NorthWest Overmod and GDRMco, that is what I would think as well. I found this in a DSG, but I can't find a second source. I'd call this proposal a GP59F. (Like SD50F). Were the GP70 and GP69 ever offered by EMD? Would that also mean that a SD69 was also available?
Overmod and GDRMco, that is what I would think as well. I found this in a DSG, but I can't find a second source.
I'd call this proposal a GP59F. (Like SD50F).
Were the GP70 and GP69 ever offered by EMD? Would that also mean that a SD69 was also available?
A GP/SD69 would have been an unlikely model as the only "69 Series" unit offered was a variant of the F59PH with AC traction motors and electrical system. It had the same rating of 3,000 HP for traction as the other F59 series locomotives.
I am fairly certain that EMD never catalogued an AC traction motor 4 axle freight locomotive.
I guess if a customer had really wanted a 12 -710 powered 3,000-3,150 HP AC drive C-C it would have been called an SD59AC but who knows,;EMD violates its own naming conventions at times (i.e if they were consistent a 4,300 HP six axle unit would be a SD75Ace/Sd75M-2 rather than the 70 series units that they are)..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
how about old school it and call it an E10
rbandr how about old school it and call it an E10
Because it would be a B-B and not an A-1-A.
I guess you could order an SD70AceP-4 with an HEP system and call it an "E' if you want...
carnej1 A GP/SD69 would have been an unlikely model as the only "69 Series" unit offered was a variant of the F59PH with AC traction motors and electrical system. It had the same rating of 3,000 HP for traction as the other F59 series locomotives. I guess if a customer had really wanted a 12 -710 powered 3,000-3,150 HP AC drive C-C it would have been called an SD59AC but who knows,;EMD violates its own naming conventions at times (i.e if they were consistent a 4,300 HP six axle unit would be a SD75Ace/Sd75M-2 rather than the 70 series units that they are)..
M636C carnej1 A GP/SD69 would have been an unlikely model as the only "69 Series" unit offered was a variant of the F59PH with AC traction motors and electrical system. It had the same rating of 3,000 HP for traction as the other F59 series locomotives. I guess if a customer had really wanted a 12 -710 powered 3,000-3,150 HP AC drive C-C it would have been called an SD59AC but who knows,;EMD violates its own naming conventions at times (i.e if they were consistent a 4,300 HP six axle unit would be a SD75Ace/Sd75M-2 rather than the 70 series units that they are).. In fact, about 180 12-710 powered AC drive C-Cs have been built in Australia by EMD licensees. They are classified exactly by the appropriate convention: GT42CU AC M636C
Aren't these units narrow (cape) gauge?
[8DThe E's were. Back when they powered by the earlier dual diesel engenes that their were two diesels for redundancy purposes. you might lose one engine but could limp in on the other. it had nothing 2 do with B-B or A-1-A trucks. the closest thing to this today are the multiple engine genset loco's. Baldwin tried this set up with their centipede with the ability to load and unload individual diesel pods. they were too far in the hole inspite of the standard railroad of the worlds support.
I'm still looking for 60 and 70 series promotional material, and cannot find any. Can anyone else?
I think that all the models I've mentioned since my post on the 10th are probably imagineered.
rbandr [8DThe E's were. Back when they powered by the earlier dual diesel engenes that their were two diesels for redundancy purposes. you might lose one engine but could limp in on the other. it had nothing 2 do with B-B or A-1-A trucks. the closest thing to this today are the multiple engine genset loco's. Baldwin tried this set up with their centipede with the ability to load and unload individual diesel pods. they were too far in the hole inspite of the standard railroad of the worlds support.
The backup capability of having double engines was a nice feature but the primary reason the E-unit line had dual prime movers was because EMD at the time could not produce a single diesel engine with the necessary horsepower(they did not offer a high HP turbocharged version of the 567 engine until the SD24 was introduced in 1958)..
The A-1-A trucks were to spread the weight of the units out...
Just thought of another, the standard cab SD75.
NorthWest Just thought of another, the standard cab SD75.
Was that ever officially offered? I have no doubt that EMD would've accommodated a customer that wanted one, just wondering if any effort was ever expended on such a model.
To be honest, I'm not really sure, as only CN, ONT and ATSF/BNSF went for the SD75M and SD75I. They were built concurrently with the SD70s, which were only built after the standard cab was asked for by NS. So, had someone asked for one, it would likely have been built, but I don't think it was officially drafted, as there is little difference from the SD70Ms in the cab area.
SW1501?
Low-clearance industrial customers had bought previous 12-cylinder switchers. The SW1001 was designed to eliminate clearance trouble resulting from the new cab arrangement of the 645 switchers.
If someone had wanted it...? Or was 1000 horsepower seen as enough for an industrial switcher, even in steel mills? A C415 operated on the Mon Con.
I have found another: the Dash 8-32C, actually confirmed this time .
The List
GE
B18-7
Dash 8-32C
U33CG
U18C-North American extension of the U18B
U56
U18BT
U15BT
B40-8(B)
C23-7
B28-7
C28-7
B23-8
B33-7
C33-7
EMD
DD40A
SD39-DC
SD55
AMT-125
RB3600
GMDH-2
SD40-2B
GP2000
SD39-2
SDL39-2
SD59
SD49
TR12
F45B
TR9
M-K
MK5000AC
MK6000AC
F-M
CFA-24
CFB-24
CPB-20
CPB-24
ALCO
PA-3
FA-4
C428
C620
C624
C636F
C636P(A)
C636P(B)
C650DH
RSD-33
Ingalls
3-S
16-S
5-S
17A
MLW
RSC-23
RS-13
RS-24
Bombardier
HR416
HR618
HR406
Lima
800 HP BB road switcher
1600 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
2400 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
3200 HP CC cab unit powered by 6 free piston generators powering a turbine.
1600 HP Switcher Combo
2400HP Switcher Combo
Baldwin
1000 HP C-C Road Switcher
1500 HP C-C Road Transfer (streamlined car body)
3000 HP A1A-A1A Road Locomotive
NorthWestI have found another: the Dash 8-32C, actually confirmed this time .
I sort of disagree.
The CR units were prototype test beds.
GE built three B32-8s, also as test beds. Production units for NS were classified as Dash 8-32B, and had several spotting differences. GE revamped its catalog about 1987 (note the C39-8 "enhanced" model was built about this time). The Dash 8-32C would have had a squared off cab roof (not round) and likely grilles at an angle below the radiator wings, these were flush on the C32-8s. Also, the later control system, air compressor, software and single fan radiator would have likely been included.
Too much nitpicking?
C32-8 was real, it was built for a customer even if it's a tesbed and it shouldn't be on the list.
ML
Leo_Ames And thanks to a thread from the Railroad.net forums, here are a few others. U25BG with a high nose with a steam generator. GE prepared artwork for this and marketed it but no takers. U18C which was considered by the Union Railroad to replace their Buffalo's (EMD repowered 6 axle Baldwins). Alco C636B or C636PB since I'm not sure how it would be classified (Santa Fe solicited proposals for both A & B units and EMD and Alco offered both while GE refused to consider a booster). U33C with a cowl to compete against the F45. U50C with FB-3 trucks for customers other than Union Pacific (UP's reused trucks from their turbines). GE released a drawing of this when the U50C was announced.
And thanks to a thread from the Railroad.net forums, here are a few others.
U25BG with a high nose with a steam generator. GE prepared artwork for this and marketed it but no takers.
U18C which was considered by the Union Railroad to replace their Buffalo's (EMD repowered 6 axle Baldwins).
Alco C636B or C636PB since I'm not sure how it would be classified (Santa Fe solicited proposals for both A & B units and EMD and Alco offered both while GE refused to consider a booster).
U33C with a cowl to compete against the F45.
U50C with FB-3 trucks for customers other than Union Pacific (UP's reused trucks from their turbines). GE released a drawing of this when the U50C was announced.
The last model you mention would be a U50 rather than a U50C, right? what you are describing sounds like it would use bolster connected b trucks, correct?
The question here is whether the 1987 catalog proposed model is different enough from the 1984 models.
It is important to note that the production C39-8s, except for the last batch, were identical to the test beds.
With EMDs, just switching out the generator for an alternator creates another model. GE didn't do that, but about 1988 they changed their nomenclature to (presumably) highlight 1987 changes to their models. The operating manual from 1987 that I will use to illustrate the changes retains the earlier designations, as do the very late C39-8s for NS that had the 1987 improvements (these could potentially be called Dash 8-39Cs).
1984 manual: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/d8-hdbk.pdf
1987 manual: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/D8-OM.pdf
Differences-(comparing the B32-8 and the Dash 8-32B, along with changes in the 1987 C39-8s, gives a likely list of changes.)
- Change from two radiator fans to one
-Flush mounted grilles under wings mounted at an angle
-Flat top cab
-About an inch wider
-Larger lube oil and sand capacity
-Air cooled only air compressor
-Differences in the control system
-Computer and wiring differences
I feel like these hypothesized changes are major enough, internally and externally, to warrant it being included on the list. Have I made a convincing case?
NorthWest I feel like these hypothesized changes are major enough, internally and externally, to warrant it being included on the list. Have I made a convincing case?
Personally I'd say no.
Is a C40-9 the same as a Dash 9-40C?
If the answer is yes, then your case cannot be made. If the answer is no, then it can.
Swapping an Generator for an alternator changed the characteristics of a given unit fairly significantly. Or at least could. What you're describing is mostly phase differences.
Let me ask a different question. Is SD70M-T1 an EMD designation or a Fan Designation? I think as far as EMD is concerned, it's just the same exact product.
Or another example, an SD40-2 built in 1972 and an SD40-2 built in 1983 have no naming differentiators despite all sorts of changes. Radiator grills, Qfans, Angled blower housings, but by the logic you outline, they would be different distinct models.
I think GE just redid their naming convention.
YoHo1975Is a C40-9 the same as a Dash 9-40C?
Well, the Dash 9-40C is official, the C40-9 is not, although that is the definition that railroads use for their computer systems. But I see the point you are making. The confusing part is that had the 1987-spec units been constructed, both C32-8 and Dash 8-32C would be correct, but for different units.
YoHo1975Let me ask a different question. Is SD70M-T1 an EMD designation or a Fan Designation? I think as far as EMD is concerned, it's just the same exact product.
In agreement (although BNSF classifies their Dash 9-44CWs by Tier...)
YoHo1975Or another example, an SD40-2 built in 1972 and an SD40-2 built in 1983 have no naming differentiators despite all sorts of changes. Radiator grills, Qfans, Angled blower housings, but by the logic you outline, they would be different distinct models.
This is the winning argument. While the switch in the naming convention is significant, these locomotives would still be substantially similar to the earlier units. I'll remove it from the list.
We should not forget GE's infamous "Q" cab. As per Warren Calloway's article in Diesel Era it was first proposed on the U15BQ in 1976. GE did offer this cab option on their complete loco line up. The only locomotives built with cab was the BQ23-7. But could you imagine a CQ30-7?
Dan
I did.
Click image for larger version.
Yes, the Q cab. As you say, it was available on all -7 Series locomotives, and I think it was dropped for the -8s because of crew reductions. I'm debating putting in another section for things that weren't built, but don't fit the category of "unbuilt model". The Dash 8-32C Phase II would fit there... I'll get back to you.
GDRM, thanks for the excellent illustration! It would look perfect on a Pilbara Range iron ore train, being somewhat reminiscent of the GE rebuilds of the Alco Centuries.
Speaking in modern times, EMD offers an 8 axle version of the SD80ACe rated at 5400 h.p. but so far no takers.
Nope.... 18 cylinders.
I counted 8 large doors on the side, which would mean 16 cylinders, which the C30-7 had. I may be missing your point, however.
EDIT: were you referring to the SD80ACe comment? Those use the 20-710. An 8 axle locomotive sounds really unlikely, especially since the units were in many ways a special order.
On another note, I think I will add another section for the Q cabs.
Now, who has more models? I've been looking into a possible SW1501, but haven't found anything. I suspect, because the SW1001 was originally somewhat of a custom model, I won't.
Here's a link to CAT/Progress/EMD's current SD80ACe brochure, and it does include an 8-axle option. So far I know of no takers, but it is ideal for South America (and has been done in the past; DDM45, BB40-9W) as standard gauge traction motors cannot fit in narrow gauge trucks, so more smaller motors are needed to provide the same tractive effort.
http://www.progressrail.com/cda/files/4564110/7/SD80ACe_ENG_A4_Web.pdf
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
The 8 axle SD80ACe is simply for narrow gauge or light axle load railways and is aimed at mainly the South American railways and their use of USDM locos on their NG lines.
It's also only 5300hp. The Normal 6 axle SD80ACe isn't really a special order, it can only be sold as an export locomotive and EMD Brazil has been using that model as their platform for both 16-710 (4500hp SD70ACe/45) and 20-710 (5300hp SD80ACe) models. Can't be sold in the US as it only meets Tier 1.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.