I rode on thousands of locomotives from SP, CNW, UP, D&RGW, Chessie, BN, Santa fe, and many others and I never found any of them to be rough riding. I also rode on my fair share of B40-8's and GP60M's and didn't find them any different than than a GP38-2 or a GP60. I only rode on a hand full of CN units but didn't find them any different than any other locomotive except for tea kettle burners in the cab.
Putting more weight on a locomotive would make it easier riding if anything. Anyone who has ever spent hours switching and riding cars in a rail yard will tell you that loaded cars ride a lot better than empty ones.
I wouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Most of the people claiming these things have never even been on a ride in a locomotive. Locomotives all ride about the same regardless if they are 6 axle or 4 axle. The GP60M's and Dash-8-40BW's are both excellent locomotives and continue to serve the railroads today.
The C40-8's and the C30-7's were not fun to ride in. If you had 3 people in the cab someone had to sit in that front seat by the door. If you were that person you either had to sit sideways, or sit with your knees pressed against the door with your feet off the ground because the cab was so crammed. You also had to turn sideways walking by the radiator fan intakes.
YoHo1975 Considering that the GP40-2L is in fact ballasted heavier than a GP40-2 and so is the exact opposite of lighter, I find that claim dubious. Though it does appear to be a falsehood going around the internet. They were ballasted to 262,000lbs because of GP40 wheel slip problems. Now, I have read that it is in reference to a lighter frame which was used so that the weight could be redistributed to keep the unit from being nose heavy. That is also not confirmed, but I would believe it. But then, why not do the same with the GP60M? Or did they? I've also read and this is far more confirmed that the frame is lighter to accommodate the full 3600Gallon fuel tank. BUT, not all GP40-2 wide nose units were equipped as such. Which still doesn't explain whether the nose provided ride issues? And of course there are the GP38-2Ws which have wide noses, but are built on standard GP38-2 frames. Are these also nose heavy with ride problems?
Considering that the GP40-2L is in fact ballasted heavier than a GP40-2 and so is the exact opposite of lighter, I find that claim dubious. Though it does appear to be a falsehood going around the internet.
They were ballasted to 262,000lbs because of GP40 wheel slip problems.
Now, I have read that it is in reference to a lighter frame which was used so that the weight could be redistributed to keep the unit from being nose heavy. That is also not confirmed, but I would believe it. But then, why not do the same with the GP60M? Or did they?
I've also read and this is far more confirmed that the frame is lighter to accommodate the full 3600Gallon fuel tank. BUT, not all GP40-2 wide nose units were equipped as such. Which still doesn't explain whether the nose provided ride issues?
And of course there are the GP38-2Ws which have wide noses, but are built on standard GP38-2 frames. Are these also nose heavy with ride problems?
The B&O/C&O/WM had around 560 GP40/GP40-2s, most weighed in at 280,000 lbs and had 3600 gallon fuel tanks. I've been in the cab of them on everything from coal drags to 70 mph Trailer Jets, and they rode fine with no hunting at speed.
If I recall correctly, the GP60Ms were listed at 282,000 lbs, so I doubt the weight had any bearing on ride quality. Now, I've never been in a GP60M, so I can't comment on their ride, but if they have problems, something else is going on.
OH, Ok, I remember those.
So, why do GP60s hunt? As opposed to GP50s or 40s?
YoHo1975 OK, I'm somewhat ignorant of boagie design. Which dampeners are we talking about? I know that GP60M used leaf springs instead of the rubberized dampener on earlier Bloomberg M type trucks.
OK, I'm somewhat ignorant of boagie design. Which dampeners are we talking about? I know that GP60M used leaf springs instead of the rubberized dampener on earlier Bloomberg M type trucks.
On the engineer's side of the unit, there is a damper (looks like a shock) that mounts between the frame rail (aft of center of the truck) and a bracket just inboard from the front axle in the truck. You can see this in the shot below:
I have heard that the GP40-2L locomotives are almost as bad as the GP60Ms. The first 50 were geared for 80 mph. (60:17 gearing), which was popular with western railroads before the profusion of bulk trains caused almost all railroads to revert to 70 mph gearing (EMD 62:15) for better locomotive utilization. All of the GP60 locomotive models experienced problems with truck hunting (yaw) a higher speeds until dampers were retrofitted. The hunting would have worsened the ride quality even more.
The "L" in the GP40-2L designation stands for "Lightweight", same as in the SDL39 and FL9. Because of that, ride quality may have been less of an issue. I don't know about the M420's and HR412.
I doubt those two narrow gauge units ever get going quick enough for ride quality to become much of an issue. The criticism I've seen of things like GP60M's are their ride quality at speed. Not lugging freight at slow speeds. I don't think USG ever goes faster than 25mph or so and much of the run is slower than that.
So, the poor ride quality of the ATSF GP60Ms and Dash-8 40BWs is pretty well established. These units are nose heavy, at the edge of 4 axle weight limit and are apparently a bear to ride in. I don't know these things from experience, I just have read enough about them on the internet to accept them as fact.
My question then is, what were the ride characteristics of the GP40-2Ls and the M420w that CN had? Did they have the same issues? If they didn't why didn't they?
What about the Alco/MLW DL-535 wide cab narrow gauge units that USG has? do they have the same problems?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.