Why so few SD.80 MACS?

[stantaras]

Any one know why EMD stopped production of this unit?

[SSW9389]

The railroads were unsure of the 20V-710G and the SD90AMC had been announced. Why go for 5000 horsepower when you could have 6000 horsepower.

[michaelstevens]

I'm not so sure that the SD90s are any more popular.
A railroader friend indicated that the railroads are loathe to invest in the big beasts, as compared to smaller units which provide more flexibility of deployment.
e.g. if you assign 2 of these 90's to a heavy train and one goes "down", out on the road -- will the remaining single unit have enough power to bring the train home ?
Comparatively, if you were using three SD70s (and one went down) the remaining 2 units would have a better chance.

[carnej1]

There were two additional orders for the SD80MAC from CONRAIL and Canadian Pacific but both were switched to different models before production began. CP decided it wanted "convertible"SD90/43MAC's(plus what turned out to be a small number of SD90MAC-H's with the 6k hp HDL engines),apparently they were impressed with the UP program at the time(but since then none of their SD90's have been converted with the HDL). CONRAIL,apparently satisfied with the performance of their small SD80MAC fleet wanted another 30 of the beasts,but it's merger partners CSX and NS did not, so the order was split between SD70MACs for CSX and "spartan cab" SD70's for NS. The latter were all assembled from EMD supplied kits at CONRAIL's Juniata shops, and were delivered in CR colors.
Having both orders for the model changed must have led EMD to conclude that further marketing and development of the model was futile so it was dropped from the catalog. I had the pleasure of watching and photographing the "Big MACs" in service on the Boston line,quite an impressive sight(as are the AC6000CW's that replaced them when CSX took over)

[stantaras]

Where they successfull in that were they well received by crews and mantenance guys and did they do as advertised?
Thanks for all the replys.

[Anonymous]

carnej1 [:)]

stantaras [:)]

Welcome, both of you, to the forums. [;)] I know you will enjoy them.

[brilondon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by michaelstevens

I'm not so sure that the SD90s are any more popular.
A railroader friend indicated that the railroads are loathe to invest in the big beasts, as compared to smaller units which provide more flexibility of deployment.
e.g. if you assign 2 of these 90's to a heavy train and one goes "down", out on the road -- will the remaining single unit have enough power to bring the train home ?
Comparatively, if you were using three SD70s (and one went down) the remaining 2 units would have a better chance.

Using this logic why would you not buy a large number of new lower-horse power units and then you could have four 2000 hp units instead of two 4000 hp units. The thing is the newer high horse power units are much more reliable than before. I have heard though that the SD90 's have had a number of problems. This mutes my point so I am going to shut up.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by brilondon

QUOTE: Originally posted by michaelstevens

I'm not so sure that the SD90s are any more popular.
A railroader friend indicated that the railroads are loathe to invest in the big beasts, as compared to smaller units which provide more flexibility of deployment.
e.g. if you assign 2 of these 90's to a heavy train and one goes "down", out on the road -- will the remaining single unit have enough power to bring the train home ?
Comparatively, if you were using three SD70s (and one went down) the remaining 2 units would have a better chance.

Using this logic why would you not buy a large number of new lower-horse power units and then you could have four 2000 hp units instead of two 4000 hp units. The thing is the newer high horse power units are much more reliable than before. I have heard though that the SD90 's have had a number of problems. This mutes my point so I am going to shut up.

One reason, and there might be others, is the fact that two engines will burn less fuel than four engines. This of course saves the railroads money. Funny thing, railroads like saving money. They can get carried away saving money as is the case in the remote control engines.

[K. P. Harrier]

I heard that the SD90MAC unit availability record was not good, somewhere around 80%. Why spend good money for something that will be in the shops a fifth of the time? The SD70M, on the other hand, has an outstanding availability record, though I don’t recall what it is. Power constantly costs lease money whether running or not. Thus, the deciding factor on the SD80 may have been its availability record.

[Anonymous]

Without a definitive statement from CSX or NS or EMD, we're never really going to know the exact reasons why the decisions were made. I'm not going to worry about this, because (a) it's unlikely they'll ever let anyone that deeply into their internal decision-making, (b) even if they do tell you, it's difficult to gauge if what they're saying is spun or not, and (c) decisions like this are so complicated and drawn out and involve so many people that the players may not even know exactly what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. So even if you had a tape recording of every conversation ever made on this subject, you'd probably not be able to figure it out. Railroading is an inexact science. When you delve deeply into these decisions you end up measuring intent. Even the Supreme Court doesn't try to measure intent; they presume it, based on reasonable behavior and known outcomes.

Which locomotive model to purchase is an outcome of considerations of price, performance, and need. Any one of those three criteria being seriously out of whack compared to other choices means the model is unlikely to be purchased. Secondary factors include time of delivery, value in a secondary market, and opportunity cost.

Price: All other things being equal, a locomotive with a 20-cylinder engine is going to be more expensive than a locomotive with a 16-cylinder engine. Do you get value? Only if you get a better match between performance and need. How much better a match? That's a very tricky thing to calculate.

Performance: You only get to take advantage of more horsepower at higher speeds. At 3 mph, you can't tell the difference between an SD70MAC, SD80MAC, or SD90MAC. At 50 mph, the big-horsepower locomotive will make itself known. Can you realize these speeds often enough? Enough to make a difference in crew costs, track time, lower car-hire, happier customers, more market share, fuel burn, maintenance, revenue, profits? Can you even measure these accurately? I really doubt it.

Need: Do you really need this big locomotive? Would you rather have a one-size-fits-all locomotive fleet to optimize flexibility, maintainability, and manageability? Or would you rather have specialization to optimize efficiency of each train? The reality is that it's extremely difficult to manage a fleet to consistently get the right locomotive in the right place at the right time. When you try and match locomotives to jobs, you end up with a lot of locomotives sitting around doing nothing, while at the same time you have a lot of freight sitting around waiting for the right locomotive to show up. The temptation is to grab the first locomotive available, whatever it is, and run the train. Then you end up with terrible mismatches and poor performance.

The classic example of no standardization from history is the battlecruiser. Admirals couldn't resist putting them in with the battleships even though they had inferior armor, and the outcomes were disastrous. (Amazingly, the UK did this not only in WWI at Jutland, losing three battlecruisers, but again in WWII, putting the Hood up against the Bismarck.)

The classic example of standardization is Southwest Airlines' one-airplane fleet of 737s -- you have to acknowledge their operating ratio and profitability.

Note that UP and BNSF have standardized on exactly two types of road locomotives, D.C. and A.C. versions of the same 4000-4400 hp thing. They even have tended to sole-source the D.C. versions, BNSF from G.E., and UP from EMD.

[csxengineer98]

becouse once word got out to the other rail roads from the conrail crews that they are nothing more then over priced junk...the other rail roads did the smart thing....BOUGHT GE'S
hahahahahah
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

Well at least we now know why CSX is having so many problems -- they bought GEs. [;)]

[Anonymous]

Mr. Harrier's post arrived while I was typing. He's right; availability is a very important factor. Our sources tell us SD70M availability at UP is in the 94-96% range.

Take a calculator. Say you can choose between 1000 6000-hp, 80% available locos at $2.5M each, and 1000 4000-hp, 95% available locos at $1.5m each:

1000 x 80% x 6000 = 4.8 million horsepower available every day
1000 x 95% x 4000 = 3.8 million horsepower available every day

If the price per actual available horsepower was proportional, you would get:

1.5B/3.8M = x/4.8M
7.2 = 3.8X
x = 1.89B

That is, the 6000-hp loco is worth only an extra $390,000/unit. Unfortunately, they cost you an extra $1,000,000/unit. That's going to be a tough sell to your boss!

Granted, this does not figure cost of maintenance, fuel, etc., etc., but you can see what an enormous cost hole the 6000-hp loco already has to dig out of.

[kenneo]

A rule of thumb is the fewer units you have the better. The reason we know that is that that "thumb" keeps getting hit with the hammer of reality so often we can see it extending out from underneath that reality.

What Mr. Hemphill is saying is correct. However, I would like to make one statement in response. And that is fuel consumption. There is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel. An SD9, for instance, burns the same amount of fuel per ton per mile for a given throttle setting (Run Number) as an SD-40 or an SD-45 (the original 20-645 engine), or a GP 35, or a GP 30. Factoring out the newer locomotives increased fuel efficiency, a SD 90 burns the same fuel per horse per mile for a given run #.

The point here is, fuel use is not a "show stopper" issue.

Second comment: New power, regardless of horseposer or transmission type, will only be purchased under one of the following reasons (or a combination of them);
A) You simply can't keep the old engines running anymore.
B) A law (such as emissions rules).
C) The purchase the new unit will cause a total outlay less than not purchasing it.
D) You can keep the engine running (see A above) but repair cost and availability are unacceptable (see ALCO and Baldwin).
E) The &$(#)%^(^*&%$^#*#@) locomotive causes excessive track damage (see ALCO and Baldwin) where others (see EMD) don't.

A, D and E were major reasons for the early demise of several locomotive builders diesel offerings. Baldwin, for example, built 3,000 HP and 6,000 HP Centepedes in 1943. Built only one 6,000 HP unit ((4-8-8-4 750/8 DE) with 8 diesel motors and a 2D+D2 wheel arrangement. 64 3,000HP units were built (DR12-8-3000) with 4 diesel motors (same type in each HP configuration, 750 HP 408 model V8's) with the last built in June of 1948. This when the FT and F3 1350 HP modles by EMD was selling briskly.

Do you see the pattern? It is value returned for dollars spent. That has not changed. Baldwin is no longer making locomotives, EMD is.

(Reason for edit -- if I couldn't spell badly, I wouldn't be spelling at all)

[Anonymous]

There's been a significant increase in fuel efficiency in the last 50 years:
Fuel consumption at notch 8:

SD9: 108 gal/hr, or 16.2 hp/gal/hr
SD40-2: 164 gal/hr, or 18.2 hp/gal/hr
SD70MAC: 192 gal/hr, or 20.8 hp/gal/hr

In other words, for one gallon of fuel, the SD70MAC does 28% more work than the SD9.

Imagine that over the 15-year lifetime of a locomotive, it works in notch 8 two hours a day and is shut off the rest of the time -- a simple approximation of what it does. The fuel burned and work performed is:

SD9: 1,182,870 gal for 19,162,500 hp-hours
SD40-2: 1,804,945 gal for 32,850,000 hp-hours
SD70MAC: 2,105,769 gal for 43,800,000 hp-hours

We can get the SD9 and SD40-2 to perform the same amount of work by working them a few extra minutes every day, but there's a fuel penalty. Assume that diesel fuel for the 15 year period is $1/gal:

For the SD9 to generate 43,800,000 hp-hours it will burn 2,703,703 gal
For the SD40-2 to generate 43,800,000 hp-hours it will burn 2,406,593 gal
SD9 extra fuel burn 597,934 gal, extra cost $597,934
SD40-2 extra fuel burn 300,824 gal, extra cost $300,824

If you run your locomotives 30 years, which is not unreasonable, the fuel savings of the SD70MAC over the SD40-2 pays about half of the SD70MACs initial cost.

Consider maintenance -- either the SD9 and SD40-2 has to work more hours to do the same work, or you need more SD9s and SD40-2s. If parts cost the same and wear out at the same rate, the SD9 will cost you 28% more, and the SD40-2 14% more.

I hadn't run these numbers before, and admittedly they're crude approximations, but I'm beginning to understand why, even though an SD40-2 is still a good locomotive, UP has acquired over 1000 SD70Ms.

[kenneo]

Mr. Hemphill

When one uses ball-park statements, one can get into doo-doo. Mudchicken spiked me to one of his ties with my ball-park statements about equilateral switches. I should have been remembering, but I was not.

For the -2 modles and the 710's, you are correct. I was not clear, I was refering to SD40-1 and SD45-1. The figures we were given to work with on the SP were the same per horse per run number. -2's were different since they had a new fuel use technology based on computer control rather than mechanical control.

One has to compare apples with apples, which I tried to do even though you needed to immagine some of the apples (the -2s and 710s). When EMD engineered the -2s and 710s, they improved on fuel use - almost 50% better in a 70 then a 9. One would have to imagine a SD70 with 567C technology to get "proper apples", so I should have specified SD40-1 and SD45-1 which had, nearly so, the same fuel use technology as a SD9.

[Anonymous]

Eric: Just call me Mark. That "Mr." bit makes me feel older than I already am :)

Here's the numbers for hp/gal/hr that I have that might be of use for SP (or D&RGW for that matter):

SD7: 16.1
SD9: 16.2
GP30: 18.0
GP35: 17.4
SD40: 17.9
SD45: 18.6
SD40-2: 18.2
SD50: 19.1
SD60 20.6
SD70: 20.8

Note with some exception (the GP35, not surprisingly), these show steady improvement.

This also shows that the conventional wisdom about the SD45 being a "fuel hog" is dead wrong. It is a little more thirsty at idle, but that's not a very big number compared to notch 8.

To tell you the truth, when I read your first post on fuel economy, I began to wonder if all the talk I've heard the last 30 years about fuel efficiency really did matter-- because I'd never seen any numbers that put it into dollars and cents. I was taken aback when I ran those numbers to see how much money it really was.

Speaking of D&RGW, I was surprised talking to them about 15 years ago that their F9s, SD9s, and GP9s were NOT 1750 hp locomotives. They had reset them from 835 rpm to 800 rpm, dropping horsepower to 1500, in order to get better longevity. (A tugboat machinist I once knew told me that a 567C run at 800 rpm would run forever, but that he really preferred Alco 251s, because they had to be bolted back together so much more often -- lots of overtime!)

D&RGW also put D liners in their 567Cs because they had bigger cylinder ports, so pulled in more combustion air, which helped make up for the thinner air at high altitudes.

Like you said earlier, it's all a matter of value.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Eric: Just call me Mark. That "Mr." bit makes me feel older than I already am :)

Here's the numbers for hp/gal/hr that I have that might be of use for SP (or D&RGW for that matter):

SD7: 16.1
SD9: 16.2
GP30: 18.0
GP35: 17.4
SD40: 17.9
SD45: 18.6
SD40-2: 18.2
SD50: 19.1
SD60 20.6
SD70: 20.8

Note with some exception (the GP35, not surprisingly), these show steady improvement.

This also shows that the conventional wisdom about the SD45 being a "fuel hog" is dead wrong. It is a little more thirsty at idle, but that's not a very big number compared to notch 8.

To tell you the truth, when I read your first post on fuel economy, I began to wonder if all the talk I've heard the last 30 years about fuel efficiency really did matter-- because I'd never seen any numbers that put it into dollars and cents. I was taken aback when I ran those numbers to see how much money it really was.

Speaking of D&RGW, I was surprised talking to them about 15 years ago that their F9s, SD9s, and GP9s were NOT 1750 hp locomotives. They had reset them from 835 rpm to 800 rpm, dropping horsepower to 1500, in order to get better longevity. (A tugboat machinist I once knew told me that a 567C run at 800 rpm would run forever, but that he really preferred Alco 251s, because they had to be bolted back together so much more often -- lots of overtime!)

D&RGW also put D liners in their 567Cs because they had bigger cylinder ports, so pulled in more combustion air, which helped make up for the thinner air at high altitudes.

Like you said earlier, it's all a matter of value.

[:)] OK, Mark ... comes from having a career Naval Officer as a father - one who came up through the hawse pipe. So, unless I am invited to use the familure form from, as in your case, the editor of the magazine, it's 1) Brace, 2) "With all due respect, Sir --", and, if you're telling him he's full of (deleted), 3) stand by to wear ship, square the yard and run off ahead of the hurricane that is sure to follow. Item 3 was not an issue here, but was part of the training! And then I lived in Europe for several years, and there the form was formal unless specifically invited to do otherwise. So, respect, training and habit.

Your comments about the DRGW are interesting. I knew that they had done some things with the engines because of the elevations and that they did not like our engines because they did not pull like theirs did. Our SD40T units were different than theirs, and it might be that they slowed down their 645s and used different power assemblies (liners with heads and valves assembled) like they did on the 567s.

I also want to say that I enjoy these conversations we have here. Several have been with TRAINS staffers, and these have all been thoughtful and informative. Thank you for the forum and also your personal participation.

BOARD!!! "Daddy, what's that man doing waving good-by to us for? Isn't he coming on the train too?" [:D]

[Anonymous]

Eric: This is an interesting coincidence. My father was also a career officer, though in the Army, and also up from the ranks; in fact, when he was commissioned in 1940, he was the youngest commissioned officer ever in the Army. He served through WWII and the Korean War, on Omaha Beach the afternoon of the first day. His education was practical, and so of course, was mine, learning construction beginning at age 6. I take it you work(ed) for SP; I worked for KCS.

The only thing I know that D&RGW did differently with its SD40T-2s was the water cooling on the radiators, and the application of Vapor Corp.'s PTC, which made them equivalent in tractive effort to a Super Series locomotive, such as an SD50. I think that is the sole difference, but who knows, maybe they used different injectors or governor settings, too. Everyone I knew was really, really happy when the AC4400CWs showed up, because they REALLY pulled, and had air-conditioning and a nice cab. No worn-out weather-stripping on the doors.

Alaska Railroad used PTC as well, but I don't think very many other railroads did this at the time. Later, SP used Maxitrac (spelling?), which was the same thing as PTC, but probably a better piece of electronic hardware. WC used Q-Tron, also the same thing, but even better, because it replaced most of the electrical cabinet.

I should add that I also enjoy these conversations. Unlike many railroad forums, this one has turned out polite, friendly, and generous -- and that's because of the people who use it, not anything we do at Trains.

[M636C]

Guys,

This is the most interesting thread I've read in a long time! I've just finished working with the Royal Australian Navy, (as a civilian engineer) and one of my more recent tasks was to evaluate fuel consumption for proposed destroyer type ships. What Mark Hemphill needs is an "operating profile" to base his calculastions on. This would indicate a typical day's operation for a locomotive, give throttle notches and time spent in each. That's all you need, along with a fuel consumption graph showing throttle notches. I'm sure I've got one for the marine version of the 710 (although I'm not sure they use notches), and I might have a railroad one too. A profile might be able to be downloaded from a modern microprocessor unit - is there anyone in a railroad with access to these things?

The fuel consumption curve for the turbocharged EMDs is very distinctive, with a definite break at the point the turbo takes over from the gear drive. Below that point, it is much like the 567C in an SD9.

A note to carnej1: you said that CP hadn't fitted their units with an HDL. I assume you meant 265H. The HDL was the GE engine of equivalent power, now out of production, apparently. Has anyone any hard data on the new GE "Evo" engine yet, by the way?

The main problem with the 20 cylinder engine was the length of the crankshaft, and it tended to "twist" while running, called torsional vibration. This was supposed to be absorbed by a torsional damper, but this gave problems on the 20-645E3.

I was shown through La Grange in 1977, and about a third of the engines being repaired were 20 cylinder engines, although they would have been a very small percentage of production.

I hope this adds something to the discussion!

Peter

[Anonymous]

Peter, I have the fuel consumption tables for most EMD engines in all notch settings. As you point out, efficiency isn't linear with RPM: it doesn't double between notch 4 and notch 8 on a turbocharged EMD engine, it roughly triples.

I don't have an operating profile, though, and I've never seen one, either. They may not exist because in a locomotive such a calculation would have such poor accuracy. The problem is knowing what the engine in a locomotive is likely to do every day; it's hard enough to figure it for one route, for one train, for one given set of ambient temperatures, etc. I presume that in a commercial marine application, engines are more likely to be either run at a constant speed or shut off; if so, your fuel consumption and maintenance costs are predictable with greater accuracy.

From an operating department's point of view -- they're the guys that pay for the fuel, not the mechanical department -- fuel efficiency is a big deal. Peter's comments suggest an answer to something I hadn't entirely understood: why railroads have tended toward more heavily loaded locomotives.

In other words, you build a power plan that tries as much as possible to work the locomotive as hard as possible. That causes you to lose some speed on the flat parts of your railroad, of course, but if your operating plan will tolerate the congestion caused by heavy trains dragging up the ruling grade at 8 mph, you're money ahead on the fuel bill. For example, consider the way UP operates the former C&NW across Iowa: 17,000-ton coal trains get two or three AC4400CWs, which have to work almost the entire way at notch 8, and on grades bog down to 10 mph. This always seemed strange to me given that the coal trains are sharing the track with high-speed Z trains, but now I see why you really, badly, do not want to put a fourth unit on the train -- because the engines will spend more time dawdling in a mid-range notch and your fuel consumption goes way up for not much more speed. If you run out of capacity doing that, you might even be cheaper adding another track rather than adding another locomotive to every heavy train.

[dharmon]

Eric/Mark

Although normally I am associated with joking around on the forum, I have got to say that the dialogue between you two has been one of the most interesting I have read hear. Very informative. Thanks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Eric/Mark

Although normally I am associated with joking around on the forum, I have got to say that the dialogue between you two has been one of the most interesting I have read hear. Very informative. Thanks

Yes, I agree with Dan. This has been a good discussion.

[M636C]

Mark,

Thanks for your response. I'm sure you'll understand why my comments are about 12 hours late. Cetainly, if you can work your AC units hard, they'll work most efficiently, but I don't think the FDL has as geat a gain as the SD70MAC in that regard. DC motor units are liable to motor flashovers if you thra***hem too hard, but UP has a mix of AC and DC units to match their traffic.

I think that you could get a record of a locomotive's operation from the control system, since it probably logs things like that for maintenance purposes. The problem is that for say an SD70M in general traffic, one day will be totally different from the rest. We always used approximate operational profile curves obtained from the US Navy or the British Royal Navy. These were different, but gave similar results with any given power plant. I think we can assume that the big railroads watch their fuel consumption along with other things that affect their bottom line. In UP's case, an AC unit costing say $1 million more than a similar DC unit is only worthwhile if you can use its improved low speed performance.

If you think running a locomotive is expensive, just think what a US Navy "Arleigh Burke" cost to run. Gas Turbines suck fuel as if it was going out of fashion, and are many times less efficient at idle and low power. They also have Allison turbines for electric power generation, and these are almost never run at full power. You could save a million dollars a year by putting diesel generators in, but diesels get upset at running for really long periods on low power, and reliability becomes a problem.

But to get back to railroads, has Bombardier published any fuel consumption figures for their "Jetrain" locomotive? This, and the rebuilt Rohr turbos, trade fuel consumption for speed and power. But compared with the capital cost of electrification, they are still ahead.

Peter

[kenneo]

Mark

Just a couple of real world examples of what you are talking about and the numbers are pulled from my memory. The last time I used the Siskiyou numbers was the mid-1970s and I don't have a written record to fall back on.

Ashland to Eugene on Siskiyou. Four helper grades with a 4250 trailing ton single limit that takes 3 SD40 or SD45 units. Our rule of thumb was 583 gals of fuel per unit, or 1666 gals of juice. If the units arrived Ashland with less than 800 gals showing on the sight glass, you refuled. Those figures held true for a light engine or a tonnage train. (Obviously, running light will use less fuel, but not very much.)

On the POTB, westward trains ascend 2.75 to 3.3 % grades. Taking a light engine up that grade at 10 MPH took Run 6 for 2.75% and Run 7 for 3.3%. That last run number pulled the train. Westbound, you were limited to 9 empties or 4 loads on dry rail with an SD9 or you had to double the last 5 miles to Cochran.

Both of the above are "Ball Park" examples. On the POTB, you actually would exceed the speed if you ran continuously in the run numbers I mentioned, so you cycled in and out of the specified numbers with the next lower number. The point is to illustrate the point that you were makeing.

You are more correct than you may know about how the operating department reacts to fuel costs. An 16-567C uses 5 GPH at idle (again, that is the figure we used, not necessarily the engineering figure). When the price of fuel exceeded $0.50 per Gal, and the ambient air temp exceeded 45 deg F., you shut down the engine if you were going to be stopped for more than 5 mins or if you were not switching or pumping off a train. At 5GPH, a local unit ideling for a layover day will use 120 gals of fuel in each 24 hour period. As you can see, this becomes a serious cost item real fast. The Portland and Western has a local that operated out of Saint Helens, OR., with a 12-645 turboed to 2300 HP. That engine will use AT LEAST 70 gals per day it works and 120 gals per day it does not work during December. For Dec 25,26,27,28, that's 480 gals of fuel with no revenue produced.

So, when you say "Add a unit to that coal train to keep up with the Zs" you not only have to purchase the unit, you have to maintain it and also feed it. The only time that will happen is if the Z trains are being delayd unacceptably, and then they will only add a unit as a stop-gap until they can add a track unless adding a locomotive will not exceed the add-a-track costs.

We could go on and on, but I think we get the picture.

The SP used a service profile based on historical train operating data and validated it with real world experience. Try standing behind the engineer with a stop watch and a clipboard writing down the exact time (to the second) and run number to build your profile. The runner thinks of you as a company spy and does get a bit grumpy.

[Anonymous]

Peter: It'll amuse you that I spend my evenings reading naval design philosophy, treatises on skegs and STS armor and stuff like that.

It's key that railroads with the money to do it (UP and BNSF) have worked so hard to standardize their fleets on just two types. I'll preview the February issue here -- we discuss this at length, and EMD's marketing effort with the SD70ACe to trim two types to one type. (Apparently the U.S. Navy has gone the same way with the Arleigh Burke class.) The key to this is getting the A.C. price down a long way; otherwise, you'll never dig out of the cost hole compared to D.C. EMD won't quote prices, but I am under the impression they have done just this. We'll know the answer in a few years by the sales results.

Multiple types were murder at Kansas City Southern -- we only had 50 AC's with DPU, and keeping them on the coal and grain trains, and in the mountains, created much agony and led to tremendous inefficiency in such things as crew costs.

An ancedote on running diesels at low speeds for long times. When the Alaska Railroad converted to HEP, they had Paducah build them a deluxe power car in a E9B with two big, powerful, Cummins generator sets. Only one was needed; the other was backup.

Well! A real backup engine is an engine idling at operating temperature, hooked to a transfer switch to pick up the load immediately, right? Turns out that the normal vibration of running down the track destroys the main bearings on the idling engine. So they turned it off. Turns out the vibration of running down the track destroys the main bearings on a dead engine, too! So out came the second gen set, and into the back of an F7B, where it could do something.

I'll ask some mechanical people I know if they have any operational profiles they can share. I could be proven wrong, but I think all I will find is the results of a few tests. I think there's too many variables involved here to construct tests that provide meaningful prognosticative value. Having done my time in the operating department at Kansas City Southern, I think everyone is doing this empirically. You do a few tests, project this onto the fleet, and see what happens. Then you adjust your numbers. The problem is you never know exactly why it happens the way it happens.

I've seen no fuel figures on JetTrain. I think I'll ask for some tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

The 80Mac and the 90Mac are the same unit. The only diffrence is the engine. If you took out the 20cylinder 710 you could in you wanted to drop an H-block in and have a
90Mac. I also rember reading that EMD tested a new turbochargerthat boosted the
20-710 to 5500Hp;a short jump to 6000HP

[Anonymous]

Eric: The Siskiyou -- one of my favorite railroads. I spent a happy time there in the late '80s taking photos, getting lineups from Don or Eric in the Eugene office every morning at 5 a.m. I've walked the whole east side of the big hill, a remarkable piece of William Hood "follow the contours" engineering. You can really tell the difference between 2% and 3% when you're walking up hill.

The POTB I've not ridden -- I'd like to, though. I've seen the old photos in the books of Baldwin Creek and Wolf Creek. Very cool.

Those numbers you cite on idling fuel consumption on P&W are frightening. I've listened to people tell me for years that fuel really matters. Now I'm convinced.

Most of my train rides I have to first convince the crew I'm not there to turn them in. Then it's fun. I've yet to have a bad ride, except one night when I was a dispatcher riding a train in DTC territory. The dispatcher on that console knew the running times quite well, and was anticipating the OS points so he could give a following train more track. He'd call just about the moment the block sign came into view. The conductor sitting in front of me was all to happy to oblige him, even though our rear was 8000 feet back in the block we legally had just given up! And the engineer let him do it!

At the end of the trip, I asked the conductor what he was going to do when we went into emergency with occupying the block behind us, and a closely following train. He just shrugged and said, "I dunno." I got pretty mad then and told him if I ever saw him do that again, I'd turn him in on the spot. I was still a new-hire at the time, and I probably could have pleaded stupidity and only gotten a few days. But what if we'd killed the following crew?

But you know, ever since then I've had only good crews. By luck? Because most crews are good crews? I think it's the latter, because it's their *** on the line. I've watched an old head hammer 17,500 tons through a vicious rainstorm in the Ozarks, dropping that train into each speed restriction at the last second, me sure he's going to blow it, and him hitting exactly at the right speed. I've listened to a third-generation hogger on the Golden State name every dry wash, every abandoned homestead, every place an old Indian trail crossed. It's been fun, especially because I'm not the one who gets called to work the next morning at 4 a.m. (Another reason I went dispatching -- better hours.)

This whole discussion has illustrated some things to me:
--fuel cost is a bigger issue than I thought
--figuring out what's actually going on in the field is tough
--we need an article on the subject of fuel.

[jeaton]

Mark, Eric, Peter

Nice piece of work.

I recall that back in the '70s the IC used program that worked out fuel consumption for any mix of power and tonnage over a given route. I don't know if it was any more than a model based on the engineering spec's on the locomotives and track profile, but we did use it for estimates on the operating costs of various unit trains. I was wondering if more complex programs are available for strategic planning for trains and power, including the locomotive purchase decision.

I'm also curious about the fuel consumption on the Jetrain.

Jay Eaton

[Anonymous]

the 80 macs were the beginning of a new era for emd, in the ac world. the 80's had the bugs like all other ac's did and still do. ----they are run by computers. cr 4100-01 spent it's first few days in the repair shops in enola, pa. bugs... and lots of them. ge has yet to find an exterminator. i talked to a few cr crews, and they actually liked them! they just hated the load time with the onboard computers. they said," once they loaded, they did what they were designed to do,.....pull hard. now, for csx, and their ge's. the computers cannot familiarize the program to pump out 6000 hp, therefore the crankshafts spin too fast, and, SNAP! now, in paranoid fear, CSX is removing all the 5000 hp power plants, and replacing them with 4300 hp blocks in the 80macs. csx would operate better too, if the tracks were actually in gauge, and were ballasted. e.g.- new track on the metro-sub-division in point of rocks, md. they lost the UPS bullet train to, NS. what was on the point of those trains some of the time? AC'S. NS with their dc power are getting it done on or ahead of schedule. still did not do it like big blue did! so sick of seeing useless widecab ge's up here in montgomery cty, pa. happy holidays to all!! hey csx engineer, watch your spelling of "because", there is an "o" in there! someone may pick on ya'. stay safe on the rails! now, let's get little binny!!!!!