Trains.com

Life of Locomotives in coal service

10698 views
20 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Norfolk Southern Lafayette District
  • 1,642 posts
Posted by bubbajustin on Friday, November 9, 2012 12:33 PM

It is also important to note, the NS uses the SD80MAC almost exclusively for coal service. these locomotive are equipped with 5.000 horsepower 20-cylinder engines. 

NS has been using it's new AC power for coal I believe. 

-Justin

The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, November 8, 2012 1:02 PM

efftenxrfe

Very interesting.

Does the  " mine spurs......steerable truck "  mean that an engine "with" can track thru a sharper radius than one "without? Or is it a matter of preference to avoid rail stress and wear?

On the San Diego and Arizona Eastern, 6-axle Baldwins, Alcos and EMDs were common (almost exclusively) on the SD to El Centro trains which traversed a bunch of 19 degree curves thru  Carriso Gorge,

Near the end 4-axle engines stretched out the rail',s life. 1960 or so was the change-over to 5600's, ( GP9s ). 

 

According to the UMLER records for similar class locomotives - 1 with steerable trucks and 1 without - the locomotives are listed as being able to traverse the same maximum curvature - 21 degrees.  With that being the case, the steerable truck locomotive inflicts less stress on the track structure in negotiating the sharp curves - thus lessening the likelihood of derailments on track that has a high degree of curvature and may be maintained to less than optimum standards - ie. many of the mine spurs.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 339 posts
Posted by efftenxrfe on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:24 PM

Very interesting.

Does the  " mine spurs......steerable truck "  mean that an engine "with" can track thru a sharper radius than one "without? Or is it a matter of preference to avoid rail stress and wear?

On the San Diego and Arizona Eastern, 6-axle Baldwins, Alcos and EMDs were common (almost exclusively) on the SD to El Centro trains which traversed a bunch of 19 degree curves thru  Carriso Gorge,

Near the end 4-axle engines stretched out the rail',s life. 1960 or so was the change-over to 5600's, ( GP9s ). 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:27 PM

On lines with sharp curves, you pretty much had to stick with four axles, as well.  With the advent of the radial truck, you could use six axles many places.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:27 AM

I Like Coal

Why yes were I live Southern had to use 4 axles on their line due to weight ristrictions, now NS uses AC power and CSX uses both 4 and 6 axles here as well.  NS has also went from using a 3 pack of Dash-9's to a 4 pack of AC's on the CG Line.

I would bet that NS is running longer trains behind the quartets of AC power...they seem very focused on maximizing locomotive performance while reducing fuel consumption..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    March 2011
  • 5 posts
Posted by I Like Coal on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:50 AM

Why yes were I live Southern had to use 4 axles on their line due to weight ristrictions, now NS uses AC power and CSX uses both 4 and 6 axles here as well.  NS has also went from using a 3 pack of Dash-9's to a 4 pack of AC's on the CG Line.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 6:45 AM

JayPotter

Chessie System's preference for four-axle power in most tonnage service was based largely on concerns -- particularly those of John Collinson, a civil engineer who became president of B&O and C&O in 1978 -- that six-axle power would damage track structure in curves.  CSXT has continued to be concerned about locomotive performance in curves.  GE's development of its steerable truck involved testing on CSXT; and I believe that CSXT is currently the only railroad that specifies steerable trucks on its new GE locomotives.

 

There are a number of mine spurs that can only be served by steerable truck 6 axles - even today.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:57 AM

Chessie System's preference for four-axle power in most tonnage service was based largely on concerns -- particularly those of John Collinson, a civil engineer who became president of B&O and C&O in 1978 -- that six-axle power would damage track structure in curves.  CSXT has continued to be concerned about locomotive performance in curves.  GE's development of its steerable truck involved testing on CSXT; and I believe that CSXT is currently the only railroad that specifies steerable trucks on its new GE locomotives.

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, November 5, 2012 11:49 AM

daveklepper

Regading 4-axle, well, the first freighr diesels were 4-axle, the FT, F3, and F3.   And yes, the B&O and possibly the D&RGW did use early F units in coal service.   But most other coal -haulers did stick with steam until 6-axle hood units were available.  I think the Lehigh Valley used FA's and FB's in coal service.  Meanwhile, the PRR was still using 2-10-0's and the C&O dsesigned 2-10-4's.   

Good points.

 It's interesting to note that Chessie system and it's component RR's (C&O/B&O/WM) made a regular practice of using 4 axle power on coal trains i.e GP40/40-2s and U30B/B30-7s right up until the CSX merger...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 5, 2012 4:55 AM

Regading 4-axle, well, the first freighr diesels were 4-axle, the FT, F3, and F3.   And yes, the B&O and possibly the D&RGW did use early F units in coal service.   But most other coal -haulers did stick with steam until 6-axle hood units were available.  I think the Lehigh Valley used FA's and FB's in coal service.  Meanwhile, the PRR was still using 2-10-0's and the C&O dsesigned 2-10-4's.   

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, November 5, 2012 4:30 AM

blue streak 1

1.  Wouldn't a loco's total HP hours determine the life of the prime mover and traction motors.

 2. the condition of the tracks and mileage on each kind of track should determine the life of the frame, trucks, & wheels ? 

3.  All this does depend on no wreck damage

1. Yes.  The Diesel engine needs new power assemblies every 5-7 years based on this.

2. Track condition doesn't effect the trucks much that I've seen.  A lot of curves can cause flange wear, but mileage is the big factor.  It's the brake rigging bushings that often are the problem.  Wheel wear is usually "fixed" by running through a wheel true machine.  You get several cuts before you reach min tread thickness.  Then you just remove the traction motor/wheelset combo.  At this point, you probably want to rehab the TM - the armature bearings have a lot of miles on them by this point.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 28 posts
Posted by oldHooker on Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:40 AM

I don't know about other places, but two of the freight locomotives that work the factories in northern Randolph County, North Carolina are 40 (NS3203) and 34 (NS3463) years old, respectively... and show their age, as seen here at the Hwy 311 & I-74 crossing near Randleman a couple days ago.

(2nd picture details the weathering on NS3203)

 

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Monday, October 15, 2012 1:14 PM

I'm less certain about CSXT's oldest AC locomotives being rebuilt to any significant degree.  In 2008, it began a pilot program to have GE rebuild four AC4400CWs to its current coal-service standards (i.e. 20,000 pounds of additional weight, improved adhesion-control software, increased per-motor tractive effort limits, and rail cleaners).  However it terminated the program after only three units had been rebuilt.  The rebuilding was costly -- especially the addition of the weight -- and the result of the rebuilding was still, in many respects, an aging locomotive.  Conditions change; and I can't say that CSXT will never decide to use rebuilt units as its first-line coal-service power; but I suspect that it will always be more inclined to rebuild locomotives for manifest service than for coal service.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:39 PM

The first of CSX's AC engines from GE are celebrating their 18th birthday this month.  They are still pulling their share of freight in all classes of service.  To date I have not heard of any plans for retirement of these engines, especially since the company has over 1000 of their offspring working in the same services.  Unless and until the next quantum leap in locomotive technology comes down the pike, these locomotives will continue to be maintained and rebuilt, frame up, as necessary to extend their economic life.  When the time comes that the continued maintenance doesn't justify the economic return, they will be retired and scrapped.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:13 PM

1.  Wouldn't a loco's total HP hours determine the life of the prime mover and traction motors.

 2. the condition of the tracks and mileage on each kind of track should determine the life of the frame, trucks, & wheels ? 

3.  All this does depend on no wreck damage

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • 56 posts
Posted by crpulse on Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:13 PM

I would agree with the 15-20 year life span. BNSF has bumped a lot of the earlier MACs to manifest and also replaced the SD40-2s in the "Surge fleet" with them. UP has reassigned their SD90s to manifest freight although I have yet to see a Gevo or ACe on one of their coal trains. Maybe the downturn in coal shipment just let them move the EMDs to haul traffic elsewhere. UP coal trains are all GE around Chicagoland.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, September 24, 2012 8:28 PM

On coal carriers locomotives will stay in coal service until something better is created by the manufacturers - not just based on the manufacturers claims, but on experience in actual service.

Before AC engines hit the market, CSX was using Dash-8's and their few Dash-9's.  They were the biggest power available until both EMD & GE hit the market with the AC's.  When the AC's began service they could handle train sizes that were problematical when using the Dash-8's, with ease.  Once the AC's became the standard power the train sizes were increased.  Over the years CSX has acquired over 1000 AC locomotives from both vendors, although GE does have the market edge at present.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, September 24, 2012 11:15 AM

IIRC, both NS and CSX have utilized road slugs mated to GP40/GP40-2 mothers in mine run service. NS built a number of slugs from GP9 grames and CSX recycled retired GP30/GP35 units into cab equipped slugs. Both rods are now operating cab slugs...

 Such mother slug combinations are really only useful in low speed service below 25 mph, making them economical for mine runs...

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    June 2011
  • 25 posts
Posted by zrail on Friday, September 21, 2012 4:33 PM

Thanks for the reply, very helpful.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: SE Minnesota
  • 6,847 posts
Posted by jrbernier on Friday, September 21, 2012 4:28 PM

  Based on BN - about 15-20 years for a 'coal' engine.  The early U30C engines did not last as long as the later SD40-2 and C30-7 engines(SD40-2's seemed to have a charmed life).  SD60/SD60m's started to take over in he mid 80's, but were replaced with the AC drive SD70MAC's in coal service in the late 90's.

  C&NW used  various new GE engines(starting with the C40-8).  I have heard that they did try the GP50's during a power shortage, but I suspect they did not work out very well.

  BNSF/UP seem to have settled on SD70MAC/AC4400/ES44AC/SD70ACe for their unit coal train operations out of the PRB.

  C&O/B&O seemed to like GP40-2's for coal service, and these many times rum with a road slug on mine locals.  Perhaps someone can fill us in on current operations on CSX & NS.

Jim

Modeling BNSF  and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin

  • Member since
    June 2011
  • 25 posts
Life of Locomotives in coal service
Posted by zrail on Friday, September 21, 2012 3:36 PM

How long does a locomotive stay in coal service before it is replace by newer models? Also in the 1980's were 4-axle locomotives ever used to haul coal?

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