In whatever guise, those suckers are brutes.
Are the wheels of a larger diameter than most diesels? It kinda looks that way.
Thanks, Dude and zug. Now I'm getting a handle on it. Interesting.
Sounds like the 90 was a great idea except for the fact that it wasn't.
Lithonia OperatorWhat I don't get is the need to rebuild them into SD70ACUs.
http://www.nsdash9.com/rosters/7229.html
Scroll down. Lays it all out. Plus, they were really worn out.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
The 43 indicates the 4300 HP produced by the 16 cylinder 710 engine that many SD90MAC's were built with, instead of the 6300 HP 265H engine.
None of the "convertibles" were ever converted. Same for the GE "AC6044CW" units that were built with 4400 HP FDL engines.
The SD90MAC's problems were not limited to the frame and 265H engine. They had a lot of electrical and computer issues too. Rebuilding to SD70ACe specs gets rid of a lot of those issues, and gives you essentially a brand-new locomotive that uses the same parts as the rest of your EMD AC fleet.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Lithonia Operator Is the main odjective to wind up with a engine with a shorter frame, so it can used on tighter curves?
Frames are the same length. The radial trucks help a lot, though.
Oh. I see: the 43 is for 4300 hp.
What I don't get is the need to rebuild them into SD70ACUs. If they are useful as 4300 hp units, what is the downside of leaving them as-is? Is the main odjective to wind up with an engine with a shorter frame, so it can used on tighter curves?
Thanks, OM.
Where did the "43" come from? And what does common mode mean?
Those old UP 90mac43s were beat to hell.
Lithonia OperatorWhat is the general nature of the SD9043MAC? What is wrong with them, such that railroads would go to the expense of converting them to something else? And what characteristics make the SD70ACU spec a desirable alternative?
The original SD90MAC was the next 'evolution' of the high-horsepower road locomotive, using the "new" 265H four-stroke engine at 6000hp in a single unit, up from what the SD80 with a 20-cylinder 710 could make with much more trouble.
Railroads had the option of buying these as 'convertibles', with a normal 710 installed in place of the 265 but with the frame and cooling system, etc. fully in place for conversion 'later'. This as delivered acquired the railran name "SD9043MAC" which I believe now has actually been adopted by some railroad sources.
Of course the 265H wound up with insuperable 'technical difficulties' (as did the Deutz 607 in competing GE 6000hp designs) and you found these very large units being used 'interchangeably' with more purpose-built 4400 and 4500hp nominal power.
As it turned out, there was a common-mode problem in the frame design that caused accelerated cracking, and this nearly proved an early death sentence for the class. At one time you could buy substantial numbers for little over $100K apiece, which is astounding for a locomotive of this power and sophistication; as it turned out, a relatively simple patch operation would fix the issue (essentially 'permanently' it would now seem) and once this was done the locomotives were superb candidates for rebuilding in the wake of the Tier 4 final fiasco.
The most important changes are a rebuilt cab (with electronics and brakes) and changeout of the inverters. They were also ballasted for better adhesion, first to 420K and then 432K lb. There are other posters who can provide a much more detailed review of what different rebuilding programs provide, and what the details of the equipment are.
kgbw49 If I recall correctly, NS converted all 110 SD9043MAC units on their roster to SD70ACUs. CP is also in the process of converting all the SD9043MAC units on their roster to SD70ACUs.
If I recall correctly, NS converted all 110 SD9043MAC units on their roster to SD70ACUs.
CP is also in the process of converting all the SD9043MAC units on their roster to SD70ACUs.
I am not up on current engines, nor am I a techniaclly-oriented person.
Could someone please explain in layman's terms:
What is the general nature of the SD9043MAC? What is wrong with them, such that railroads would go to the expense of converting them to something else? And what characteristics make the SD70ACU spec a desirable alternative?
UP is the only other large owner of the model and one would think hey would have to all be in storage right now.
Perhaps at some point they will be pulled from the storage line and sold for future conversions on either UP or sold to other roads, paiclarly if the NS and CP units are long term successes, but one would have to think it will be some time before that happens given all the surplus power sitting in storage across the country.
If the stored units are outfitted for PTC, perhaps that might increase their chances.
We are living in interesting times, for sure.
Perhaps the other SD70ACU operator will consider them with their focus on rebuilding older late 90's power in lieu of buying new.
That would bring things full circle considering how close CPR came to buying SD80MAC's originally. If my recollections are accurate (Which they probably aren't), I think they even went as far as to place an order before changing plans and going for the SD90MAC's.
But if not they're likely facing much worse things than getting repowered. Unless Progress Rail decides to buy them for potential rebuild fodder, it's tough to see a market for these past as razor blades.
CPR though seems to like their SD70ACU's so far, where as it seems like NS may be concentrating on just their Dash 9 to AC44C6M program going forward. So perhaps the stars will line up just right and they'll move on to another career.
Conrail locomotives on the NS roster aren't too far away from being something rare at this point. It's essentially just Dash 2's (A fleet sadly in decline) and some SD50's that are now SD40E's. And if the stored SD70's go like they very well may at this point, it's otherwise just going to be the two shop switchers left if we still have a Juniata Shop.
I suppose we always knew that would be coming...
At least they're selling them on and not rebuilding them with 16-cylinder power.
Looks like we won't be seeing SD80ACU's, at least from Norfolk Southern.
https://www.facebook.com/nsdash9/posts/10157217206998843?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARD9X2GnqcG6GLjJ9Yl0uVuNZ5E4LbAaCKyXx8TKL4Jzq-bzYfQybTMDuCFpnJsijdOURJmRF67GZ3RPMw6qrNTnthjtDAyIElZqZ_UkpUxnChrzXatyZL7iY0wDCGTtMsUVWHBhV6Eg7_66HwBAPxcMFIegbFcq2RSipvJfrBNFNea59zeQ6AZl039lvJo44fgO9O7yDR17eNpoaIn1jNad2Jm3_9J3vZCq17earvhtqvg-8GjP9VExtts1Vwt0ZvJoY14eB7uw3-_j2exylcpxOrVI3rgXpVQIB7z0K8Nth9sipuDgkgjV55hOUumMA7OeEoEh-xvuuKLFk366&__tn__=-R
Leo_AmesMakes me wonder if the handful of used AC4400CW's they've recently purchased from CSX actually are just for parts as has been said, or if they'll be cycled through the GE rebuild program that I believe they've been sending AC4400CW's through in recent years.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
That's nice to hear. A testament to the package on Norfolk Southern when they've taken this step before the delivery of a single locomotive of their own to put through its paces.
Makes me wonder if the handful of used AC4400CW's they've recently purchased from CSX actually are just for parts as has been said, or if they'll be cycled through the GE rebuild program that I believe they've been sending AC4400CW's through in recent years.
Canadian Pacific has decided to rebuild their remaining SD9043MACs to SD70ACCs. Originally CP bought 61 new SD9043MACs, but when it came time to overhaul them they were stored and 3 were judged to be in poor condition and were stripped for parts and the hulks were scrapped. Last year 30 locomotives were shipped to Progress Rail for rebuilding. This year CP decided to have another 30 rebuilt and has begun shipping their remaining core locomotives to Progress Rail. However CP only had 28 remaing core locomotives and so they turned to Union Pacific and bought 2 locomotives to make up the required 30 core locomotives. Former UP numbers are unknown at this time. Delivery of the first batch is running late as the first few locomotives should have been delivered by now.
Leo_AmesBy voluntarily going all the way up to Tier 4 with a locomotive that will be more expensive to build, maintain, and service due to the need for urea to reach Tier 4, I can only assume Norfolk Southern is going to gain something out of it past cleaner air.
I am hoping that this reflects recognition that use of urea/SCR allows much more efficient design and operation of the Diesel engine while still making politically-correct NO emissions.
Do not expect to see much open discussion of this as it undercuts the unfounded-mandate argument against the "imposition" of effectively mandatory use of DEF that the pre-Trump EPA openly stated at one point was an object of their number-setting for initial Tier 4 and beyond.
Once you have the lion's share of the cost of a DEF "infrastructure" in place for a given line or service, the economy and performance gains from diesel operation as hot and free from things like EGR as possible, with little limit other than particulate generation on fast loading, may even cover the cost of the actual fluid consumed. (Personally I can't figure out why Progress seems to be having so much trouble with the DEF delivery system on the Metrolink F125s, and I keep hoping for reasonably up-to-date scoop on the precise technical issues).
Emission credits for more non-compliant locomotives might make some sense here for why they're undertaking this experiment.
Do they need formal credits for rebuilt older units? That's where most of the work in the brave new PSR world is likely to be for at least the next few years ... or until a blue wave puts the whip and chair back in autocratic hands after 2020.
I think the adoption of significant numbers of non-DEF Tier 4-compliant road locomotives will be as minimized as possible whether or not there are 'credits' from this sort of rebuild (vs incremental 'tier' improvement on the "dirtier" ranks of older and less lucratively employed locomotives, where I'd argue the true antipollution efforts should be focused). I would not throw out the potential perceived benefit of such credit, however, particularly the political and publicity value with respect to the progressive adoption of SCR with as much outside subsidization as possible.
Once you have the lion's share of the cost of a DEF "infrastructure" in place for a given line or service, the economy gains from diesel operation as hot and free from things like EGR as possible may even cover the cost of the actual fluid consumed. (Personally I can't figure out why Progress seems to be having so much trouble with the DEF delivery system on the Metrolink F125s, and I keep hoping for reasonably up-to-date scoop on the precise technical issues).
I suspect that's perhaps also behind why they're developing a GP34ECO right now.
By voluntarily going all the way up to Tier 4 with a locomotive that will be more expensive to build, maintain, and service due to the need for urea to reach Tier 4, I can only assume Norfolk Southern is going to gain something out of it past cleaner air.
kgbw49Here is a question related to avoiding straight Tier 4 purchases: Is it possible for a railroad to get Tier 4 credits by upgrading their older power to higher tiers, which would then allow them to build some Tier 4 Credit SD70ACes or ES44ACs?
Is it possible for a railroad to get Tier 4 credits by upgrading their older power to higher tiers, which would then allow them to build some Tier 4 Credit SD70ACes or ES44ACs?
I think so. That's how NS is getting so many Tier IV credit SD70ACes when they're only buying 10 SD70ACe-T4s. They have a lot of credits from their rebuild programs.
I have the idea that manipulating a locomotive fleet to enhance Tier 4 credits is just like NFL teams manipulating the salary cap to their benefit.
Nerds revenge on the jocks.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Here is a question related to avoiding straight Tier 4 purchases:
With Union Pacific now entering into a major GE rebuild program after a successful pilot program, I'm more curious if we'll see Union Pacific start to experiment with something similar for their older high-horsepower EMD's from the latter half of the 1990's and early 2000's.
We've already seen CPR follow Norfolk Southern's lead with ~50% of their SD9043MAC's slated for an ACU style rebuild this year (And assuming Canadian Pacific is pleased with the results, hopefully the remainder in 2020). Maybe Union Pacific will be next.
They also have a huge fleet of SD70M's. Norfolk Southern and Progress Rail have now shown that comparable units can be successfully and economically upgraded to AC propulsion, new electronics, reduced air emissions, and brand new cabs with enhanced safety and crew comfort.
The result seems to be like-new power at presumably a nice discount, with possibly superior reliability and fuel economy compared to the builder's Tier 4 offerings.
What are the odds that UP sells off their remaining 200 SD9043MACs with them downsizing their fleet due to PSR and 1000 GEs teed up for rebuild?
The Facebook page for NSDash9.com reports that Norfolk Southern SD70ACU #7332 has been completed at Altoona and released to service. This was the last rebuild in the program, with all 110 units now completed.
If anyone can convert them successfully it is the people at the Altoon Works. They are the best there is.
Caldreamer
I've been told by a reliable source (AltoonaWorks) that they're not leased. So my theory that perhaps a 15 year lease was concluding soon on the M-2's and NS was going to return them, isn't a possible explanation for why these are sitting at the moment.
Hopefully they're rebuilt eventually to AC specs and get a lot of their flaws ironed out so that they can keep on rolling for Norfolk Southern. That said, I've seen a few posts claiming they're going to be sold to Progress Rail over at the NSDash9 Facebook page.
Nothing from reliable sources yet, but perhaps they end up correct.
SD70DudeI've had quite a bit of experience operating CN's SD70M-2's, the only other big fleet out there besides NS's. When they are working properly they are the best DC units to run, with excellent wheelslip control in both power and DB. I would take one over an ES44DC any day (as long as it has a whispercab). The problem is they are not very reliable, compared to the earlier SD70 and SD75 series units. They have had a lot of electrical and computer problems and for a while ours were burning through traction motors like crazy, to the point where EMD came out with a software patch which cut power to the motors if the computer decided they were overheating, or in a stall (this did not work particularly well, and caused lots of operational headaches). You can tell that EMD didn't put a lot of time into designing the things, everything inside looks like it was just slapped together.
When they are working properly they are the best DC units to run, with excellent wheelslip control in both power and DB. I would take one over an ES44DC any day (as long as it has a whispercab).
The problem is they are not very reliable, compared to the earlier SD70 and SD75 series units. They have had a lot of electrical and computer problems and for a while ours were burning through traction motors like crazy, to the point where EMD came out with a software patch which cut power to the motors if the computer decided they were overheating, or in a stall (this did not work particularly well, and caused lots of operational headaches).
You can tell that EMD didn't put a lot of time into designing the things, everything inside looks like it was just slapped together.
In the transition from EMD of GM to EMD part of Progress Rail/Catapiller - through the various 'venture capital firms' that owned the company a mass amount of real world railroad locomotive experience hit the bricks and walked out the door - they appear to be paying for it in today's locomotive market.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.