Trains.com

Electric, Diesel and Steam Locomotives

24536 views
304 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, April 2, 2005 5:10 PM
The SD50S and the very similar (second) SD40X were built on the SD40-2 frame, 68'10" over couplers. They had the 16-645F3 engine rated at 3500 HP and had the excellent big AR16 alternator which could provide all the current needed for starting without needing to transition between series and parallel connection of the internal windings, as was required by the later, smaller, lighter AR11. EMD found that the radiators would have to be removed to remove the engine, and designed a longer frame 71'2" in length for later SD50s. KCS purchased four SD40X, N&W bought six SD50S and the Utah Railway obtained the five Australian -built SD50S built for Hamersley Iron. Some later SD50s had their power raised to 3600 HP, but I believe all the SD50S units remain(ed) at 3500HP.

Peter
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Saturday, April 2, 2005 4:29 PM
I may have covered this before, but what is an SD50S?
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:38 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Turbocharging and supercharging can boost horsepower ratings pretty high, but the maintenance requriements also go up as the ratings get higher.

In a similar vein, I am quite amused by the various ads for automobiles boasting of their horsepower rating without mentioning that the advertised horsepower is achieved only at close to maximum RPM's.


I remember a radio commercial where this guy was extolling the virtues of the higher horsepower of his company's SUV's 255hp against 210hp Jeep Cherokee (I think). He basically used all the meaness to degrade possibly better product.

Of course I find it amusing on the teen side who has a higher more powerfully rated computer; kinda reminds me of what Ed King said about N&W's compound 2-8-8-2's:

"If they could sell you 20 high-wheeled Challengers to move tonnage which could be moved more profitably with 15 or so modern compounds 2-8-8-2's, they were going to do their utmost to sell you the Challengers."

Some steamers I should say that were used in high speed service were supposed to be there i.e. Nickel Plate's Berkshires.
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:53 AM
Turbocharging and supercharging can boost horsepower ratings pretty high, but the maintenance requriements also go up as the ratings get higher.

In a similar vein, I am quite amused by the various ads for automobiles boasting of their horsepower rating without mentioning that the advertised horsepower is achieved only at close to maximum RPM's.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:25 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

For RR service, the traction HP is as follows:

16-645E - 2000 HP
16-645E3 - 3000 HP (although UPs Centenials were rated at 3300HP)
20-645E3 - 3600 HP
16-645F3 - 3600 HP

You can squeeze more HP out of the turbocharged engines, to a point, by increasing the fuel and/or engine RPM, but that will cost you in reliability.

The EMD 16-710G3 started life rated at 3800 HP. This was later bumped up to 4000 and now to 4300 HP. A similarly rated 20-710G3 would give you roughly 5500 HP.


I know that UPs Centenials may have had supercharged 16-645E3 engines.

Matt


While we are on the topic of prime movers and engines, I have these questions that while some may seem redundant and pointless I am wondering how high one could turbo-, super-charge, or normally aspirate:
Alco 251engines
GE FDL and HDL engines

Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:18 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

For RR service, the traction HP is as follows:

16-645E - 2000 HP
16-645E3 - 3000 HP (although UPs Centenials were rated at 3300HP)
20-645E3 - 3600 HP
16-645F3 - 3600 HP

You can squeeze more HP out of the turbocharged engines, to a point, by increasing the fuel and/or engine RPM, but that will cost you in reliability.

The EMD 16-710G3 started life rated at 3800 HP. This was later bumped up to 4000 and now to 4300 HP. A similarly rated 20-710G3 would give you roughly 5500 HP.


I know that UPs Centenials may have had supercharged 16-645E3 engines.

Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:38 AM
For RR service, the traction HP is as follows:

16-645E - 2000 HP
16-645E3 - 3000 HP (although UPs Centenials were rated at 3300HP)
20-645E3 - 3600 HP
16-645F3 - 3600 HP

You can squeeze more HP out of the turbocharged engines, to a point, by increasing the fuel and/or engine RPM, but that will cost you in reliability.

The EMD 16-710G3 started life rated at 3800 HP. This was later bumped up to 4000 and now to 4300 HP. A similarly rated 20-710G3 would give you roughly 5500 HP.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:19 AM
Think about it .
Randy
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Monday, March 28, 2005 5:14 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I was in railpics today and was looking at Wisconsin Central SD45. Are there any differences because I noticed the numbers scheme didn't particularly go inorder.

Also what was the deal with EMD SD45X 5740? Anyting different in this locomotive from SD45?

Matt
When we started the WC we got a group of SD-45s from the BN. The numbers were a jumble of numbers from 6400s which were the ex Frisco engines, the 6500s that were single electrical cabinet BN units and some 6600s which were a mix of ex Frisco, and GN.
As time went on we were continually renumbering locomotives that were run through some kind of program. The locomotives numbered in the low 6500s were given Q-Tron micro processors, mainly because they had one main high voltage cabinet. I think the Q-Tron numbers were 6501- 6533. In the last few years of the WC we were also rebuilding the 20 cyl engines, we then renumbered them into the 7500s to reflect the work. The 6400s and the 6600s were a troublesome group and it was decided to rewire these engines and apply the EM 2000 micro. We went ahead and renumbered all of them into the 6495s until we also rebuilt the prime movers and renumbered them again into the 7495s. We bought a group of engines from the ATSF and began numbering them 6578-6598. a second group from the ATSF began at 6599-6624 I think.
We also bought a few one off engines from Helm leasing, If I remember right we started numbering those right after the ex santa Fe engines. We also bought a few SDF-45s from the Santa Fe and stated numbering those in the 6650s.
Randy


When you are talking about rebuilding the 20 cylinder engines, do you mean rebuilding critical parts, or replacing the engines with 16-645F prime movers.

Also another question, what's the highest amount of horsepower that can be produced from a 16-645E, 16-645E3, 20-645E3, and 16-645F?

Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Monday, March 28, 2005 2:45 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I was in railpics today and was looking at Wisconsin Central SD45. Are there any differences because I noticed the numbers scheme didn't particularly go inorder.

Also what was the deal with EMD SD45X 5740? Anyting different in this locomotive from SD45?

Matt
When we started the WC we got a group of SD-45s from the BN. The numbers were a jumble of numbers from 6400s which were the ex Frisco engines, the 6500s that were single electrical cabinet BN units and some 6600s which were a mix of ex Frisco, and GN.
As time went on we were continually renumbering locomotives that were run through some kind of program. The locomotives numbered in the low 6500s were given Q-Tron micro processors, mainly because they had one main high voltage cabinet. I think the Q-Tron numbers were 6501- 6533. In the last few years of the WC we were also rebuilding the 20 cyl engines, we then renumbered them into the 7500s to reflect the work. The 6400s and the 6600s were a troublesome group and it was decided to rewire these engines and apply the EM 2000 micro. We went ahead and renumbered all of them into the 6495s until we also rebuilt the prime movers and renumbered them again into the 7495s. We bought a group of engines from the ATSF and began numbering them 6578-6598. a second group from the ATSF began at 6599-6624 I think.
We also bought a few one off engines from Helm leasing, If I remember right we started numbering those right after the ex santa Fe engines. We also bought a few SDF-45s from the Santa Fe and stated numbering those in the 6650s.
Randy
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, March 28, 2005 7:45 AM
EMD SD45X 5740 was a 4200 HP testbed originally with a V-20 engine. The V-20 fell out of favor when fuel prices rose since it had a reputation as a gas guzzler.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Sunday, March 27, 2005 3:44 PM
I was in railpics today and was looking at Wisconsin Central SD45. Are there any differences because I noticed the numbers scheme didn't particularly go inorder.

Also what was the deal with EMD SD45X 5740? Anyting different in this locomotive from SD45?

Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA
  • 4,015 posts
Posted by coborn35 on Friday, March 25, 2005 8:10 PM
Roster compiled by R. Craig
Updated: 30 Nov. 2001
Road No. Qty Model Notes
11 1 NW2 Reblt to SW1200
200-208 9 SD38AC -
209-213 5 SD38-2 -
214 1 SD38DC Ex-EJ&E 655
215 1 SD38-2 Ex-B&LE 892
216,217,221-223 5 SD3DC Ex-B&LE 863 & 861 and ex-EJ&E 651-653
301, 303, 305,
306, 307,308 6 SD-M Reblt from SD18s[yeah]
310, 312, 316
317 & 321 5 SD-M Reblt from SD18s & a SD9
9002 1 SD38-2 ISO 9002 celebration; Re# from 211
400-419 20 SD40-3 Reblt from ex-SP/SSW SD45T-2s; 416 & 418 use SD45-2 shells: they are cool to look at.

Hope this helps. GO DMIR!!!!

Mechanical Department  "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."

The Missabe Road: Safety First

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 25, 2005 6:28 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I was on Rail Pics and noticed a Trona SD40T-2. Who was Trona and what locomotives did they roster?


Here is a good roster- http://www.trainweb.org/rosters/TRC.html
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, March 25, 2005 4:34 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by coborn35

QUOTE: Jeez, no one wants to post on this . . . hmmm . . .

It not really that, its just that we generally do not post on old posts, because they are old and usually not current. If you start a new post then you will probably have more luck with posts.


I noticed your DMIR graphics and would like to know what kind of locomotives DMIR rostered throughout its history as an ore hauler.

Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, March 25, 2005 4:32 PM
I was on Rail Pics and noticed a Trona SD40T-2. Who was Trona and what locomotives did they roster?
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, February 26, 2005 7:53 PM
My understanding of the operation of the AC converters in the P32AC is that the input voltage is in the range 1000v to 1500v DC.This could be provided from transformers and rectifiers from 11000 to 25000 v AC 60Hz. This could allow a simple conversion of a P32AC or a DM30AC, using the same control operation as on the third rail. The space, weight and cooling for the transformer would be the main problem, and would probably require the carbody to be lengthened maybe ten feet.

Peter
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:14 AM
The third-rail shoes found on the Albany-New York line are probably from the P32AC's (700 series) assigned to this line to operate into New York City on the third-rail electrification south of Croton-Harmon.

Dual power with a 600 volt DC third-rail electrification required some major design modifications with the FL9 and P32AC so dual power with 11,000 volt AC overhead may be theoretically feasible but I have no idea of the magnitude of design changes required from the existing Genesis design.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA
  • 4,015 posts
Posted by coborn35 on Friday, February 25, 2005 7:58 PM
QUOTE: Jeez, no one wants to post on this . . . hmmm . . .

It not really that, its just that we generally do not post on old posts, because they are old and usually not current. If you start a new post then you will probably have more luck with posts.

Mechanical Department  "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."

The Missabe Road: Safety First

 

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 25, 2005 7:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350

RS-10- 1,600 HP, 12-cyl 244, weight~243,000 lbs., 51 built
RS-23- 1,000 HP, 6-cyl 251C, weight~233,000 lbs., 40 built
RSC-14- 1,400 HP, built from RS-18's
RSD-17- 2,400 HP, 16-cyl 251B, weight~339,000 lbs., only 1 built


Thanks for the info.
Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 25, 2005 6:26 PM
RS-10- 1,600 HP, 12-cyl 244, weight~243,000 lbs., 51 built
RS-23- 1,000 HP, 6-cyl 251C, weight~233,000 lbs., 40 built
RSC-14- 1,400 HP, built from RS-18's
RSD-17- 2,400 HP, 16-cyl 251B, weight~339,000 lbs., only 1 built
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 25, 2005 6:04 PM
RailPics again, this time with RSC-14 and RSC-17. Yes same stuff as above.
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 25, 2005 5:59 PM
On RailPics again I saw some MLW units, RS-10 and RS-23. What's their horsepower, tractive effort and other details?
Thanks in Advance
Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 25, 2005 5:55 PM
. . . since I left a question . . . ???
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 25, 2005 5:54 PM
Been a long time . . .
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 18, 2005 3:53 PM
I was looking in railpictures recently and saw some third rail shoes knockers found on the Albany to New York Empire State Line. Why even have those?
Also would it have been possible to equip some of the Genesis locos with pantographs for run through use onto the Northest Corridor?
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, February 18, 2005 3:48 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I was thinking: Norfolk Southern(NS) has some units which have head and ditch lights on both ends. Which locos are these; I am looking for road numbers and types (GE, EMD) and which models.
Thanks in Advance
Matt


Jeez, no one wants to post on this . . . hmmm . . .
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:55 PM
I was thinking: Norfolk Southern(NS) has some units which have head and ditch lights on both ends. Which locos are these; I am looking for road numbers and types (GE, EMD) and which models.
Thanks in Advance
Matt
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:52 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Technologically, it is possible. That is just what happens when a train with remotes backs up, isn't it?

Generally, it would be a bad idea and not allowed by any sort of railroad rules I am aware of.

Get off the caffine, Kid..


I rarely drink caffine, not from coffee, from soda. The stuff hardly exists at this location[;)] . . .
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • 910 posts
Posted by arbfbe on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:57 AM
Technologically, it is possible. That is just what happens when a train with remotes backs up, isn't it?

Generally, it would be a bad idea and not allowed by any sort of railroad rules I am aware of.

Get off the caffine, Kid..

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy