6000 hp engines?

[Boyd]

I don't get every month of Trains magazine, nor do I read every article. I do remember engines getting up to 6000 hp and talk of up to 8000 hp. But aren't most new engines around 4000 hp now?

[wabash1]

for the most part the new engines are 4400 and its been some time since i had a 6000 hp unit, I am only a engineer so i am not sure what engines are made anymore, I am not sure why sd 90mac engines are not made they are great engines i had a Union Pacific unit and it just ran circles around the ge versions with so much power i didnt need much over notch 4-5 to get to and stay at track speed.

[magicman710]

There is also the AC6000CW. Csx has alot of them. It rates at 6000hp as well as the SD90mac. Not sure when it was quite being made. GE started production in 1998. Now they are producing only GEVOs.

[edblysard]

Overkill,

There is no real use for a 6000hp single unit.

You could pair them up in coal drags and grain trains, or on a stacker, but that's about the only real economical use for them.

You can get 6000 hp from a three unit SD 40-2 MU, and if need be break them up and use each locomotive for a lot of other, less HP intense purposes.

 

The SD90s are great, I have even flat switched with one...they load up and get going a lot quicker than you would think for their size, and they will stop on a dime...but 6000hp in switching service, or on a local industry drag is just a waste of fuel and horsepower.

 

I can take four of our MK1500Ds, MU them, get you 6000hp, with 16 traction motors as opposed to 6...and when you get to where you are going, you can bust up the MU, and have four 1500 hp units able to go anywhere you need them to, and perform just about any service you want.

 

You can liken the 6000Hp units to the Gas Turbines UP had...big, single purpose 8500hp locomotives designed for hauling big tonnage up hard grades, very labor intensive and costly, and in the end UP still had to add diesel helper units on to the trains...and when the traffic patterns changed, UP was stuck with these units, and had no real use for them.

 

Think of it like this...

You could use the Queen Mary to go bass fishing, but you would be hard put to find a big enough lake!

But for the same cost, you can buy a whole lot of bass boats and fish a whole lot of different lakes!

 

[WSOR 4025]

Bombardier-Alstom HHP-8s have 8000 HP and are used for pulling passenger trains on the Northeast Corridor.

[SD60M]

Did any of the SD90's even have 6000hp? When the unit came out it had around 4000hp but emd developed an engine later on that had the 6000hp but i didnt know that any of the railroads upgraded their 90's?

[CNW 6000]

Wasn't that the SD90/43MAC?

[nanaimo73]

Did any of the SD90's even have 6000hp? 

Yes, 62 were built for UP with the H engine, of which they still have 21. Canadian Pacific also picked up 4. EMD leasing has 41 ex UP locomotives

[trainfan1221]

From what I understand the 6000hp engines didn't catch on and were having problems, so the railroads stayed with 4000-4400hp.  I know CSX depowered at least some of the AC6000s, don't know if they returned them to full rating or not.  It seems every time the horsepower race gets really crazy that they have to let up, after all isn't that what happened in the SD45 era?

[ndbprr]

As I recall the problem with the SD45 was the 20 cylinder crankshaft and not the horsepower.  The PRR centipedes (1945 or so were permanently coupled 3000HP engines for 6000 total HP)  after removing the turbos they were 5000hp.  I think some people are starting to wake up and realize there is no secondary market for these huge engines.  They are only good for hauling tonnage on through freights and I doubt there is a class 2 or shortline that will have any interest in them when the 15 year depreciation is up.

[da Milwaukee beerNut]

nanaimo73's numbers are correct - a bit more Info:

62 delivered UP with the 6000 hp H engine, of which they still have 21. EMD leasing EMDX has the 41 ex-UP locomotives - returned following expiration of the original lease. Canadian Pacific also picked up 4.

UP Big Macs wear roster numbers 8911-8931. CP quartet is numbered 9300-9303. 

[timz]

when the traffic patterns changed, UP was stuck with these [8500 hp turbine] units, and had no real use for them.

What changed? When did UP start having "no real use" for an 8500 hp 12-driving-axle unit?

[RRFoose]

It seems to be a given that 6,000 horsepower is too much, and that the 4,300/4,400 hp range is best for now.  However, what about the ex-Conrail SD80MACs rated at 5,000 hp?  How did these units work for Conrail and its predecessors?

[alstom]

There were about three 6,000 horsepower products released. The GE AC6000CW, the EMD SD90MAC and the EMD SD90MAC-HII. The GE AC6000CW seems to be the most successful out of all three of the units with CSX having 117, Union Pacific having 186 and BHP Iron in Australia having 8. Plus, you can count the GECX 6000 demo unit, titled the "Green Machine." I don't keep up as much with the EMD SD90 series, but I know Electro-Motive Leasing (EMLX) has the 41 former UP SD90MAC-HII locomotives. The SD90MAC-HII was a very unsuccessful locomotive, and Canadian Pacific and UP owned them. Not sure what CP has or is doing to there's, but UP sold all. 6 EMLX SD90MAC-HII units are roaming my area of Northeast Ohio on the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway and the W&LE seems satisfied with them.

My favorite out of the three is the GE AC6000CW. CSX derated most of the fleet to 4,400 horsepower and retitled them CW44-6AC units in the year of 2000, 2001 or 2002. Later on, CSX rerated the units to 6,000 horsepower. CSX uses these units in intermodal traffic, and on occasion, some other types of loads. CSX likes to keep the AC6000CW's paired up and when they are, they can be quite a team. At full speed, their "turbo chargers" make a recognizable 'whining' noise. I have heard positive comments on these units from crews and also heard that they are alot more reliable than EMD's competitive product. I also have not heard much talk of them having problems from CSX. 

Just my two cents.

[tree68]

when the traffic patterns changed, UP was stuck with these [8500 hp turbine] units, and had no real use for them.

What changed? When did UP start having "no real use" for an 8500 hp 12-driving-axle unit?

IMHO, the gas turbines were a product of the steam-age method of operating, where a locomotive rarely left a certain territory. 

Today, as we all know, run-through power is the norm, so having locomotives that just about any shop can work on is a plus.   As exciting as it would be to have some unique UP (or any other road) loco show up in your area, it would be a nightmare for the local shop if they had no clue how to deal with a problem with it.

I really don't know when the philosophy (limited territory vs free roaming) made a wholesale change.  Maybe someone has an idea.

[youngengineer]

I've heard that with the 6000hp units that 1000hp on each axle has been a problem with, keeping the traction, especially in inclement weather. I believe the GE units have a little better traction control regarding the hp per axle but they still have some problems with traction on wet and icy rail. Ive been on UP's 6000hp units both 90mac and ac6000, great enignies for coal trains, and the dynamic braking in these locomotives are excellent.

As was said earlier more axles for the horsepower does seem to be better, fewer issues with slipping, and just that much more contact with the rail for starting especially.

[CopCarSS]

when the traffic patterns changed, UP was stuck with these [8500 hp turbine] units, and had no real use for them.

What changed? When did UP start having "no real use" for an 8500 hp 12-driving-axle unit?

IIRC, the turbines burned a type of fuel (bunker oil maybe?) that was really cheap at one point. I seem to recall that whatever it was is important to the plastic industry and so when the plastics market really started booming, the price of bunker oil/whatever went through the roof.

I also seem to recall that turbines are most efficient operating near their full potential. I think they burn a rather large amount of fuel whether running light or with a heavy train behind them. I'm not sure if that helped to their demise or not.

Finally, I think the diesel era brought a lot of standardization with it, and so having this set of highly specialized, non-interchangeble locos didn't make a lot of sense. Even when the UP brought out the dual-engine locos, they had at least some parts interchangability with their single engined kin.

As an aside, before their final exit, didn't the UP/GE upgrade a few of the 8500HP turbines to 10,000HP?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

UP's gas turbines did burn Bunker C, which comes off near the bottom of fractionation, I'm not sure that any petrochemicals use it as a feedstock.  At the tail end of the steam era on UP, bunker C fueled oil-burning steam, so fuel issues were minor for the turbines.  Some of the big turbines were indeed upgraded to 10000 HP.

[vlmuke]

the main reason for not using a turbine engine is reliablity a modern diesel engine in a semi can go 50,000 to 100,000 mile between oil changes and doesn't need any servicing until 1 million miles

[Lyon_Wonder]

As was said earlier more axles for the horsepower does seem to be better, fewer issues with slipping, and just that much more contact with the rail for starting especially.

 I guess the solution to slipage would be to add another couple of axles, an 8 axle 6000 hp AC loco instead of a 6 axle.  Unfortunately, the added traction motors would probably make the loco more complex and add additional weight, like UP's double-diesel experiments in the 1960s.

[JSGreen]

the main reason for not using a turbine engine is reliablity a modern diesel engine in a semi can go 50,000 to 100,000 mile between oil changes and doesn't need any servicing until 1 million miles

Other things about turbines that make them less than ideal for RR use...

Consider a comercial airline, the most common application of a turbine engine.

On take off, use full power for approximately 10 minutes...then throttle back to approximatly 85% percent power for 3-5 hours, then trottle back further for the approach, some throttle excursions durring the landing (depends on traffic and how good the pilot anticipates his aircraft...)

turns out that is the most effecient use of a turbine...and used like that, some turbines go thousands of hours before maintainence.  (A bore scope inspection of the actual turbinewheels called a hot section is required at about 2,000 hours for commercial aircraft...)

How many trains can set a single power setting for that long?  Just like an automobile, grades and curves require power setting adjustments...

And dont forget the main thing that makes a turbine ideal for aircraft (High HP to weight ratio) is not an advantage for the railroads...they would just have to add ballest to increase Tractive effort if you reduced the weight of the prime mover...Dont the modern engines already carry ballast (extra weight)...

 

THe relative ineffeciencies of turbines in this application, coupled with the high cost (most SMALL aircraft turbines cost around $1M each...) are large factors in not seeing them in RR service.

I recall reading an article in Popular Science in the 70's about Ford putting small turbines in a Semi tractor...One of the suggestions at that time was to use two turbines, using two for accelerating and climbing grades, and then only using one for most cruise applications.  Havent seen those in use, possibly for the same reasons we wont see them again in RR service...although, with hybrid research, one might find a turbine coupled to a generator when you can use 80-90% of the power for a combination of power and battery charging, then shutting itself off and using batteries untill they need to be recharged....but I would imagine that multiple heat/cool cycles for the turbine would mean a conventional engine would be a better choice...

[CopCarSS]

  recall reading an article in Popular Science in the 70's about Ford putting small turbines in a Semi tractor...One of the suggestions at that time was to use two turbines, using two for accelerating and climbing grades, and then only using one for most cruise applications. 

One of the other autmotive manufacturers (Chrysler, maybe?) played around with turbines in vehicles. I seem to recall the design utilizing multiple turbine stages based on duty (acceleration, cruising, etc.) similar to the Ford semi design you mentioned. I'll have to see if I can find that article someplace...

[Modelcar]

...Chrysler...in the 60's.  They put out 50 cars to certain people to evaluate for, I believe it was 90 days and they would be turned in and provided to another person to continue the plan.

I was in one and ready to go for a ride and the engine set there and idled around 18,000 rpm and the fellow got a phone call....and the ride had to be posponed.

Cars resembled a small T-Bird  {4-passenger type}, and after the program was finished I believe they had to be destroyed.  Believe there is one or two still in existence....{Museum}.

You can pull up a pic of one by using search or Google.

[JSGreen]

Thanks for that lead...Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Chrysler Turbine Cars...

[trainfan1221]

The CR SD80MACs seemed to work fine and gave the road a chance to do some unit reduction on the Boston Line.  Apparently a lot of the original bugs with the 20 cylinder engine had been taken care of.  I don't know any difficulty they might have had, but CSX and NS don't seem to have any big use for them.

[beaulieu]

Both GE and EMD have started building new 6000hp. locomotives for China, 300 for each builder.  The reason that 6000hp. hasn't caught on in the US is the early reliability problems, coupled with economic reasons. Just as why some railroads haven't bought AC motored locomotives, so railroads that have bought AC motored locomotives, haven't found a way to offset the still higher purchase price through operational savings, especially since the early ones had higher operating costs.

6000hp locomotives built for US and Canadian service.

General Electric 

Union Pacific

80 units AC6000CW

UP 7500 - 7579

CSXT

118 units

CSX 600 - 699

CSX 5000 - 5017

CSX 699 is operating with a 4400hp. engine, it is scheduled to receive a new 6000hp. engine someday, if someday ever comes. Engine block was destroyed in major failure at the peak of GE HDL engine problems. 

GE also owns the prototype, and the former UP 7511, which they replaced with a new locomotive of the same type. 

Electromotive Diesel

Union  Pacific

Union Pacific (originally owned 61 locomotives)

UP 8500 - 8561

The 21 survivors on UP roster are now UP 8910 - 8931

Canadian Pacific (4 units)

CP 9300 - 9303

EMD Leasing (41 units formerly UP of the same number)

EMLX  8500

EMLX 8522 - 8561

 

These locomotives were built to be easily converted to 6000hp. at a later date.  None have been or are likely to ever be converted due to their age, and other factors (Changing emissions standards etc.).

 

Union Pacific

EMD SD90MAC  8000 - 8308    (UP calls these SD9043MACs)

GE   AC6000CW(U)  7300 - 7405  (UP calls these AC6044CWs)

 

Canadian Pacific

EMD SD90MAC  9100 - 9160

 

CEFX Leasing

EMD SD90MAC  100 - 139

 

At least two of UP's SD9043MACs have been destroyed in wrecks. 

[SSW9389]

As beaulieu has written look to the Chinese order for 600 units for further development on the 6000 horsepower units. There are several lines in the States where the EMD Leasing units are being tried. This development story isn't over, just being written in another language.

When are the first Chinese units to be delivered? 

  

[JonathanS]

Overkill,

There is no real use for a 6000hp single unit.

You could pair them up in coal drags and grain trains, or on a stacker, but that's about the only real economical use for them.

You can get 6000 hp from a three unit SD 40-2 MU, and if need be break them up and use each locomotive for a lot of other, less HP intense purposes.

 

The SD90s are great, I have even flat switched with one...they load up and get going a lot quicker than you would think for their size, and they will stop on a dime...but 6000hp in switching service, or on a local industry drag is just a waste of fuel and horsepower.

 

I can take four of our MK1500Ds, MU them, get you 6000hp, with 16 traction motors as opposed to 6...and when you get to where you are going, you can bust up the MU, and have four 1500 hp units able to go anywhere you need them to, and perform just about any service you want.

 

You can liken the 6000Hp units to the Gas Turbines UP had...big, single purpose 8500hp locomotives designed for hauling big tonnage up hard grades, very labor intensive and costly, and in the end UP still had to add diesel helper units on to the trains...and when the traffic patterns changed, UP was stuck with these units, and had no real use for them.

 

Think of it like this...

You could use the Queen Mary to go bass fishing, but you would be hard put to find a big enough lake!

But for the same cost, you can buy a whole lot of bass boats and fish a whole lot of different lakes!

 Talk about Deja-vu.  This is the late '60s all over again talking about 3600 horspower in a locomotive.  That is the SD45, U36C, U36B, and C636.  I heard things like "railroads will never have need for locomotives with more than 3000 horspower", or "3600 HP is just too slippery", or "one SD45 is not enough power for a train and two is too much" or "when an SD45 is old all you can do is scrap it, it is useless for anything but large main line trains." 

The builders will eventually figure out how to make reliable 6000+ horsepower locomotives and the railroads will figure out how to effectively use them.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Another factor to keep in mind is until about the 1980's, the builders offered a line of several different models for a variety of duties.  All that's being offered now is a 4300-4400 HP C-C model with either AC or DC drive.  In the past, many roads would order a mix of models to best suit their motive power needs, now that option is unavailable.  Unless you go to NRE or MPI, small power is not available and and SD70M-2 in switching duty is a waste of assets.

[jockellis]

Back in the mid '80s, I spoke with the master mechanic of SCL. He told me that until the Fireball Head was developed, the beginning of swirl technology and higher horsepower, that anything over 3,000 HP broke crankshafts. His railroad really, really, really didn't like replacing broken cranks. It might be recalled that in Formula 1 auto racing, the 3 litre Ford Cosworth began life in 1967 or 68 with 375 HP. By the end of its development, it was putting out about 675. Other engines, both diesel and gas, benefitted from the advances of technoology - and probably the computer - which were coming at faster and faster rates.
The comment about what to do with a 6,000 HP unit and it not being good for anything by long trains is probably true. Someone once told me you buy a house that you can sell, not one you like. I imagine railroad bean counters feel much the same way.