SD70M vs. Dash 9/ SD70MAC vs. AC4400CW

[Anonymous]

Hey,
This is for any operaters out there, I was wondering from some various standpoints listed below is the following product better: SD70M vs. Dash 9. And the SD70MAc is against the AC4400CW. All input will be appreciated. Sorry, i dont want replies like; GE is better because EMD sucks! I want reasons..

Here are the categories:
1.) Overall reliability
2.) On the road Performance
3.) Tractive effort
4.) Cost
5.) Experiences

Thanks for all the input! The reason behind this is I will be modeling a fictional regional that will either have SD70M/SD70MAC's or Dash 9/AC4400CW and I want to see this from not a railfan's point of view but from an operations point of view.

[M636C]

The first question is;

Why not compare the current offerings of the builders rather than the previous models?

But assuming you want to know about locomotives you can't buy in prototype form, but can buy models for -

Overall Reliability - About the same

On the road performance - GEs load up much more slowly which is a pain when switching, but not important for road work. The EMD steering trucks are good for curved track. The Alaska RR bought SD70MAC for that feature. GE offer steering trucks, but only CSX bought them.

Tractive Effort - About the same, but for the DC units the EMD Super Series combined with steering trucks gives a small advantage.

Cost: It is generally agreed that GE cost slightly less to buy. The GE engine castings don't last as long as EMD fabricated blocks. There are SD40s from 1966 still running with their original engine crankcase, but GE Dash-9s of ten years ago are getting new engines. Do you plan to keep the units for more than twenty years?

Experiences: Many engine crew on this forum criticise GE for poor detail and workmanship, more so than EMD.

But BNSF have purchased mainly GE DC units while UP have purchased mainly EMD DC units and GE AC units. There probably isn't that much in it, you could justify either depending what you want. For a model railroad, see which models run well and cost less and buy those. Nobody can say you were wrong!

M636C

[Anonymous]

Well said M636C.

I hate to give "that's what I heard" advice but it does sound like GE doesn't hold the rail like EMD will.

If I were you I'd go w/ SD70MACs for their longetivity and DASH 9s for cheaper power. Or do you want to run only GE or EMD?

[Anonymous]

I will probably switch between both...GE and EMD. SD70M's and AC4400CW's.

As for current offerings, I am doing this about four to six years ago, around the new millenium as my prototype. The railroad i am focusing on will be hauling Coal, coiled and scrap steel (think CR PIMO) and Intermodal for the main commodities. general merchandise and local duties will be hauled with SD40-2's and SD-9E's/GP-9E's

Personallly, the new EMD products look very much like a cross between the SD70M and the SD9043MAC. (If they mated...) I still can't speak much about them, since I am still trying to react to them. The GE ES44AC looks and sounds interesting but then again I am not a big GE fan.

[Anonymous]

Ya,At least you won't see an EMD explode like a GE. (GE) We bring good things to life. NOT!!!!!!
Allan.

[Anonymous]

You might see it explode, but I doubt you'll see it expload.

It's like the Ford vs. Chevy debate. You'll never get a straight answer because everyone has their own preference. Each has good and bad points and they're bought by all for different reasons.

[solzrules]

GE = G.ood E.nough

Here ends all of the intelligence that I have to offer.
No stats, no experience (with the RR part of GE at least-their electrical components are garbage but cheap). [^]

[edbenton]

Like farmer 03 said this has been gone over so many times it kind of needs to be laid to rest we all have our favorite kinds and we will never agree. So lets just let this die and agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Me and my stupid spelling screw ups.

[coborn35]

The difference is all here: G>ood E>nough< >E<very M<Mans D>ream

[BaltACD]

Observations from a road that uses both.....

GE's aren't all that reliable....Current day EMD products are worse.

That being said, in todays railroading, engine failures today are more debilitating to the overall operation of the at subdivision than they were 20/30 years ago....railroads load power closer to its maximum tonnage ratings today than was ever done in the past...also with todays locomotives being the effective replacemernt for 3 or 4 1st or 2nd Generation locomotives a single engine failure automatically prevents the train from successfully negotiating the ruling grade on the subdivision. With the 1st and 2nd Generation engines you would have 4 to 6 of them on a train, the failure of a single engine left a biger percentage of the motive power still working....todays norms are one or two working engines....if one fails....kaputski!

[edbenton]

I have seen times though were one engine running was common even with second genaration power.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: railroads load power closer to its maximum tonnage ratings today than was ever done in the past

I disagree. CGW used their F units very hard. Often it would take several tries of backing the slack out of the train and rushing forward to get it started. Then they'd be in notch 8, just jumping up and down on the rail and the train wouldn't be moving. In one instance, they somehow backed a train out of the yard when they couldn't get it started and they had managed to get it going out there but when it came through the 2 mile long yard it was still going slow and I'm sure they had to be in notch 8.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix

QUOTE: railroads load power closer to its maximum tonnage ratings today than was ever done in the past

I disagree. CGW used their F units very hard. Often it would take several tries of backing the slack out of the train and rushing forward to get it started. Then they'd be in notch 8, just jumping up and down on the rail and the train wouldn't be moving. In one instance, they somehow backed a train out of the yard when they couldn't get it started and they had managed to get it going out there but when it came through the 2 mile long yard it was still going slow and I'm sure they had to be in notch 8.

In the days of the CGW tonages for trains were approximate....for the most part loads wrere figured at 80 tons and empties at 25 tons.....a train of 85 loads and 15 mtys would have a consisted tonnage of 7175 tons....the real tonnage of that particular train was anyones guess unless one went through each waybill and found the weight of the lading, added it to the empty weight of the cars and then calculated the tonnage....in the days before computers this was not possible.

Today, through the use of computers all relavent weights are known within the railroads data systems and are used to calculate accurate tonages for train. It is not uncommon for power that is rated for 9800 tons to be hauling trains of 9796 tons and those are actual tons.

[Rail Equipment]

BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix

QUOTE: railroads load power closer to its maximum tonnage ratings today than was ever done in the past

I disagree. CGW used their F units very hard. Often it would take several tries of backing the slack out of the train and rushing forward to get it started. Then they'd be in notch 8, just jumping up and down on the rail and the train wouldn't be moving. In one instance, they somehow backed a train out of the yard when they couldn't get it started and they had managed to get it going out there but when it came through the 2 mile long yard it was still going slow and I'm sure they had to be in notch 8.

In the days of the CGW tonages for trains were approximate....for the most part loads wrere figured at 80 tons and empties at 25 tons.....a train of 85 loads and 15 mtys would have a consisted tonnage of 7175 tons....the real tonnage of that particular train was anyones guess unless one went through each waybill and found the weight of the lading, added it to the empty weight of the cars and then calculated the tonnage....in the days before computers this was not possible.

Today, through the use of computers all relavent weights are known within the railroads data systems and are used to calculate accurate tonages for train. It is not uncommon for power that is rated for 9800 tons to be hauling trains of 9796 tons and those are actual tons.

 

   Does anyone know what the price of a AC4400 is vs an Mac? 

[Rail Equipment]

I currently have two PH40 locomotives and would like to know if anyone knows of someone who might be interested in them.  [e-mail]

[Leo_Ames]

I've heard of a PH40 printer from Kodak, but never a locomotive with that desigination. I assume that you're not in North America?

[M636C]

I always worry when I see my postings from ten years ago revived.

I still agree with the one above, I think.

My understanding is that the the GE cost significantly less than the EMD when new, say ten percent (or more).

If you were asking about these locomotives now, with the limited life of the 7FDL16 engine compared to the 710G3, the EMD might be worth a lot more as having more life left in it.

M636C

[BaltACD]

Rail Equipment

BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix

QUOTE: railroads load power closer to its maximum tonnage ratings today than was ever done in the past

I disagree. CGW used their F units very hard. Often it would take several tries of backing the slack out of the train and rushing forward to get it started. Then they'd be in notch 8, just jumping up and down on the rail and the train wouldn't be moving. In one instance, they somehow backed a train out of the yard when they couldn't get it started and they had managed to get it going out there but when it came through the 2 mile long yard it was still going slow and I'm sure they had to be in notch 8.

In the days of the CGW tonages for trains were approximate....for the most part loads wrere figured at 80 tons and empties at 25 tons.....a train of 85 loads and 15 mtys would have a consisted tonnage of 7175 tons....the real tonnage of that particular train was anyones guess unless one went through each waybill and found the weight of the lading, added it to the empty weight of the cars and then calculated the tonnage....in the days before computers this was not possible.

Today, through the use of computers all relavent weights are known within the railroads data systems and are used to calculate accurate tonages for train. It is not uncommon for power that is rated for 9800 tons to be hauling trains of 9796 tons and those are actual tons.

   Does anyone know what the price of a AC4400 is vs an Mac?

Both are within stone throwing distance of $2M per copy.  Part of the sales pitch is the financing the different builders offer.  Once GM cut EMD loose, their financing packages began to lose when compared to GE.