QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350 I forget the exact date but I think it was around 1983 when EMD introduced the angled blower housing. SD50's and GP50's built before that date had the older, rounded style housing. Any units built after that date, had the angled style, including some GP40-2's and SD40-2's. I believe only 10 SD50's had the rounded style, KCS 704-713.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350 I forget the exact date but I think it was around 1983 when EMD introduced the angled blower housing. SD50's and GP50's built before that date had the older, rounded style housing. Any units built after that date, had the angled style, including some GP40-2's and SD40-2's. I believe only 10 SD50's had the rounded style, KCS 704-713. The five Australian (Clyde Engineering) built SD50S units, now with the Utah Railway, also have the old type blower bulge. As built, these had an odd plate extension on the leading edge of the bulge to allow the first letter of the road name (H for Hamersley) to fit on it! Peter
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years? Conrail's first two orders were 3500 HP, the second two, 3600 HP. The difference was almost completely that the 3600 HP have traction motor blower shutters to throttle the air flow to the traction motor and partially unload the shaft driven traction motor blowers. There was no differnce in brake HP out of the diesel at notch 8.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod Plenty of information on Centipedes -- just restricted to Baldwin fan community and esoteric history. There was very little of their technology that turned out to be useful for the kind of locomotives that prevailed... and have subsequently prevailed... in the marketplace. Engines used in the production Centipedes were typical 608 series; I think all SC and not NA. The chassis was derived from high-speed electric practice of the time (note that PRR, at about the same time the Centipedes were developed, had gone in the opposite direction as far as number of powered axles, with the DD2, but didn't have to accommodate two fairly big diesel engine/generators in a single carbody). All tankage was above the undercarriage, which presented some packaging and seal problems. Cabs AFAIK were comparable to other 'covered wagons' -- no inherent reason why they couldn't be large and spacious as desired; you'll notice they were arbitrarily made with a lower roof height than the 'rest' of the carbody. The articulated undercarriage was massive overkill for the amount of actual horsepower developed, and provided no meaningful gain over what could be achieved with a bunch of A-1-A Blombergs in practice. The fact that you don't see any other Baldwin production designs using it should be illustrative. Much of the unreliability was common to many Baldwins -- lots of little separate lines and routing for oil, for example, led to lots of big and little leaks when the engines got into regular service, indifferent maintenance, etc. If Baldwin had had a Dilworth doing their overall locomotive design, things might have been different. IIRC many of the 'unreliability' problems with the design were solved, but by that time the units were effectively orphans -- some of PRR's were derated and placed in helper service, which was a waste of their 100+mph capacity, but probably a reasonable use of their full-articulated chassis capacity. Baldwin did have one interesting use of the capability of the Centipede idea -- a 6000hp test locomotive in the late '40s that was intended to use modular transverse V-8 engine/generator sets. You slid in more or less power as desired for your intended service, a rather interesting idea then as now. I've read varying accounts of how this project effectively came to go nowhere. There's at least one good book on Baldwin diesels that will tell you all the stuff you're asking about. (I don't own it yet, but rather than do so and then violate the spirit of copyright, I'll just tell you to order it from Amazon or some other source that can procure it new or used)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 How much horsepower on a C41-8W?
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer I looked at both photos. Each one had the notation," 0 comments on this photo".
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod C42-8 is the Dash-8 series with 4200 nominal horsepower. C44-9WL is the special version of the Dash-9 series, 4400 nominal hp, W = wide cab, with the long 4-window cab. I believe the "L" stands for 'long cab' rather than 'light' (the units are 2000lb lighter than standard, according to guilford350's locomotive database, but I don't think this is significant enough to warrant a different designation by itself; I find no difference in the overall frame length or other running-gear spacing that might reflect an "L" for 'long'.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 Noticed this peculiar locomotive: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=77964 Any info on this loco NREX 9402?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie QUOTE: Originally posted by RI4310 NREX is rebuilding alot of old Southern Pacific tunnel motors with standard raidiators and the end result is a standard length hood on a looooong frame left over. theres some pics on railpictures.net. There primer gray with red lettering, looks weird like a liitle boy with daddys shoes on. Long live the rock. a couple of the older engines we see, do look exactly like the little boy and the big shoes. Like they were cobbled together by a committee... Hmm Iwaonder what kind of committee cobbled up the European locomotives or Russian tanks . . . Thanks for the visitation rights, so much trackage and haulage rights!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie QUOTE: Originally posted by RI4310 NREX is rebuilding alot of old Southern Pacific tunnel motors with standard raidiators and the end result is a standard length hood on a looooong frame left over. theres some pics on railpictures.net. There primer gray with red lettering, looks weird like a liitle boy with daddys shoes on. Long live the rock. a couple of the older engines we see, do look exactly like the little boy and the big shoes. Like they were cobbled together by a committee...
QUOTE: Originally posted by RI4310 NREX is rebuilding alot of old Southern Pacific tunnel motors with standard raidiators and the end result is a standard length hood on a looooong frame left over. theres some pics on railpictures.net. There primer gray with red lettering, looks weird like a liitle boy with daddys shoes on. Long live the rock.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 Noticed this peculiar locomotive: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=77964 Any info on this loco NREX 9402? From thread 23009 on the MR Forum (October 2004): Please try to remember when you've had your questions answered before you re-post them as if they were new. To re-cap: 9402 is functionally an SD-40-2 on an ex-SP SD45-T2 (tunnel motor) frame. Note the bell bracket on the end of the long hood (presently without bell). I'm fascinated that the weight distribution on the trucks of this unit is still correct -- confirmation, perhaps, that most of the extra length in the tunnel-motor architecture is mostly air...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 I saw the " By By SD90MAC H2 " thread . . . I'm wondering did EMD ever implement it's 265H engine or is it still in R&D? If the units are coming out of lease then what will happen if 6000hp is going to be needed? Finally what are the main reasons for doing away with the SD90MAC , length , inflexibility , etc . . .
QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350 QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 I saw the " By By SD90MAC H2 " thread . . . I'm wondering did EMD ever implement it's 265H engine or is it still in R&D? If the units are coming out of lease then what will happen if 6000hp is going to be needed? Finally what are the main reasons for doing away with the SD90MAC , length , inflexibility , etc . . . Read the rest of that thread. Its been updated with new information.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.