-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
When NS was starting one of their EMD rebuild programs they put out for bid to suppliers for a replacement package for the 50-series control package. EMD won the bid. Look for the same thing if a Dash 9 program takes hold. It is the fiduciary responsibility of a corporation to allow multiple suppliers to compete for a contract. Yes, GETS is the obvious choice as it is their original product. Even so maybe, just maybe, there is something better out there.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
They know what they're doing. If a GE designed inverter is the best fit, I'm confident that's what they'd go with if this program goes into full production. EMD for instance uses Mitsubishi inverters on the SD70ACe. They didn't do that for the heck of it, they did it because it was a good fit today that was better than the Siemens design that the SD70MAC originally rolled out with.
Never heard anything about 90MAC's specifically having trouble with their PWM inverters (For instance, those that were rebuilt that went to Australia kept their originals), but also remember that compared to today, that was close to the dawn of the production high horsepower AC locomotive era. AC technology has seen a lot of mileage since then and technological progress hasn't stopped since the mid to late 1990's.
If Norfolk Southern sees fit to make any of these test examples a species of more than one or two examples, it's because they like what they see and the result yielded a good locomotive that's more capable than when it originally rolled out of Erie that's good to go for another 15-20 years of service.
It's not the Traction motors that are concerning. It's the Inverters. That would be the single biggest component I'd be worried about. Assuming the Alternator remains the same. The other big concern I would have would be computer systems.
think about this, UP has had some limited success with SD9043MACs despite the fact that they are both NOT SD70MACs nor are they SD70ACes. They are unique beasties with unique Computer systems and unique Inverters/Traction motors.
UP has over 200 of them and the Electricians are well enough versed, but ask a Roseville Electrician about them and you'll get complaints and a joke about how they do their best to send them up to Oregon and the Blue Mountains so they're Hinkle's problem. And Hinkle does the same. And that's on an engine that IS an EMD and thus should have some commonality and a lot of knowledgable support staff.
I'm not questioning the abilities of Roanoke or Altoona. Just as nobody questioned ATSF Cleburne etc. Or IC Paducah. But I don't think it would be right to say the odds of success are high at this point. That's the point of building some. And the odds of success are significantly lower than simply using the GE components They would literally have to be.
YoHo1975I'm sure SP though the Sulzer Engines the U25 rebuilds would last a long time and every single railroad that ever contracted out to have a locomotive rebuilt with a Cat Engine thought it as well. And yet with very few very modern exceptions, all of them did not last a very long time at all. Those "modern exceptions being PR30s, PR43Cs and GP20D/GP15Ds. All of which are relatively young and haven't proven much of anything yet. Which just goes to show that yes they will spend large sums of money on experiments that might not work out, but also, that there's a long history of such experiments not working out.
We're not talking about introducing a new model engine here, we're talking about lower risk items like traction motors, quite possibly GE sourced if a full production program is okayed after testing and evaluation.
Norfolk Southern's motive power department isn't incompetent. They know what they're doing and furthermore have conducted a series of successful and ambitious rebuild programs in recent years. They're well positioned to accomplish this and the chances of failure are reasonably low.
Likely if this program isn't given the green light, it won't be because the performance and reliability isn't there. Rather, it will be because the rebuilding cost ended up higher than their projections or a change of thinking in their motive power department led them to switching course.
CSSHEGEWISCHAnother factor that often comes into play with a small batch of rebuilds is the lack of proper maintenance due to their oddball status.
One thing going for them if they go with non GE products here is their small GE AC fleet (Less than 200 examples, the last I checked). Unlike somewhere like CSX where that commonality could very well push GE over the top even if statistically, it appears another firm's package might be slightly superior, NS hasn't been buying GE AC's for very long.
But of course with run through power, contract jobs at shops like Altoona, and so on, they're no stranger to GE's modern AC power. But a non GE sourced AC transmission system in a GE product isn't going to be nearly the oddball here as it would be elsewhere on a line like Canadian Pacific or CSX.
And if they're serious about this and start pushing hundreds of examples out of the backshop, they soon won't be oddballs. Just 50% of the fleet over say 6 or 7 years is going to be something like ~600 examples. And in the unlikely chance they go through their full roster of Dash 9's over the next 10 years or so, it will be one of the largest AC fleets in the land.
An inverter isn't a component that has to be switched out very often. Going with a non GE product, if it performs well, isn't going to be an issue.
All very true. But if there is one group of shop-force people that can keep oddball locomotives productive for a long period, it certainly is or would be Roanoke's.
Another factor that often comes into play with a small batch of rebuilds is the lack of proper maintenance due to their oddball status. Any railroad with mostly EMD and GE products is going to have a shop force that is well-trained in the proper care and maintenance of those products. When you add four or five locomotives with a non-standard (to the shop force) Caterpillar engine to the mix, you can see that upkeep will suffer since almost nobody will have any proficiency in the proper care and maintenance of those locomotives.
YoHo1975 Well, GE bought the rights to the 645F block. So they are actually the larger producer of those particular parts.
Well, GE bought the rights to the 645F block. So they are actually the larger producer of those particular parts.
No, they (Actually, Morrison Knudsen back when converting SD45's to SD40-2's started to take off) designed and built an improved replacement that didn't infringe upon any of EMD's patents yet accepted EMD parts when EMD started to refuse to sell their own to them to protect their own business. GE owns that design now for MK's 645 clone.
Here's an excellent overview of the situation.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=51148#p51148
YoHo1975But that's not my point. AC drive components are products one usually doesn't just choose out of hand. I mean, you cannot assume that a Dash9 with AC components from some 3rd party would have anything like the performance and quality of an AC4400.
If Norfolk Southern has narrowed it down to three suppliers and is going as far as to build test locomotives to test and compare with, it's safe to assume a certain level of quality.
They're not going to be spending money that likely will amount to several hundred thousand dollars per example on junk. These should all be very capable machines with the final analysis choosing a winner likely a close one. And with over 20 years of progress, all three quite possibly will outperform a stock AC4400CW's AC transmission and definitely will be competitive.
Wagering a guess here, these will likely fall somewhere between the performance of an AC4400CW and a ES44AC if we were privy to that data or if a NS motive power official were to publicly compare and contrast these for something like a Trains story about the program.
There's nothing odd going on here. Going with 3rd party products during upgrade programs happens all the time. But I suspect that GE is involved here as one of the three and will no doubt be a strong contender and likely the favorite to win it.
So I told you so to all the people who said they'd be A-1-A then?
ML
But that's not my point. AC drive components are products one usually doesn't just choose out of hand. I mean, you cannot assume that a Dash9 with AC components from some 3rd party would have anything like the performance and quality of an AC4400.
Unless they buy them from Siemens or Kawasaki in which case it would be like an EMD/GE hybrid.
Basically, NS is doing another experiment along the lines of the Prime mover replacements of old. except it's the Transmission instead of the prime mover being experimented with.
$$$$$$$$$$$
Not at all uncommon for a major rebuilding project to not involve the original builder. It's all going to be up to who offers the best combination of cost, performance, support, etc. It's how GE has gotten involved in a lot of EMD rebuildings over the years, for an example of how it has worked in their favor in the past.
That one went so far that I believe GE has produced a lot of EMD replacement components including engine blocks over the years due to their success in that area.
I still don't understand why they would go with any other supplier than GE...unless GE is just too expensive. Or is disinclined due to wanting to sell T4 units.
But then, GE supplied the parts for BNSF's rebuild so...
The new issue of Trains confirms that if Norfolk Southern greenlights a program to convert Dash 9's to AC machines, it will be 6 motors. Here's the relevant excerpt from this month's Locomotive column.
"While NS previously tested GE's ES44C4s, the NS Dash 9 to AC program will convert the locomotives with six traction motors underneath. If NS pursued the C4 approach, locomotive performance would remain the same since the ES44C4 was designed to replace the ES44DC. 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."
So as I said, no signs that Norfolk Southern is going to be leaving behind the 6 motor AC concept anytime soon for heavy haul assignments. They want to take this huge investment they made from just a few years ago and rebuild it to better fit into NS's new locomotive philosophy.
Other relevant data to the program as a whole is that they're over a year into the planning process, have identified three potential suppliers, and kits should be on the way soon to construct test locomotives to allow them to evaluate each package.
Also interestingly, it throws some possible light on why BNSF is evaluating converting C44-9W's into A1A AC machines of comparable performance to what was already there. Apparently, the 100 Santa Fe C44-9W's from before the merger have pneumatic 30-CDW air brakes and standard gauges, preventing them from "easily receiving upgrades such as distributed power and train management software".
This upgrade program allows them to better blend into the line's massive fleet of more modern C44-9W's, ES44DC's, and ES44C4's on assignments like manifest trains, leaving some question that this A1A AC conversion program will extend past just this small subsection of the C44-9W fleet that has different specifications than the rest.
They very well may believe that an A1A AC rebuild for the rest of their C44-9W's with more modern electronics may not be justified.
In that case, there is no truck swapping. Norfolk Southern's Dash 8.5's retain their original trucks.
Leo_Ames Why would BNSF put Hi-Ad trucks under their Dash 8's to replace their floating bolster trucks for? If BNSF starts a full fledged rebuild program here and these Dash 9 trucks can be reused on future ES44AC orders, that's what I'd expect them to do with them. I'm skeptical that there's enough advantage there with the newer truck design to make it worthwhile to adapt their older Dash 8's to use them if there's a lot of work involved as you said. Plus, BNSF has let a lot of Dash 8's go already, haven't they? I think they've even sold some rather than just letting go lease expired units that they didn't want to renew.
Why would BNSF put Hi-Ad trucks under their Dash 8's to replace their floating bolster trucks for?
If BNSF starts a full fledged rebuild program here and these Dash 9 trucks can be reused on future ES44AC orders, that's what I'd expect them to do with them.
I'm skeptical that there's enough advantage there with the newer truck design to make it worthwhile to adapt their older Dash 8's to use them if there's a lot of work involved as you said. Plus, BNSF has let a lot of Dash 8's go already, haven't they? I think they've even sold some rather than just letting go lease expired units that they didn't want to renew.
NorthWest Leo_AmesAs far as I know, BNSF usually doesn't order the radial truck option on their new ES44AC's. So could they be reused on new CC's? Didn't think of this, but I suspect you are right. The trucks should be able to accept AC traction motors, GE standardized as much as possible.
Leo_AmesAs far as I know, BNSF usually doesn't order the radial truck option on their new ES44AC's. So could they be reused on new CC's?
Didn't think of this, but I suspect you are right. The trucks should be able to accept AC traction motors, GE standardized as much as possible.
As far as I know, BNSF usually doesn't order the radial truck option on their new ES44AC's. So could they be reused on new CC's?
Or would they not be adaptable to AC traction motors?
D.CarletonMy question: Did they modify the rollerblade trucks for A1A or are those new castings? If they are new then what happens to the old trucks?
The BNSF conversion has new trucks, as the old trucks lack the slot for the pneumatic weight distribution system. I suspect the old trucks were set aside as spares, (as only one has been converted,) if we see a large number converted, they will likely be scrapped.
carnej1 YoHo1975Interesting that there isn't a lot of detail on what exactly the engine in these will be upgraded to. Only that it will be upgraded. I assume not some form of GEVO package. Sounds like NS is doing something to the FDL. I am under the impression that the NS program will involve rebuilding and upgrading the FDL-16 engines that are in the units currently. I note that BNSF's experimental C44-9W to AC44 re-manufacturing pilot program involved re-manufacturing the FDL engine. I strongly suspect that in both cases this is because the prime movers in all of the targeted locomotives are "grandfathered" under the coming Tier IV emissions regs and thus can be rebuilt for less $ than a new Tier IV GEVO engine...
YoHo1975Interesting that there isn't a lot of detail on what exactly the engine in these will be upgraded to. Only that it will be upgraded. I assume not some form of GEVO package. Sounds like NS is doing something to the FDL.
I am under the impression that the NS program will involve rebuilding and upgrading the FDL-16 engines that are in the units currently. I note that BNSF's experimental C44-9W to AC44 re-manufacturing pilot program involved re-manufacturing the FDL engine.
I strongly suspect that in both cases this is because the prime movers in all of the targeted locomotives are "grandfathered" under the coming Tier IV emissions regs and thus can be rebuilt for less $ than a new Tier IV GEVO engine...
My question: Did they modify the rollerblade trucks for A1A or are those new castings? If they are new then what happens to the old trucks?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Was in Roanoke today, I guess they're gonna be numbered 8500+ and I noticed one was painted in Blacks ans the cab.
blue streak 1 If NS has been considering an AC conversion BNSF sure snaked them. Maybe BNSF found out some way NS' possible plans ?
If NS has been considering an AC conversion BNSF sure snaked them. Maybe BNSF found out some way NS' possible plans ?
Huh? They're not competing on this so nobody "snaked" anybody......
The Big Class 1 railroads do a fair amount of cooperating on technical development issues so I wouldn't be surprised if BNSF shares some data from their program with NS,even including loaning a converted unit for testing..
GDRMCo BNSF has a hard on for the C4 concept, something that NS does not so I don't see how what BNSF is doing would influence what NS may do other than we know (outside the bogies) what the Dash-9AC looks like.
BNSF has a hard on for the C4 concept, something that NS does not so I don't see how what BNSF is doing would influence what NS may do other than we know (outside the bogies) what the Dash-9AC looks like.
Correct. It wouldn't influence it. What would influence it is application. Where BNSF uses these locos has very similar requirements to the intermodal/merchandise requirments on NS so they'd be a good fit.
LYON_WONDER WROTE THE FOLLOWING POST AT THU, JUL 3 2014 10:37 PM:
BNSF 616, a 20 year old former ATSF C44-9W, has been rebuilt into a A-1-A AC4400CW.
They're 20 years old now??
Maybe it's not the engine that's getting old......
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.