I'd love to have some pistons. The biggest piston I have right now has a bore of about 7.5".
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
If memory serves correctly, the main problem with the U-50-C was the use of aluminum cables throughout the locomotive. The aluminum could not stand the high heat and "melted", causing fires. I believe at the same time some of the Alco C-430 were suffering the same fate. The U-50-C's have the distinction of having the shortest life span of any UP loco class, ever.
Indeed
Especially in the case of the Centennials. They were retired more because they were literally worn out after just a decade of use because the Union Pacific depended so heavily on them and they handled most of the system's most important trains. According to the Utahrails website, they averaged 22,000 in-service miles per month and most of the class had racked up over 1 million miles of service before their 5th birthday.
If anything, they were so successful that they became a victim of it and were literally worn out.
The 9000's, Challengers, Big Boys, DD35's, gas turbines, and Centennials were all quite successful and were very productive for Union Pacific. The steamers gave sterling service for nearly 15 years after Union Pacific decided that diesel was their future and several remained serviceable well into the 1960s awaiting a call to service that traffic levels sadly never warranted. That's a testament to how well they were designed that they were still productuve locomotives for the UP many years after their fate had been decided and most steam had been retired by competitors. And of course, the gas turbine fleet's fate was sealed not because of their performance but because of evolution in America's petrol industry that made their operating cost skyrocket as refinerys found other uses for Bunker C which had largely been considered waste when the units were new.
The only ones that were anything less then a success in my opinion would be the two GE efforts and the Century 855. Even then, Union Pacific got close to a decade's use out of the U50's. And I've heard several good opinions on the the C855 from those that worked with them during their short service life. They were a victim to EMD's stellar reliability and the nonstandard nature of the Centuries on the system that did them in, not their performance when they were in working order. And I suspect had we not been in a recession in the late 70s, the U50C's would've had longer service lifes then the 5 years or so they actually had.
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 first batch of Big Boys (4000-4019) all had over 1 million miles on them when retired, the second group (4020-4024) had over 800,000 miles (they came into service 4 years after the first group). The DD40's had more than that, I believe over 2 million miles on them. I wouldn't describe these as unsuccessful.
Numbers do not lie. C45's are approx. $45000 cheaper to purchase then an SD70ACE; not a lot when your talking about a $2.5 million unit. but when you buy 500 of each it makes a difference. the month over month availability of the SD70ACE runs between 92.5-93.1% the C45ACCTE's run at 91.3-92.4%.
GE now has much better product and warranty support then EMD, that is a big decision when buying untested technology.
The Frame and the Truck components seem like they would find new locomotive uses elsewhere.
I wonder if the prime movers were scrapped or placed in somebody's ship.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Well, you don't have to believe it, but that is what I understand happened, and they did lease some locos through GE leasing, some SD40 and -2 models, there is also an ex SP Tunnel motor up there as well but it was only used for spare parts. I don't dislike EMD products, I work on them every day, usually as trailing units and they perform OK, but the, and I admit newer GE's that we have are much better, and the cab design which is a lot different than the US versions, is the best we have ever had.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
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.
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.
More than LIKELY using the OLD ONES AS A PARTS SOURCE FOR THE NEW ONES.
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)
They could make a couple million razor blades.
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..................
"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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.