Leo_AmesAs you're clearly aware of, the SF30B stayed one of a kind since the Santa Fe didn't green light the rebuilding program after the test. And no B23-7's, which were then young locomotives (Including the last examples of the model produced), were planned to be cycled through this to the best of my knowledge. The proposal was for the U23B fleet only. It seems reasonable though that if they were pleased, as that fleet aged, something similar may of happened to the B23-7 fleet to bump up their horsepower to 3,000, modernize them a bit, and overhaul them. But it wasn't planned as part of the SF30B program, and it never did occur. The sole 4 axle GE rebuild on the ATSF was this prototype rebuild of a U23B.
It seems reasonable though that if they were pleased, as that fleet aged, something similar may of happened to the B23-7 fleet to bump up their horsepower to 3,000, modernize them a bit, and overhaul them. But it wasn't planned as part of the SF30B program, and it never did occur.
The sole 4 axle GE rebuild on the ATSF was this prototype rebuild of a U23B.
http://qstation.org/BNSF_B23-7_4245/
http://steveemerson.qstation.org/SF30B/
Sorry, it does look as if some did get rebuilt and uprated to 3,000 HP.
Apparently the GE rebuild cabs are not Crescent Cabs but RLS cabs, according to Chris Toth, but they are similar. One Dash 8.5-40CW has a Crescent Cab, though, so there are two oddballs to look out for.
Also, he reports that three more B32-8s have been retired.
All of the NS 4 axle rebuilds have Admiral Cabs, which somewhat resemble the EMD standard cab. The wide cabs on the rebuilds are Crescent Cabs.
I wonder if NS intends to rebuild and re-cab the Dash 9-40C/Dash 9-44Cs?
NorthWest Yes. It seems there is no shortage of cores ripe for rebuilding even now. In the next few years we'll know what will happen to the B32-8s. Seeing one with an Admiral cab would be an interesting sight!
Yes. It seems there is no shortage of cores ripe for rebuilding even now.
In the next few years we'll know what will happen to the B32-8s. Seeing one with an Admiral cab would be an interesting sight!
Doubt that will happen...has NS rebuilt any 4 axle power with Admiral cabs? A rebuilding program for B32-8's is going to focus on optimizing them for the services they are assigned currently i.e local freights/transfer jobs ect where widecabs are not considered ideal due to their visibility issues when used for switching..
Then again, I gather that the PR43Cs with Admiral cabs are be used on locals but they are heavier 6 axle locomotives and the additional weight of the larger cab probably is not really a problem there..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I don't know when retirements were started, but according to NSDash9.com, the last C39-8 retired in 2008 while the last C39-8E only outlasted it by a year.
Presumably, they would've been good rebuild candidates despite their early, non-standard nature compared to when GE's Dash 8 program really hit the prime time by 1989/1990.
Any electrical issues and such wouldn't of posed a problem, since so much of it would've been replaced anyways. The basic frame, trucks, traction motors, and FDL likely would've been a good platform. And at ~150 units, the engineering expense would've been spread out across a substantially sized fleet.
I agree that the B32-8's future doesn't look promising. But NS's examples date from about 1990 and internally, are comparable to a C40-8 and such, unlike the early Dash 8's from the mid 1980's that are all gone now.
And with them purchasing used GE's and initiating rebuilding programs, maybe they stand a chance despite retirement appearing likely (and what NS is moving towards, having retired one and with several others stored pending it).
At 3,200 HP and with standard cabs, that's in their favor these days unlike a B40-8W, since their day in the sun at the head of mainline freights is in the past.
I presume the later "enhanced" models? I think all the earlier ones with curved cab roof have been off the roster for years. The Great Recession was a different time for locomotives, despite it only being a few years ago.
A lot of the other railroads' B-B Dash-8s have been shortlined or scrapped, so I don't think the long term future looks good, unfortunately.
NS seems to be sticking with EMD yard power.
Just saw some pictures from late last year of retired NS C39-8's heading off to the scrapyard.
In light of Tier 4 and Norfolk Southern buying used GE's and embracing rebuilding its GE fleet, I'm surprised that these standard cab early Dash 8's weren't saved as potential rebuild fodder.
But with retirements happening in 2008/2009, I suppose they missed this opportunity and likely haven't been NS owned for years. Would've been interesting to see this fleet be rebuilt and live on.
I wonder if there's any hope for the 25 year old B32-8's. Other than the example that they donated to a museum, the other 44 are still out there and most are active and not stored.
NorthWest Well, what are they doing with the EMD rebuilds? :)
Well, what are they doing with the EMD rebuilds? :)
I'm not sure, but I assume that several thousand pounds of ballast had to be removed, with several thousand additional pounds of ballast shifted towards the rear to compensate for the added weight at the nose.
An EMD high hood Spartan cab from the 1970's is about 3,500 pounds, where as the Admiral cab is 12,500 pounds. I doubt any internal upgrades, like possibly the addition of an Hotstart APU at the rear, would've came close to compensating for all that additional weight at the nose in something like a GP38-2.
I suspect you are right; since these are above the frame rebuilds it wouldn't be difficult to simply add weight to the frame in the rear.
If NS altered the radiators this would also add weight, but there are no external signs of modifications. I assume that NS converts them to wet radiators, but they don't have the larger split cooling wing of later models.
Any idea what, if anything, NS is doing to their C40-8's being rebuilt in the Dash 8.5 program, to compensate for the increased weight at the nose?
I don't know the weight of Crescent cab or the original GE standard cab that it's replacing, but for an illustration, the standard Admiral cab weighs approximately 3.5 times that of the old EMD Spartan cab that it replaces. The difference with the Dash 8.5 program is likely even greater.
Surely, they must have to be moving a lot of ballast around so that these aren't nose heavy?
No, I didn't. :)
Like I said, there have been numerous experiments. But what I specifically mentioned are those that went past a proposal, one-off experiment, and so on, that I'm aware of. So I didn't specifically mention the SF30B.
As you're clearly aware of, the SF30B stayed one of a kind since the Santa Fe didn't green light the rebuilding program after the test. And no B23-7's, which were then young locomotives (Including the last examples of the model produced), were planned to be cycled through this to the best of my knowledge. The proposal was for the U23B fleet only.
Leo_Ames CSSHEGEWISCH A rebuilding program for GE locomotives?? This may well be a first for NS (or anybody else). Almost all of the rebuilding programs with which I'm familiar involved various EMD locomotives or repowering of minority makes (usually Baldwin and Alco). There haven't been many in North America. Numerous experiments and one offs that didn't extend into a production run like Southern Pacific's two U25BE's and then the four Sulzer repowered experiments, but there have been two fairly successful programs that come to mind. Santa Fe rebuilt 70 U36C's and reclassified them as SF30C's at Santa Fe's Cleburne shops during 1985-1987 and then there's GE's Super 7 program, which as I understand it was successful thanks to Mexican customers although US customers didn't embrace it. Only the Monongahela order that Conrail inherited for 17 B23-7R's was it, I believe, for US orders.
CSSHEGEWISCH A rebuilding program for GE locomotives?? This may well be a first for NS (or anybody else). Almost all of the rebuilding programs with which I'm familiar involved various EMD locomotives or repowering of minority makes (usually Baldwin and Alco).
A rebuilding program for GE locomotives?? This may well be a first for NS (or anybody else). Almost all of the rebuilding programs with which I'm familiar involved various EMD locomotives or repowering of minority makes (usually Baldwin and Alco).
There haven't been many in North America. Numerous experiments and one offs that didn't extend into a production run like Southern Pacific's two U25BE's and then the four Sulzer repowered experiments, but there have been two fairly successful programs that come to mind.
Santa Fe rebuilt 70 U36C's and reclassified them as SF30C's at Santa Fe's Cleburne shops during 1985-1987 and then there's GE's Super 7 program, which as I understand it was successful thanks to Mexican customers although US customers didn't embrace it. Only the Monongahela order that Conrail inherited for 17 B23-7R's was it, I believe, for US orders.
I wonder if they retain their original GMG187 alternator. The Dash-9s have the GMG197.
Of note, the locomotive's 'eyebrow' is shorter than that of the EMD rebuilds. Crews have complained about snow getting caught underneath it. I can't tell whether or not NS replaced the dry radiators with a wet system from this angle. I suspect they probably did. Much of the locomotive behind the cab retains its original appearance, but this is unsurprising. The big upgrades are under the hood.
NSDash9 is reporting that NS has released the first "D8.5-40CW" to active service, numbered 8501.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/NSDash9com/161989688842
Pretty unwiedly model designation. Surprised to not see it be listed as a D8-40CWE, since they like adding an E to the end of other rebuilds. It's a bit simpler while still denoting that it's different from a stock C40-8W.
Anyone know why they aren't uprated to 4,400 HP? In the press, they talked about this upgrade making them similar, and in some ways, better than a stock Dash 9.
I figured as a result, we'd see the FDL in these pushed to Dash 9 performance levels to make it that much closer (NS has changed fuel rack settings on their large C40-9 fleet to output at the full 4,400 in recent years, changing them to C44-9's and C44-9W's).
Traditionally both the EMD and GE FDL routed jacket water returning from the radiator and through the lube oil cooler and split it between the cylinders and the after coolers. That makes the water temp about 160 deg. F which means the charge air to the engine can't be less than 160 degrees. To get cooler charge air you have to have a separate cooling system with its own pump with flow control to limit the lowest temperature. About 20 years ago one of the New England utilities and Massachusetts EPA rigged up one of their EMD MP45"s (20-645-E4)with a separate radiator and a electrically driven water pump (130 GPM) with a bypass control so that they could control the airbox temperature. They found that the lowest temperature they could go to was 120 deg. F before they started to get white smoke in the exhaust. They found that they got 5% more power (there's a watt meter in the control module) and it cut the NOx in half.
With a turbo you divided the compression part of the cycle into two parts so with after cooling between the stages you reduce the amount of work required in the second stage thats done buy the piston while stuffing more air by weight in the cylinder. That's where the extra power comes from. I think the lower NOx is because the combustion starts at a lower temperature.'
DwightBranch What is the logic behind splitting the cooling circuit in order to reduce emissions? My understanding is that the cooling water that runs through the turbo will be isolated from the cooling water that runs through the engine block, does that make the air that runs through the turbo and into the engine intake warmer/cooler, and somehow reduce NO2 emissions?
What is the logic behind splitting the cooling circuit in order to reduce emissions? My understanding is that the cooling water that runs through the turbo will be isolated from the cooling water that runs through the engine block, does that make the air that runs through the turbo and into the engine intake warmer/cooler, and somehow reduce NO2 emissions?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
NorthWest D.CarletonGetting back to the NS Dash 8s, this is a thread about NS Dash 8s, looking at the pictures of the 8500 and 8501 they do not have the aftermarker louvers over the rads that some Dash 8s have received. NS has also split the cooling circuits. Would this account for the louvers being unneeded? I think so. The louvers were part of an upgrade to continuous fluid in the radiators, originally filled only when radiator water was hot. NS rebuilds are closer to the Dash-9 arrangement I suspect.
D.CarletonGetting back to the NS Dash 8s, this is a thread about NS Dash 8s, looking at the pictures of the 8500 and 8501 they do not have the aftermarker louvers over the rads that some Dash 8s have received. NS has also split the cooling circuits. Would this account for the louvers being unneeded?
I think so. The louvers were part of an upgrade to continuous fluid in the radiators, originally filled only when radiator water was hot. NS rebuilds are closer to the Dash-9 arrangement I suspect.
oltmannd Leo_AmesPlus, Norfolk Southern wants more high horsepower AC CC's, not more power with Dash 9 style performance. How, in the world, would you know this? Leo_AmesThat's an awful lot of money just to gain a somewhat longer mean time between failures and that's all they'd be gaining since there's nothing inferior with this pool of power for the assignments they're put on. Or, this?
Leo_AmesPlus, Norfolk Southern wants more high horsepower AC CC's, not more power with Dash 9 style performance.
How, in the world, would you know this?
Leo_AmesThat's an awful lot of money just to gain a somewhat longer mean time between failures and that's all they'd be gaining since there's nothing inferior with this pool of power for the assignments they're put on.
Or, this?
Just look at what Norfolk Southern has ordered recently and what they're still buying. Plus, it's now confirmed that this Dash 9 rebuild program will be six motors. Or look at the types of assignments their current AC fleet is on such as the easy to track heritage lineup. They're as likely to be on a heavy coal train in the mountains as they are at the front of a manifest train.
There's no sign that they want more 4,400 HP DC machines or A1A AC machines. They want six motor AC that will at at home on any road assignment. For less demanding duties, they're relying on the 2nd hand marketplace for medium duty road switchers as necessary that can pinch hit at the head of an intermodal one day and be on the local the next, and are rebuilding and modernizing their own fleet with a variety of programs underway.
As for the rest, the facts are out there. I've been given some internal details there thanks to a friend at Erie, but even in the pages of this publication, the length of time between traction motor failures has been stated numerous times over the years when the advantages of AC have been extolled.
When performance is otherwise similar, the average time between traction motor failures is the main advantage of A1A AC. From what I've seen, I'd have a difficult time picturing NS being able to crunch these numbers in such a way as to justify such a thing when they perform a cost/benefit analysis.
There's nothing wrong with a modern C44-9W. If they go AC, it's because they want benefits like increased adhesion and so on. That means six motors...
GDRMCoSo I told you so to all the people who said they'd be A-1-A then?
I'd say the economics of C-C beat A-1-A. Small extra cost was worth value of flexibility.
The relatively minor cost (Relative to the overall rebuilding) to include two additional inverters and two traction motors will give NS an upgraded locomotive with what is anticipated to be nearly the same tractive effort as a new six motor AC locomotive."
NS is also beefing up their six axle DC fleet as we speak.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Getting back to the NS Dash 8s, this is a thread about NS Dash 8s, looking at the pictures of the 8500 and 8501 they do not have the aftermarker louvers over the rads that some Dash 8s have received. NS has also split the cooling circuits. Would this account for the louvers being unneeded?
Point is many people were thinking A-1-A as it was the thing of the moment, and whilst it is for BNSF NS hasn't bothered buying C4s or expressed a want for C4s, they tested a couple a while back and didn't buy any so why would they rebuild their Dash-9s into them?
As for acting like I've won something? The majority here were saying they'd go A-1-A for cheaper maintenance, the minority like me said C-C for better performance and look who got proven right...
ML
I think that's more because they were rebuilding the entire electrical system to make it more compatible with their modern manifest fleet. While they were at it, they're switching it to AC instead of maintaining their DC nature. I can't fully explain why they're going with AC, but I imagine it wasn't that much more expensive due to the scale of the project and doubt it could be justified if the goal was just to go from DC to A1A AC.
For the post merger C44-9W's and their ES44DC fleet with more modern electricals that blend in just fine with the C4's on the assignments BNSF gives to this pool of power, I'd be surprised to see any converted to A1A AC locomotives. That's an awful lot of money just to gain a somewhat longer mean time between failures and that's all they'd be gaining since there's nothing inferior with this pool of power for the assignments they're put on.
Plus, Norfolk Southern wants more high horsepower AC CC's, not more power with Dash 9 style performance.
Well, except that BNSF had one built so clearly the case made sense to someone.
My point is that your post came off as you acting like you'd "won" something.
We're discussing pros and cons here. There's nothing to win. Those of us that thought A-1-A might make sense aren't sad as if our Football team had just lost a playoff game.
The case for A-1-A was weaker still so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I don't need to "Beat" Anything.
I never said that A1A was for sure what they would do, just that the arguments that they wouldn't were weak.
I'm in the same position on this. I think choosing non-GE components is a possibility, but entails far more risk than simply doing like BNSF and adding the GE inverters and traction motors.
Need to beat something after the A-1-A theory was debunked despite people shouting from the rooftops that would be what NS would do. There's many many many suppliers of traction packages and who knows, NS may have found OS suppliers from say Europe who may have a better package. Wait and see.
YoHo1975I'm not saying they shouldn't look, I'm just pointing out that success in these types of things has not always or even often been the case. And EMD went with Mitsubishi due to cost. They were cheaper than Siemens. Not better.
No, it was an equal or better performer that also allowed EMD to integrate their computer control into their EM2000 package. Siemens wanted full control over their component including their own computer and own software, so EMD cut the cord just like they did with traction motors after the SD60MAC prototypes carried Siemens motors.
But the point is, you keep going on about how it's best for GE's own components to go into GE's. These weren't all GE from day 1 and even GE isn't using the inverter design that they originally went with. What's in the cabinet on an ES44AC is a completely different design from that which the AC4400CW, the AC companion of the C44-9W, carried.
Norfolk Southern isn't bound by the original builder's specifications for these.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.