SD45 questions

[Anonymous]

Why wasn't the SD45 more popular? Was the extra power not worth the fuel consumption ? Any other draw backs ? When were the first and last units built ? Who was the biggest buyer ? Are they dying off or are they being rebuilt ? Any info on them would be helpful. Thank you 1

[eolafan]

The SD45 "bolted off of the blocks" very fast when first introduced (not exactly sure of the year but believe it was around 1964 or so)because the railroads were able to replace multiple lower horsepower units with one SD45, thus theoretically saving maintainance, etc. The eventual problem was that the big 20 cylinder prime mover caused terrible strain on the crankshafts and broke many of them, increasing the cost of operation dramatically. Also, they were tremendous fuel hogs (more so by today's standards)and their popularity eventually died down in favor of the SD40 and SD40-2. A "Dash-2" version of the SD45 later came out with most problems solved but by then the SD40 series had eclipsed the 45 and that spelled the end to the series. Most have either been retired and scrapped or sold to leasing companies and regionals and many still labor today in such service. The most notable to me is the "old" Wisconsin Central, which bought about 150 or more from the likes of BN, ATSF, SOU and others. Some of the WC units were rebuilt with only 16 cylinders working (thus depowered) and some more were rebuilt in kind and still labor today for WC. Ed Burkhardt, founder of WC, just bought a big slug of the WC SD45 and F45's for a new road he is buying in the New England market. I am a big fan of the 45 series, all models, and am thus glad Ed has plans to keep them alive. Hope this helps you.

[Anonymous]

The western railroads liked them. SP, BN, ATSF kept them going long after the eastern roads got rid of them. Interesting to me was that the Northern Pacific bought them and put them in consists with U25C's and U28C's. The GE's would out pull the SD45 in the mountains but on the plains the SD45 was the winner. The NP's idea was to put the engineer in the SD45 and use the "springless chuggers" for their better tractive effort. You could guess what happened. At least 50% of the time the GE's were in the lead. Also, the ATSF was expert at maintaining the brutes and that I think went a long way in them keeping them so long.

[oltmannd]

There were two things that doomed the SD45s.

First, the early 20 cylinder diesel engines had frames that weren't stiff enough. That lead to lots of broken crankshafts - and expensive trips to the backshop. Even though EMD eventually fixed the problem, this left a really bad taste in the mouths of many CMOs.

Second, the SD45s had the same electical propulsion gear as the SD40s and therefore couldn't handle any more tonnage over a route than the SD40s (both had the same max continuous TE rating). The extra 600 HP just meant it got the tonnage there a bit quicker. It might seem that quicker would be better, but, generally, a bit quicker means a lot more fuel. Since car load traffic performance is generally a function of connection performance at classification yards (see Train's excellent two-parter about yards), the extra train speed really didn't do much for overall car load transit performance. So, the SD40s were generally a better choice for most RRs than SD45s - same tonnage, less fuel.

The advent of higher capacity traction alternators, traction motors and improved adhesion (EMD Super Series and GE Sentry) allowed maximum continuous tractive effort to increase. When matched with proportionally higher HP, this created locomotives of overall higher capacity.

The progression of increased TE matched with increased HP has continued to today's 4400 HP Dash 9s and SD75s. Keeping the same ratio of TE and HP and using AC traction yields a demand for 6000 HP which explains why EMD and GE rushed brand new 6000 HP designs to market.

The Conrail 5000 HP SD80MACs were an attempt to get more HP to match the TE capability of the AC propulsion system. However, the stigma of the early 20 cyl engine lingered on and there was a vocal contingent within the Mech Dept that didn't want them. The engines did have trouble with some systems like the electronic fuel injection, but, from what I understand, have not had basic mechanical problems.

[Anonymous]

You bring up very good points. One thing I could never figure out is why did EMD build the SD80 in the first place? I would have thought that the 20 cylinder concept would have been a dead issue and time has shown that it was but why didn't EMD figure that out too?

[Anonymous]

We have quite a few of these left at Conrail shared assets,they were mainly from Erie Lackawana. A lot of them were fitted with 16 cylinder engines when rebuilt effectively making them SD40's We are getting in a lot of newly rebuilt lease engines in from Alstom in Canada and they all so far have had 16 cylinders in them. They even call them SD40's on the blue forms instead of 45's Some of our engines just had a longer driveshaft installed to connect the compressor to the end of the crank and they extended the water and oil piping to the filters and expansion tank. All the Alstom engines have had the rear components moved up to the engine and the doors reconfigured so that you can service them easier as well, they have a cavernous empty long hood when done this way but it is a much tidier job.

[oltmannd]

EMD's 20 cyl 710 engine is just as good as the 16 cylinder version, it's the PERCEPTION of the 20 cylinder engine, particularly among the old heads in the RR mech depts, that's the problem. There was perfectly good data that showed no difference between engine component failure rates on Conrail SD40-2 and the SD45-2s, yet Conrail re-engined several of them anyway.

The market for 4000/4400 HP AC units is pretty much limited to drag service. Getting the HP up to the 5000/6000 range expands the market to mechandise and intermodal service. The 20 cyl 710 was the fastest route to market with a 5000 HP engine. (they alreay had over 100 in barge tow motor service when the SD80MACs were under design). If you pushed the 20 cyl 710 to the same per cylinder rating as the 16-710s in the SD75s, you'd have ~5500 HP loco. If Conrail had not been purchased, I'd be willing to be there'd be 150+ SD80MACs rolling around today. The had ordered more just before the merger was announced, but the order was changed by the new owners. The balance of tractive effort and HP was just perfect for Conrail's terrain, particularly the old PRR main thru PA.

[Anonymous]

Donald, good information you have provided and I thank you. Question, would you have recommend purchasing the SD80MAC if given the choice at that time and what about today?

[Anonymous]

i have to tell all of you involved in this dicussion on the SD45's this has been the best one i have read in along time, all great and acurate information, and no smartass remarks

thanks to all

[SSW9389]

The first SD45 was EMD demo #4351 built in December 1965. Two more demos #4352 and #4353 were built the following month. Demo #4354 was built in June 1966 after regular SD45 production began with Great Northern's #400 the Hustle Muscle.

The combined Southern Pacific/Cotton Belt roster had the most SD45s with a total of 356. The last SD45 was built for Burlington Northern in December 1971.

[Anonymous]

I have read about the fuel consumption but I think that argument wasn't as strong as the problems keeping the 20 cyl. primemover going. In time the machines became very good and I think you would have a hard time telling the old Wisconson Central or MRL that the SD45 was not very sucessful. The MRL just love them I have read. Also keep in mind that railroads were changing from "fast freight" operations to slower speed unit trains where the extra horse power would not be needed (remember horse power is used for speed and tractive effort used for starting and pull). I have head the argument that the SD40 had the same tractive effort as the SD45 so it must be better. Well the SD38 had the same also but you don't hear that used to tar and feather the SD45 because it would take for ever to get anywhere. I believe it was more of the way railroads were changing than a bad unit that stoped the purchasing of the SD45.

[oltmannd]

The SD80s were a really good fit for Conrail. I know that early on they had some reliability issues, but nothing that seemed insurmountable.

I don't understand why CSX bought those 6000 HP GEs. Their routes tend to be level and fast (ex-NYC/B&O NY-Chic, "I-95" corridor), where AC propulsion gets you no advantage, or slow and twisty (ex-L&N), where higher HP gets you nothing.

NS says they don't need AC because they only operate 2 locos per train, but I see lots that operated with 3 Dash 8/9s, so I'm not sure their argument is totally accurate. I'm also not sure how much diligence NS pays to proper HP/ton ratio for schedule keeping.

This is just a gut feel, but I think the SD80s would be a good fit for NS, particularly on the Atlanta and Cincinnati route, the ex-CR Pittsburgh line, for trains between the NE and SE going through Manassas and for trains on the Pocahontas region.

If it were up to me, I would have purchased them at Conrail and, if I were NS, I would take a very long look at them - at least be trying them out around the system rather than keeping them cooped up on the ex - Mon lines.

[oltmannd]

I agree with your assessment that the SD45 are perfectly good locomotives today, but I think you underestimate the the sour taste they left in CMO's mouthes early on. They broke a lot of cranks, had terribly leaky 8" core radiators, had more complex electrical systems to deal with the higher HP (field shunting system), and diode problems. All of these have been overcome over time, but "once bitten - twice shy".

I don't think there was a fundamental shift in train powering because the RRs bought a boatload of GP40/40-2s over the same time period. RRs have always been looking for a "universal" locomotive - one that can do drag and high HP manifest frt. The SD45 was almost that loco. I think what happened is the RRs went to 4 axles (or, more properly "stayed with") for the high speed service and lower hp/axle six axles for the rest.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Donald for setting me straight. I live out west and the GP40-2 wasn't as popular as it was back east. Only WP and SP bought the things. I was probably thinking of the BN and coal when I made my statement. As for the sour taste, they still bought a respectable amount, at least out west. The exception being the UP which is a mystery to me. Why the "more is better" boys only tried about 50 is surprising given what the ATSF, BN, and SP did. Strange.

[Anonymous]

Donald, I have been reading your chat with Dan with lots of interert. Where do you get all you info, and can you give me some info on the SD-75's. And where you think the BNSF line is heading?

[oltmannd]

Most of my info is stuck in my head from too many years of dealing with locomotive performance on Conrail.

The SD75 is not a whole lot different from an SD60 or SD70 except EMD is squeezing a bit more HP from the 16-710 engine. It probably is rated at about 100,000# continuous maximum tractive effort (based on traction motor thermal limits and adhesion) and has 4300 traction HP. With these numbers, it fits somewhere between a GP40 and an SD40 in terms of HP for schedule keeping and TE for making it over the ruling grade. Looks to me to be a pretty good general purpose merchandise/intermodal locomotive, probably carrying a bit too much TE for intermodal service and a bit too much HP for regular merchandise service.