Hi all .
I'm interested to know what operators thought of the EMD SD60 series locomotives . I think the 90 Class built for Australias Hunter Valley may basically be SD60s designed to suit our smaller loading gauge .
I have looked at some sites for things like gross mass and I was surprised that they (USDM SD60s) were lighter than I thought they'd be for a USD locomotive . Is it true that they were around 165-170 metric tonnes and used D87 traction motors and the power glide AR11 alternator .
A total of 1144 were built so they must have been pretty good. The full SD60 specs can be found here.
https://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20SD60.HTML
BDAIs it true that they were around 165-170 metric tonnes
A metric tonne is 1000 kg or 2204.6 pounds. The weight range is about the same for the units of measure.
I believe all SD60's were built in the range of 390,000-420,000 lbs. with full supplies.
The dimensions on the Diesel Shop website for EMD units are often very wrong in my experience. The linked page for the SD60 has these errors:
Min RPM is 200 in low idle,
Traction Motor Blowers are mechanically driven off the engine as all EMD locos back to the GP30 are, not electrically driven, which came in with the SD70,
Weight might have been offered as light as 368,000 lbs. but I don't believe any were built that light,
What is shown as starting tractive effort is actually the continuous TE of 98,250 lbs. The starting TE is 149,000 lbs.,
Not sure what SD50 is doing opposite Exterior Dimensions,
Total length of 71'-2" is correct over coupler pulling faces, Length over endplates is 67'-0",
Height to top of cab roof sheet is 14'-8.75", not 15'-7.5". This is the same height as the top of engine hood roof sheet. Height over cooling fans is 15'-7.12",
Top of walkway is 64.5" with 40" wheels, not 9'-4.5",
Walkway width is 24", not 3'-8.5",
Engine hood is 72" wide, not 10"-0",
"Center Bolster" dimension of 45'-10" is correct for distance between truck center bearings, (on the HTC truck, the center axle is outboard of the center bearing by 1.25")
Center bearings to end sheets is 10'-7" at both cab and hood ends, not 2'-3". The dimension from endplate to coupler pulling face is 25", an EMD standard for years.
Dave
(corrected endplate to couple pull face dimension)
There is an apparent disparity in the numbers as given: if the length over end plates is 67' and length over pulling faces is 71'2", then dimension from end plate to pulling face would be 2'1". But that dimension is later specified as 2'3".
This Is only a 4" disparity over the length of the locomotive, but I for one would value knowing the right number (or why the two dimensions are given differently).
Error on my part - the correct dimension from endplate to pulling face is 25" and most EMD locos in the last 50 years used that same dimension until I changed it to 24" for the Tier 4 loco with 710 that I was tasked with designing in 2010. Not sure if the production Tier 4 with 1010J changed it back.
I emailed rcraig at the diesel shop so he could correct his SD60 page.
Purely out of curiosity (and because I doubt I'll figure it out any other way) what were the reasons for reducing from 25" to 24"?
Thank you for the details , so 176-190 metric tonnes .
I did hear somewhere that our 90s were heavy enough at approx 167 metric tonnes to pull down slow enough and at times long enough to cook their D87 traction motors . Just on this remember that most of our standard gauge DC fleet in Australia outside the Pilbara and Hunter Valley only weigh about 120 - 132 metric tonnes . And the way I see it if they slip they can't fully load their traction motors . I don't often hear about cooked traction motors here .
The 90s and 82s , 82 being a GT42C 12 710 and 132 metric tonnes , were part of the Ready Power contract and had common components ie AR11 alts and D87 traction motors .
Obviously SD60 was an update to the problematic SD50 and I'm curious to know if their traction motors , if they are D87s , had issues with short time ratings . We have that AR11 "power glide" , power thump , alternator in a few types here and the word is that they were lighter and more compact than the AR10 . And supposedly had some fuel consumption advantage .
I believe the AR11 can only take about 3840 crank HP which isn't an issue for a 16 645 or a 12 710 but caps the 16 710 at around that figure .
Overmod Purely out of curiosity (and because I doubt I'll figure it out any other way) what were the reasons for reducing from 25" to 24"?
It was simply to gain 2" in underframe length while not increasing the length over couplers. It figures in to stepwell size, which I was trying to increase for easier access.
When it was decided that the 710 in Tier 4 configuration would not be competitive for fuel economy, I left the project to do truck design work since the loco design was paused while the 1010J engine was being designed and others took over the project. So I am not sure what details made it into the final loco configuration, although the sloped windshield did make it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.