Hi, I saw a CSX SD40-3 locomotive today. Is this model unique to CSX or is it a commercial rebuild that other railroads may start to buy? I had never seen one before. Is it upgraded electronics and electrical gear? Thanks for any information that anyone can provide me.
It's just a convenient way of describing an SD40/SD40-2 that has been rebuilt with some modern upgrades. Exactly which upgrades will depend on the owner, and only some railroads actually use that term. It will generally contain upgraded electronics as you surmised, and especiaaly if the starting point was an SD40 that will be substantial. A modern wheel slip control system is a very effective upgrade and will probably be common to all.
John
There are a veriety of older EMD locomotives that have been rebuilt to "-3" specs..the designation means that they have microprocessor based electronics (which was standard on EMD locomotives from the 60 series on)..usually they are rebuilt with aftermarket components but at one time EMD itself offered a "-3" rebuild package for SD40/SD40-2s...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
What aspect of the SD40-2 makes it such a popular candidate for rebuilding or is it just the number of units that were originally built makes it very common? Have any of the rebuilds ever included a change to AC wheel motors?
I assume that they also are required to update the emissions to tier 2 or even tier 3 specifications when they do a substantial rebuild, but I seldom see many SD40-3 with the EMD flared radiators that are common to the Progress Rail PR43 or other rebuilds.
Rebuilding an SD40-2 with AC traction motors is not a realistic option as the entire electrical system would have to be replaced/rebuilt.
I may be mistaken, but I believe there are 'Grandfather' provisions in the emission regulations that permit older locomotives to continue to meet the regulation requirements in effect when they were originally built.
episette I assume that they also are required to update the emissions to tier 2 or even tier 3 specifications when they do a substantial rebuild, but I seldom see many SD40-3 with the EMD flared radiators that are common to the Progress Rail PR43 or other rebuilds.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Grandfather Provision expired at 1201 hours Jan 1st 2012 this so any and ALL rebuilds must be at least Tier 1 Compatable now and in 2015 tier 2 applies.
[quote user="episette"]
quote]
As I understand it, the SD-40 is a truly great piece of machinery. Several years ago "Trains" ran an article on the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad, a BIG user of the SD-40. They love the things and the article said they'd take all they could get their hands on. Makes sense to keep a good performing locomotive alive as long as you can.
The Dash 3 locomotives are not always rebuilt mechanically, in fact now its not a good idea to rebuild a non EPA compliant machine, just do normal maintenence.
Dash 2 and Dash 3 generally refer to the electronics on the locomotives. The dash 3 package includes a micro processor adhesion system that out classes the older dash 2 which in turn outclasses the older static systems on the original locomotive models for adhesion and wheel slip control. I've worked on all three systems and like them all as far as troubleshooting ease. The Micro controlled engines really shine out on the road !
Randy Stahl
edbenton The Grandfather Provision expired at 1201 hours Jan 1st 2012 this so any and ALL rebuilds must be at least Tier 1 Compatable now and in 2015 tier 2 applies.
I don't see that Ed, could you direct me to the proper subsection. 40 CFR 1033.101 seems to indicate that all locomotives originally built in the years 1973 to 1992 are subject to Tier 0+ and those built from 1993 to 2001 that were not built with a separate cooling system for intake air are also only subject to Tier 0+.
40 CFR 1033
Note that the information is current as of January 9th, 2012
Beyond a certain point you hit REmanufactured and that is when the Higher Tier KICKS in. Why do you think the ECO repowers are starting to be sold. They are a good fit. Remember beyond a certain point the IRS and FRA says sorry it is a REMAN loco and therefore the EPA goes it needs to meet the NEW specs. Truast me you can take a CF7 and run it today just make dang sure the 567BC in it is in PERFECT shape as the second you OH the motor again the EPA is going to go you have to bring that up to Current Tier 1+2 specs and if you dobn't LOOK THE HELL OUT. Look no Further than the OTR Industry the N14 60 Series CATs older Motors none of which cold be brought up to Current EPA Draconion Specs you DO NOT SEE THEM ANYMORE. Why because the one State that can Mandatte Change in an Industry said You can Not Run these engines in the State of CA anymore. They will do the Same thing to teh RR's in less than 5 Years mark my words when Tier 4 comes out you will need a Tier Fleet for CA and just the cost of keepog the older stuff running will kill you in the other states.
Firelock, Is the SD40-2 great because of the 3000hp and relibility or because there were so many built so spares are common? I know that newer locomotive have been tration to HP ratios, so that would not be the reason why the SD40-2 is great. Could the greatness of the SD40 be that 3000hp is a perfect segment of HP to build up a consist with because in some situations 400hp segments might be either too much or too little.
Im well aware of WLE's love of the SD40 because their line from Brewster to NW Ohio is only about a mile south of where I sit, so I am often waiting at crossings while their trains pass by.
I don't want to start a firestorm but if the enviromental regulations are to clean up the emissions of railroads then wouldn't it be better to clean up older locomotives that didn't have any emission controls when they were built instead of forcing railroads to add tier 4 control that will negativelyaffect serviceability when tier 3 is already quite clean. I am both an enviromentalist and a mechanical engineer so I have to reconcile of how to best protect the enviroment while not adding excessive regulation and complexity but I also don't want to add costs to smaller regionsals and short lines that can least afford the upgrades.
Railroads are already both very green and inexpensive way to transport goods and they should be congratulated for their efforts.
Episette trouble is the Engines as built were FINE. The problem is the EPA and CARB mandated the reductions and I can tell you this from the OTR industry Look out your going to see Maintance costs go thru the roof and the number of units needed to Haul loads go up also.
In 2000 a C120 would go down the road with a 470HP 60 series Detroit under the hood at 65-70 MPH and get between 7-8 MPG day in day out. A 2008 Cascadia model with 40% Better Areo on the truck Super SIngles and every other Fuel Saving trick they can put on it might get 5 MPG at 62 MPH with a Smaller Motor they are lucky to put a 400 HP MBE engine on them. Now how is Burning MORE FUEL when your running SLOWER and for the Enviroment. The Reduction the EPA mandated for those model years was the same as what the EPA Mandated in Tier 1 and Tier 3 and their Tier 4 is the same as what we just went thru for the OTR Industry. Now why did the OTR engine Manufactors give up their BEST Mileage platforms either they agreed to plead GUILTY to something some BEARUCRAT Enviromentalist thought was going on or NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SELL ANOTHER ENGINE OF ANYKIND IN THE USA AGAIN.
What did the EPA accuse the engine makers of doing having a Cruise function in the engine that were they would bypass the emission controls at a steady state THEY NEVER FOUND THE THING BUT THEY SWORE TO A FEDERAL JUDGE IT WAS THERE. The Punishiment was 1/2 the time needed to get Emissions ready for OTR trucks. Who did this President Clinton in 1999.
It appears that there are those who believe that clean air is not worth the money it will cost.
I do love Clean air BUT there is a point where the RETURNS do not EQUAL the EXPENSE you demand from the Companies. CARB requirements for lower Side Skirts on Trailers of all kinds by 2018 is going to cost about another 2 BILLION dollars to MAINTAIN them per YEAR yet they only save 200 MIllion in fuel a YEAR. The requirements that you can only run a 2007 model or NEWER truck in California now that cost O/O billions in replacement costs of their trucks yet the ones they had to Replace cost LESS to run.
Then you have the EPA when they get rolling they can not be Stopped. I know of one person near me that is waiting on a court case before the Supreme Court Right now. It involves the EPA going after a couple in Idaho that wanted to build a house on their OWN LAND. The EPA declared part of their LOT WETLANDS and said sorry you can not build there even though it took 4 experts to FIND THE FREAKING THINGS.
Here is what the EPA says can be Declared a Wetland any area of land that holds water more than 1week solid around here that is a MUDPUDDLE. The industry itself wanted the better MPG's and got them it was teh EPA that SCREWED IT UP. Now we are getting things back to what they were 12 years ago and hopefully the EPA does not Screw it up AGAIN. I have seen what happens when the Goverment runs ripshod over something that works see the HOS in the OTR side they had to rewrite the Rewrites 4 times to maybe get them right. Yet people still think the EPA can do no wrong the EPA was the idiots that said MTBE was not harmful.
To episette: As I understand it the appeal of the SD-40 is it's sheer reliability. From what I hear the things are darn near bulletproof. Take care of them the way you're supposed to and they just run and run. And I suppose that 3000 horsepower rating is a good mid-range rating, not to weak, not too strong. Certainly EMD hit it out of the park with this locomotive.
One more thing: There's a bit of give-and-take starting here about eviornmental regs. Let me tell you those in this country howling about the enviornment don't know how good they have it. Things are a heck of a lot cleaner now, both air and water, than when I was a boy 50 years ago, trust me. Edbenton's correct when he says at some time you're going to hit the point of diminishing returns, either in money spent or in jobs lost. I look at it this way, if you want to live in a modern industrial society with all the advantages, and yes, blessings it has to offer you're going to have to live with a certain amount of "schmutz". Finding the right level is the trick.
Then there's my niece who just returned from a trip to China. She says until you've been to China you don't know what smog is!
Amen, bro' Firlelock76. Amen to the China reference....my brother's stories confirm. Amen to the 50 years ago: in '59 shooting Kodachrome in the shade of Mission tower the view across the LA "river" was a few hundred feet too far in the sm(og)aze.
That was digression......back to the SD-40, and 40-2.
Consider that the mid-60's EMD offerings had an improved wheel-slip (should be wheel=spin, pulling hard problem) and then the early 70's (the dash 2's) EMD offerings were were slightly, 3 percent better, in adhesion.
Historically, 500 hp per axle maxed-out the wheel slip tech. The -3 suffix, previous correspondents said, indicated improved wheel slip control. and it is correct; ballast train, a rebuilt to GP40-3 spec's and a second stock GP40-2 enfeebled by not being able to load over 900 amps: It's a separate story but we got into Midway sidiing. For about a 45 minute period the dash 3 put out tractive effort represented by, not kidding, 1400 to 1500 amperes. The Altamont Commuter Express behind us took about a ten minute delay.
Below about 20 mph,the SD-45's extra 600 hp (comp'd to the SD-40's--incl. of -2's) was surplus and being hauled along by an engine with A-frames for its crankshaft in trouble along with 2-cycle fuel deficiency problems, I propose, clues us to the SD40/-2 success.
The SD40-3's increased adhesion at 8 to 12 mph works for profit but.....not environment....can you see the river's shore over there like in 1959.
b
Here is what the EPA Mandates have cost the OTR Trucking Industry. Less Reliable ENGINES they now last LESS than 750k BEFORE they will need an Overhaul that will set you back an estimated 25 Grand. Then you have the EGR and DPF filters that need to be changed out once a year each cost is about 3-4 grand per part PLUS LABOR so around 8 grand each part per year, Then the Cost of buying a truck went thru the roof all these extra parts added 50K to the cost of a NEW TRUCK.
What did this save in tailpipe Total emmisons dropped less than 5% TOTAL. In total weight they lowered it about 12 oz a YEAR in what they produce. Yet the EPA wants MORE than that they want the total amount produced dropped by a 2 liter pop bottle in order to do that it will DOUBLE the cost of everything on the shelves. The Diesel engine by Design is 95% clean on what is thrown in to burn the Engineers have gotten it to 98% out of THEM. The EPA is STILL not happy they want 99.9999995% out of every drop of fuel converted to energy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do that. We are already at the Diminishing Returns area and still they want MORE. The EPA is a JUNKIE give them power and they want MORE they will always want MORE.
So what is the difference between a SD40-3 and a SD40E?
.
Both models are creations of rebuilders and not EMD so each rebuilder makes up their own mind as to what gets changed. Norfolk Southern's SD40E locomotives are SD50 locomotives rebuilt with a microprocessor, the older 645E3B engine producing 3000 hp, while retaining the stronger D87 traction motors, the AR14 main alternator, and the Super Series adhesion control system.
Thanks,Nice engines, but, with only 3000hp they are slow up the hill.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.