Who Is Getting SD-90 6000hp

[dekemd]

If I remember correctly, the AC6000 has the same prime mover as the AC4400. GE did a few modifications and basically oversped the thing to get the 6000 hp number. Works good for a while, but it just couldn't stay together in the long run. EMD developed a completely new engine, but there were some weak spots in the block design that caused the engine to blow the crankcase apart. EMD has a fix for their engine but by then most railroads had swore off 6000 HP units.

Derrick

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I'm suprised that we haven't seen any SD40-2 being rebuilt with 12-710Gs rated at 3000hp or 16-710Gs rated at 4000hp. I mean with a few modifications a 16-710G should drop right into the engine compartment of a SD40-2 essentially making it a SD70-2. Or just use a 12cyl model and drop it into the compartment with even less modifications (I'm guessing) to keep the horsepower the same. I say this because I have seen 16-567 replaced with a 16-645. And the original GP40X (the single GP40 test unit built on a GP35 frame) had a 3000hp 16-645E3 in the same space that a 16-567D3A would have occupied in a standard GP35. Any other thoughts on this subject?[:)][:D][8D][;)]

[Anonymous]

Huge credit to those SD40-2s. Let me tell you all. I live near Altoona, PA right above the Gallitzin Tunnels. NS and former Conrail SD40-2s are the helper units that push and sometimes pull heavy trains up and down the steep grades of this mountain. They usually sound like they are about to implode, and a few engineers have mentioned they are like riding in a tin can-big piece of junk, but when it comes to reliable service to get the job done, they never fail. NS has no AC locomotives, except for 16 SD80MACS, which it uses for local service only. I think AC would be the way to go with the mountain, but evidently those good ole SD40-2s do the job quite fine.

Last weekend home for a bit, took a walk down over the hill, heard a train for 25 minutes, then finally saw it, I could walk with it, that's how slow it was moving. There were 2 SD40-2s on the front, a new D9-40CW, and two GP 38s, which looked and sounded like they were going to implode. and on the back end, with the sand storm trail, needed for traction, another pair of the helpers SD40-2s.

[oltmannd]

The problem with the SD40-2 vs a new unit is fuel consumption. It'll burn 20% more to do the same job. If you're in low utilization or part time service, it's no big deal, but if you're in mainline service you'll be burning 300,000 to 400,000 gallons per unit per year. At $0.70 per gallon, that's on the order of $50,000 a year.

Reduction in the number of units owned is also big incentive to purchase new ones. Fewer locos to inspect and fewer parts to maintain represents huge savings even if reliability isn't quite as good.

-Don

[Anonymous]

I here you there. SD40-2 is one of the most reliable loco's out there. Up and BNSF is retaining quite a few for service. New technology is not necessary better reliability sometimes. Especially AC or 6000Hp power. GE is having problems with their powerplants, just like EMD. I don't know if anyone is a winner with 6000HP.

[Jackflash]

I had 106 loaded coal cars and two AC6000 locos
the trailing unit was acting up and quit on a
up hill pull going into the power plant and the
whole train sat down, if I would have had three
SD 40s I would have pulled the train on in to the
plant, this is the problem with the high horsepower locomotives, the carriers want to
total the horsepower regardless of the units
pulling on the point, but...if one goes down
you dont go anywhere, this would be like if
you had four locomotives pulling and you lost
two of the four, you might loose one engine
but un likely to loose half of your power
unless all you have is two engines to start
with. Re-build and re-paint the SD40-2
and/or build some more as it is probably the
best locomotive to ever pull a train.
jackflash

[Anonymous]

uprr os using them now

[Anonymous]

The big complaints with the AC6000CW and SD90MAC-H have been numerous mechanical problems,excessive vibration in the cabs,and perhaps most importantly,excessive rail wear and actual damage to the trackwork.

[Anonymous]

Now, now...This is a family place!

[colsul]

Excuse my ignorance gang, but what are the main problems with the AC 6000's? Is it too high fuel consumption or were they rushed into service without the bugs being ironed out first? BHP runs a dozen of the GE 6000hp here in the North West of Australia pulling monster sized loads of iron ore, and they seem to love them.

[Anonymous]

I think that new railraod the "NORFORK AND WAY" ordered about 76 and a half units. GE is going to build another 150 for warrenty protection. :-)

[Anonymous]

I don't know why anyone would want one. They wont run long enough to get to one of the railroads. That is why GE has sold some 6000 hp locomotives. They ran to the buyer and also was able to haul freight in revenue service.

[Anonymous]

According to both TRAINS and EXTRA 2200 South,not only are there no orders for 6,000HP units from either builder,but no prospects for any. In fact it's conceivable that many of the already delivered units may get new lower horsepower engines,as CSX has started doing with some of their AC6000CW fleet(being converted to AC4400CW's).UP bought significant numbers of AC60/44 and SD90/43 units,which were meant to be upgraded with 6000HP prime movers once the bugs were worked out,now it's almost a certainty that they won't be.

[Jackflash]

Dont know for sure, but I doubt it...jackflash

[Anonymous]

Does anyone out there know if other roads like BNSF are looking to get any of the 6000hp SD-90's