DD40X

[Anonymous]

The DD40AX was also known as the 6600HP track straightener. The Santa Fe banned them from their San Bernadino yard cause it straightened out all the switches it went thru.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Salutations, Alex lol still trying to play forum tag. [8D] [:D] [:p]

Jim, on your time zone question:
We are like 4 hours behind East coast. So if its 6:00am in D.C, its 2:00 am in Anchorage.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Salutations, Alex lol still trying to play forum tag. [8D] [:D] [:p]

Jim, on your time zone question:
We are like 4 hours behind East coast. So if its 6:00am in D.C, its 2:00 am in Anchorage.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

The main problem the UP found with their DD35's & DD40AX's was their frames were cracking in the center. Thats why they had such a short life span.

These monsters lasted in service from 1969 until the mid 1980's, and I have seen other models that did not last that long, so why are we condemming this model for it's so called short life span? I don't think it was terribly and abnormally short at all for a primarily mainline high speed loco. Jim

He's right....
From what i understood, these locos were used a lot, and for big locos you need more maintenance, which costs more. plus the newer units like SD40-2 were more cost and fuel efficient. Just don't scrap them. One guy here bought a GP40 loco for
$3,021 and used it for his bed and breakfast. Smart idea....
We still have a power car that was made in early 50's, althogh it was rebult like 10 yrs ago.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

The main problem the UP found with their DD35's & DD40AX's was their frames were cracking in the center. Thats why they had such a short life span.

These monsters lasted in service from 1969 until the mid 1980's, and I have seen other models that did not last that long, so why are we condemming this model for it's so called short life span? I don't think it was terribly and abnormally short at all for a primarily mainline high speed loco. Jim

He's right....
From what i understood, these locos were used a lot, and for big locos you need more maintenance, which costs more. plus the newer units like SD40-2 were more cost and fuel efficient. Just don't scrap them. One guy here bought a GP40 loco for
$3,021 and used it for his bed and breakfast. Smart idea....
We still have a power car that was made in early 50's, althogh it was rebult like 10 yrs ago.

[mudchicken]

eloa:

Don't get me wrong, but there were issues. I loved to see the things run, but:

(1) they weren't running constantly, they were laid up good order (LUGO) for long periods of time between use.

(2) they created chaos when off the main line, the weight and the hard turning "D" trucks were trouble for light weight switches in the yards, even the beefed up leads at Cheyenne & North Platte....

[mudchicken]

eloa:

Don't get me wrong, but there were issues. I loved to see the things run, but:

(1) they weren't running constantly, they were laid up good order (LUGO) for long periods of time between use.

(2) they created chaos when off the main line, the weight and the hard turning "D" trucks were trouble for light weight switches in the yards, even the beefed up leads at Cheyenne & North Platte....

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

The main problem the UP found with their DD35's & DD40AX's was their frames were cracking in the center. Thats why they had such a short life span.

These monsters lasted in service from 1969 until the mid 1980's, and I have seen other models that did not last that long, so why are we condemming this model for it's so called short life span? I don't think it was terribly and abnormally short at all for a primarily mainline high speed loco. Jim

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

The main problem the UP found with their DD35's & DD40AX's was their frames were cracking in the center. Thats why they had such a short life span.

These monsters lasted in service from 1969 until the mid 1980's, and I have seen other models that did not last that long, so why are we condemming this model for it's so called short life span? I don't think it was terribly and abnormally short at all for a primarily mainline high speed loco. Jim

[Anonymous]

Actually the DDA40X was rated at 6600 hp, coming from 2 645E3A diesels rated at 3300 hp each.

[Anonymous]

Actually the DDA40X was rated at 6600 hp, coming from 2 645E3A diesels rated at 3300 hp each.

[dharmon]

Was this due to the weight of the double sized fuel tank or fatigue from overuse?

[dharmon]

Was this due to the weight of the double sized fuel tank or fatigue from overuse?

[Anonymous]

The main problem the UP found with their DD35's & DD40AX's was their frames were cracking in the center. Thats why they had such a short life span.

[Anonymous]

The main problem the UP found with their DD35's & DD40AX's was their frames were cracking in the center. Thats why they had such a short life span.

[dknelson]

Railroads and manufacturers have gone back and forth about how much HP should be in a single unit. Fairbanks Morse used to offer their C Liner with a variety of HP for example/
There are obvious advantages to having one huge locomotive with tons of HP on the other hand one slight mechanical or safety appliance failure and you have parked all that HP -- whereas with multiple units you just take out the one that needs the work and the rest are good to go. The DD40 and other monster engines probably had a normal failure rate but again, if one handrail is bent beyond safety tolerances then it is like parking two or even three units at once. So the railroads seems to turn away from the concept. The latest trend seems to be to return to high HP in a single unit -- the CP runs long trains with just one locomotive. But if it fails, you have no back up and no way to move. I suspect the railroads will continue to bounce back and forth on this.
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

Railroads and manufacturers have gone back and forth about how much HP should be in a single unit. Fairbanks Morse used to offer their C Liner with a variety of HP for example/
There are obvious advantages to having one huge locomotive with tons of HP on the other hand one slight mechanical or safety appliance failure and you have parked all that HP -- whereas with multiple units you just take out the one that needs the work and the rest are good to go. The DD40 and other monster engines probably had a normal failure rate but again, if one handrail is bent beyond safety tolerances then it is like parking two or even three units at once. So the railroads seems to turn away from the concept. The latest trend seems to be to return to high HP in a single unit -- the CP runs long trains with just one locomotive. But if it fails, you have no back up and no way to move. I suspect the railroads will continue to bounce back and forth on this.
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

If you had seen them in action you would know that the DDA40X's were not a failure. UP kept them moving on high priority, high speed trains. They simply got worn out and it was less expensive to replace than repair. When you are able to get nearly 1000 miles a day out of your locomotives (like UP with the Centennials, and NYC with the Niagaras) it only takes 3 years to reach 1,000,000 miles. Of course there are inspections, class repairs and the like which reduce the average milage per day. But when a class of locomotives is kept in high milage service they don't last as many years as a lower milage locomotive. And since the DDA40X's were lousy yard switchers, couldn't handle the dock tracks in LA or industrial tracks in the cities, and were too heavy for many branches, the UP kept them busy on the service for which they were designed.

[Anonymous]

If you had seen them in action you would know that the DDA40X's were not a failure. UP kept them moving on high priority, high speed trains. They simply got worn out and it was less expensive to replace than repair. When you are able to get nearly 1000 miles a day out of your locomotives (like UP with the Centennials, and NYC with the Niagaras) it only takes 3 years to reach 1,000,000 miles. Of course there are inspections, class repairs and the like which reduce the average milage per day. But when a class of locomotives is kept in high milage service they don't last as many years as a lower milage locomotive. And since the DDA40X's were lousy yard switchers, couldn't handle the dock tracks in LA or industrial tracks in the cities, and were too heavy for many branches, the UP kept them busy on the service for which they were designed.

[Anonymous]

From what I understand the DD40X was some what of a failure,( twice the power, twice the failures). They drank alot of fuel and something was alway's broke on them. Probably why they never lasted very long.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

From what I understand the DD40X was some what of a failure,( twice the power, twice the failures). They drank alot of fuel and something was alway's broke on them. Probably why they never lasted very long.
TIM A

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

All of the Big 3 diesel builders sold these monsters to UP and SP.
EMD had the DD35A, DD35B and DDA40X, all sold to UP except 3 DD35B to SP.
GE had the U50 and U50C, all sold to UP except 3 U50 to SP.
Alco had the C855 (2 built) and the C855B (1 built), all to UP
The U50 and the C855 had 2 4-wheel trucks linked by a span bolster on each end. The U50C rode on 6-wheel trucks and had 2 FDL-12 engines inside.
All of the EMD models rode on huge 8-wheel trucks. These trucks were also found on meter-gauge DD45M's exported to Brazil (Envision a narrow-gauge SD45)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

All of the Big 3 diesel builders sold these monsters to UP and SP.
EMD had the DD35A, DD35B and DDA40X, all sold to UP except 3 DD35B to SP.
GE had the U50 and U50C, all sold to UP except 3 U50 to SP.
Alco had the C855 (2 built) and the C855B (1 built), all to UP
The U50 and the C855 had 2 4-wheel trucks linked by a span bolster on each end. The U50C rode on 6-wheel trucks and had 2 FDL-12 engines inside.
All of the EMD models rode on huge 8-wheel trucks. These trucks were also found on meter-gauge DD45M's exported to Brazil (Envision a narrow-gauge SD45)

[eolafan]

These units are real monsters and you really can't appreciate them until you see one "in the flesh" so to speak. In my area the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL has one on display, wow! The UP is the only road which owned this particular model (builit in 1969, the 100th anniversary of the golden spike ceremony). The SP had some DD30 units (both A and B versions, which were essentially two GP30...or were they GP35's?...under one hood). Also, ALCO built some double engined units for SP and I think UP as well....they were really a joy to watch, and still are exciting looking even when not running! Jim

[eolafan]

These units are real monsters and you really can't appreciate them until you see one "in the flesh" so to speak. In my area the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL has one on display, wow! The UP is the only road which owned this particular model (builit in 1969, the 100th anniversary of the golden spike ceremony). The SP had some DD30 units (both A and B versions, which were essentially two GP30...or were they GP35's?...under one hood). Also, ALCO built some double engined units for SP and I think UP as well....they were really a joy to watch, and still are exciting looking even when not running! Jim

[dknelson]

There are some preserved "centennials." the DD40 was similar in size to the DD35 which I think the Southern Pacific also owned.
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

There are some preserved "centennials." the DD40 was similar in size to the DD35 which I think the Southern Pacific also owned.
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by barbarosa

http://www.utahrails.net/webpubs/up-dda40x.htm This link will take you to a lot of info on the DDA40X Centennials.Enjoy,Don

Thanks for the link. Jim, i'm waiting for the photos. Can't catch you[:p]
I'm glad to know that 6936 wasn't scrapped after that accident- you guys know how i feel about scrapping last-of-a-kind locos.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by barbarosa

http://www.utahrails.net/webpubs/up-dda40x.htm This link will take you to a lot of info on the DDA40X Centennials.Enjoy,Don

Thanks for the link. Jim, i'm waiting for the photos. Can't catch you[:p]
I'm glad to know that 6936 wasn't scrapped after that accident- you guys know how i feel about scrapping last-of-a-kind locos.

[Anonymous]

Salutations, Alex lol still trying to play forum tag. [8D] [:D] [:p]