Trains.com

BNSF SD70ACeP4 inquiry.

6261 views
21 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 9 posts
BNSF SD70ACeP4 inquiry.
Posted by Domer66 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:34 AM

Does anybody have any insight into the SD70ACeP4s that went into service in 2014 on the BNSF? I have found only a few photos online and little reference to how they are performing. The GE ES44C4 and new ET44C4 seem to be highly visible and I am wondering how the Cat/EMD product is doing.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:27 PM

Domer66

Does anybody have any insight into the SD70ACeP4s that went into service in 2014 on the BNSF? I have found only a few photos online and little reference to how they are performing. The GE ES44C4 and new ET44C4 seem to be highly visible and I am wondering how the Cat/EMD product is doing.

Please don't confuse me with somebody who knows what is going on....

I note that there appear to be 20 SD70ACe P4s, 8500 to 8519.

The remainder of that order for 80 are presumably SD70ACe P6.

That would suggest that the P4 tested less successfully than the GE C4. Since EMD didn't try to develop an optimised truck design as did GE, wheelslip at starting might be worse. But that's just a guess. I think the EMD P4 demonstrators were rebuilt as P6 and sold.

M636C

  • Member since
    September 2015
  • 5 posts
Posted by MetraUPWest on Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:56 PM

The last I knew the SD70ACe-P4's aren't even running.

They were sent to Marshalltown, IA a couple months ago for software upgrades.

This entire P4/C4 thing is a disaster. The ES44C4's don't perform nearly as well as an ES44AC or even an ES44DC/Dash-9. I don't know why BNSF keeps wasting money on them. This is just an idea thay doesn't make any sense to me. Why go to the expense maintaining this goofy axle load system when you can just spend a little more for a true 6 axle AC locomotive that will be cheaper to maintain and perform better?

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 149 posts
Posted by Entropy on Friday, December 11, 2015 12:32 PM

M636C

 I think the EMD P4 demonstrators were rebuilt as P6 and sold.

M636C 

Negative.

The two original P4 Demos 1211 and 1212 are on lease to Tacoma Rail, still run as built. 

http://www.drgw.net/gallery/SD70ACe-P4

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,864 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, December 11, 2015 3:22 PM

MetraUPWest
This entire P4/C4 thing is a disaster. The ES44C4's don't perform nearly as well as an ES44AC or even an ES44DC/Dash-9. I

They're not supposed to perform as well as an ES44AC. And they surely aren't disasters. I'm not an employee and don't have any 1st hand knowledge of their capabilities, but I find it inconceivable that they're a failure.

They've bought over 1,200 of these units at a price tag of around 2.5 billion to date, through made many repeat orders. And not only that, but they're continuing to order Tier 4 versions and are upgrading generation 1 C44-9W's delivered to Santa Fe before the merger to comparable standards as we speak.

None of that is the hallmark of a failure and I'm confident that other Class 1's have avoided them to date for the simple reason that they'd rather invest in the most versatile power possible.

GE doesn't hide the fact that the C4 doesn't have the adhesion of an ES44AC and everyone in the industry realizes that and understands that they're not a 1:1 substitute on such assignments as hauling coal out of the Powder River Basin.

Hardly a problem since the C4 wasn't designed and built to take over those assignments from AC motored CC's. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,931 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, December 11, 2015 3:45 PM

The C4's to my mind, were designed to hustle Intermodal trains over the Transcon.  To create speed you need horsepower per axle.  The C4's have 1100 HP per powered axle.

To haul tonnage you need torque and lugging ability.  With 6 powered axles you have 734 HP per powered axle.  With approximately 400 less HP per axle to transfer to the rail, the potential for wheel slip is reduced vs. the C4's.

6 axle AC locomotives haul maximum tonnage for the territory.  The C4's are intended to haul intermodal's at track speed.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Friday, December 11, 2015 5:21 PM

BNSF only has the 20 SD70ACe-P4s (8500-8519), the other 180 locomotives of that order are straight SD70ACes. The P4s were delivered as P4s, modified to P6s then modified back to P4s all while the P4 demos were out on Raton Pass. Bit of a surprise they never made it into service when they were delivered a few years ago...

So far only CN (4 ex Demos) and KCS (4176-4198) have the P6 model.

ML

  • Member since
    September 2015
  • 5 posts
Posted by MetraUPWest on Saturday, December 12, 2015 12:10 AM

Maybe "disaster" was the wrong choice of word. I have run them on several occasions, on stacktrains in Illinois, and they don't perform as well as even as Dash 9 in my opinion.

I also see them work frequently in heavy haul service- which as you pointed out is not what they're designed to do.

I just don't understand why you had 2 locomotive models at your disposal that are literally good at everything- the ES44AC and SD70ACe, yet you order what in my opinion is a handicapped locomotive in a C4/P4 to save a little bit of money. The ES44AC and SD70ACe are both excellent performers in ANY service. Why would you instead order something for not much less that is only designed to do a very specific service? It doesn't make sense to me.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Saturday, December 12, 2015 1:50 AM

GDRMCo

BNSF only has the 20 SD70ACe-P4s (8500-8519), the other 180 locomotives of that order are straight SD70ACes. The P4s were delivered as P4s, modified to P6s then modified back to P4s all while the P4 demos were out on Raton Pass. Bit of a surprise they never made it into service when they were delivered a few years ago...



Actually the order for the regular SD70ACe locomotives was for 190 locomotives, numbers 8990 - 8999 were the last ten locomotives of the order.

So far only CN (4 ex Demos) and KCS (4176-4198) have the P6 model.

 
Also KCS de Mexico 4200 - 4224 are P6 versions, but they were built after January 1st, 2015 and as such are banned from service in the USA for not meeting Tier 4. They can operate into the US just far enough to make an interchange.
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Saturday, December 12, 2015 10:17 PM

Thanks for the corrections, missed the 8990-8999 batch and the KCSdeM P6s.

ML

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,864 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Sunday, December 13, 2015 6:22 AM

MetraUPWest
I just don't understand why you had 2 locomotive models at your disposal that are literally good at everything- the ES44AC and SD70ACe, yet you order what in my opinion is a handicapped locomotive in a C4/P4 to save a little bit of money. The ES44AC and SD70ACe are both excellent performers in ANY service. Why would you instead order something for not much less that is only designed to do a very specific service? It doesn't make sense to me.

Prices are difficult to ascertain outside of ballpark figures, but your answer lies in the cost differential. The savings clearly isn't insubstantial, especially when multiplied by 1,200 (And counting).

I would not be surprised if the savings in having a dedicated fleet for high speed intermodals and the like allowed them to buy 200 of those 1,200 units just from what they saved over that of an ES44AC.

The statistics compare favorably. While just being a railfan, I'm well aware that statistics don't necessarily count for much for the men and women that have to work on these things, but they don't appear to be a world apart from an ES44DC. 

The starting tractive effort on the ES44DC is rated at 142,000 lbs with a continuous tractive effort rating of 109,000 lbs, compared to the C4 with 144,000 lbs and 105,000 lbs respectively. And it's well known that the cost to purchase a C4 compares well with the pricetag of an ES44DC. And BNSF said in the very pages of this magazine that the C4's dynamic braking was more effective than the ES44DC's.

And they do all that with a significant savings over that of an ES44AC while providing more durable AC traction motors than the DC motors of the ES44DC. Not only does that allow them to run them in coal service and such if need be without special concern over their motor ratings, it provides a simplification in parts inventories and such back at the shop that they consequently visit less often thanks to the advantages of AC motors. 

At least on paper, it makes a lot of sense.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, December 14, 2015 6:20 AM

Is this one in service? (5 Dec 2015)

http://trainspo.com/photo/70062/?list=all

It doesn't look stored....

M636C

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • 158 posts
Posted by Bryan Jones on Monday, December 14, 2015 7:18 AM

M636C

Is this one in service? (5 Dec 2015)

http://trainspo.com/photo/70062/?list=all

It doesn't look stored....

M636C

 

no it is not in service. Most of the 20 P4's have been in storage at his location since late spring when they were placed in storage. They are begining to be moved to Marshaltown,Iowa where undisclosed upgrades/modifications will be made to the units.

Bryan Jones

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,813 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Monday, December 14, 2015 3:38 PM

We're talking about BNSF here. Why did ATSF order the GP60M or the Dash 8-40BW? Locomotives that were outside the norms of their time? BEcause all they needed was 4axle units on the transcon and it wasn't worth the added costs...at least, until they went all dash 9 all the time. A decision that was essentially forced on them. One wonders what they would have bought had a Dash 9-44BW or GP70M been on offer. 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,476 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:03 AM

The GP60M and the B40-8W were at the weight limits of 4-axle motive power, and they had smaller fuel tanks because of that restriction.  ATSF/BNSF had no real option but to go with 6-axle power from either builder.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:41 AM

What is that weight limit?  Thank you.

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 149 posts
Posted by Entropy on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 9:06 AM

YoHo1975

We're talking about BNSF here. Why did ATSF order the GP60M or the Dash 8-40BW? Locomotives that were outside the norms of their time? BEcause all they needed was 4axle units on the transcon and it wasn't worth the added costs...at least, until they went all dash 9 all the time. A decision that was essentially forced on them. One wonders what they would have bought had a Dash 9-44BW or GP70M been on offer.  

The HTCR radial trucks gave 6 axle locos the wheel flange/rail wear of a 4 axle, while still being 415,000lbs. GP70M was out, SD70M and MAC was in. 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 11:18 AM

JayPotter

What is that weight limit?  Thank you.

 

A recent article in "Trains; Locomotives" special issue quoted U.P's Mike Iden as saying that 425,000 lbs. is about the max for a 6 axle locomotive in North american service so figure 2/3 of that.

He also pointed out that the large fuel tanks, beefed up cooling system, and emissions control equipment standard on current road units would make a 4 axle GEVO very overweight...

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

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 12:21 PM

UP's roster includes EVOs with nominal weights of 432,000 pounds.

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 149 posts
Posted by Entropy on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 1:22 PM

carnej1

 A recent article in "Trains; Locomotives" special issue quoted U.P's Mike Iden as saying that 425,000 lbs. is about the max for a 6 axle locomotive in North american service so figure 2/3 of that.

 

UP SD70AH, its just an SD70ace with extra ballast 427-428,000 lbs , the AH lets the power desk know its heavy.

Haviest 4 axle i've seen, some MPI passenger locos are pushing 300k, EMD geeps, 16 cylinder are around 270k with fuel and sand. 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,931 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 1:57 PM

The CSX Heavy AC locomotives have a designated weight of 432,000 pounds or 72000 per axle.  The regular AC locomotives have a designated weight of 412,000 pounds or 68667 per axle.  The 286K 4 axle freight car is 71500 per axle.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 9 posts
Posted by Domer66 on Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:33 PM

I wanted to thank all the respondants to my inquiry. I had hoped the Sd70AceP4 would have fared better than it has to date. I'm a bit sentimental about EMD and had expected a better outcome, but I guess the future is still unclear and maybe things will improve. I have certainly learned a lot from your responses and appreciate your imput.

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