Trains.com

Norfolk Southern is going to start a rebuilding program for their Dash 8's and Dash 9's

64483 views
295 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • 965 posts
Posted by Lyon_Wonder on Thursday, July 3, 2014 10:37 PM

BNSF 616, a 20 year old former ATSF C44-9W, has been rebuilt into a A-1-A AC4400CW.

This former C44-9W now has a AC4400CW-style inverter box too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJQdLwnphx0

If BNSF rebuilds it's oldest Dash 9s into AC4400CWs, than NS is probably considering to convert some of their DC Dash 9's to AC too.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:08 PM

If NS has been considering an AC conversion BNSF sure snaked them.  Maybe BNSF found out some way NS' possible plans ?

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:37 PM

Yes, but I've been quick to dismiss any thoughts that Norfolk Southern would do something similar in this thread. Yet BNSF has done just such a conversion, so I could very well end up being proven wrong. 

So it only seemed fair to update the thread and acknowledge that (Although my money is still on them being six motored units if they green light such a rebuild program). 

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:31 PM

A thread was started on the General Discussion side.

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/230784.aspx

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, July 3, 2014 3:58 PM

I don't quite understand it, but the newswire is reporting that BNSF has received a rebuilt C44-9W with AC traction motors and C4 style A1A trucks.

I still believe that what NS is considering involves six traction motors, but this certainly leaves me a bit more open to that possibility. 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:23 PM

On the subject of cost they'd possibly save on less inverters and traction motors (in a system that would only have 2 less traction motors and inverters, the rest of the electronics and wiring bar what's needed for the missing bits would be there) but they'd either need to modify or get new bogies to get the axle lifting feature of the C4s for adhesion and also to add in extra weight. They're better off with a 412k lbs AC C-C unit than a 424k lbs A-1-A AC unit that wouldn't be much good on anything but high hpt trains.

ML

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:29 PM

EMD seemed very optimistic with the 710 and upgrading it for Tier 4. Sounded like a much easier task than what GE was facing. 

Between that and the damaged reputation in North America of the H engine, I kind of doubt it. GE managed to resurrect the HDL in heavily upgraded form as the GEVO, but GE was in a far stronger market position and the opinion of the HDL wasn't nearly as poor as that of the H engine (and GE spent many millions in supporting Union Pacific and CSX to make them happy with their AC6000CW's). So it wasn't nearly the uphill battle EMD would face.

If they're resurrecting the H engine for 2015, they're in deep trouble since such a radical change requires a ton of testing to successfully pull off and unless they're managing one of the best kept secrets in railroading, there's no evidence of such a program being underway. And what China was buying was little changed from what went into SD90MAC's.

oltmannd

Leo_Ames
I don't know what your sources are so

Would you be satisfied if my sources were in locomotive control group at NS?

Leo_Ames
It's not like they've found the failure rates on their late model DC purchases to be so awful that they'd spend many millions on a program to convert them into A1A AC machines.

You have a source for this?  There are no "acceptable" and "unacceptable" failure rates.  Just rates that are better and worse.  SD40-2s were "acceptable" locomotives - still are, yet they were replaced by SD70MACs on BN coal trains.  It all boils down to economics.  Inverters and motors are not free.

Because I've seen official data on this and find it hard to believe that NS would spend a fortune just to get a mean time between failures a few weeks longer in length. With the scale of what we're talking about, it will definitely be done for performance reasons. They're not going to spend a fortune rebuilding perfectly good locomotives into A1A AC machines with C44-9W style performance levels. 

Performance reasons are why AC's took over the Powder River Basin coal trains and such. They offered unit reduction over SD40-2's and C30-7's due to greater horsepower and the adhesion benefits of AC, lower fuel cost, etc.

In every way, they were far more efficient and offered a significant savings for Burlington Northern and then BNSF when they got rid of the last DC power when they moved the SD60's out. But your idea of rebuilding C44-9W's into A1A AC machines only benefit is a few days longer average between traction motor failures.

The cost/benefit analysis seems extremely unlikely to ever work out to justify such a thing. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:13 PM

I think that how the new Tier 4 compliant locomotives pan out will likely determine whether or not the Dash-9s are upgraded to AC. The earliest locomotives will be 20 years old soon. Rumours that I am hearing say that an updated SD89MAC with an upgraded 265H engine will be EMD's Tier 4 locomotive. Obviously it won't be called a SD89MAC.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:06 PM

YoHo1975

Why would we assume they are doing anything other than taking GE's AC/ES44 Inverters and adding them one per axle. 

I know NS likes to home grow stuff, but I would be shocked if they went to a third party. Who would they go to with competency? Seimens or ?(who did EMD switch to?) 

And if they didn't go inverter per axle, then they can't make any assumptions about how these locos would perform.

If they wanted an inverter produced by someone other than GE, then Siemens, Alstom, Bombardier, ABB, Mitsubishi(EMD's current supplier), Samsung, or Hitachi, are all possibilities.
  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:53 PM
The adhesion-control software that enables the tractive effort of an ES44C4 to match or exceed the tractive effort of a six-motor DC-traction unit operates at the inverter level and requires one inverter for each of the four powered axles.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:40 PM

YoHo1975

Remember, it's not just the traction motors, but the inverters they have to pay for. So there's some significant cost savings in sticking with 4 versus 6. We will have to wait and see. I would assume nothing at this point.

+1

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:38 PM

Leo_Ames
I don't know what your sources are so

Would you be satisfied if my sources were in locomotive control group at NS?

Leo_Ames
It's not like they've found the failure rates on their late model DC purchases to be so awful that they'd spend many millions on a program to convert them into A1A AC machines.

You have a source for this?  There are no "acceptable" and "unacceptable" failure rates.  Just rates that are better and worse.  SD40-2s were "acceptable" locomotives - still are, yet they were replaced by SD70MACs on BN coal trains.  It all boils down to economics.  Inverters and motors are not free.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:34 PM

GDRMCo
NS no doubt wouldn't segregate the fleet,

It is segregated now...

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:17 PM

blue streak 1

YoHo1975

Remember, it's not just the traction motors, but the inverters they have to pay for. So there's some significant cost savings in sticking with 4 versus 6. We will have to wait and see. I would assume nothing at this point.

 
Inverter costs depend on a lot of items.  Will NS use just 1 inverter per loco ?  If so then one  would  be able to power all 4 or 6 axels of 5000 HP inverter. If one inverter for each truck as EMD's earlier ACs that would be a ~ 2500 HP inverter ? If inverter set up like GE then either 4 or 6 inverters.  Then either ~ 1500 HP inverters 6 axels  or ~ 2500 HP inverters for 4 axels.  
Since we do not know what rating the inverters on the market have these figures are just approximate.
Then there may be an additional inverter for auxiliaries ?
In conclusion cost saving differences for 4 or 6 may not be much.
 

Why would we assume they are doing anything other than taking GE's AC/ES44 Inverters and adding them one per axle. 

I know NS likes to home grow stuff, but I would be shocked if they went to a third party. Who would they go to with competency? Seimens or ?(who did EMD switch to?) 

And if they didn't go inverter per axle, then they can't make any assumptions about how these locos would perform.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:16 PM

One additional thought.  As we understand the ES44C4s are designed to allow conversion to a 6 axel motored loco.  That could mean space for 2 additional inverters and maybe associated wiring ? 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:09 PM

YoHo1975

Remember, it's not just the traction motors, but the inverters they have to pay for. So there's some significant cost savings in sticking with 4 versus 6. We will have to wait and see. I would assume nothing at this point.

 
Inverter costs depend on a lot of items.  Will NS use just 1 inverter per loco ?  If so then one  would  be able to power all 4 or 6 axels of 5000 HP inverter. If one inverter for each truck as EMD's earlier ACs that would be a ~ 2500 HP inverter ? If inverter set up like GE then either 4 or 6 inverters.  Then either ~ 1500 HP inverters 6 axels  or ~ 2500 HP inverters for 4 axels.  
Since we do not know what rating the inverters on the market have these figures are just approximate.
Then there may be an additional inverter for auxiliaries ?
In conclusion cost saving differences for 4 or 6 may not be much.
 
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:31 AM

Remember, it's not just the traction motors, but the inverters they have to pay for. So there's some significant cost savings in sticking with 4 versus 6. We will have to wait and see. I would assume nothing at this point.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:32 AM

NS no doubt wouldn't segregate the fleet, thus it's more likely than not they'll go to C-C AC rather than A-1-A.

ML

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:34 PM

oltmannd

Leo_Ames
Interestingly, they're also considering converting Dash 9's from DC to AC.

I did some nosing around.  They are still looking at it.  Four and six motor options are being considered.

I don't know what your sources are so I can't say anything one way or another. But that said, there's still no clear justification for going A1A as I see it. It's not like they've found the failure rates on their late model DC purchases to be so awful that they'd spend many millions on a program to convert them into A1A AC machines.

The performance levels of a ES44DC is very comparable with a ES44C4, 

That's the last I'll say on the matter. I promise you I'll eat crow if it happens, but until I see some clear logic for what would be a very expensive program, I'm extremely confident that what they're evaluating deals with converting 6 motor DC power to 6 motor AC power. 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:58 PM

JayPotter
YoHo1975 asked about the need to add weight if a six-motor DC-traction unit were being rebuilt into a four-motor AC-traction unit. The ES44C4 is basically a derivation of the high-tractive-effort ES44AC that GE developed for CSXT. If you take the 432,000-pound nominal weight of the "heavy" ES44AC and subtract the weight of two traction motors and two axle gears, you have the 416,000-pound nominal weight of the ES44C4. So if what amounts to an ES44C4 were built from a standard-weight six-motor unit, it would not have enough adhesive weight to produce the expected amounts of tractive effort unless weight were added to compensate for the loss of the traction motor and axle gear weight.

Apparently, the C4s NS borrowed from BNSF tested out at roughly 100,000# TE max (about the same as Conrail SD60).  That works out to about 36% adhesion.  if you added in the "missing" weight (a good chunk of which could go between the frame rails on the front and rear end of the loco), you'd get another 4,000# TE.

I'll say it again.  A 4400 HP, 100,000# TE locomotive is a pretty good universal merchandise and intermodal locomotive for NS.   There are very few circumstances where you'd ever need a locomotive on these trains to put out more than 100,000# TE to get you over the ruling grade.  If you stuck two more motors on there you're just adding complexity and cost and getting no benefit.

The only way you'd need the extra two motors is in unit train service.

So question becomes "are you going to have a segregated fleet or not?"   Up until NS bought any AC locomotives, the answer was "no" to segregated fleet.  But, now that question is open again.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:34 PM

Leo_Ames
Interestingly, they're also considering converting Dash 9's from DC to AC.

I did some nosing around.  They are still looking at it.  Four and six motor options are being considered.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by GDRMCo on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:22 AM

So they'd be better off simply rebuilding like for like, 6-motor DC to 6-motor AC. When you think about how many Dash-9s they actually have they could just not rebuild some and save money that way, but with the way NS is doing these rebuilds (new cabs, engines, electricals, in house designed cooling systems, etc) there doesn't seem to be a focus on saving money but rather getting the best and longest lasting bang for the buck.

ML

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:07 AM
YoHo1975 asked about the need to add weight if a six-motor DC-traction unit were being rebuilt into a four-motor AC-traction unit. The ES44C4 is basically a derivation of the high-tractive-effort ES44AC that GE developed for CSXT. If you take the 432,000-pound nominal weight of the "heavy" ES44AC and subtract the weight of two traction motors and two axle gears, you have the 416,000-pound nominal weight of the ES44C4. So if what amounts to an ES44C4 were built from a standard-weight six-motor unit, it would not have enough adhesive weight to produce the expected amounts of tractive effort unless weight were added to compensate for the loss of the traction motor and axle gear weight.
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:48 PM

oltmannd

Leo_Ames
We're back to what's proof positive for why this isn't going to happen. They're not going to spend thousands on perfectly good power just to rebuild them into A1A's with AC traction motors with performance essentially where it was at before the rebuild.

They will if reduced maintenance and improved reliability pay for the capital investment.

The cost to rebuild these can buy a lot of DC traction motors. I'm certain that there's no chance that they're going to be converting these into A1A's. 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:07 PM

caldreamer

The helpers over the Sierras could be detached in the little yard at Truckee,  just over the summit or more likely they run down to Sparks, NV, where the SP would add and remove helpers.  Sparks is about nine milles east of Reno.  From Norden at the summit of the Sierras to Sparks is about 50 miles.

      Ira

I know all this.

You are thinking too 20th century. They don't pull anything off at Sparks or Truckee. I'm pretty sure it runs through to Salt Lake City. I THINK that they do this, because they can then turn around a put them on trains heading up to Oregon and over the Blue Mountains and then they can also run between Portland and Roseville again to help trains over the Cascades. I don't know how they're used outside of that little triangle, but I'm pretty sure that's the terminus. I just didn't specify, because I couldn't be sure.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:55 PM

The helpers over the Sierras could be detached in the little yard at Truckee,  just over the summit or more likely they run down to Sparks, NV, where the SP would add and remove helpers.  Sparks is about nine milles east of Reno.  From Norden at the summit of the Sierras to Sparks is about 50 miles.

      Ira

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:32 PM

daveklepper

But they don't use high horsepower diesels exclusively on main lines.

NS purchased their AC locomotives for unit train service - notably Poky coal.  Dash 9s are a good fit for NS's mainlines (and primary branches) outside of unit train service.  

NS tries to fill it's secondary assignments with older power such as SD40-2s

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:29 PM

YoHo1975
Thinking about this more, one reason they may not go with 4 motor upgrades is it would also require new bogies. The A-1-A bogie has that lifter on the Idler axle. A straight 6 motor conversion does not.

You don't have to add the lifter.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:40 PM

Thinking about this more, one reason they may not go with 4 motor upgrades is it would also require new bogies. The A-1-A bogie has that lifter on the Idler axle. A straight 6 motor conversion does not.

Someone mentioned adding weight, but I don't know why they'd need to do that. 

I don't know how NS dispatches their AC versus DC fleet now. I assume given the relatively low quantities of AC that it kind of doesn't matter. The question is how do they want to do it.

UP does power everything like a Drag (sort of) but they also set out certain units to certain tasks. Generally, at Roseville for Example, SD70Ms are added on as "helper" power to get over the Sierras and are taken off somewhere easy while the rest of the consist stays with. Most C44s and C45s and ACes are general service, but there's one set (can't remember the number series that is in captive service only on certain trains. Not every C44 has the CTE upgrades etc. And until recently with their power shortages, you simply did not see Dash 9s come through Roseville anymore. Though now I do. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:54 AM

But they don't use high horsepower diesels exclusively on main lines.

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