Locomotive has been moved to North East!
Note that it still has an unusual front truck.
Is that a prototype for GE's steering truck design?
The rear truck looks like the standard Hi-Ad truck that all our remaining GEs have, from Dash-9s to ET44ACs. The Dash-8s had/have a mix depending on who bought them, and I think one unit actually has different front and rear trucks, but they all seem to be headed for scrap.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Is there a link to the illustrations discussed here?
Peter
Sorry, here's the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5eZPu45SIA
SD70Dude Sorry, here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5eZPu45SIA
Thanks.
It is a little amusing that it was moved by two older EMD units still in regular service.
The lead truck design was indeed used on the eight BHP AC6000CW units. However, these were scrapped to prevent them falling into the hands of a competitor, rather than because nobody wanted to buy them. The adjacent FMG system purchased SD90MAC-H units from the USA just as the AC6000CWs were being scrapped.
Does 6002 still have the HDL engine? It would be good to hear the distinctive sound of the HDL again. The EVO-16 sounded much more like an FDL.
Wasn't this the damaged Union Pacific unit that GE replaced under warranty with a brand new AC6000CW?
A quick look at the usual sources for railfan pictures doesn't show any activity over the past decade for her. So if she's been avoiding the test track at Erie and such all this time like that suggests, my hunch is that she retains her HDL and that's probably why she's been idle.
Someone asked about the engine in the comments, and the uploader replied that the HDL was removed. He also mentioned that GECX 6000 does retain its HDL, at least for the moment, but it is currently in storage at the Erie plant with an uncertain future.
6002 might not have any engine under the hood right now, the unit does not have an exhaust stack in the photo right at the start of the video, let alone the distinctive twin stacks that these originally had, which are visible in the shot of CSX 644 from 4:53 to 5:00 in the video. The aerial shot at 1:44 looks like just two holes in the long hood, not stacks.
An AC6000 as a museum piece. Ouch.
Even so, it was nice to see her delivered by a former SCL GP38-2.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
M636CThe lead truck design was indeed used on the eight BHP AC6000CW units.
That is NOT the Steerable truck as seein on Canadian Pacific and CSX GE units. Though it looks related. Was it an early proto?
As I recall, GE's Steerable truck efforts were not as well received as EMD's in the early 90s.
While I am well into old pharthood - it is sobering to see something 'so new' to be donated to a museum.
Motive power has yet to make a quantum leap beyond the AC6000's or for that matter the AC4400's.
AC's began to populate the Class 1's in the middle 1990's and are approaching 30 years old. Locomotive technology, in the past, has had generational improvements approximately every decade. With the coming of AC traction technology, it seems that technology has now stagnated with only minor detail improvement having been made in the past 30 years.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yeah well, "turn of the century" hasn't meant 1900 for quite a while now.
YoHo1975 M636C The lead truck design was indeed used on the eight BHP AC6000CW units. That is NOT the Steerable truck as seein on Canadian Pacific and CSX GE units. Though it looks related. Was it an early proto? As I recall, GE's Steerable truck efforts were not as well received as EMD's in the early 90s.
M636C The lead truck design was indeed used on the eight BHP AC6000CW units.
I think there were two separate designs of GE steerable truck, complete with separate patent applications although the principle of operation was similar.
The earlier design was more common. The later design on 6002 might have only numbered seventeen examples, the eight Australian units and the prototype now in the museum.
GE had the problem that being second in the field, the simpler steering mechanism used by EMD was covered by patents, so GE had to use different linkages.
Steering trucks without linkages are more popular now, both with Progress and Wabtech.
BaltACDWhile I am well into old pharthood - it is sobering to see something 'so new' to be donated to a museum. Motive power has yet to make a quantum leap beyond the AC6000's or for that matter the AC4400's. AC's began to populate the Class 1's in the middle 1990's and are approaching 30 years old. Locomotive technology, in the past, has had generational improvements approximately every decade. With the coming of AC traction technology, it seems that technology has now stagnated with only minor detail improvement having been made in the past 30 years
AC's began to populate the Class 1's in the middle 1990's and are approaching 30 years old. Locomotive technology, in the past, has had generational improvements approximately every decade. With the coming of AC traction technology, it seems that technology has now stagnated with only minor detail improvement having been made in the past 30 years
We should be seeing SiC FETs replacing IGBT in locomotives before the end of the decade. FWIW, high end EV's are using SiC inverters as SiC FETs allow for an even more compact and efficient inverter.
D.Carleton BaltACD While I am well into old pharthood - it is sobering to see something 'so new' to be donated to a museum. Motive power has yet to make a quantum leap beyond the AC6000's or for that matter the AC4400's. AC's began to populate the Class 1's in the middle 1990's and are approaching 30 years old. Locomotive technology, in the past, has had generational improvements approximately every decade. With the coming of AC traction technology, it seems that technology has now stagnated with only minor detail improvement having been made in the past 30 years I would point out that today's AC transmissions are different from the first generation's, so much so that it's more than a minor detail at least from the perspective of the shop. The first gen was GTO which had a propensity to explode and take the neighboring inverters with it. Today's IGBT inverters are far more reliable and are getting lighter by the day. The rebuilds from Wabtec and Progress (DC-to-AC and AC rebuilds) are getting the IGBT hardware. The latest QSK95 rebuild from KLW has an inverter package from CAF which seems to be very compact. We're only about two decades into North American AC transmissions so we still have vast room for improvement.
BaltACD While I am well into old pharthood - it is sobering to see something 'so new' to be donated to a museum. Motive power has yet to make a quantum leap beyond the AC6000's or for that matter the AC4400's. AC's began to populate the Class 1's in the middle 1990's and are approaching 30 years old. Locomotive technology, in the past, has had generational improvements approximately every decade. With the coming of AC traction technology, it seems that technology has now stagnated with only minor detail improvement having been made in the past 30 years
I would point out that today's AC transmissions are different from the first generation's, so much so that it's more than a minor detail at least from the perspective of the shop. The first gen was GTO which had a propensity to explode and take the neighboring inverters with it. Today's IGBT inverters are far more reliable and are getting lighter by the day. The rebuilds from Wabtec and Progress (DC-to-AC and AC rebuilds) are getting the IGBT hardware. The latest QSK95 rebuild from KLW has an inverter package from CAF which seems to be very compact. We're only about two decades into North American AC transmissions so we still have vast room for improvement.
Not to belittle the advances in electronics that have been implemented since the first of the AC traction engines entered service - the succeeding generations of motive power have touted a 1 for 2 or a 2 for 3 replacement ratio for the prior generation of motive power. To date that quantum step has not happened since the dawn of AC traction in the middle 1990's. Yes the power has become more reliable - that is the way of most products available in the human world - same performance but more reliable. Has anyone had to adjust the 'vertical hold' on their TV recently.
It seems as if 700-750 HP per traction motor has become the effective maximum that the current state of the art can put to the rail effectively. The efforts with the 6000 HP, 6 axle locomotives seem to have ended in relative failure with the demo AC6000 being donated to a museum and many of its brothers and cousins being scrapped.
Much of what appears to be stagnation is because the focus has been on emission targets over the past 20+ years (and keeping the increasingly complicated results of those designs reliable).
When one looks at what's going out of the stack, there's been a revolution in that area for new power compared to an AC4400CW of the late 1990's. And presumably room for more growth as well, since it seems unlikely that Tier 4 is the upper limits of what's practical.
Of course that all does little good if your customers aren't buying. But there's a lot at play behind the current love affair with rebuilding that isn't necessarily the fault of what the two big builders are offering for new power.
The railroad operating mentality has also changed, as PSR has led to a return to the 'hold for tonnage' and 'drag freight' era, despite what the railroads will tell you.
An AC6000CW won't start any heavier a train than an ES44AC, but it can haul that same train at a higher top speed. And top speed doesn't really matter in most of the modern freight railroad world.
As for emissions, there is talk of a Tier 5, which would probably force even GE/Wabtec to use exhaust aftertreatment in order to comply.
https://dieselnet.com/news/2021/11carb.php
SD70DudeThe railroad operating mentality has also changed, as PSR has led to a return to the 'hold for tonnage' and 'drag freight' era, despite what the railroads will tell you. An AC6000CW won't start any heavier a train than an ES44AC, but it can haul that same train at a higher top speed. And top speed doesn't really matter in most of the modern freight railroad world. As for emissions, there is talk of a Tier 5, which would probably force even GE/Wabtec to use exhaust aftertreatment in order to comply. https://dieselnet.com/news/2021/11carb.php
I had always thought CSX had purchased their CW60AC's to 'expedite' the intermodal network. That they didn't stay in the service very long seemed to disprove the idea that 1K HP per axle could move intermodal faster at less cost.
I was never privy to any of the cost/benefit measures that Locomotive Management would use to assess the abilities of a particular group of locomotives.
SD70Dude As for emissions, there is talk of a Tier 5, which would probably force even GE/Wabtec to use exhaust aftertreatment in order to comply. https://dieselnet.com/news/2021/11carb.php
I see that one of the justifications for "Tier 5" is that many diesel engines can meet Tier 4 without a particulate filter. Hmmmm...
OTOH, there's been work on modifying the fuel injector/combustion volume to make the combustion process to be similar to a Bunsen burner. The groups working on it are claiming substantial reductions in NOx and PM. From what I gather, the idea is that the injector would spray into a tube which would inhibit combustion until there air and fuel are well mixed.
Erik_Mag OTOH, there's been work on modifying the fuel injector/combustion volume to make the combustion process to be similar to a Bunsen burner. The groups working on it are claiming substantial reductions in NOx and PM. From what I gather, the idea is that the injector would spray into a tube which would inhibit combustion until there air and fuel are well mixed.
Throttle body for a diesel?
BaltACD SD70Dude The railroad operating mentality has also changed, as PSR has led to a return to the 'hold for tonnage' and 'drag freight' era, despite what the railroads will tell you. An AC6000CW won't start any heavier a train than an ES44AC, but it can haul that same train at a higher top speed. And top speed doesn't really matter in most of the modern freight railroad world. As for emissions, there is talk of a Tier 5, which would probably force even GE/Wabtec to use exhaust aftertreatment in order to comply. https://dieselnet.com/news/2021/11carb.php I had always thought CSX had purchased their CW60AC's to 'expedite' the intermodal network. That they didn't stay in the service very long seemed to disprove the idea that 1K HP per axle could move intermodal faster at less cost. I was never privy to any of the cost/benefit measures that Locomotive Management would use to assess the abilities of a particular group of locomotives.
SD70Dude The railroad operating mentality has also changed, as PSR has led to a return to the 'hold for tonnage' and 'drag freight' era, despite what the railroads will tell you. An AC6000CW won't start any heavier a train than an ES44AC, but it can haul that same train at a higher top speed. And top speed doesn't really matter in most of the modern freight railroad world. As for emissions, there is talk of a Tier 5, which would probably force even GE/Wabtec to use exhaust aftertreatment in order to comply. https://dieselnet.com/news/2021/11carb.php
That would be why ATSF purchased the GP60Ms/B40-8Ws I think the 6000HP just weren't worth the teething problems in that service.
Higher HP on the ACS-64s may be another factor although the axel ratios are different. So are they 1600 HP each? and they have short time ratings higher.
BaltACDI had always thought CSX had purchased their CW60AC's to 'expedite' the intermodal network. That they didn't stay in the service very long seemed to disprove the idea that 1K HP per axle could move intermodal faster at less cost.
Their initial plans were actually to assign them to coal trains to increase their velocity. That didn't last long though and by the time that 600-602 were delivered (The pre-production units), CSX already had changed their tune and were eyeing them for high-speed intermodal trains.
That initial plan is what gave birth to the "heavy" concept for modern CSX power. Knowing they were destined for coal service (Or so they thought), GE engineers worked out how to up the production examples for CSX from 420,000 to 432,000 pounds and developed special adhesion management software.
When CSX changed their strategy and settled on AC4400CW's for coal trains, GE developed a similarly modified AC4400CW for CSX that eventually was of course embraced by CSX.
BaltACDNot to belittle the advances in electronics that have been implemented since the first of the AC traction engines entered service - the succeeding generations of motive power have touted a 1 for 2 or a 2 for 3 replacement ratio for the prior generation of motive power. To date that quantum step has not happened since the dawn of AC traction in the middle 1990's. Yes the power has become more reliable - that is the way of most products available in the human world - same performance but more reliable. Has anyone had to adjust the 'vertical hold' on their TV recently. It seems as if 700-750 HP per traction motor has become the effective maximum that the current state of the art can put to the rail effectively. The efforts with the 6000 HP, 6 axle locomotives seem to have ended in relative failure with the demo AC6000 being donated to a museum and many of its brothers and cousins being scrapped.
The standard of the 3000hp, six-axle road locomotive lasted about 20 years. Then came the 4000hp, six-axle road locomotive and then came AC traction and higher tractive effort. Even though the locomotive replacement rate has not continued the trailing tonnage has increased.
It's not for me to tell you about the seemingly interminable institutional memory of railroad mechanical departments. (I still hear disparaging remarks about V20 engines despite the relatively long and healthy service life of the SD45 family.) The jump to 6000hp via the HDL and 265H engines left a lasting impression and not a positive one. All of us dinosaurs will be face down in the tar pit before some fresh face suggests, "Hey, why don't we try a 6000hp road locomotive?"
D.CarletonIt should be noted that the ES/ET44C4s translate their 4400hp to four axles, ergo, 1000hp per axle has been achieved.
Indeed and the B40-8 achieved it previous and the GP60 was a mere 50HP short per axle.
What those locomotives struggled with was they didn't succeed as well in general service and locomotive weight, initially with the bigger cabs became an issue.
The C4s and EMD P4s exist, because they couldn't fit the entire locomotive on 4 axles anymore.
But there are hundreds if not thousands of Diesel Freight locomotives out there in regular service making ~1000+HP per powered Axle.
SD70Dude Erik_Mag OTOH, there's been work on modifying the fuel injector/combustion volume to make the combustion process to be similar to a Bunsen burner. The groups working on it are claiming substantial reductions in NOx and PM. From what I gather, the idea is that the injector would spray into a tube which would inhibit combustion until there air and fuel are well mixed. Throttle body for a diesel?
No, the tubes would be on the piston facing side of the cylinder head adjacent to the injector (perhaps a pre-chamber with a lot more openings?). The spray from the injectors would travel through the tubes, with the fuel evaporating and mixing with the air entrained by the fuel spray. I'm guessing the benefits come from the fuel being almost fully vaporized before combustion starts, along with more turbulence promoting better mixing. The high speed videos of the combustion process show a much dimmer flame from much lower PM formed during combustion. My impression is that this technology is still in the laboratory demonstration phase, so long term durability is an open question.
What intrigues me is that this addresses the NOx and PM problem at the combustion stage and may have less negative impact on fuel efficiency than after treatments.
YoHo1975 D.Carleton It should be noted that the ES/ET44C4s translate their 4400hp to four axles, ergo, 1000hp per axle has been achieved. Indeed and the B40-8 achieved it previous and the GP60 was a mere 50HP short per axle. What those locomotives struggled with was they didn't succeed as well in general service and locomotive weight, initially with the bigger cabs became an issue. The C4s and EMD P4s exist, because they couldn't fit the entire locomotive on 4 axles anymore. But there are hundreds if not thousands of Diesel Freight locomotives out there in regular service making ~1000+HP per powered Axle.
D.Carleton It should be noted that the ES/ET44C4s translate their 4400hp to four axles, ergo, 1000hp per axle has been achieved.
Were the inverters a limitation for both manufacturers?
When Seimens was upgrading the Sacramento plant to build the ACS-64, the German VP who came over to oversee (Who is not the person currently overseeing it) the upgrades was a member of our club. He had STRONG opinions on the drivelines in the SD90s and SD70MAC as you might expect. He was of the opinion that the Siemens gear could more than handle the SD90 output.
Lake Shore is getting a pretty amazing (and one of the most modern) collection of diesels in the country by far.
I wonder if they have any plans for a building to house all this stuff?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
M636C YoHo1975 M636C The lead truck design was indeed used on the eight BHP AC6000CW units. That is NOT the Steerable truck as seein on Canadian Pacific and CSX GE units. Though it looks related. Was it an early proto? As I recall, GE's Steerable truck efforts were not as well received as EMD's in the early 90s. I think there were two separate designs of GE steerable truck, complete with separate patent applications although the principle of operation was similar. The earlier design was more common. The later design on 6002 might have only numbered seventeen examples, the eight Australian units and the prototype now in the museum. GE had the problem that being second in the field, the simpler steering mechanism used by EMD was covered by patents, so GE had to use different linkages. Steering trucks without linkages are more popular now, both with Progress and Wabtech. Peter
GE did infact have 2 different designs of steerable trucks. The Generation 1 steerable truck is the model that's found so commonly on hundreds of CSX and CP AC4400CW's, ES44AC's and other AC traction GE models. Many roads opted for this. However, the lead truck on GECX is indeed an example of the Generation 2 steerable truck. This truck type was first tested on CSX AC6000CW #600. Sister unit CSX was refitted with the Generation 1 trucks and shortly after was paired with the #600 and the units tested in captive helper service for 2 weeks on the CSX Mountain Sub for 2 in a joint effort between CSX and GE. CSX retained these trucks for quite a while. Canadian Pacific AC4400CW #8501 was also refitted with Generation 2 trucks as well which were eventually traded out for Generation 1 trucks. GECX #6002 eventually ended up with its own set of Generation 2 trucks, which could possibly have came from either CSX 600 or CP 8501. There were at least 20, possibly 22 of the trucks produced- 16 for the BHP order, 2 for CSX and 2 for CP. Whether GECX received its trucks from the CSX or CP unit is unknown. The Generation 2 truck was determined to have not offered any significant improvement in performance over the Generation 1 truck in the head to head testing on CSX. The Generation 2 truck also cost quit a bit more than the Generation 1, was much heavier and included many more moving parts. Its not hard to see why the Generation 2 design was dropped as an option.
Bryan Jones
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.