Trains.com

FEC aquires 24 ES44C4s

23665 views
80 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, February 16, 2015 7:55 PM

blue streak 1

FEC leased their replaced SDs to CSX.  Since they had snow plows there was no down time to install plows before operatig on CSX.

 

The FEC's SD-40's were UP engines to start with.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, February 16, 2015 6:29 PM

FEC leased their replaced SDs to CSX.  Since they had snow plows there was no down time to install plows before operatig on CSX.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:43 PM

nevermind.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:33 PM

Speaking clock

Thanks guys.

The U25B I thought I saw in revenue service was the minnesota commercial SF30B, and I saw a photo of the Oregon, california and eastern U25b's which were rebuilt by the MK. I should have known.

I wonder if the Es44c4 will be the next big thing (Used everyhere like a Sd40-2), or if it will be another U18B( in the sense that a few roads purchased them for specific duties in an allready limited market.

 

I probably should have put the SD40T-2 on there instead of the u18b. The T-2 had just over 300 built, and it was a fairly popular variation on the very normal SD40-2.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Monday, January 19, 2015 9:32 PM

Those survived well into the 2000's, being scrapped 7 or 8 years ago.

Were sold off to a company that wanted their powerplants back in the late 1980's, but somehow, they stuck around for another 20 years or so after being cannibalized. 

Fodder perhaps for a 3rd re-engining program that never was (Minus the cab, they were rebuilt from the frame up). 

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:23 PM

I wish to correct myself.  The SP U25B's were converted into model TE70-4S by Morrison Knudson.  Here is the info on therm.

http://espee.railfan.net/te_70-4s.html

 

     Ira

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Sunday, January 18, 2015 5:26 PM

The Southern Pacific U25B's that were rebuilt by Morrison Knudson.  as MK2500's. 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Sunday, January 18, 2015 4:06 PM

When BNSF alone has 1000 of these on the roster, I wouldn't say that it's an entirely accurate comparison.

This model may not be as universally popular as something like the SD40-2, but it has been a huge success none the less. Not sure if there's anything out there that can really compare that has enjoyed such strong sales, yet has only sold to a single customer outside of the 24 units for FEC.

And while I'm uncertain of the status of the 567 repowered U25B's from MK (At least part of the fleet made it into the early 2000's), the Minnesota Commercial unit is a rebuilt U23B done by Santa Fe as a prototype for a proposed rebuild program.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Sunday, January 18, 2015 1:40 PM
U18B as only BNSF and FEC have these, they're not really an all purpose locomotive like the legendary SD40-2.

ML

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Sunday, January 18, 2015 10:44 AM

Thanks guys.

The U25B I thought I saw in revenue service was the minnesota commercial SF30B, and I saw a photo of the Oregon, california and eastern U25b's which were rebuilt by the MK. I should have known.

I wonder if the Es44c4 will be the next big thing (Used everyhere like a Sd40-2), or if it will be another U18B( in the sense that a few roads purchased them for specific duties in an allready limited market.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Monday, January 12, 2015 12:02 PM

BNSF does have a few ES44AC's converted to LNG.  They run in pairs between the new orange and white tank cars.

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, January 12, 2015 11:21 AM

BN and UP both had pilot programs in the 80's/90's testing Natural gas fuel for locomotives.

 There recently has been  a great deal of interest in such conversions due the big spike in Natural Gas production and both GE and EMD are developing and offering systems for their current production locomotives.

 However the sudden drop in the price of diesel fuel may well (will almost certainly,IMO) put this on the "backburner" (bad pun intended) for rairoads like FEC...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Monday, January 12, 2015 7:25 AM

I read recently that the ES44c4's on the FEC will be run on 80%natural gas and 20%diesel, if they aren't already . Didn't the BN do this on SD 40-2# 7149 in the 80's? 

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:27 PM

Leo,

I'm talking about the BNSF grades, they'll probably be great On the FEC.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Saturday, January 10, 2015 10:48 PM
But if you ask any BNSF engineer you'll find that they simply aren't and they'd prefer that DC C44-9W or ES44DC in the territory BNSF puts the C4s to work in. FEC is perfect for the C4 being flat as glass, anywhere else and that lack of extra traction motors really bites them.

ML

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, January 10, 2015 10:15 PM

The performance of an ES44C4 is essentially the same as that of a

Dash 9-44CW, and close to that of a ES44DC (according to GE published numbers). My understanding is that BNSF simply stopped purchasing DC C-Cs in favor of AIA-AIA ACs.

(Sorry about post formatting issues.)
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Saturday, January 10, 2015 10:09 PM

Where are these mountains that FEC will be running these over? 

And considering that BNSF has ~1000 or so C4's in service or on order, they obviously perform well in mountains on intermodals, grain trains, manifest trains, etc. So wherever this grade is in Florida that you're concerned about, I doubt that FEC will have any issues with it.

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Saturday, January 10, 2015 9:39 PM

Just to be clear, I mean that a es44c4 isn't exactly an es44 "stock". Sure, it would make sense to use them on z trains or FEC intermodals instead of ES44's, but mountainous territory seems a little beyond their workload. A GP40 and an SD 40 have the same 3,000 horsepower rating, but there are some trains where one CC engine can do the job two BB engines of the same horsepower, and some trains where a CC will break the rails and waste fuel.

I can understand the cost savings with four AC motors, but would you replace a mother-slug set with a 44 ton locomotive, which would be used to haul cuts of 20 loaded auto racks? 

I've seen a csx auto terminal on tylersville road, where a mother slug set is used. Sure, a 44 toner could do the job, the question is how well.

Are you seeing what I'm sayin? That's what I mean by using a bottle opener on a tuna can. 

oh, and at the end of guardians of the galax, at the end of the end credits, the collector is having a drink with, guess who, Howard The Duck.

What else does the collector have? Elvis? The fabled b18-7? a clean song by Miley?

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Saturday, January 10, 2015 5:56 PM

The original post on Trainorders from the BNSF engineers is almost 2 years old.  I would assume that GE has fixed the problem by now.  I see that BNSF has ordered more ES44C4's for delivery in 2015, so I assume that the problems have been fixed.   Any updates on the situation??

  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:26 AM

Speaking clock

my bad for bringing up the u25b, that was like comparing Disney's Donald Duck to Marvel's Howard the duck. He was marvel right?

 

After the "Howard The Duck" movie, would Marvel admit it?

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, January 10, 2015 12:23 AM

GP60Ms didn't replace the power at LAJ. BNSF has the GP60Ms in California to meet the CARB agreement for fleet emissions that they signed. The 710 has a better emissions profile than the 567 block with 645 assemblies that is in the GP39M/Vs that are typical local power across the rest of the system. It has little to do with horsepower. And there are still examples of those old GE switchers in use, Trains most assuredly didn't outgrow them. The linked Engineer review states itself that the issue appears to be software based. And while I do see plenty of long trains out here in the west, I also see plenty of short Z trains that don't require that much power.

 

In either case, aside from the Software issues, GE builds the C4, because railroads want it. It is not a deficiency in the GE. It is a feature. if the SD70ACe-P4 performs better to a significant degree, I'd be shocked.

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Friday, January 9, 2015 10:50 PM

I'm going to let the engineers that run these things answer that. 

However, the mainline trains have gotten bigger since the days of engines like b40-8's and GP60's. 

I'm just a train watcher, and the first GE I ever saw was a small white center cab switcher in the railway museum of greater cincinnati. It is not the pink one that is here today.That was a good engine, but it was put in a museum because the trains Outgrew it.

That also explains why the four axle road units can be found switching.I know that BNSF has done a few gp rebuilds (remember this: BNSF rebuilding GP35s intoGP39-3s)Didn't atsf gp60's replace the gensets at the LAJ? 

 Again, not trying to sound sarcastic, just trying to get correct info.

my bad for bringing up the u25b, that was like comparing Disney's Donald Duck to Marvel's Howard the duck. He was marvel right?

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, January 9, 2015 5:44 PM

You're being a little unfair. Santa Fe did fine running over the Transcon which is mountainous with 4 axle GE and EMD units. The problem seems to be some bad computer settings. otherwise, they way I read it is that they perform just as well as any 4 axle and perhaps close enough to a Dash-9/ES44DC to not care. And that's all that was required. BNSF uses them system wide...just like ATSF used to use 4 axle system wide. They don't swap units out for mountainous territory nor should they. 

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 55 posts
Posted by Speaking clock on Friday, January 9, 2015 3:31 PM

When I heard about the ES44C4's having a problem on the BNSF, I assumed it was the trubocharger.

I'm sorry for making an assumption, but ( with all of the information from above posts ) I think that the ES44C4's would probably do better on the flatter FEC, instead of the mountainous BNSF. I was unaware the units were being used in mountainous territory, but I should have seen that coming.Bang Head I thought they would be doing lighter but still important runs.

From what Overmod said before about the engines operating in mountainous territory, it sounds like the locomotives were misapplied.

I was born before this, but can anyone Remember what happened when the PRR tried to replace the A5s with the 44 tonner, or the GS4?Off Topic Philidalphia docks are a far stretch from mountainous territory, but according to an old trains magazine article ( the diesel that could not replace steam) the GS4 class was purchased to try to save some money, yet they were a headache.

The GS4's were great engines, at least two are still operating today (stratsburg's and vulcan materials) they were just misapplied.

The ES44's will probably be right at home on the FEC, but to me it sounds like the BNSF is trying to get a bottle opener to open a tuna can. 

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, January 9, 2015 10:29 AM

   Those Roanoke diesel guys must be descended from the Roanoke steam guys.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Friday, January 9, 2015 9:54 AM

M636C

 

 
GDRMCo
I get your point Peter and respect your experience in the field, my post is more directed to the individual comparing a GEVO to a U25B and making the point that the GEs of today aren't the 'garbaGE' they once were (hell GE even admitted the early U boats werent that good).
 

 

 

 

But the short effective life of the FDL has been a limit on rebuilding of GE units compared to EMD. GE will sell EMD parts and would sell many more FDL spares if there was a demand. I think some replacement FDLs were built up using a new crankcase casting and the crank and power assemblies from a used engine. But in general, locomotive rebuilds are described as having new FDLs.
 
M636C
 

I keep reading that FDL's can't be rebuilt once the crankcase needs a rebuild. Apparently NS has an answer for that.

 

" The railroad's rebuilding efforts evolved from the GE arrangement, says Graab. To ensure the Roanoke shop is optimally equipped for the program, NS last year installed a $1 million CNC line-boring machine that's designed to repair engine frames that typically had been scrapped.

NS now saves about $155,000 for each salvaged GE frame."

(From progressiverailroading.com)

If this works I can see NS doing FDL frames for 3rd parties.

 

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:21 PM

Having worked with computers for 45 years untill my retirement. many of which were as a programmer.  I can say after carefully analyzing the computer problems stated by the engineers in the Train Orders thread that they can be easily fixed with updates.  That thread is almost 2 years old and I am wondering if GE has fixed the problems.  I would be interested in an update on the C4's from the BNSF engineers.  I also wonder from a professional point of view what compute language(s) GE is using for their programming.  I can think of a number of them that would be appropriate including Assembler, Java, C and C++, with Fortran for the number crunching.

 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 8:59 PM
The 8500-8519 SD70ACe-P4s were built as P4s, converted to P6s then turned back to P4s, all before entering service.

ML

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 1:09 PM

railfan9830
i don't think so, but BNSF engineers don't like the C4's in mountainous territory, claim they stall with a heavy train.

Not sure where this came from, but I think it's in response to speaking clock's comment about the potential longevity of the GE C4 design.  Some of the 'better' BNSF commentary on the C4 is in this Trainorders post, and I think that it is at least possible to extrapolate how some of the reported 'issues' might be observed ... or fixed ... as the locomotives "mature".

Considering the subject matter of the original thread, however, why would experience in 'mountainous territory' concern FEC?  There are more significant issues in other aspects of performance -- and, I might add, it would be interesting to know what's been done since the time of the Trainorders 'review' (in April '13) to address the observed issues with the C4 design... 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy