Sometime back TRAINS did an article on the CSX's GE CW44AH locomotives used on their mountainous grades out of the Grafton, W.Va. area. These engines I think had been balasted to some where around 250 tons( give or take a little weight). They were further equiped with a high adhesion software package. The article mentioned IIRC that they were successful and were being ordered from GE.
I cannot remember if I have seen any further mention of this engine type (CW44AH) identified in any follow on stories.
My question is; If these heavily balasted, 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?
Thanks!
Can't speak to other carriers feelings on the ballasted engines....CSX believes in it enough that all the ES44 AC engine have been ballasted and classified as ES44AH. Original weight for the AC's are 412000 pounds. The H or Heavy engines weigh in at 432000 pounds.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
GE actively markets the combination of added weight and HTE (high tractive effort) adhesion-management software; and the Iowa Interstate 500-series ES44ACs and the NS 8000-series ES44ACs are all "heavy" units configured with HTE. That software is also used on BNSF's 6600-series ES44C4s. Before the economic recession, GE upgraded three of CSXT's standard AC4400CWs into CW44AH-class units. If the recession had not occurred, CSXT would have acquired additional ES44AH-class ES44ACs; and I supect that it would have upgraded additional standard AC4400CWs into CW44AH-class units and that other railroads would have ordered "heavy" units with HTE. Railroads that assign locomotives to trains on the basis of horsepower-per-ton will probably have less interest in the added-weight and advanced-software concept than railroads, such as CSXT, that assign locomotives on the basis of tonnage ratings. The purpose of the added weight and advanced software is to prevent trains from stalling on grades; and if a railroad assigns locomotives on the basis of horsepower-per-ton, its locomotive consists are generally capable of producing more tractive effort than is necessary to prevent stalls.
JayPotter GE actively markets the combination of added weight and HTE (high tractive effort) adhesion-management software; and the Iowa Interstate 500-series ES44ACs and the NS 8000-series ES44ACs are all "heavy" units configured with HTE. That software is also used on BNSF's 6600-series ES44C4s. Before the economic recession, GE upgraded three of CSXT's standard AC4400CWs into CW44AH-class units. If the recession had not occurred, CSXT would have acquired additional ES44AH-class ES44ACs; and I supect that it would have upgraded additional standard AC4400CWs into CW44AH-class units and that other railroads would have ordered "heavy" units with HTE. Railroads that assign locomotives to trains on the basis of horsepower-per-ton will probably have less interest in the added-weight and advanced-software concept than railroads, such as CSXT, that assign locomotives on the basis of tonnage ratings. The purpose of the added weight and advanced software is to prevent trains from stalling on grades; and if a railroad assigns locomotives on the basis of horsepower-per-ton, its locomotive consists are generally capable of producing more tractive effort than is necessary to prevent stalls.
According to one website that reports CSX locomotive types: the CW44AH's comprise units covered in the series,495-546--547-556--557-599 for CSX power.
Jay, I guess what I am asking is the bulk of this class of locomotives is factory rebuilds from the classes AC4400CW and AC4400H are rebuilt (rebalasted and software enhanced) not from the built as CW44AH's?
Again, is it a matter of technique of adding to trains horsepower-per-ton rather than utilizing individual locomotive tonnage ratings to assign power to meet the other criterial for operating trains over specific territories? Is this the operational criteria that keeps other roads from ordering the heavier units that would handle more tonnage. It would seem that economics would call for replacement of several units with one heavier locomotive.
CSXT's class CW44AH model AC4400CW units include the following: 273, 403, 459, 495-599, 5101-5122. The first three were rebuilt from standard AC4400CWs using kits provided by GE. The rest were built as "heavy" units with advanced "TM2" software. They were reclassified from CW44AC (CSXT's class for standard AC4400CWs) to CW44AH later, when they were retrofitted with "HTE" software. In other words, the "H" in the classification doesn't stand for "heavy"; it stands for "high", as in high tractive effort software.
Except for what I said in my initial post, I'm unfamiliar with the view that other railroads take of the "AH" concept. However the tonnage difference between a standard AC4400CW and a CW44AH-class unit is not great enough to replace more than one of the former with one of the latter. For example, on the ruling grade east of Grafton a standard AC4400CW is rated for 2700 tons; and a class CW44AH AC4400CW is rated for 2900 tons. That 200-ton increase is significant for CSXT; however comparable amounts of increases might not make a difference to some other railroads.
If CSX sends AC44s up Cranberry with 2900 tons apiece they're apparently willing to accept a speed of 9 mph or so. Dunno how long a typical crew district is these days, but I'm guessing most railroads can't power their trains to climb the ruling grade that slowly-- not if they want the crew to complete the run in the allowed 12 hours.
timzIf CSX sends AC44s up Cranberry with 2900 tons apiece they're apparently willing to accept a speed of 9 mph or so.
Yes, CSXT became willing to accept that and lower speeds when it replaced three-unit SD60 helper consists with two-unit AC-traction helper consists.
This thread piques my interest. I remember seeing a dark future (YN3) painted C40-8W in the yard near here that had bold placards above the trucks stating 'USE AH MOTORS ONLY'. Could this be a one-off or beginning project on the C40's that mirrors the AC4400CW deal?
An "AH" traction motor is a type of GE direct-current traction motor. They are unrelated to CSXT's "AH" alternating-current units and their traction motors.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was doing lots of 'head-scratching', LOL.
JayPotterAn "AH" traction motor is a type of GE direct-current traction motor.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I can say with complete confidence that AH traction motors have gear cases and bearings; and I can easily tell the difference between an AH traction motor and a GE refrigerator. But I have absolutely no idea what particular kind of gear case or bearings any type of traction motor has.
JayPotterI have absolutely no idea what particular kind of gear case or bearings any type of traction motor has.
However I was able to look up the answer; and Don's memory isn't all that fuzzy. According to sales literature for GE's DASH-9 units: "The GE752AH traction motors, equipped with roller support bearings and oil-filled gear cases provide proven, reliable operation and extended maintenance intervals."
So in a nutshell, really heavy locomotives will give you lots of tractive effort, at really low speeds.
I don’t understand why CSX isn’t content with the hi-aid truck. At least you would get farther.
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
bubbajustin So in a nutshell, really heavy locomotives will give you lots of tractive effort, at really low speeds.
No, the advanced software is what gets you the high tractive effort. The extra weight just increases the adhesion so the locomotive can put the extra capacity into useful work.
bubbajustinI don’t understand why CSX isn’t content with the hi-aid truck.
I don’t understand why CSX isn’t content with the hi-aid truck.
Because the high- adhesion truck alone won't increase the tractive effort
bubbajustinAt least you would get farther.
At least you would get farther.
Farther? From where??
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.