The SD90MACs (and GE's AC6000CWs for that matter) have proven to be unreliable and rough-riding, which is why many of them are being withdrawn from service. Some SD90s and AC6000s were designated SD90/43MACs and AC6000CW Convertibles and were given less powerful, more reliable prime movers (approx. 4300hp for the EMD, 4400hp for the GE) when built. The manufacturers gave the railroads an option to upgrade to the 6000hp powerplants at a later date. The SD90/43s and AC6000 Convertibles with the less-powerful prime movers may be less of a target for withdrawl. Most railroads have settled on 4400hp as the upper limit for horsepower ratings as it gives the best amount of operational flexibility.
As for the H-engine, China is considering buying about 300 locos form EMD with the H-engine as their prime mover.
The problem with the H engine is production was VERY rushed. EMD had been fooling around with a smaller bore 4 stroke, but when the demand for a 6000 HP AC locomotive appeared, they basically scaled up their 4 stroke design and the H was born and placed in production. Given that unforeseen problems creep up every time even a minor change is made on a proven design (EMD F engine, anyone?) that the H engine was headed for trouble shouldn't have been a shock.
The shock was that UP purchased so many of them right off the bat.
It's also why Conrail purchased their AC units with 20-710Gs (not saying that CR was smarter than UP. Draw your own conclusion )
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: but when the demand for a 6000 HP AC locomotive appeared, they basically scaled up their 4 stroke design and the H was born and placed in production.
but when the demand for a 6000 HP AC locomotive appeared, they basically scaled up their 4 stroke design and the H was born and placed in production.
Now im realy confused. So the engine in a 90mac is a 4 stroke then?
Whats in a 43/90mac? Is this a 2 stroke 16 cylinder 710G??
Im presuming here, the 90mac was the 4 stroke but later downrated to the 2 stroke 710 to 4300hp, correct?
SD90MAC is a four stroke. well it was for the time being.
and you are correct on the 43/90 having the 710g 2 stroke
and you are right on the third question?
EMD's rush to put the 265H into production appears to be quite similar to what Alco did with the 244. Unlike Alco, EMD had a fallback position with the existing 710 design.
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/JR7582 My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wcfan/
wisandsouthernkid wrote: SD90MAC is a four stroke. well it was for the time being.and you are correct on the 43/90 having the 710g 2 strokeand you are right on the third question?
Thanks for clearing that up
ArtOfRuin wrote: The SD90MACs (and GE's AC6000CWs for that matter) have proven to be unreliable and rough-riding, which is why many of them are being withdrawn from service.
The SD90MACs (and GE's AC6000CWs for that matter) have proven to be unreliable and rough-riding, which is why many of them are being withdrawn from service.
While this might be true for the 90MAC, not so much for the GE's. CSX seems to like the ones they own, and are still top shelf power.
An "expensive model collector"
WCfan wrote:As another forum member said (Can't remember who), the SD90MAC was like the SD45 of it's generation.
I think the SD45 was a pretty good locomotive. It had some early problems. They were solved.
RWM
Gary UK wrote: oltmannd wrote: but when the demand for a 6000 HP AC locomotive appeared, they basically scaled up their 4 stroke design and the H was born and placed in production. Now im realy confused. So the engine in a 90mac is a 4 stroke then?Whats in a 43/90mac? Is this a 2 stroke 16 cylinder 710G??Im presuming here, the 90mac was the 4 stroke but later downrated to the 2 stroke 710 to 4300hp, correct?
The SD90MAC was constructed as a 6,000 hp locomotive equippped with a 245H. The SD9043MAC was constructed as a 4,300 hp locomotive equipped with a 710G, with potential to install a 245H at any subsequent date -- the electrical, cooling, and auxiliary systems were constructed to handle 6,000 hp. I don't know if any SD90MACs were ever re-equipped with a 710G. Maybe a few were, but I don't recall hearing about it.
I thought it was the SD80MAC that was compaired to the SD45, as both locomotives have 20-cyl prime movers.
Railway Man wrote: WCfan wrote:As another forum member said (Can't remember who), the SD90MAC was like the SD45 of it's generation.I think the SD45 was a pretty good locomotive. It had some early problems. They were solved. RWM
Don't get me wrong, I love any 45 series. Yes, EMD solved the issue of the crank shaft, but the 45 series was less realiable when not kept in proper maintence. Other regionals did very good with the SD45 though, WC, MRL, NYSQ, ect.
enr2099 wrote: I thought it was the SD80MAC that was compaired to the SD45, as both locomotives have 20-cyl prime movers.
Figuratively speaking, the SD45 was the biggest most powerful locomotive in its day. It was pretty big for its size, so was the SD90MAC, but in the 3rd generation of locomotives.
Alright let's stop with the SD45 thing, this is a 90MAC thread, so PM if you would like to discuss more.
Speaking of 90MACs, now that they are gone (mostly), did anyone record them while running? I tried several times but never got a difinative sound recording of the engines working hard. What did they sound like - GEs, Alcos, none of the above?
Marv Van De Weert
8) Well, the EMD Series 265H engine, was developed, essentially in collaboration with Siemens, of Germany...they laughed the long standing two cycle EMD engineers out of the room, for being "sloppy."
As for a smaller 4-cycle, I don't remember any info suggesting that.
The idea behind the change of prime-mover, by EMD as well as GE, is that the only way to make a Series 710 engine produce more than 4350 hp, was to build a twenty cylinder engine...hence, the SD80MAC...some say had the Conrail not merged, they would have bought more of them, however, look at the fact no other road went for them. And, the hp rating stopped at 5000 for that engine. The EMD Series 710, and GE 7-FDL engines are topped out, meaning they will not survive long, if you turn them up any higher than what they are right now.
They say it takes about ten years for the railroads to win over to any new technology.
The Series 265H engine, as well as the Series 20V710 engine, are very much alive and well, in marine, power generation, and oil field power units, as well as an occasional military order.
It's the same as with the Caterpillar 3512, 3516, 3612,etc. the engines are near perfect in their proven fields, but railroads cannot justify the new technology, as far as training, parts availability, etc.
Even AC technology, proved short for line haul railroading...sure, they have the lugging power, and don't burn out traction motors at eight miles per hour, after hour, but who has time to go eight miles per hour? This is why the roads are buying ESxxDC and SD70M-2's. Just make shorter trains, run them faster, and stay out of the way of 140+car coal trainz.
Well, replacing two, or more of anything, saves fuel...
I think it was more of a cost prohibitive prospect, and after all the SD90-H, was aimed at Union Pacific more or less to replace aging locomotives.
The ultimate rejection of the option to re-engine the SD90/43MAC, turned both builders back to the drawing board, and the subsequent development of GE and EMD engines, settled back to engines compatible with the existing fleets.
Add that to my last post...AC locomotives, though more efficient, are also(way) more expensive that DC locomotives.
SID6FIVE wrote:As far as I know, the four CP SD90macs are all still in service,as well as the fleet of SD9043macs...they tend to stay in Canada because that's where the repair base is...St.Paul,Mn handles all the GE's,so we see AC's and ES's almost exclusively...
The reason the CP SD90MACs don't show up in the US, is because CP never upgraded them to meet Tier 0 emissions requirements. Canadian regulations didn't require any retroactive upgrading whereas the US EPA did, for locomotives of that era. Since both are small groups they are just restricted to Canadian service. CP calls the 4300hp locomotives SD90MACs (9100 series) and the 6000hp SD90MAC-H (9300 series). which is EMD's terminology for the two variations.
Allen Jenkins wrote:8) Well, the EMD Series 265H engine, was developed, essentially in collaboration with Siemens, of Germany...they laughed the long standing two cycle EMD engineers out of the room, for being "sloppy."
No truth to this story at all, no Siemens diesel locomotive uses a Siemens built engine, the vast majority use what is now called MTU diesels. EMD's problem is that in the cutbacks following GM's loss of interest in the locomotive business many of their Engineers left the company. When the new 265H engine was being developed there weren't enough people to simultaniously develop the new 265H and attempt to updated the 710G. GE partnered with a German comapny Deutz to develop the HDL engine. But Deutz started struggling financially and has since been bought out. GE sued Deutz over their failure to pay for their share of the costs and to assign the agreed amount of personnel. The loss of this lawsuit was the final straw that caused Deutz to sell out. Diamler bought Deutz, Detroit Diesel, MAN, and Krupp diesel engine designs and manufactures them under the MTU label in Europe and the Detroit Diesel label for sale in the USA. GM is supposed to have the bugs worked out of the 265H engine and it has replaced the 710G for Marine usage. With the small number of SD90MAC locomotives out there it isn't economic to upgrade the 265H engines to current standards so the existing locomotives will die young, all those that the Union Pacific was using were EMD owned anyway, and there is only four on CP, not really a viable fleet by their numbers. The GE AC6000CWs won't last too long either, at least as built. BHP Billiton has had GE reengine their eight locomotives with 16-cylinder GEVO diesels retaining the 6000hp rating, and CSX is having a small number of their AC6000CWs reengined as well, probably all of CSX's will be reengined. Only the UP doesn't seem to see a reengined future for their AC6000CWs, they are assigned primarily to rock train service in Texas serving out their final years in a heavy haul service that keeps them close to a shop, and where a locomotive failure doesn't cause a expensive service failure. Side note is that Diamler, in order to finance their losses from Chrysler, spunoff MTU-Detroit Diesel into a new company called Tognum, they retain a partial ownership in the new company.
As for a smaller 4-cycle, I don't remember any info suggesting that.The idea behind the change of prime-mover, by EMD as well as GE, is that the only way to make a Series 710 engine produce more than 4350 hp, was to build a twenty cylinder engine...hence, the SD80MAC...some say had the Conrail not merged, they would have bought more of them, however, look at the fact no other road went for them. And, the hp rating stopped at 5000 for that engine. The EMD Series 710, and GE 7-FDL engines are topped out, meaning they will not survive long, if you turn them up any higher than what they are right now.They say it takes about ten years for the railroads to win over to any new technology.The Series 265H engine, as well as the Series 20V710 engine, are very much alive and well, in marine, power generation, and oil field power units, as well as an occasional military order.It's the same as with the Caterpillar 3512, 3516, 3612,etc. the engines are near perfect in their proven fields, but railroads cannot justify the new technology, as far as training, parts availability, etc.Even AC technology, proved short for line haul railroading...sure, they have the lugging power, and don't burn out traction motors at eight miles per hour, after hour, but who has time to go eight miles per hour? This is why the roads are buying ESxxDC and SD70M-2's. Just make shorter trains, run them faster, and stay out of the way of 140+car coal trainz.
I don't think your generalization about AC power is true, operating expenses are lower for AC, if you overcome the higher initial purchase price. The UP, CP, and KCS will never buy another DC motored locomotive larger than the Gensets. CSX won't either if they have a choice, only their need to rapidly replace the leased SD40-2s pushed them briefly back to DC motored locomotives.
Caterpillar's problem is that they don't produce an integrated product of a diesel and a matching alternator. Trying to combine the Cat engine with the EMD alternator, works as poorly as combining a EMD diesel with a GE alternator would. The Cato alternator didn't work much better either.
Note too that the proposed Super-Z that the UP would have operated for UPS would have used AC motored locomotives because they could run faster than DC motored locomotives without changing the gearing. The DC motor has windings in the rotor that will "Bird's nest" if it spins too fast, the AC motor doesn't, also the DC motor has commutator brushes, the AC motor doesn't. The next big improvement may be Permag AC Synchronous Motors. They will be lighter and smaller than current traction motors, improving cooling and reducing the unsprung mass in the trucks.
John, thanks for the post.
beaulieu wrote: The next big improvement may be Permag AC Synchronous Motors. They will be lighter and smaller than current traction motors, improving cooling and reducing the unsprung mass in the trucks.
Are these more likely to show up on GEs before EMDs?
nanaimo73 wrote:John, thanks for the post. beaulieu wrote: The next big improvement may be Permag AC Synchronous Motors. They will be lighter and smaller than current traction motors, improving cooling and reducing the unsprung mass in the trucks. Are these more likely to show up on GEs before EMDs?
Dale, it's way too early to tell who will introduce them to North America, look at how long it took for asynchronous AC motors to go from testing to production. The first railroad sized Permag Synchronous motors were used under the coaches on the TGV that set the World Speed record. Their performance was so flawless that Alstom is going to use them in their new AGV which will replace the TGV. The motors will have to prove themselves in Europe before any North America company will take a hard look at them.
EMD's weakness could prove their strength, in that they can no longer afford to develop most of their own heavy electrical gear. As you know Siemens produced the Invertors and Traction Motors for EMD's SD70MAC, SD80MAC, and SD90MAC locomotives. It appears that EMD and Siemens had a falling out as EMD's new SD70ACe uses Mitsubishi Invertors and Traction Motors. EMD's need to innovate and work with partners may work to its advantage, or it's possible that GE may go first, it's too early to guess.
beaulieu wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: John, thanks for the post. beaulieu wrote: The next big improvement may be Permag AC Synchronous Motors. They will be lighter and smaller than current traction motors, improving cooling and reducing the unsprung mass in the trucks. Are these more likely to show up on GEs before EMDs?Dale, it's way too early to tell who will introduce them to North America, look at how long it took for asynchronous AC motors to go from testing to production. The first railroad sized Permag Synchronous motors were used under the coaches on the TGV that set the World Speed record. Their performance was so flawless that Alstom is going to use them in their new AGV which will replace the TGV. The motors will have to prove themselves in Europe before any North America company will take a hard look at them. EMD's weakness could prove their strength, in that they can no longer afford to develop most of their own heavy electrical gear. As you know Siemens produced the Invertors and Traction Motors for EMD's SD70MAC, SD80MAC, and SD90MAC locomotives. It appears that EMD and Siemens had a falling out as EMD's new SD70ACe uses Mitsubishi Invertors and Traction Motors. EMD's need to innovate and work with partners may work to its advantage, or it's possible that GE may go first, it's too early to guess.
nanaimo73 wrote: John, thanks for the post. beaulieu wrote: The next big improvement may be Permag AC Synchronous Motors. They will be lighter and smaller than current traction motors, improving cooling and reducing the unsprung mass in the trucks. Are these more likely to show up on GEs before EMDs?
This is interesting stuff, thanks.
Who would ever have thought that the SD70ACE uses Japanease traction motors! As good as any i spose.
Allen Jenkins wrote: As for a smaller 4-cycle, I don't remember any info suggesting that.
It was a well kept secret. I saw it once at LaGrange back in the early-mid 90s. Looked ALCo-ish.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.