What sort of things can the Union Pacific do with the retired SD90MACs?
They could repaint the shell or hood in paint schemes of the Chicago & NorthWestern and the Wisconsin Central to see what it would have actually looked like if CNW and WC had SD80MACs.
They could take the bodies off the frames and build new locos or passenger cars upon them.
They could take the bodies or shells from the frames and put them on a GIMBLE platform surrounded by large video display screens to make an authentic Locomotive Operations Simulator.
What else can they do with them?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Sent them back to leaser. Worthless otherwise.
Andrew FalconerWhat sort of things can the Union Pacific do with the retired SD90MACs?
Didn't they already return them to EMD?
Why? I'm not trying to rain on your parade but UP is in the business to make money, not to repaint retired locomotives they're never going to use again.
Now we only have 307 more of the stupid SD90s to get rid of. When they are working, nothing else can touch them for braking or power, unfortunatly that doesn't happen very often.
creepycrankThe technology of solid state inverters is on going and the Siemens equipment furnished with the SD90's is unique to that design locomotive. Parts, if available at all are going to be very expensive hence the policy of cannibalization to keep the others running. Their might be a possibility that the 4300-hp units can use inverters from EMD that are used on the latest 70MACe's but if their is any problem with these units, just park it and drag out a couple of SD 40's. Probably one reason UP announced a program to remanufacture 500 SD 40's undoubtedly with the Tier 0 upgrades to their engines.
What type of inverters does the 20-710 SD80MAC use? Just asking since the SD80MACs have the same type of frame and body as the SD90MAC.
If I was "Uncle Pete", I'd purge all who were involved with recommending the purchase of the "Jimmy Junk". Other than that, one would look cool in your back yard, painted in your choice of prototype scheme. You could kennel your Rotweillers in it and they'd never get out, depending on the size of the rust holes, of course.
BNSFwatcher If I was "Uncle Pete", I'd purge all who were involved with recommending the purchase of the "Jimmy Junk".
If I was "Uncle Pete", I'd purge all who were involved with recommending the purchase of the "Jimmy Junk".
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BNSFwatcherIf I was "Uncle Pete", I'd purge all who were involved with recommending the purchase of the "Jimmy Junk". Other than that, one would look cool in your back yard, painted in your choice of prototype scheme. You could kennel your Rotweillers in it and they'd never get out, depending on the size of the rust holes, of course.
Nah, UP was just going through a cyclical phase. Every other decade-or so UP has the temptation to get untried and unproven high-hp locos that are more powerful than anything else on the market, and more often than not suffer from reliability problems or other issues and are retired after only 10 years or-so of service, sometimes even sooner. The 1970s-era GE U50C was “Jimmy Junk” too.
How different is the electrical equipment between the SD9043s, SD70ACE, and SD70MAC. It would seem that you needed the SD90 to make progress towards the SD70ACE.
Other than the basic body styling and 4300 HP rating, there is almost zero similarities between the 90Mac's and the 70ACEs. the MAC's use Seimens electrical equipment that was state of the art in 1995, well after 15 years they turned out to be not up to the demands of the North American locomotive demands. its a smart system... too smart for their own good. the SD90's are a good locomotive until they started to think and look at their insides, then they go into panic mode and shut down. The SD70ACE's use Mitsubishi (sp?) iverters and switch gear. they are MUCH much more ruggedized and relaible. the ACE's have some engine problems; but over all are more relaible month over month then the C45's and SD90's, not quite where the C44AC's are though. only the SD70's and SD40's can touch them.
ndbprr You would think that somebody at UP would have knowledge of lack of success of the GE turbines, Big Boys, U50's, DD35, DD40 and the big Alcos that all would up in the scrap pile very quickly. Seems like sombody has reinvented the wrong wheel more than once.
You would think that somebody at UP would have knowledge of lack of success of the GE turbines, Big Boys, U50's, DD35, DD40 and the big Alcos that all would up in the scrap pile very quickly. Seems like sombody has reinvented the wrong wheel more than once.
The Centennials had reasonably long service lifes, the Gas Turbine fleet did what they were designed to do but the increasing cost of the Bunker Fuel they ran on made them uneconomical...in what way were the Big Boys "unsuccessful"?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
For progress to happen you have to take some chances. AC motored locomotives were a complete dud until they got some bugs worked out of them, now look where that chance has taken us. The DDA40X's were a wonderfully reliable locomotive, the whole -2 series is based on the modular electrical system pioneered in the 6900's. They had just reached the end of their economic life and needed to move on. The 6000 Horse monsters were as much of an experiment as anything. the H-engine was plain too heavy and ridged for reilable railroad service, but it is a good P,M,I engine. the GE's suffered relaibility problems as well, but that locomotive is the precurser to the EVO series. While I have no taste for them, they have been a very successful locomotive from a sales perspective for GE.
ndbprr A total of what seven engines built? I wouldn't consider a steam engine built near the end of steam as a highly successful engine. All the others have repeat histories of high horsepower for their time quickly retired.
A total of what seven engines built? I wouldn't consider a steam engine built near the end of steam as a highly successful engine. All the others have repeat histories of high horsepower for their time quickly retired.
25 engines built....the fact that RR's were rapidly moving towards dieselization says nothing about whether the basic engine design of the Big Boy was sound or not..................
They could make a couple million razor blades.
I have heard the saying that "The EMD's cost more to buy, but are cheaper to maintain. The GE's are cheaper to buy, but more expensive to maintain."
So, how about Dash 9 vs SD-70M in reliability? (I've heard Trash 9)
Is that why BHP Billiton keeps ordering SD70ACe's then?
More than LIKELY using the OLD ONES AS A PARTS SOURCE FOR THE NEW ONES.
I know that EMD has a program that takes old locos and outs better more efficient engines in them. Perhaps they can start there.
I have been led to believe that BHP needed locos in a hurry, GE had a large waiting list, EMD did not,
big jake I know that EMD has a program that takes old locos and outs better more efficient engines in them. Perhaps they can start there.
That's the ECO line and it seems to be an updated version of the repowerings of the 1950's. You supply a 567 or 645 powered locomotive and EMD will install a 710 engine of appropriate size and upgrade the electricals. KCS already has several of these on their roster.
NRdriverIs that why BHP Billiton keeps ordering SD70ACe's then?I have been led to believe that BHP needed locos in a hurry, GE had a large waiting list, EMD did not,
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
coborn35NRdriver Is that why BHP Billiton keeps ordering SD70ACe's then? I have been led to believe that BHP needed locos in a hurry, GE had a large waiting list, EMD did not, I would not believe that for a minute. They could have leased then. I would never buy a quote inferior product just because the one I wanted had a waiting line.
NRdriver Is that why BHP Billiton keeps ordering SD70ACe's then? I have been led to believe that BHP needed locos in a hurry, GE had a large waiting list, EMD did not,
For a railroad, not having locomotives when they are needed means one of two things...product to be transported continues to increase while waiting for power to transport it or those controlling the product to be shipped will find a alternative way to handle that product.
This is especially true with year end budgets when you have x dollars to spend by years end or you lose it, or I need to have x delivered by years end or no contract. Business doesn't make sense with regards to years end and budgets.
Explain this then Why then if EMD is BETTER did BNSF when they were so Power SHORT at the Peak of the Economy allow EMD to ship BHP some of there so GREAT SD70 ACES then. I asked a BNSF engineer what they think of the new EMD power he flat out told me GOOD FOR ONE THING SCRAP METAL AND THAT IS IT.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.