Your stock SD-75 is 4300hp with a 16-710 2 stroke engine. The MAC-80 has a 20-710 engine making 5000hp. You only get a 700hp increase with 4 more cyls. Thats a lot of maintenance for a minor increase in HP.

[Anonymous]

Sand capacity has never been an issue I've heard of. If it was, I think it would be simple enough to add a lot more.

Steerable trucks may not less adhesion than other designs -- I'd have to check that, though.

Were there problems with the H-series engine? Yes, but are they meaningful? The questions are if they are severe and significant, uncorrectable without significant expenditure, or inherently uncorrectable. No one has said, definitely.

[andyhjn]

an interesting thread,and informative.didn't they have problems with the 6000hp engine that went into the 90mac. was the same engine de tuned to 5000hp for the 80mac?
also did the larger sand capacity come into play for mountain railroads?
better fuel economy is an issue, and the steerable trucks also help the newer generation of locomotives to an extent, and also help lower track damage also.
just my 2cents.
andy

[gemperfilm]

Living on the old Conrail Boston Line, I fell in love with these beasts. You felt them more than heard them. I guess most railroads remembered the old 20 cylinder block in the SD45's and the block's tendacy to flex and causing all sorts of mechanical problems. They probably thought that EMD never really corrected it. Also that the 20cylinder prime mover would be a gas hog.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Peter: I've seen Norman Friedman's name and numerous references to his books -- always written with awe and glowing praise -- on many web sites. They aren't cheap books, but, as usual, you get what you pay for. Maybe my wife will read this!

Peter, would you e-mail me at work, please -- [e-mail]

Mark,

Here is the link to the Naval Institute. They publish Proeceedings and Naval History and a good portion of Friedman's books.

http://www.usni.org/magazines.html

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I appear to be in over my head in this thread but I would agree that the short production run of SD80MAC's is due in large part to long memories about problems with V-20 engines and long crankshafts. I've presonally referred to the SD80MAC as "son of SD45" for its V-20 engine and flared radiators.

[kenneo]

Paging Mrs. Hemphill. Paging Mrs. Hemphill. Please come to the white paging telephone for a secret message.