Thank you, Sir.
EMD built two orders of early model 3500 HP C-C locomotives. They had different designations, and their designations both differ from the regular production designation. What were these models, and why?
One model was the SD50S, which had a shorter frame. Six were built for Southern and I believe that three more were built for one of the Pilbara ore haulers.
The first model was the SD40X (the second use of this designation) which went to KCS as I recall. I think they were upgraded to more or less SD50S standard.
The SD50S was the other type, but my recollection was that they went to N&W and not Southern.
Both types had a shorter frame than the production SD50 which caused an overlap of the radiators over other equipment that caused maintenance difficulties.
Was the SD40X engine called a "645EX"? I've seen similar designations for transition protoypes.
There were five Australian built units and I believe they are all still working on the Utah Railroad. These had different radiator layout with the grilles lower on the sides to reduce the curvature of the ducts and supposedly improve cooling. If they are still working it can't have been too bad.
M636C
M636C gets it. The SD50S as applied to the N&W units was retroactive after the later units were built on longer frames. I had forgotten about the Australian units when writing this question. Yes, they survive on the Utah Railroad. Amazing how many Australian references we have seen so far.
All yours.
Although I did get to see the Hamersley SD50S units in service, I never had a cab ride in them.
I had better ask a question that definitely doesn't involve any export units...
My question involves a model of locomotive that never existed, but for some years was thought to exist. References to it made it into at least the first "Diesel Spotters Guide".
It was supposed to have been built towards the end of production of a large and powerful locomotive series from one of the largest builders.
What was the model number?
How did this model differ from the units actually built?
For extra credit, what was the supposed external indication of this model?
(only the first answer is compulsory...)
M636CTechnically the questioner should say that I've given him the answer.... Bearing in mind that I'm a bit unhappy....
Just for the record: thank you VERY much; and I thought (wrongly, evidently) that it was clear you had the next question when you answered initially.
You were the one who asked if I wanted more specific informstion, and ... yes, I did. That was meant to be 'outside' the framework of the ongoing quiz-and-answer in this thread.
It's spring break here and I wasn't following for a while. I'm sorry for causing any problem.
Wizlish M636C Technically the questioner should say that I've given him the answer.... Bearing in mind that I'm a bit unhappy.... Just for the record: thank you VERY much; and I thought (wrongly, evidently) that it was clear you had the next question when you answered initially. You were the one who asked if I wanted more specific informstion, and ... yes, I did. That was meant to be 'outside' the framework of the ongoing quiz-and-answer in this thread. It's spring break here and I wasn't following for a while. I'm sorry for causing any problem.
M636C Technically the questioner should say that I've given him the answer.... Bearing in mind that I'm a bit unhappy....
It wasn't really a problem.
It is harder to ask a question than to answer it....
I'm having a busy time myself, but I find that makes me think of answers more quickly.
M636C Although I did get to see the Hamersley SD50S units in service, I never had a cab ride in them. I had better ask a question that definitely doesn't involve any export units... My question involves a model of locomotive that never existed, but for some years was thought to exist. References to it made it into at least the first "Diesel Spotters Guide". It was supposed to have been built towards the end of production of a large and powerful locomotive series from one of the largest builders. What was the model number? How did this model differ from the units actually built? For extra credit, what was the supposed external indication of this model? (only the first answer is compulsory...) M636C
A hunch. DD40. Cataloged, but none built (except by Athearn...)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd M636C Although I did get to see the Hamersley SD50S units in service, I never had a cab ride in them. I had better ask a question that definitely doesn't involve any export units... My question involves a model of locomotive that never existed, but for some years was thought to exist. References to it made it into at least the first "Diesel Spotters Guide". It was supposed to have been built towards the end of production of a large and powerful locomotive series from one of the largest builders. What was the model number? How did this model differ from the units actually built? For extra credit, what was the supposed external indication of this model? (only the first answer is compulsory...) M636C A hunch. DD40. Cataloged, but none built (except by Athearn...)
...To elaborate on Oltmannd's correct answer: the major difference from the proposed DD40A and the UP's DD40AX Centennial Model was that the unbuilt unit would have had the same type of standard cab as the DD35A and most EMD second generation diesels.
The Centennial featured a widecab/safety cab derived from the F45/F40 series.
I'm going to guess that the spotting feature would have been the difference in the rooftop fan arrangement (although both units would have the same number of fans;so you can't flunk me on that)...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
You missed the clue that the unbuilt model was listed as having been built in the first Diesel Spotter's Guide. The DD40 was not so listed. In fact the DD40 entry was contradictory, suggesting a last minute editing change, but none were listed as in service.
The builder was not EMD.
The model number was to some extent retrospective. The locomotive was offered but not built.
Is this the GE U56? I've seen drawings of them, and the date on them (1966) is close to the 1967 publishing date of the first diesel guide. Although for the life of me I can't find an external difference between a U56 and a U50.
Clearly the question isn't working.
I guess I'd better explain the whole thing:
The correct answer was the Alco PA-3.
No PA-3 units were built. All the locomotives said to be model PA-3 (and PB-3) were in fact model PA-2 (and PB-2)
The difference was said to be the use of a water cooled turbocharger rather than an air cooled turbocharger. (Water cooled turbochargers were routinely backfitted to 244 engined locomotives by the late 1950s, but these were said to be fitted from new.)
The external indication was the lack of the curved trim strip on the grille behind the cab door (which matched the Santa Fe "warbonnet" paint but not much else). The later units used the punched Farr grilles rather than the fabricated grilles and it was these units thought to be model PA-3.
Clearly the responses read more into "large and powerful" than I intended but for 1953, 2250 HP was quite a lot from one engine, only the biggest Fairbanks Morse engines beating this figure.
I thought that this would be a really easy question.
Why did I think that? In the early 1980s Dr Louis Marre gave me a copy of the Model Railroader Locomotive Cyclopedia Volume 2 on diesel locomotives. This book had been in preparation for some time and reproduced many drawings previously published in the magazine.
Louis was quite critical of the data in the book, which did not reflect more recent data that had become available, not least through Extra 2200 South magazine which concentrated on diesel locomotives.
The example that Louis used to criticize the content when handing me the book was that it still referred to the model PA-3 although most recent references recognised only the PA-1 and PA-2.
All that was more than thirty years ago, of course.
But I thought it would be a really easy question.
I had forgotten that the DD-40 was still listed in the tabulation in the first DSG, despite the text indicating that the model was cancelled.
So perhaps oltmannd could ask the next question, given that his answer was closest to the clues I gave....
I would have never guessed a PA! I guess modern times don't have me thinking about one as "large and powerful"!
The DD40 is in the first edition of the DSG, but with an asterix - "newly announced model" or some such.
Okay, a question:
Early SD50s are rated at 3500 HP. Later ones, at 3600 HP. Where'd the extra 100 HP come from? (hint: Diesel engine BHP rating is the same on both)
The original SD50 units had AR16 alternators (about twice as long as an AR10, you won't easily mistake them) which had the voltage and current capability to provide current to six motors in parallel through the speed range.
In the later units, the AR11 alternator was used which was two machines in the one casing and switched from the two (internal) alternators in parallel at starting to two in series at higher speed. This had a higher power rating allowing 3600 HP.
The AR11 continued in the SD60, and was one of the things that limited the SD60 to 3800 HP. A new alternator AR20(?) was used in the SD70.
Many export units continued to use the AR11 which limited them to 3830 HP.
M636C The original SD50 units had AR16 alternators (about twice as long as an AR10, you won't easily mistake them) which had the voltage and current capability to provide current to six motors in parallel through the speed range. In the later units, the AR11 alternator was used which was two machines in the one casing and switched from the two (internal) alternators in parallel at starting to two in series at higher speed. This had a higher power rating allowing 3600 HP. The AR11 continued in the SD60, and was one of the things that limited the SD60 to 3800 HP. A new alternator AR20(?) was used in the SD70. Many export units continued to use the AR11 which limited them to 3830 HP. M636C
The first few years of AR11 equipped SD50s were rated at 3500 HP. Later ones, 3600 HP. Both had the same diesel engine BHP. So, it's not the traction alternator.
Hint: There were two primary places they got the roughly 100 HP. Look at the difference between BHP and THP....
oltmannd Hint: There were two primary places they got the roughly 100 HP. Look at the difference between BHP and THP....
I know EMD introduced electrically driven air compressors about that time. Many GT46 C units (with 710 engines but AR11 alternators) used these.
That should be good for at least 100 HP.
By the way, what units marked the change from AR16 to AR11 and what uniits marked the change from 3500 HP to 3600 HP?
M636CBy the way, what units marked the change from AR16 to AR11 and what uniits marked the change from 3500 HP to 3600 HP?
I'm not sure which had AR16s. Conrail had four orders of SD50s from 1983 to 1986. They all had AR11s. The first two orders were 3500 HP. The second two were 3600 HP.
M636CI know EMD introduced electrically driven air compressors about that time.
Close! EMD used a clutch instead of just unloading the air compressor. An unloaded WBO air compressor running at 950 RPM is saves about 17 HP that can be put toward traction.
The bulk of the 100 HP came from another piece of equipment.
oltmannd M636C By the way, what units marked the change from AR16 to AR11 and what uniits marked the change from 3500 HP to 3600 HP? I'm not sure which had AR16s. Conrail had four orders of SD50s from 1983 to 1986. They all had AR11s. The first two orders were 3500 HP. The second two were 3600 HP. M636C I know EMD introduced electrically driven air compressors about that time. Close! EMD used a clutch instead of just unloading the air compressor. An unloaded WBO air compressor running at 950 RPM is saves about 17 HP that can be put toward traction. The bulk of the 100 HP came from another piece of equipment.
M636C By the way, what units marked the change from AR16 to AR11 and what uniits marked the change from 3500 HP to 3600 HP?
M636C I know EMD introduced electrically driven air compressors about that time.
The other piece of equipment was the traction motor blower. EMD throttled it with some shutters actuated with an air cylinder. Open, the blower consumed 120 HP. Restricted, it consumed 40 HP.
So, the AC clutch plus the traction motor blower add up to about 100 HP and allowed the SD50 a 3600 traction HP rating.
A big part of the fuel efficiency improvement from the SD40 to the current state of the art was control of auxilliary HP. Some of the earlier attempts like TMB shutters and AC clutches turned out to be fairly unreliable and were replaced with motor driven devices (that could be even more efficiently operated).
BHP - auxuilliary HP = Traction HP. The lower the aux HP, the greater the THP - for the same fuel.
M636C - you are up!
oltmannd The other piece of equipment was the traction motor blower. EMD throttled it with some shutters actuated with an air cylinder. Open, the blower consumed 120 HP. Restricted, it consumed 40 HP. So, the AC clutch plus the traction motor blower add up to about 100 HP and allowed the SD50 a 3600 traction HP rating. A big part of the fuel efficiency improvement from the SD40 to the current state of the art was control of auxilliary HP. Some of the earlier attempts like TMB shutters and AC clutches turned out to be fairly unreliable and were replaced with motor driven devices (that could be even more efficiently operated). BHP - auxuilliary HP = Traction HP. The lower the aux HP, the greater the THP - for the same fuel. M636C - you are up!
Sorry about taking so long -I'm writing a a book (well, updating an existing book)...
I've been trying to think of a question and the one that comes up is:
Thirteen SD70ACe units were recently returned to the USA from Australia for sale.
Most reports haven't given the correct reasons for either their return to the USA nor the reason for their sale...
So a correct answer to either of those will win....
To return to the previous question regarding SD50s EMD didn't care about the extra 100 HP but they were desperate to improve the specific fuel consumption to match that of the competitive GE locomotives, hence the desire to cut auxiliary loads. I assume these shutters and clutches largely contributed to the poor serviceabity reputation of the SD 50.
M636C Sorry about taking so long -I'm writing a a book (well, updating an existing book)... I've been trying to think of a question and the one that comes up is: Thirteen SD70ACe units were recently returned to the USA from Australia for sale. Most reports haven't given the correct reasons for either their return to the USA nor the reason for their sale... So a correct answer to either of those will win.... To return to the previous question regarding SD50s EMD didn't care about the extra 100 HP but they were desperate to improve the specific fuel consumption to match that of the competitive GE locomotives, hence the desire to cut auxiliary loads. I assume these shutters and clutches largely contributed to the poor serviceabity reputation of the SD 50. M636C
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
M636C oltmannd The other piece of equipment was the traction motor blower. EMD throttled it with some shutters actuated with an air cylinder. Open, the blower consumed 120 HP. Restricted, it consumed 40 HP. So, the AC clutch plus the traction motor blower add up to about 100 HP and allowed the SD50 a 3600 traction HP rating. A big part of the fuel efficiency improvement from the SD40 to the current state of the art was control of auxilliary HP. Some of the earlier attempts like TMB shutters and AC clutches turned out to be fairly unreliable and were replaced with motor driven devices (that could be even more efficiently operated). BHP - auxuilliary HP = Traction HP. The lower the aux HP, the greater the THP - for the same fuel. M636C - you are up! Sorry about taking so long -I'm writing a a book (well, updating an existing book)... I've been trying to think of a question and the one that comes up is: Thirteen SD70ACe units were recently returned to the USA from Australia for sale. Most reports haven't given the correct reasons for either their return to the USA nor the reason for their sale... So a correct answer to either of those will win.... To return to the previous question regarding SD50s EMD didn't care about the extra 100 HP but they were desperate to improve the specific fuel consumption to match that of the competitive GE locomotives, hence the desire to cut auxiliary loads. I assume these shutters and clutches largely contributed to the poor serviceabity reputation of the SD 50. M636C
Wasn't a condition of their sale that they be removed fom Oz so they didn't fall into the hands of competitors in the Pilbara region? That area has really become hot with what looks like duplicate construction in several places.
I recall at AUSRail in the mid 90s the President of BHP welcoming open access on the Oz network. I asked him if that extended to his Pilbara railway. He dodged the question but supsequent events showed the answer was no!
BuslistWasn't a condition of their sale that they be removed fom Oz so they didn't fall into the hands of competitors in the Pilbara region?
Yes, and there were AC6000s that were cut up -- apparently including the truck frames and other nominally useful parts -- for similar competitive reasons.
I still can't bear to look at the pictures (IIRC provided by a friend of M636C's)
Indeed the locomotives were shipped back to the USA to avoid them falling into the hands of a competitor. The SD40s and AC6000s were cut up because they weren't worth the cost of shipping them anywhere.
The reason they were sold was that they lacked the isolated cabs that the other 174 units (so far) of this type have....
The seven AC6000s were cut up within sight of the Fortescue line, who had just purchased 8 SD90MAC-H units in the USA. Clearly selling the AC6000s would have been better for both companies (except that it would have helped a competitor).
It is generally agreed that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are increasing their ore production during the current downturn to reduce the price below Fortescue's cost of production (and that of other smaller competitors). It will make it much more difficult for Gina Rinehart and the Roy Hill mine who have yet to start shipping.
Andrew Forrest (founder and large shareholder in Fortescue) recently publically suggested that ore production be reduced to allow the price to rise but was shouted down since that was suggestive of illegal cartel behaviour. (I would have thought that overproduction fell into the category of cartel behaviour as well, but that's just me...)
When Fortescue were building their port stockpile, it was discovered that the only road to the area was owned by BHP Billiton. They insisted that trucks have pilot vehicles for the half mile the road was used, just to make it harder for Fortescue. Fortescue built their own road a hundred yards to the North. That has become the public road, and BHP Billiton laid a track over their road...
With the Roy Hill line now almost complete, there are three parallel lines, BHP Billiton, Fortescue,and Roy Hill - the first double track, the others single track.
But all three companies presumably want to use the full capacity of their respective tracks, if not right now, soon....
But Buslist, it's your turn to ask a question...
M636C I assume these shutters and clutches largely contributed to the poor serviceabity reputation of the SD 50
Yep. And head pot seat rings wearing/working loose, and radar issues that made Super Series unreliable, etc. etc...
Ok here's what I'm thinking. Maybe this is too easy so I won't give all the clues at once, if no one gets it I'll dribble out a few more, saving the definitive 2 to the end.
I'm looking for a locomotive that is relatively rare. It was considered high horsepower at the time. It also represented the end of an era in locomotive design for its builder, in the sense that subsequent models included a significant improvement in locomotive design.
This model operated both in the US and Canada. A couple of examples operated for the builder as well as a subsidiary of the builder and regularly (as opposed to any demonstration operation) on 4 railroads. One railroad rostered both new and 2nd hand examples. One is known to still exist as of a couple of months ago.
Buslist Ok here's what I'm thinking. Maybe this is too easy so I won't give all the clues at once, if no one gets it I'll dribble out a few more, saving the definitive 2 to the end. I'm looking for a locomotive that is relatively rare. It was considered high horsepower at the time. It also represented the end of an era in locomotive design for its builder, in the sense that subsequent models included a significant improvement in locomotive design. This model operated both in the US and Canada. A couple of examples operated for the builder as well as a subsidiary of the builder and regularly (as opposed to any demonstration operation) on 4 railroads. One railroad rostered both new and 2nd hand examples. One is known to still exist as of a couple of months ago.
How about a GP28? A blower engine version of a GP35.... End of the 567 era.
Pretty good guess, and indeed the IC rostered both new and 2nd hand (Missipippi Central) if you count units acquired with railroads, but I don't think they meet the operated in Canada criteria.
Are you thinking of the RS27? Four original US users plus ALCO and MLW lease duty. GB&W purchased one new and added used RS27s previously rostered on the C&NW. The next model was the C424 which included several significant upgrades in electronics and air filtration. Most recently active units in Minneapolis.
DS4-4-1000 Are you thinking of the RS27? Four original US users plus ALCO and MLW lease duty. GB&W purchased one new and added used RS27s previously rostered on the C&NW. The next model was the C424 which included several significant upgrades in electronics and air filtration. Most recently active units in Minneapolis.
Bingo I guess I did make it too easy, other clues were going to be that one of the units was rebuilt by the builder into the prototype for the subsequent model, that one of the units went on to service on a non common carrier railway (Peabody Coal #900 ex CNW 900 at the River King Mine as I recall, had the joy of operating that lady one time), and that 2 of the owners operated them in the twin cities area. But the 2 give away clues would have been that the PRR owned the most and that the model number was the same as the number of examples built. If you count UP's purchase of the demonstrators as an original purchase there were 5. UP,CNW, GBW, Soo and PRR.
Your serve!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.