SD.70 MACe

[kenneo]

Mark

Thanks, again, for the efforts that you and all of your staff put forth to bring us all of the information TRAINS provides each month, along with the books Kalmbach publishes. Three of my favorite are "Giants Ladder", "Diesels From Eddystone" and "The Interurban Era". If I had the $$ to purchase them all, I would do so, but I don't so I can't. [sigh] In fact, Middletons and Boners books have lost their dust jackets are are close to becoming "unbound" from use!

Again, Mark, [2c] and THANKS.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Eric: EMD engines use a simple designation system:



So: A, B, C, D series crankcases -- all 567 cu in displacement per cylinder, though you can stick a 645 assembly into a B, C, and D block. Dunno if you can do that with the A -- never have seen one! A BC block is a B block partially modified to C standards to get rid of some of the internal water leak problems with the C. BCs were VERY common; most railroads modified their B blocks during overhauls. 16-645Cs and BCs aren't uncommon either, but you can't get 2000 horse out of them unless you're willing to install bigger radiators and accept the fact that they will fly apart more often.
E, F series crankcases: all 645 cu in displacement -- same bore as 567, but longer stroke.
G series crankcase: 710 cu in displacement. Same bore as a 567, stroked out even farther.
H series crankcase: the 265 indicates its bore in mm; it displaces 1010 cu in. This is EMD's only 4-stroke.

Mark,
I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, but I have a correction to make. The 567 and 645 series power assemblies did not have the same bore, nor did the 645 have a longer stroke. A 567's bore is 8.5 inches, and a 645's bore is increased to 9 1/16 inches, stroke remaining the same at 10 inches. This is why 567 and 645 power assemblies are inter-changeable in the same block, thus you can upgrade a 567C or D (567's, 567A's, and 567B's have smaller top-deck area and heads) into a 645C or 645D. Also, the last SW1200's were built with 567E's (567assemblies in a 645 block) because EMD wanted to simplify production, and produce only one engine block (the 645). The 710 however is stroked out further than the 645, about 1 inch more, but still has the same bore; 9 1/16 inches. The cylinder liners and the entire 710 block itself is taller than both 567 and 645 blocks. This makes 710 power assemblies almost non inter-changeable with 645 assemblies (that is unless you want to do some serious work on the block first [:D]). Just trying to clear things up[%-)].

[M636C]

Mark,

You can't have read those notes I sent you on the EMD Engines! But the correction has already been posted. That's what comes of living on the other side of the world.

The cab on the prototype SD70ACe looks like the early modified cabs on the Phase II SD90MACs, rather than the better looking cabs on late production UP SD-70M units. Could this be a rebuild of another prototype, or using up a cab held in stock?

I haven't heard anything from you since Christmas. Do you want anything written?

Peter

[Anonymous]

John: You're right. This is what happens when I do things from memory! I was thinking about the dimensions of the hole in the crankcase rather than the dimension inside the cylinder liner.

I didn't know that about SW1200s, but it doesn't surprise me at all. It helps explain the parts catalog to me a little better.

Peter: the cab is all new. If it resembles something earlier, that's probably because the same ideas are simply being expressed again. And I haven't done anything with what you sent yet, because I have 600 manuscripts on the desk, and advance work on them has to stop during the deadline weeks.

[M636C]

Mark,

The other thing that I should have said was that the hood on the SD70ACe has the tapered or chamfered top like previous H engine locomotives, rather than the flat top on SD80MACs and other 710 Engine units. This increased the similarity with the SD90MAC and raised the possibility of re-used components.

In Australia, the then Victorian Railways purchased some G16Cs (a sort of lightweight SD28) with 567E engines, because they wanted to minimise their spares holdings. That idea lasted for one order of 6 units, and then they bought 645s like everybody else.

If you are regularly working until 00:54, don't worry about my comments too much, I understand about priorities.

I'm going back to work next week, having used the Christmas break for heavy railfan photography (it is summer here). You know you're really back at work when you know what you're doing, but you find the administration cell aren't expecting you!

But this has been a really interesting thread, and I'm glad I found it. We've only just seen the December issue here - I'll have to think about a subscription! I've got a long wait for the article that started the thread. But well done all contributors!

Peter

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I wouldn't venture a guess about the cost of getting the sulfur out of diesel fuel but a lot of it is going to depend on the source of the feedstock. Crude oil is like coal, sulfur content can vary pretty widely depending on the source.

[kenneo]

Talking about the interchangeability of power assemblies, I asked the Master Mechanic on the short line about putting 645's in an SD9, and I got this funny look with the words "We won't go there. No we won't." So, I would guess, you can if you want, but after you do, you won't want to any more.