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.
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!
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.
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.
UP's roster includes EVOs with nominal weights of 432,000 pounds.
JayPotter What is that weight limit? Thank you.
What is that weight limit? Thank you.
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
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.
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.
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.
M636C Is this one in service? (5 Dec 2015) http://trainspo.com/photo/70062/?list=all It doesn't look stored.... 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
MetraUPWestI 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.
Thanks for the corrections, missed the 8990-8999 batch and the KCSdeM P6s.
ML
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...
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.
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.
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.
MetraUPWestThis 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.
M636C I think the EMD P4 demonstrators were rebuilt as P6 and sold. M636C
I think the EMD P4 demonstrators were rebuilt as P6 and sold.
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
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?
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.