Union Pacific's fleet of new 'heavy' C45ACCTE's have certainly made their presence known here in California over the last month or so and the rails over Tehachapi have been no exception. Last Saturday morning I caught four fresh new 'heavies' on UP's eastbound Roseville to West Colton, CA manifest. UP 8099, 8102, 8101, and 8100 (mid DPU) were really looking good in the morning sun. As a note this recent batch of units now wear the proper C45AH designation, where as the first units in this series came from GE with the normal C45ACCTE designation. UP's new 'heavies' wear numbers 8052-8111.
UP 8099 and train are whining down grade passing MP 379 on Union Pacific's Mojave Subdivision just north of Mojave, CA....
http://goldenstaterails.smugmug.com/Trains/Tehachapi/i-V7jgZdZ/0/XL/UP%208099%20NMJ%20E%20FKR1-XL.jpg
Thanks for looking,
~Ryan
is it me or did they make a new paint job for these? I dont think I've ever seen the radiators yellow and grey on a UP loco.
It's a beautiful picture--and I, too, do not recall seeing so much gray on a UP engine; it's not just you, David.
Johnny
There's no more gray there than normal it seems. Can't see if the walkways are painted gray, but all the gray below the frame and all the gray above the red stripe is how they normally do it. And on EMD's, I believe the top of the nose would be painted gray as well where as on GE's like these, it's yellow.
When did the red frame stripe go away? Was it because of the FRA? I vaguely recall a change in regulations in that area a few years ago for enhanced grade crossing visibility.
The red stripes which means stop in our world but red became illegal under the latest FRA rules. The railroads now have to use white or yellow??? This rule does not make sense but it is the rule! Maybe some FRA future official will discover red means danger or stop and change the rule.
http://s806.photobucket.com/user/Trainsforyou/slideshow/?sort=6
CZ
Ryan
Very nice picture. Those new units are great looking and you captured those in a great setting.
I am wondering if the added cost for the additional weight and new software is worth the extra 3000 lbs of tractive effort. Tht is not much additional TE for the cost.
So you're asking if they're doing it just for the heck of it?
It's mostly software differences and some extra ballast I thought. Not exactly expensive additions when we're talking about locomotives that cost over 2 million a pop. Railroads like Union Pacific and CSX wouldn't be adding to the expense and increasing the wear & tear on their infrastructure and locomotives if it wasn't a significant enough of a difference to justify it.
No question is a stupid one, but I rather think that this one answers itself. And it's not 3,000 extra lbs. It raises the continuous tractive effort from 145,000 lbs in a ES44AC ballasted to 416,000 lbs to 166,000 lbs in one ballasted to 432,000 pounds.
That's an extra 21,000 lbs of tractive effort (A nearly 14% increase) and obviously something that the customers view as a worthwhile addition in certain applications like coal service in mountainous territories where maximum tractive effort is king.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the concept of the continuous TE rating being increased from 145,000 pounds to 166,000 pounds.
A standard ES44AC produces its 145,000-pound continuous TE at around 10 mph; and an ES44AC with the added weight and software performs the same as a standard ES44AC at speeds above around 8 mph. A standard AC6000CW has a continuous TE rating of 166,000 pounds (at 12 mph); but the difference between its rating and the 145,000-pound rating of an ES44AC is due to the difference in horsepower.
Is the 166,000 pounds a rating that UP assigned, as opposed to a GE rating? If so, I'd be interested in knowing the speed range to which it applies.
Thank you.
I was no tsking just for the heck of it. I did not know that the difference was 21000 lbs of added TE. Having been a programmer for many years I know that commercial programs are expensive for the customer, but I guess for GE they can keep the cost down to attract buyers and the advantages seem to bee there. CSX alxo have heavy units, so I guess it may spread to other railroads as well if they really prove their worth.
JayPotterIs the 166,000 pounds a rating that UP assigned, as opposed to a GE rating? If so, I'd be interested in knowing the speed range to which it applies.
Unfortunately I don't have any details on that. I'm just repeating the commonly cited figures.
And according to a search just now that turned up a posting at the Railroad.net forums, the advantages are at speeds below 7.8 mph.
And according to a older post here, BNSF rates their ES44AC's at 166,000 lbs. So if that's true, I wonder if the 166,000 lbs figure for ES44AH's is their thermally continuous tractive effort rating (What the electronics will derate them to in order to protect the traction motors when they get too hot) rather than their true continuous tractive effort?
Too bad there weren't more details out there on just what the advantages are since there seems to be conflicting information out there with the figures.Trains did an article on these a while back for their monthly locomotive column. Maybe there's some detailed statistics there.
caldreamer I was no tsking just for the heck of it.
I was no tsking just for the heck of it.
What I meant when you questioned if it was worth it was that the very fact that they're ordering locomotives to these specifications and are willing to pay a higher asking price and increase their locomotive maintenance cost and wear and tear on their infrastructure supplies you with your answer on if there's justification for it.
They simply wouldn't do it if there wasn't enough of an advantage to justify it. They're not doing it just for the heck of it. There are sound economic reasons behind it that clearly make it worthwhile in some instances and seems to be growing in popularity.
If there wasn't, this idea would be gathering dust.
The advantage to this type of locomotive is that when train speed drops below around 8 mph (into the range where tractive effort is entirely a function of adhesion and no longer a function of speed) the locomotive will produce more tractive effort -- up to a maximum of 200,000 pounds -- than any other type of locomotive will produce because (1) various subsystems maximize adhesion, (2) the increased adhesion has an increased amount of locomotive weight to convert into tractive effort, and (3) the limit on the amount of tractive effort that each axle is allowed to produce has been increased.
The advantage that railroads accrue from using 'Heavy' locomotives works it's way too standard bulk commodity train sizes.
On my carrier when the GE Dash-8 was the primary heavy haul locomotive, coal trains over a particular territory were 80 cars. With the Dash-8's it was always problematical if the trains would successfully handle the multiple grades on the territory I was responsible for. With the introduction of the original AC's, the 80 car trains became no problem and subsequently experiments were undertaken to increase the normal train size - with the AC's as standard power, normal train size became 90 cars. With the introduction of the 'Heavy' locomotives, train size has been increased again to 105 cars.
Same number of locomotives used, same crew costs, same or increased speed over the territory, more payload = more money to the carriers bottom line.
Improvements of fractional percents in a railroad operation add up to big bucks over time - Improvement in the whole number percent range equal even bigger bucks over a shorter span of time.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD The advantage that railroads accrue from using 'Heavy' locomotives works it's way too standard bulk commodity train sizes. "...On my carrier when the GE Dash-8 was the primary heavy haul locomotive, coal trains over a particular territory were 80 cars. With the Dash-8's it was always problematical if the trains would successfully handle the multiple grades on the territory I was responsible for. With the introduction of the original AC's, the 80 car trains became no problem and subsequently experiments were undertaken to increase the normal train size - with the AC's as standard power, normal train size became 90 cars. With the introduction of the 'Heavy' locomotives, train size has been increased again to 105 cars..." [ qutes: BaltACD ] "...Same number of locomotives used, same crew costs, same or increased speed over the territory, more payload = more money to the carriers bottom line. .." Improvements of fractional percents in a railroad operation add up to big bucks over time - Improvement in the whole number percent range equal even bigger bucks over a shorter span of time.
"...On my carrier when the GE Dash-8 was the primary heavy haul locomotive, coal trains over a particular territory were 80 cars. With the Dash-8's it was always problematical if the trains would successfully handle the multiple grades on the territory I was responsible for. With the introduction of the original AC's, the 80 car trains became no problem and subsequently experiments were undertaken to increase the normal train size - with the AC's as standard power, normal train size became 90 cars. With the introduction of the 'Heavy' locomotives, train size has been increased again to 105 cars..." [ qutes: BaltACD ]
"...Same number of locomotives used, same crew costs, same or increased speed over the territory, more payload = more money to the carriers bottom line. .."
Sometime back I started a Thread referencing the TRAINS Forum article that went into the development of the CSX's Heavily weighted CW44 AH variants for use on the Eastern grades (ie: Sand Patch) .
Linked @ http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/160437.aspx
"CSX's Heavily Ballasted, CW44AH Locomotives"
At that time I had asked the following question;"...My question is; If these heavily ballasted, and adheasion enhanced engines were successful on the heavy West Virginia terrain. Has it ( the CW44AH) become a standard to be ordered by other railroads? Other railroads such as KCS or UP, or BNSF all of which operate on mountainous grades, and I almost forgot CP and CN, as well. Have they ordered or even tested the CW44AH model from General Electric? Or were the modifications such a bust that they will go away?.."
Sees that Union Pacific and GE have answered it by improving their locomotives. with the heavier weights and the improved adhesion and traction control software.
Considering CSX has ordered nothing but heavies for their new ES44s I don't think it's such a 'bust'. NS has both 432klbs ES44ACs and SD70ACes....
ML
I did notice that the UP units did not have the steerable trucks like the CSX AH units? I believe these are used to reduce stress on the rails in curves. I wonder why UP choose not to use them? Wayne
These require more maintenance than the normal Hi-Ad, however I thought they were part of the 'HTE package'?
CSXT always specifies steerable trucks; however they're a GE option for ES44ACs (but unavailable for ES44DCs). I believe that CSXT is the only railroad that's currently ordering locomotives with them.
MARTIN STATION I did notice that the UP units did not have the steerable trucks like the CSX AH units? I believe these are used to reduce stress on the rails in curves. I wonder why UP choose not to use them? Wayne
I doubt that UP has much trackage in the 'coal fields' that was laid out in the 19th Century with 19th Century equipment in mind - think sharp curves. Steerable trucks help minimize derailments on such trackage.
Iowa Interstate's ES44AC's were all built to CSX specs and are 432k lbs as well. The MRL SD70ACE's are also heavy like the NS SD70ACE's.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.