Trains.com

BNSF retiring BN SD70MACs?

21686 views
41 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • 965 posts
BNSF retiring BN SD70MACs?
Posted by Lyon_Wonder on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 1:53 PM

Rumor has it is BNSF’s going to retire BN 9600-series SD70MACs and some of these will be going to Mexico.  I wonder which railroad south of the border they’re going too?  Ferromex, Ferrosur, KCS-M?  The SD70MACs would look nice in KCS’s Belle!  If BNSF’s going to take most if not all of its former BN 9400-9600 series off lease, maybe US regionals MRL, IAIS, and the Indiana Railroad should get some of these SD70MACs too and compliment their existing rosters of AC-power. 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:07 PM
I wonder why they are doing this? Those are EPA upgradeable units. Maybe they just think it's better to get new units.
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Track 2, Penn Station, Newark, NJ
  • 181 posts
Posted by fafnir242 on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:20 AM
I'm sure BNSF has a perfectly good reason for doing so (if this is actually the case).  None of us really know what the costs to upgrade a 70MAC are as opposed to just buying more ACes or something of the like (unless some one does, then speak now or forever hold your peace :P).  If this is more than just a rumor, it will really be a shame.  The 70MAC is probably one of my favorite locomotives, right up there with the SD60M and the E8.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 10:16 AM
What I am hearing is that they are leasing them to Ferromex, they would rather have them making money for Warren rather than storing them.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 10:18 AM

The 9400-9600's were the First ones out so they came out in what 1991-92 or so IIRC.  So they have 20 years on them probally 2 2.5 Million miles of Hard pulling in mostly coal service.  Lets see what we would be looking at to rebuild them to current standards.  New Prime movers new Wiring and Control system.  Had desktop controls which CREW HATE.  Also Do not meet EPA Emissions so need Upgraded there.  Looking at 1.5-1.8 Million PER.  Can get a new one for just over 2.2 million that is more Fuel Efficent and the frame is 20 years NEWER.  Lets see here from a OTR look.  I am driving a 92 9700 Cabover that has a 400 Cat gets 5.5 MPG and breaksdown all the time anymore.  Now I can trade it in get a 2010 Model Prostar that gets 7 MPG warrenty and also reliable.  How would you go.

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 11:44 AM

edbenton

The 9400-9600's were the First ones out so they came out in what 1991-92 or so IIRC.  So they have 20 years on them probally 2 2.5 Million miles of Hard pulling in mostly coal service.  Lets see what we would be looking at to rebuild them to current standards.  New Prime movers new Wiring and Control system.  Had desktop controls which CREW HATE.  Also Do not meet EPA Emissions so need Upgraded there.  Looking at 1.5-1.8 Million PER.  Can get a new one for just over 2.2 million that is more Fuel Efficent and the frame is 20 years NEWER.  Lets see here from a OTR look.  I am driving a 92 9700 Cabover that has a 400 Cat gets 5.5 MPG and breaksdown all the time anymore.  Now I can trade it in get a 2010 Model Prostar that gets 7 MPG warrenty and also reliable.  How would you go.

 The first ones were arrived in November 1993 and the last of the BN name units wee in July of 1995.  They probably have many miles as you said and are in need of rebuilding.

CZ

 

Thanks to unoffical EMD listing

 

926335 11.93 to ?.94 SD70MAC BN 9400-9474 75 .
936445 08.94 to 03.95 SD70MAC BN 9475-9499, 9504-9541 63 .
946555 11.94 to 01.95 SD70MAC BN 9542-9571 30 .
946565 03.95 to 01.96 SD70MAC BN 9572-9712 141 .
946585 06.95, 07.95 SD70MAC BN 9713-9716 4

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:55 PM
Does rebuilding typically replace the prime mover? That seems unlikely. I'd assume they just "bore and stroke" it and replace wearable parts. EMD has a part to upgrade 645s and 710s to meet EPA rule 40 CFR Part 1033. I don't have a price for that upgrade, but it is orders of magnitude less than the cost of a new unit. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The only reason I can see for BNSF not to rebuild them is fuel consumption issues where they'd rather just get GEVOs and ACes. So I take it that BNSF owns the MACs outright? They aren't leased? That would have to be the case if they in turn are leasing them to roads in Mexico.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 2:37 PM

See there is a slight Issue there is a groiup in Californa called CARB the Californa Air Resouce Board that if your going to Overhaul a locomotive you have to Bring it up to Current Teir 2 Standards by 2012 or it can not be RUN IN CALIFORNA AT ALL.  So are you going to have a set of Engines for COMMIEFORNIA AND ONE FOR THE REST OF THE NATION.  Or are you going to bite the bullet and just bring them up to standards.  That is were the OTR Trucking Industry is facing right now with Reefer Units anything older than a 2002 is Now ILLEGAL for Cali so we have a choice 70-90K for a New trailer and Unit or 40K for Upgrade on the one we are pulling now. 

 BTW try getting a SBA loan for a Equipment upgrade in this Economy there is NO CREDIT and if we get caught in Cali it is a 3K fine.  Nice huh yet we have no choice.  Yet 90% of all fresh Veggies are coming OUT OF CALIFORNIA so what do we do. run an illegal trailer and hope we do not get stopped for a reefer unit check by a state NEEDING 55BILLION to plug a hole in its BUDGET or try to afford 40-90K to run there Legal.

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3:37 PM
First of all, the Railroads both are signatories on the agreement for locomotives. So they can't complain. Secondly, the requirements for Locomotives are different. BNSF and UP must have a fleet wide average emissions standard equivalent to Tier 2. The EPA rule 40 CFR Part 1033 upgrade requirements for Tier 0 and Tier 1 are almost as stringent as Tier 2. So in effect, performing that upgrade on the 710 engines would bring the fleet into compliance at a much lower cost. As for the emissions requirements for trucks... I'm sorry, but as a California resident for 6 years I was acutely aware that California's central Valley now boasts some of the worst air quality in the entire country. I'm not just talking Carbon Dioxide issues, I'm talking Smog, particulate matter, NOx. So, while I sympathize with truckers, I myself was recently unemployed, I wish it on nobody, I still agree with the state of California and I don't appreciate the name calling. Those laws aren't communism, they protect the interests of far more people than they hurt. And of course, How much of that produce used to travel by train that was "stolen" by trucks. ;)
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3:47 PM

Holy smokes!  If a '92 truck gets 5.5 MPG and an 0-10 gets 7 MPG, does this mean I can trade in my 1996 Taurus LX that gets 30 MPG on the open road with a comparable car in size, comfort, and power that gets 38 MPG?

I once read a trucking magazine that as a trucker you can actually get information from the manufacturer giving you a good idea of what kind of fuel mileage you will get from a truck in the kind of route you drive.  Good luck even getting that information to make informed comparisons for an automobile.

I know the stakes (i.e. the out-of-pocket expenses) are much higher in trucking and perhaps accounts for why the truck makers will address fuel economy questions better than auto makers. 

But it would be really nice if one could get an even ballpark idea of what kind of gas mileage you could get from a new car in service.  It is not that the EPA numbers are "bogus", that the EPA test is different from the kind of driving you might do, I have a feeling that the EPA numbers are "gamed" in some ways.  If anyone is curious, I can point out anomolies on the EPA's own Web site, showing the raw "Test Car List Data" fuel economy numbers where they also show drag numbers used for the tests and point out some suspect values. 

edbenton

The 9400-9600's were the First ones out so they came out in what 1991-92 or so IIRC.  So they have 20 years on them probally 2 2.5 Million miles of Hard pulling in mostly coal service.  Lets see what we would be looking at to rebuild them to current standards.  New Prime movers new Wiring and Control system.  Had desktop controls which CREW HATE.  Also Do not meet EPA Emissions so need Upgraded there.  Looking at 1.5-1.8 Million PER.  Can get a new one for just over 2.2 million that is more Fuel Efficent and the frame is 20 years NEWER.  Lets see here from a OTR look.  I am driving a 92 9700 Cabover that has a 400 Cat gets 5.5 MPG and breaksdown all the time anymore.  Now I can trade it in get a 2010 Model Prostar that gets 7 MPG warrenty and also reliable.  How would you go.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,831 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 6:04 PM

YoHo1975
As for the emissions requirements for trucks... I'm sorry, but as a California resident for 6 years I was acutely aware that California's central Valley now boasts some of the worst air quality in the entire country. I'm not just talking Carbon Dioxide issues, I'm talking Smog, particulate matter, NOx. So, while I sympathize with truckers, I myself was recently unemployed, I wish it on nobody, I still agree with the state of California and I don't appreciate the name calling

Have to agree. In the mid to late 1960s a few people who flew into Newark, Pittsburgh, Birmingham, and Chicago when the wind was from the east would have nose bleeds start before they even got to the gate. Used to be when passing thru 7000ft a person could see a red haze from all the polution. Industries fought it tooth and nail. Another strange effect was thru the 1960s people in the Pittsburgh area were at least 6 - 9 inches shorter than others not in that area.

Smog never had much effect on me but guess I just picked the correct parents. But other people I knew--------------????????!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:33 PM

I drove in the Late 90's Back then we had OTR rigs that would get 9-10 MPG as a normal MILEAGE.  I drove a 98 Pete 379 with a 475 CAT that would get 7 MPG at 75 MPH.  Yet now a Cat motor if your LUCKY will only get 5 MPG in the same configuration.  What Changed 2 things CARB and the EPA decided that they wanted to SAVE the earth and reduce emisions by 40% out the tailpipes.  So CAT redid the Engines came out with ACERT Cummins and Detroit came out with EGR tech and DPF tech on all of the OTR engines in 07.  However in 04 it was Just EGR and Acert.  Now tell me this how can an engine that is burning 50-75% more Fuel be emitting LESS NOX and CO2 than the one it is supposed to replace. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:41 PM

 Again, this is a Train board, so I'm not sure who all here has expertise in those types of diesels. I AM however pretty sure that an EMD 16-710G3C-T2 gets better fuel consumption numbers than a 16-710G3B or older.

 Perhaps this is why CAT has had mixed results in the locomotive market.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Thursday, May 6, 2010 6:39 AM

Why CAT has mixed results is his .  They are like FM an Oddball.  You give the same 3516 that was in the MK5000 series they can make that baby sing for MONTHS at a time.  See RR mechanics like thing SIMPLE PULL AND REPLACE.  That is how they work I have had a couple ex roundhouse workers as in shops were I was a Driver.  NO DIAGNOSTIC SKILLS they throw parts at it til they get it fixed.  Could that be why EMD is still using the BASIC design since the late 30's that way they can keep the old hands from going NUTS.  As soon as I saw EMD came out with the H block series I knew that it was going to be a Failure for this one reason RR's HATE CHANGE.  Look at their History they fought Airbrakes Automatic Couplers heck they have fought ANYTHING that would have brought Change to THEM. 

 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Friday, May 7, 2010 8:56 AM
blue streak 1
... Another strange effect was thru the 1960s people in the Pittsburgh area were at least 6 - 9 inches shorter than others not in that area.

Smog never had much effect on me but guess I just picked the correct parents. But other people I knew--------------????????!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Sorry, but this really made me chuckle. Do you have any biological statistics showing this trend of " 6-9 inches shorter"?What made you immune to the pollution but not others? How did the smog make other people shorter?

If anything, I have found that people in Western Pennsylvania tend to be bigger than average due to so many of them being of either German or Eastern European heritage, which in general tend to be a taller people. I'm 6' 2", and I was at best average height for males in my high school.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Friday, May 7, 2010 9:26 AM

Slovack and German with some Irish here.  Oldest Brother is 5-10 Middle one is 6-1 I am 6-6 we think the Oldest one ended up with more Irish blood than the rest of US. Trouble is I got the IRSIH temper.  My wife is 6-1 so lord help me with the kids my daughter at 3 is already over 3 feet tall my son at 7 is close to 4 and a half feet tall.  My youngest is 7 months and allready is over 28 inches long.  I AM IN TROUBLE for clothes when they get older.  Maybe one of my kids will be able to catch a football or shoot a basketball and get into the pros.  Beter yet be a Linebacker.  I can dream can't I

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,831 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, May 7, 2010 12:31 PM

GP40-2

Sorry, but this really made me chuckle. Do you have any biological statistics showing this trend of " 6-9 inches shorter"?What made you immune to the pollution but not others? How did the smog make other people shorter?

If

ok: No scientific studies at all. However I am 6'3" and when I visited downtown Pitt in the late 60s and 70s I could see over almost the whole crowd. Now when I returned in the late 90s I could no longer do that. Unscientific? Yes! Not a random sampling? Yes! Just was very startling when I was able to see over the crowd. Same effect I also noted in Glascow Scottland at about the same time periods. (another poluted area in the time B4 WW 2 and the 1970s.

I did not live in these polution areas but when in them did not have some of the problems as other contemporarys did have..

As to why shorter? I have no idea. Suspect growth retarded somehow but only suspicion.

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, May 7, 2010 2:48 PM
Pittsburgh still has some of the worst Airquality in the country.
  • Member since
    May 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Friday, May 7, 2010 5:14 PM

Are you a 5'-0" blonde, white female, < 25 y-o-a?  Maybe I could take you away from the (cough) air qualility in Pittsburgh!  We'un's got horses, out here in Montana!

Hays

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Friday, May 7, 2010 10:44 PM
YoHo1975
Pittsburgh still has some of the worst Airquality in the country.

That's really not true. The problem is with one, and only one, particulate reporting station that is located in a valley ***directly*** downwind of the Clairton Coke Works. None of the other reporting stations in Allegheny County report bad air quality. However, all it takes it one "bad" reporting station to get a bad rating.

They have been trying for years to get this station moved to a better location, but to no avail. The problem will go away by 2014 since United States Steel has committed billions of dollars to upgrade the Coke Works, which will make it the most pollution free facility of that type in the world.

Other than Clariton Coke, and the nearby Mon Valley Steel Works, the Pittsburgh area is pretty much free of traditional heavy manufacturing now. The vast majority of any air pollution present is what drifts in from the Mid-West. The Mid-Western states are also under federal orders to reduce that pollution.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Friday, May 7, 2010 11:02 PM
blue streak 1

GP40-2

Sorry, but this really made me chuckle. Do you have any biological statistics showing this trend of " 6-9 inches shorter"?What made you immune to the pollution but not others? How did the smog make other people shorter?

If

ok: No scientific studies at all. However I am 6'3" and when I visited downtown Pitt in the late 60s and 70s I could see over almost the whole crowd. Now when I returned in the late 90s I could no longer do that. Unscientific? Yes! Not a random sampling? Yes! Just was very startling when I was able to see over the crowd. Same effect I also noted in Glascow Scottland at about the same time periods. (another poluted area in the time B4 WW 2 and the 1970s.

I did not live in these polution areas but when in them did not have some of the problems as other contemporarys did have..

As to why shorter? I have no idea. Suspect growth retarded somehow but only suspicion.

 

I suspect it is ethnicity more than anything else. Western Pa also has one of the largest southern Italian populations in the U.S. Historically, the Italians lived in the urban areas such as downtown and other manufacturing towns in the region. The immigrant generation, and the first generation did tend to be shorter in height from what I can remember. However, that is not true anymore. I know some younger guys of Italian ancestry that are quite tall. Mostly likely due to parents marriage outside their ethnic group, or better nutrition than the original immigrants.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Friday, May 7, 2010 11:27 PM
edbenton

Slovack and German with some Irish here. 

My wife is 100% Slovak. It is amusing when she tells people her heritage, and everybody usually reply "Wow that's interesting." Then they think about it and say "Umm...what's a Slovak?"

That's when I reply "Slovakia is a small Eastern European country that is home to the most beautiful women in the world" Instant points scored with the wife. LOL. Actually, if you have every been to Slovakia or the neighboring Czech Republic you will find that is absolutely true about the women.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, May 8, 2010 1:49 PM

 I will vouch for the Slovak women.

Just don't call them Czech or Czechoslovakian.

 

I was basing my comments on Pitt on "number of Air action days" 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:41 PM
YoHo1975

I was basing my comments on Pitt on "number of Air action days" 

Again, the majority of those action days are triggered by one reporting station, the Liberty-Clairton station, which is located in the Monongahela River Valley 15 miles south of Pittsburgh. Because of the geography (low river valley surrounded by very high, steep hills) and a large localized pollution source (US Steel's Clairton Coke Works) this reporting station gets very skewed readings. A large chunk of metro Pittsburgh's electricity is generated by nuclear power (not coal as most believe) and Pennsylvania has a strict auto emission program in place for the region. You really can't do much about the stuff blowing in from the Mid-West until those states are in federal compliance also. Perfect example why air quality needs to be looked at in a large, regional view rather than a metro by metro area basis.
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:03 PM
Caught the following second hand originally from locophotos
BNSF is sending some of their SD70MACs to Mexico for short-term lease to FXE. I have seen elswhere that 40 is the number. That matches what I have found, here. The following are at El Paso, TX: 9646, 9647, 9649, 9650, 9651, 9652, 9653, 9656, 9658, 9659, 9661, 9663, 9666, 9668, 9673, 9674, 9675, 9682, 9683, 9713, 9714, 9716 There are two light engine moves, Alliance to El Paso. This one departed May 8: 9643, 9670, 9672, 9676, 9677, 9679, 9685, 9687 This one departed May 11: 9648, 9654, 9657, 9669, 9681, 9684 And four more on a vehicle train to El Paso: 9660, 9665, 9678, 9686
Note, no mention of retirement and it is a short term lease
  • Member since
    July 2007
  • From: Pottstown PA
  • 1,039 posts
Posted by rdgk1se3019 on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:42 PM

 Looks like this is way off topic now.

Dennis Blank Jr.

CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Vicksburg, Michigan
  • 2,303 posts
Posted by Andrew Falconer on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:53 AM

I saw the new BNSF SD70MACs being delivered over the GTW in 1995 and 1996. I wonder if these are ones that are going to be leased, as the SD70ACe fleet overtakes them in performance.

 Andrew

Andrew

Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,480 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:11 PM

Older power has customarily been that which was leased out when one road had a power surplus and another had a power shortage.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:33 PM
Andrew Falconer

I saw the new BNSF SD70MACs being delivered over the GTW in 1995 and 1996. I wonder if these are ones that are going to be leased, as the SD70ACe fleet overtakes them in performance.

 Andrew

As far as I know, the units being leased are the earliest units on the roster, the ones that were delivered in BN paint.

I would think that yes, the ACe's coming in along with the general traffic downturn would be why they are up for lease.

  • Member since
    May 2010
  • 1 posts
Posted by coolhandluke on Monday, May 31, 2010 2:54 AM

i would like to know how old were the sd70macs my understanding that they weren't that old if so how old may be 25 years or less

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy