Trains.com

SD/GP40 and DDA40X Prime Movers

7587 views
37 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,325 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, December 20, 2019 3:57 PM

I think the 645E3A as put in the SD45X had very similar 'horsepower density' to the 3300hp version on a per-cylinder basis.  If there were an engine-related problem other than one associated with longer crank, greater torsional stress, etc. the history of those locomotives might serve as a guide.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,864 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, December 20, 2019 12:58 PM

Since I'm unaware of significant engine issues with the Centennial's higher rating, one possibility is they thought it would be too slippery on a Geep. There's significantly more weight on each axle than your average GP40/GP40-2.

Doesn't explain though why it wasn't tried as a lower cost alternative to the SD45 and SD45-2. In particular, the extra 300 hp seems like it would've been a good fit for Union Pacific's high speed SD40-2's that were intended for high speed service alongside the Centennials.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,476 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, December 20, 2019 7:06 AM

As implied in other posts, the extra horsepower comes at a cost in the strain on various engine components.  Earlier, EMD hit a similar maximum at 2500 HP in the 567 engine, and the 645 was developed to address that issue.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: South Central Virginia
  • 204 posts
Posted by VGN Jess on Friday, December 20, 2019 4:44 AM

So, no one knows or can guess why the 3,300 HP "645" was not used in the SD/GP40's?  Why put a 3,000HP engine in when you have a 3,300 HP engine? That's my real question, just phrased another way. I thought someone out there might have read something somewhere or heard something abot why.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: South Central Virginia
  • 204 posts
Posted by VGN Jess on Friday, December 20, 2019 4:40 AM

Thanx. So EMD never used it in anything but the DDA40X?

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: South Central Virginia
  • 204 posts
Posted by VGN Jess on Friday, December 20, 2019 4:39 AM

Thanx for the info.  Any idea (if the 3,300HP engine ran well in the DDA40x) why EMD might have tweaked it to 3,500 (ie..not just left it at 3,300HP)?

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,601 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Tuesday, December 17, 2019 6:27 PM

The SD/GP50's used the final tweak to the 645 with 3,500HP to the traction alternator. Reliability wasn't that great as the extra power required 950rpm from the 645 in run 8.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,476 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:27 PM

Just researched your question.  The only other locomotive to use the 16-645E3A prime mover was the RENFE class 333 locomotives.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: South Central Virginia
  • 204 posts
SD/GP40 and DDA40X Prime Movers
Posted by VGN Jess on Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:03 PM

Can anyone speculate (or perhaps know) why the DDA40X "645" 3,300 HP prime mover was not used in the SD/GP40's (we all know that a "645" 3,000 prime mover was and has always been used for those locomotives)? Also, was the 3,300 HP engine ever used in anything other than the DDA40X?

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