NS acquiring 100 of UP's EMD SD9043MAC locomotives

70069 views
400 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 4:18 PM

D.Carleton

The CSX order of 70ACe's had issues with undesired harmonics in the engine  geartrain.

There was much 'fingerpointing' on the subject between CSX and EMD. I on't know if the issue was ever resolved to the customers' satisfaction.

Another issue with the CSX ACe's was the lack of IAC-a la' GE. Accordingly, EMD built some demos with IAC...which resulted in zero orders.

The ground relay story sounds like utter nonsense...

CPM500

 

 
 

 

 

A twelve year old asset sold off because of a ground relay problem? I certainly hope there is more to it than that. On NS a problem child would be put in storage until traffic warrants spending the money to find the problem.

 

Also, remember that EMD is still sitting on a group of SD70ACes repatriated from Oz.

Even so, a few months back someone was advertising Dash 9s for sale albeit without an asking price. Since then I have not heard of any Dash 9s trading stables.

We (sadly) have an over abundance of high horsepower locomotives in need of tonnage to pull. Let's hope the wait is not too long.

 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 949 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 4:58 PM

CPM500

The CSX order of 70ACe's had issues with undesired harmonics in the engine  geartrain.

There was much 'fingerpointing' on the subject between CSX and EMD. I on't know if the issue was ever resolved to the customers' satisfaction.

Another issue with the ACe's was the lack of IAC-a la' GE. Accordingly, EMD built some demos with IAC...which resulted in zero orders.

The ground relay story sounds like utter nonsense...

CPM500

So the new SD70ACeT4 do not have individual axle control. Interesting. (I've only seen them in passing.) I had chalked up the lack of orders to not having a Tier 4 offering but apparently it's deeper that that. Pity.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:45 PM

Guys, I am not sure this is the same thing you are referring to, but at the Progress Rail web site it lists individual axle control as a feature of the SD70ACeT4. I am not sure if that means one inverter per axle or not, though.

http://www.progressrail.com/en/products/locomotives/freight/sd70acet4.html

 

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:12 AM

kgbw49

Guys, I am not sure this is the same thing you are referring to, but at the Progress Rail web site it lists individual axle control as a feature of the SD70ACeT4. I am not sure if that means one inverter per axle or not, though.

http://www.progressrail.com/en/products/locomotives/freight/sd70acet4.html

 

 

 

The T4  was designed with IAC-one inverter per axle. The original SD70ACe design had one inverter per truck.

When EMD and Siemens were doing the development on what became the MAC locomotives, both arrangements were tested. The mule for IAC was a retired AMTK SDP40F.

CPM500

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 8:27 PM
The T4 ACe was designed from the outset with one inverter per axle to combat GE directly. I don't think any T4 ACe will have one per truck unless a RR wants a cheaper locomotive (guess that'll be BNSF then...).

ML

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,904 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:51 PM

GDRMCo
The T4 ACe was designed from the outset with one inverter per axle to combat GE directly. I don't think any T4 ACe will have one per truck unless a RR wants a cheaper locomotive (guess that'll be BNSF then...).
 

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/09/08-emd-p4-tier-4-demos-set-to-begin-testing

Not Wrong Narelle....

(an old local joke!)

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,743 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:27 PM

EMDX 1603 and 1604 do have IAC, but with only 4 powered axles they only need 4 Inverters. 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,904 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, September 9, 2016 12:31 AM

beaulieu

EMDX 1603 and 1604 do have IAC, but with only 4 powered axles they only need 4 Inverters. 

 
GE's success in selling BNSF ES44C4 and ET44C4 units is one of the reasons that EMD felt compelled to go to individual axle control.
 
My comment was based more on the accurate statement about which road wanted lower cost AC locomotives, and not the particular technology involved.
 
In theory a four motor six axle locomotive could be built with one inverter per truck. But it would require a new design of lower power inverter than would be used in a six motor unit with one inverter per truck.
 
GE's design with one inverter per axle allows easy modular construction of four motor or six motor units which one inverter per truck does not.
 
EMD, as the quoted article says, have supplied twenty units to BNSF already and are presumably keen to get a share of the business now going to GE.
 
The actual performance of inverter per truck or inverter per axle is less important in this case than the ability to provide a lower tractive effort AC locomotive for intermodal and general traffic without the need to use non standard components.
 
M636C
  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Friday, September 9, 2016 7:33 AM

Many of the 'new' design features in the ACe-T4 have been present in the ES44 for years.

CPM500

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,904 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:37 PM

CPM500

Many of the 'new' design features in the ACe-T4 have been present in the ES44 for years.

CPM500

Apart from the inverter per axle feature, not really....

The really big feature of the ES44 was air to air intercooling. This isn't on the SD70ACe-T4 (and isn't on the ET44 either, at least not in the same form).

You could say that the ES44 had a 12 cylinder four stroke engine, and the new EMD has one. But the ET44 has a quite different engine to meet tier 4 compared to that in the ES44. Many of the features that are different between the Tier 3 and Tier 4 GE engines are featured in the EMD engine but these are required by Tier 4.

I'm told that the front cab windows of the SD70 ACe were interchangeable with those in the ES44 but those in the SD70 ACe-T4 definitely are not.

As I've said before, the changes between the ES44 and ET44 are nearly as great as those between the T3 and T4 SD70ACe units. Not only are the engines not interchangeable between ES44 and ET44, but relatively few engine components are interchangeable.

M636C

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:58 AM

How about resiliently mounted engine, alternator start, cooling fan control scheme...and a whole bunch of other electrical features ?

 

CPM500

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 949 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Sunday, September 11, 2016 2:34 PM

M636C
Apart from the inverter per axle feature, not really....

The really big feature of the ES44 was air to air intercooling. This isn't on the SD70ACe-T4 (and isn't on the ET44 either, at least not in the same form).

You could say that the ES44 had a 12 cylinder four stroke engine, and the new EMD has one. But the ET44 has a quite different engine to meet tier 4 compared to that in the ES44. Many of the features that are different between the Tier 3 and Tier 4 GE engines are featured in the EMD engine but these are required by Tier 4.

I'm told that the front cab windows of the SD70 ACe were interchangeable with those in the ES44 but those in the SD70 ACe-T4 definitely are not.

As I've said before, the changes between the ES44 and ET44 are nearly as great as those between the T3 and T4 SD70ACe units. Not only are the engines not interchangeable between ES44 and ET44, but relatively few engine components are interchangeable.

M636C

A lot of us had been waiting for the day when mainline freight locomotives would be, from both builders, a four-cycle V12 4000-ish HP plant with 3 phase AC traction motors. We didn't think it would take 15 years to realize.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,904 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:04 PM

CPM500

How about resiliently mounted engine, alternator start, cooling fan control scheme...and a whole bunch of other electrical features ?

 

CPM500

 

How about fabricted trucks with passive steering compared to cast rigid trucks, three radiator fans sucking air through the radiators, causing less erosion damage than two fans (ET44) or one fan (ES44) blowing air through the radiator cores.

Twelve cylinder 45 degree vee engines are inherently less well balanced than sixteen cylinder engines of the same arrangement, so resilient mounting is making the best of an inferior situation.

EMD had electrically driven fans for aound twenty five years before GE adopted them. They were operated by thermostats and the speed was directly related to the engine speed. I imagine that both companies use more sophisticated controls now they are cheap and available.

But I'd argue that the SD70 ACe has more features in common with the ET44 than the ES44 and this is due to ever stricter regulation.

The ES44 was undoubtedly the best Tier 2 and Tier 3 locomotive but that time has gone and there won't be any more built for use in the USA. The ET44 looks superficially similar and shares some electrical features but mechanically is virtually a new design.

M636C

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 7:19 PM

M636C
Not Wrong Narelle....

Bloody right I'm off again, Craig...

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 4:59 AM

The latest issue of Trains says that the SD80MAC's will be repowered with 16-710's when rebuilt, presumably becoming SD70ACU equivalents.

Can anyone confirm? I thought that the tentative plan was for them to retain their original engines.

 

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,904 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 6:35 AM

Leo_Ames

The latest issue of Trains says that the SD80MAC's will be repowered with 16-710's when rebuilt, presumably becoming SD70ACU equivalents.

Can anyone confirm? I thought that the tentative plan was for them to retain their original engines.

 

While I can't confirm anything, the possibility was raised on page 8 of this thread as a possibility.

If NS will have 100 units with 16 cylinder engines, upgrading 28 more to match seems like a good idea.

M636C

 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 2:21 PM

If that's what happens, evidently, they agree. 

If equivalent performance is what they're after, the marine versions put out 4300 hp at a reduced rpm speed (900 versus 950, as I recall). So they can up fuel economy if they don't want the extra horsepower that's possible, and by reducing engine stress with the lower speed, lessen the added maintenance expense of those extra 4 cylinders. 

And there's already an awful lot of parts commonality here between the 16 cylinder and 20 cylinder engines. So I'm surprised that what they'd be gaining by replacing what has appeared to be a reliable and efficient engine, is worth the investment in acquiring new engines from EMD. So I can't help but be a bit skeptical of what they reported.

Especially since as best as I can tell, it hasn't been reported at the usual reliable sources for NS locomotive news like NSDash9 and AltoonaWorks. 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 949 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 9:25 PM

Back when NS horse traded for the remaining SD80MACs one of them, 7222, came with a broken crankshaft. NS chose to rebuild her with a rebuilt 20-710G3B-EC. It does seem NS is committed to keeping the larger engine.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 12:55 PM

If it turns out that NS likes the results of the SD70ACu program, will they look to acquire other SD9043MAC units for conversion rather than downrate the SD80MAC units? One would think it would be a good way to continue the reliable 710 fleet without the risk of the still-unproven-for-the-long-term Tier 4 motors.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,168 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:16 PM

I thought we had mentioned this somewhere, but NS traded MP15s to CEFX for 10 more SD90MACs for the program.

http://www.nsdash9.com/rosters/7230.html#CITSD90

Presumably they could go in search of CP's if they wanted to...

I really would not be surprised either way NS goes with the SD80MACs as there are trade offs both ways.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 5:06 PM

You are correct that we the additional 10 were noted in this thread previously. I think they are at 110 SD9043MACs.

I apologize for not being clearer with my question - it was referring to perhaps more than the current 110. My bad on that.

Of course, we know UP has another 200 units and there are others out there. One would think that a 710 unit would be more fuel efficient than some of the other older units in the NS fleet.

I was just posing the question for discussion to see what others think after a year or so of this program.

Thanks!

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 6:18 PM

One more question - have the Canadian Pacific SD9043MAC units been scrapped, or are they rusting to the rail on a siding up in Canada? Didn't they get set aside after only a dozen or so years of use? Thanks!

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,904 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 6:26 PM

Leo_Ames

If that's what happens, evidently, they agree. 

If equivalent performance is what they're after, the marine versions put out 4300 hp at a reduced rpm speed (900 versus 950, as I recall). So they can up fuel economy if they don't want the extra horsepower that's possible, and by reducing engine stress with the lower speed, lessen the added maintenance expense of those extra 4 cylinders. 

I don't think we are comparing similar ratings between marine and locomotive 16-710 engines here.

Marine ratings would normally be quoted as brake horsepower while locomotive ratings are given as net input to the alternator less accessories such as the brake air compressor and cooling fans (items absent in most ships).

The 950rpm 16-710 is generally quoted as 4500 brake hp, so dededucting 200 hp from the marine rating gives 4100 hp, about the same as the railroad rating for a 900 rpm 16-710.

However, the Indian Railways have a 950 rpm 20-710 rated at 5500 brake hp, maybe 5200 hp at the alternator....

My comments above related to the long term future of the SD80MACs. Presumably they will need new inverters in time, just like the ex UP units, and they might get new (and presumably stronger) cabs. There would be no reason to replace the 20-710s if they are giving no problems.

In the back of my mind is a view I had of the engine rebuild bay at La Grange in 1977, where nearly every engine in for work was a 20 cylinder unit. Given how few 20-645s were built compared to all the 16-567s and 16-645s, there was a problem then, which might have been fixed in he 20-710. But I'll wait and see.

M636C

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,168 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 8:43 PM

kgbw49
One more question - have the Canadian Pacific SD9043MAC units been scrapped, or are they rusting to the rail on a siding up in Canada? Didn't they get set aside after only a dozen or so years of use? Thanks!

I think they largely have not moved since the recession began, except for a few in 2012 or so. They apparently weren't in great condition even when they entered storage.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:25 AM

Since we don't have a dedicated SD60E thread and it has been regularly discussed in here, I was wondering if anyone had any insight on why no former standard cab Conrail units have been included so far?

Just original NS and former C&NW/UP units have been rebuilt, while the surviving 15 CR SD60's have yet to have a member included. With 132 SD60E's done and barely 60 unrebuilt examples left on the roster, it seems unlikely that it would just be a coincidence that not even one of these 15 have been selected so far. 

And how'd the first SD60 ever built, which went to Norfolk Southern at the split of Conrail, escape and end up at CSX while the remaining CR fleet remains intact to this day at NS?

Expiration of a 15 year lease back in 2000 on this ex-demo unit that NS didn't buy out or renew, perhaps?

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, February 10, 2017 11:46 AM
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,636 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, February 10, 2017 4:35 PM

Leo_Ames

Going to be 5500HP.  That'll get'em out of the coal fields!  I remember asking EMD about going to 5500 HP on the 20-710 engine back when we (Conrail) were in the process of specifying the SD80MACs.  They said it was a possibility.  Only took 20 years!  

This will make them good merchandise haulers on NS. 

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

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, February 10, 2017 10:42 PM

These are 16 cylinder SD70's. After their AC rebuild, I would not expect them to push out more than the 4,500 hp that NS's SD70ACU's with overhauled engines put out.

And while never confirmed that I saw by reliable online sources like NSDash9, the latest word on the rebuilding of SD80MAC's in Trains late last year were that they were to get 16-710's. So I wouldn't count on seeing them be pushed to 5,500 hp.

Even if they retain their 20 cylinder engines like had been expected, I imagine a downrating is more likely than 5,500 hp. Commonality is important and the closer they perform to other AC EMD's in their fleet, probably the better. 

At 5,500 hp, their performance characteristics will be significantly different when mu'ed with other modern AC's in their fleet and at just 29 members, I doubt we'd see their unique capabilities put to use such as enabling unit reduction. 

What would NS gain for instance when one of these 5,500 hp fuel guzzlers found their way in a three unit consist of AC power that can meet its schedule with 1,000 less horsepower, other than burn more diesel doing the same job? 

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Saturday, February 11, 2017 7:45 AM

oltmannd
Going to be 5500HP.

Don, what's your source for this? (it's not in the link you posted)

I don't think you mean anything about 20-710s in SD70s (which would be silly) -- you mean the 'possibility' that only 'took 20 years' was developing 5500hp out of a single unit with a 710 prime mover?

Certainly the AC transmission will permit higher horsepower to the rail after the rebuilding.  Can the prime mover be built to provide the necessary shp to take full advantage of that?

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Saturday, February 11, 2017 10:06 AM

They can likely push 5,500 hp out of a SD80MAC rebuild if they wanted to. I imagine that planned project was what he was referencing, rather than talking specifically about Norfolk Southern's SD70 rebuilds that appear to be starting up soon.  

Indian Railways has done just that with their GT50AC/WDG5 design with EMD 20-710's. And the SD80ACe export locomotives that Vale Mining bought were rated at 5,300 hp, as I recall. That's just a hop, skip, and a jump away from the 5,500 hp mark. 

I'd personally bet on a derating when they become SD80ACU's or whatever they'll be called as.

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