QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes 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.
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
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill 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.)
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.