In LocoNotes yesterday (Sean Graham-White, sourced from AltoonaWorks):
Is any work done on the traction motors? Other than cleaning and perhaps polishing?
I'm glad they're getting rebuilt. Also glad I got to run them in their original form (even if they were getting kind of beat).
Just something about them I like. Maybe it's the old style EMD widecab with big teardrop windshields? They were beasts (I never got to run a *true* 6000hp 90mac or AC66whatever). I have run a 70ACu (rebuilt sd90) on a local already. Impressive engine - but not quite the same level of a 80mac. Guess it's just a personal thing. Something about them.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Here's a view you don't often see:
[This was a picture taken from the B-end; the forum software has removed the URL at some point since the post was originally made]
daveklepper Is any work done on the traction motors? Other than cleaning and perhaps polishing?
Because they're running locomotives most likely already on a schedule mainteance for the TM combos. Class 1's generally change them out every 3-4 years it looks like for mainline locos, TM's dip, bake, new bearings, new wheel set. That schedule could coincide with the engine work.
Will the extra weight and added horse power increase their tractive effort (starting and continuous)?
caldreamer Will the extra weight and added horse power increase their tractive effort (starting and continuous)?
The HP won't do anything to raise the starting or continuous TE, but the extra 12,000# will give it a little bump, maybe 4-5,000#. That'll get one more loaded car up Horseshoe Curve.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Overmod In LocoNotes yesterday (Sean Graham-White, sourced from AltoonaWorks): NS is about to commence their SD80ACU program which takes SD80MACs and puts them through a program similar to the one that converted SD90MACs to SD70ACUs. - Each unit to be overhauled before the actual rebuild to SD80ACU - Old cab replaced with EMD isolated SD70ACe cab with completely new wiring and electronics - ICE (Integrated Cab Electronics) displays replaced with FIRE (Functional Integrated Railroad Electronics) displays with new EM2000 to replace old EM2000 - EPIC air brake replaced with CCB2 - Siemens inverters replaced with Mitsubishi inverters - Ultra Cab II installed with Conrail cab signals and LSL (some units already had this changeover) - Rear ditch lights installed and pneumatic bell replaced with electronic bell - Ballasted up to 432,000 lbs - 20-710 engine overhauled prior to the rebuilding and upgraded to 5500 hp in the ACU rebuild process - Truck work done as-needed but original Siemens traction motors remain Info from AltoonaWorks
I find it interesting that the rebuild is basically a push. These locomotives are over 20 years old now and even in their present form, pretty close to state of the art.
FIRE replaces ICE
CCB2 replaces EPIC
Mitsubishi inverters replace Siemens
Latest version of Ultracab
Latest version of isolated cab
The SD80MACs were the most advanced locomotives to hit the road when they were built. Conrail was a leader in this regard, not just trying things but making them standard on new orders. First with isolated cab. First with electronic fuel injection. First with electronic cab signalling (jointly developed with Harmon Electronics). First with electronic airbrake. First with integrated displays.
The one new thing they have that they weren't built with is PTC/Leader.
At 5500 HP, might they be considering using pairs on intermodal trains between Chicago and New Jersey after they are overhauled and theoretically more reliabile? Could they get a "2 units replacing 3" on some trains?
Does NS still have SD80MACs in thier roster? How many are being rebuilt.
It's nice that both the SD70MAC and SD80MAC are getting rebuilt instead of scrapped, to me that's always a plus.
The SD80MAC's are still active. I saw two over the last few days on my ride home from work.
Last I heard SD80MAC overhauls were postponed by NS, no perticular reason why. From NSdash9.
Entropy Last I heard SD80MAC overhauls were postponed by NS, no perticular reason why. From NSdash9.
Likely because like most railroads NS is so short of power they are leasing old ex-CSX GEs.
It seems like it may not me a "huge" upgrade; but a lot of those little things make a massive difference in the reliability of the unit, getting rid of the siemens inverters and dumbing the old fire screens should make a much better locomotive out of them.
Where on NSDash 9 is that information? I can not find it.
80 MACs updated should be good things . I always thought that the 20-710 was a better bet than the 265H and I'm surprised EMD went away from something the railroads were accustomed to - 2 strokes . I do remember earlier on the issues with 20-645s but they got around that with a bit of extra development .
I would like to have seen the roads revert to the 20 rather than rebuild the big block 90s with 16-710s , its not a whole lot less horsepower but it is familiar territory .
Out of curiosity what did EMD do with the 20-710 to get the extra 500 ponies out of it ?
BDA Out of curiosity what did EMD do with the 20-710 to get the extra 500 ponies out of it ?
I find it interesting that even after NS uprates them to 5,500 as part of their ACU rebuild, they'll still be producing less power per cylinder than the 16 cylinder models in the SD70ACU's. 275 hp per cylinder versus 281.25 hp.
I suspect EMD/Conrail played it very safe by just rating them at 5,000 hp, perhaps with the intentions of doing something similar themselves after a few years of service proved the soundness of EMD's 20 cylinder engine.
But then Conrail disappeared and EMD lost their SD80MAC advocate.
Maybe at the time EMD wanted to show the thousand traction horse power advantage the H version was intended to have .
The fuel usage thing may have been a concern at the time too .
Anyway it will be interesting to see what the operators think of the 5500 Hp compared to the defacto 44/4500 Hp units atm .
Well hopefully the 80s radiators can support 5500 Hp reliably because the word is that it didn't work out so well cooling wise with the H engine .
BDA Well hopefully the 80s radiators can support 5500 Hp reliably because the word is that it didn't work out so well cooling wise with the H engine .
I thought the cooling problems with the 265H related more to the intercoolers. These were placed on each side of the crankcase and fed the air directly into the cylinder heads. I believe the intention was to keep the engine as short as possible, which has always been an EMD desire. These tended to leak coolant and needed continuing attention.
While none are in use now, SD90MAC-H were used by Fortescue Metals in the Pilbara and they apparently held up under those conditions. The first batch were refitted with 710G3 engines and the second batch were put into storage after demand for iron ore fell.
There were some 5300 HP SD80ACe units built for Brazil. I don't think they had bigger radiators than the SD80MAC units.
Peter
They already run 5500THP 20-710 in India WDG5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2e9U9YF2Y
Entropy They already run 5500THP 20-710 in India WDG5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2e9U9YF2Y
Leo_AmesI suspect EMD/Conrail played it very safe by just rating them at 5,000 hp, perhaps with the intentions of doing something similar themselves after a few years of service proved the soundness of EMD's 20 cylinder engine.
Yep. It was discussed with EMD sales/engineering at the time.
I was around the 8500's for just a small amount of time, but from what I gathered the cooling system was almost as secure as a colander. In addition the locomotives used antifreeze, (I dont know why we couldn't just use water like every other locomotive we owned) so they were also a giant pain to refill properly.
IAFarmerI was around the 8500's for just a small amount of time, but from what I gathered the cooling system was almost as secure as a colander.
Is there any way you can find exactly where the colander leaks were springing up, and what was causing them? This would be enormously valuable even if only 'hearsay'...
Did the convertibles have issues with the cooling system? Or is that a component that would've required replacement had they ever repowered them with the 6,000 hp power plant?
I think they could use water though, couldn't they? I seem to recall that being an issue with the H-engined units. Shop personnel would top them off with water like they were accustomed to, and once the mix changed too much away from antifreeze, they were at risk of freezing up when shutdown in cold weather.
And that of course negates the environmental/economy feature that was one of the selling points of that engine.
Leo_AmesDid the convertibles have issues with the cooling system? Or is that a component that would've required replacement had they ever repowered them with the 6,000 hp power plant?
My recollection is that they were specifically designed to require as little modification as possible to take the 'new' engines (the primary difference being the shape of the short part of the hood over the engine proper).
Part of the problem was not in the 'cooling system' proper, but in the structure of the H-block crankcase. This being a thin-wall casting and not fabricated, it contained many areas that if frozen would produce damage that would be difficult to repair and likely disabling to operation. Meanwhile, as I recall, some of the issues of spot heat uptake required 'water wetting' for proper heat transfer, which were provided by additives in the coolant, and may have required some of the additional characteristics of an antifreeze azeotrope for reasonable performance especially at protracted WOT.
Not sure 'negate' is the word you mean -- it reduced the economy somewhat, but if there were any concern with actual antifreeze concentration a relatively simple hydrometer-like test would reveal the situation as easily on a locomotive as for an automobile ... with the option being either to use an additive package or do a partial drain and refill to restore the integrity of the thermal protection.
In any event the cavitation issues far outweighed anything with cooling performance, as far as I know. I suspect Don Oltmann has very detailed knowledge about many things 265H related. I still await with interest more on the 'colander' issues and the detail-design issues leading to them.
I just meant that the fuel economy advantage of being able to be shut it down in cold weather isn't an advantage if shop personnel didn't correctly fill the cooling system with antifreeze and a freeze up occurs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.