NSDash9 is reporting the start of SD70 DC to AC rebuilds.
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fnsdash9%2Fposts%2F10154526266723843%3A0&w
Since we don't have a dedicated SD60E thread and it has been regularly discussed in here, I was wondering if anyone had any insight on why no former standard cab Conrail units have been included so far?
Just original NS and former C&NW/UP units have been rebuilt, while the surviving 15 CR SD60's have yet to have a member included. With 132 SD60E's done and barely 60 unrebuilt examples left on the roster, it seems unlikely that it would just be a coincidence that not even one of these 15 have been selected so far.
And how'd the first SD60 ever built, which went to Norfolk Southern at the split of Conrail, escape and end up at CSX while the remaining CR fleet remains intact to this day at NS?
Expiration of a 15 year lease back in 2000 on this ex-demo unit that NS didn't buy out or renew, perhaps?
kgbw49One more question - have the Canadian Pacific SD9043MAC units been scrapped, or are they rusting to the rail on a siding up in Canada? Didn't they get set aside after only a dozen or so years of use? Thanks!
I think they largely have not moved since the recession began, except for a few in 2012 or so. They apparently weren't in great condition even when they entered storage.
Leo_Ames If that's what happens, evidently, they agree. If equivalent performance is what they're after, the marine versions put out 4300 hp at a reduced rpm speed (900 versus 950, as I recall). So they can up fuel economy if they don't want the extra horsepower that's possible, and by reducing engine stress with the lower speed, lessen the added maintenance expense of those extra 4 cylinders.
If that's what happens, evidently, they agree.
If equivalent performance is what they're after, the marine versions put out 4300 hp at a reduced rpm speed (900 versus 950, as I recall). So they can up fuel economy if they don't want the extra horsepower that's possible, and by reducing engine stress with the lower speed, lessen the added maintenance expense of those extra 4 cylinders.
I don't think we are comparing similar ratings between marine and locomotive 16-710 engines here.
Marine ratings would normally be quoted as brake horsepower while locomotive ratings are given as net input to the alternator less accessories such as the brake air compressor and cooling fans (items absent in most ships).
The 950rpm 16-710 is generally quoted as 4500 brake hp, so dededucting 200 hp from the marine rating gives 4100 hp, about the same as the railroad rating for a 900 rpm 16-710.
However, the Indian Railways have a 950 rpm 20-710 rated at 5500 brake hp, maybe 5200 hp at the alternator....
My comments above related to the long term future of the SD80MACs. Presumably they will need new inverters in time, just like the ex UP units, and they might get new (and presumably stronger) cabs. There would be no reason to replace the 20-710s if they are giving no problems.
In the back of my mind is a view I had of the engine rebuild bay at La Grange in 1977, where nearly every engine in for work was a 20 cylinder unit. Given how few 20-645s were built compared to all the 16-567s and 16-645s, there was a problem then, which might have been fixed in he 20-710. But I'll wait and see.
M636C
One more question - have the Canadian Pacific SD9043MAC units been scrapped, or are they rusting to the rail on a siding up in Canada? Didn't they get set aside after only a dozen or so years of use? Thanks!
You are correct that we the additional 10 were noted in this thread previously. I think they are at 110 SD9043MACs.
I apologize for not being clearer with my question - it was referring to perhaps more than the current 110. My bad on that.
Of course, we know UP has another 200 units and there are others out there. One would think that a 710 unit would be more fuel efficient than some of the other older units in the NS fleet.
I was just posing the question for discussion to see what others think after a year or so of this program.
Thanks!
I thought we had mentioned this somewhere, but NS traded MP15s to CEFX for 10 more SD90MACs for the program.
http://www.nsdash9.com/rosters/7230.html#CITSD90
Presumably they could go in search of CP's if they wanted to...
I really would not be surprised either way NS goes with the SD80MACs as there are trade offs both ways.
If it turns out that NS likes the results of the SD70ACu program, will they look to acquire other SD9043MAC units for conversion rather than downrate the SD80MAC units? One would think it would be a good way to continue the reliable 710 fleet without the risk of the still-unproven-for-the-long-term Tier 4 motors.
Back when NS horse traded for the remaining SD80MACs one of them, 7222, came with a broken crankshaft. NS chose to rebuild her with a rebuilt 20-710G3B-EC. It does seem NS is committed to keeping the larger engine.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
And there's already an awful lot of parts commonality here between the 16 cylinder and 20 cylinder engines. So I'm surprised that what they'd be gaining by replacing what has appeared to be a reliable and efficient engine, is worth the investment in acquiring new engines from EMD. So I can't help but be a bit skeptical of what they reported.
Especially since as best as I can tell, it hasn't been reported at the usual reliable sources for NS locomotive news like NSDash9 and AltoonaWorks.
Leo_Ames The latest issue of Trains says that the SD80MAC's will be repowered with 16-710's when rebuilt, presumably becoming SD70ACU equivalents. Can anyone confirm? I thought that the tentative plan was for them to retain their original engines.
The latest issue of Trains says that the SD80MAC's will be repowered with 16-710's when rebuilt, presumably becoming SD70ACU equivalents.
Can anyone confirm? I thought that the tentative plan was for them to retain their original engines.
While I can't confirm anything, the possibility was raised on page 8 of this thread as a possibility.
If NS will have 100 units with 16 cylinder engines, upgrading 28 more to match seems like a good idea.
M636CNot Wrong Narelle....
Bloody right I'm off again, Craig...
CPM500 How about resiliently mounted engine, alternator start, cooling fan control scheme...and a whole bunch of other electrical features ? CPM500
How about resiliently mounted engine, alternator start, cooling fan control scheme...and a whole bunch of other electrical features ?
CPM500
How about fabricted trucks with passive steering compared to cast rigid trucks, three radiator fans sucking air through the radiators, causing less erosion damage than two fans (ET44) or one fan (ES44) blowing air through the radiator cores.
Twelve cylinder 45 degree vee engines are inherently less well balanced than sixteen cylinder engines of the same arrangement, so resilient mounting is making the best of an inferior situation.
EMD had electrically driven fans for aound twenty five years before GE adopted them. They were operated by thermostats and the speed was directly related to the engine speed. I imagine that both companies use more sophisticated controls now they are cheap and available.
But I'd argue that the SD70 ACe has more features in common with the ET44 than the ES44 and this is due to ever stricter regulation.
The ES44 was undoubtedly the best Tier 2 and Tier 3 locomotive but that time has gone and there won't be any more built for use in the USA. The ET44 looks superficially similar and shares some electrical features but mechanically is virtually a new design.
M636CApart from the inverter per axle feature, not really.... The really big feature of the ES44 was air to air intercooling. This isn't on the SD70ACe-T4 (and isn't on the ET44 either, at least not in the same form). You could say that the ES44 had a 12 cylinder four stroke engine, and the new EMD has one. But the ET44 has a quite different engine to meet tier 4 compared to that in the ES44. Many of the features that are different between the Tier 3 and Tier 4 GE engines are featured in the EMD engine but these are required by Tier 4. I'm told that the front cab windows of the SD70 ACe were interchangeable with those in the ES44 but those in the SD70 ACe-T4 definitely are not. As I've said before, the changes between the ES44 and ET44 are nearly as great as those between the T3 and T4 SD70ACe units. Not only are the engines not interchangeable between ES44 and ET44, but relatively few engine components are interchangeable. M636C
The really big feature of the ES44 was air to air intercooling. This isn't on the SD70ACe-T4 (and isn't on the ET44 either, at least not in the same form).
You could say that the ES44 had a 12 cylinder four stroke engine, and the new EMD has one. But the ET44 has a quite different engine to meet tier 4 compared to that in the ES44. Many of the features that are different between the Tier 3 and Tier 4 GE engines are featured in the EMD engine but these are required by Tier 4.
I'm told that the front cab windows of the SD70 ACe were interchangeable with those in the ES44 but those in the SD70 ACe-T4 definitely are not.
As I've said before, the changes between the ES44 and ET44 are nearly as great as those between the T3 and T4 SD70ACe units. Not only are the engines not interchangeable between ES44 and ET44, but relatively few engine components are interchangeable.
CPM500 Many of the 'new' design features in the ACe-T4 have been present in the ES44 for years. CPM500
Many of the 'new' design features in the ACe-T4 have been present in the ES44 for years.
Apart from the inverter per axle feature, not really....
beaulieu EMDX 1603 and 1604 do have IAC, but with only 4 powered axles they only need 4 Inverters.
EMDX 1603 and 1604 do have IAC, but with only 4 powered axles they only need 4 Inverters.
GDRMCoThe T4 ACe was designed from the outset with one inverter per axle to combat GE directly. I don't think any T4 ACe will have one per truck unless a RR wants a cheaper locomotive (guess that'll be BNSF then...).
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/09/08-emd-p4-tier-4-demos-set-to-begin-testing
Not Wrong Narelle....
(an old local joke!)
ML
kgbw49 Guys, I am not sure this is the same thing you are referring to, but at the Progress Rail web site it lists individual axle control as a feature of the SD70ACeT4. I am not sure if that means one inverter per axle or not, though. http://www.progressrail.com/en/products/locomotives/freight/sd70acet4.html
Guys, I am not sure this is the same thing you are referring to, but at the Progress Rail web site it lists individual axle control as a feature of the SD70ACeT4. I am not sure if that means one inverter per axle or not, though.
http://www.progressrail.com/en/products/locomotives/freight/sd70acet4.html
The T4 was designed with IAC-one inverter per axle. The original SD70ACe design had one inverter per truck.
When EMD and Siemens were doing the development on what became the MAC locomotives, both arrangements were tested. The mule for IAC was a retired AMTK SDP40F.
CPM500 The CSX order of 70ACe's had issues with undesired harmonics in the engine geartrain. There was much 'fingerpointing' on the subject between CSX and EMD. I on't know if the issue was ever resolved to the customers' satisfaction. Another issue with the ACe's was the lack of IAC-a la' GE. Accordingly, EMD built some demos with IAC...which resulted in zero orders. The ground relay story sounds like utter nonsense... CPM500
The CSX order of 70ACe's had issues with undesired harmonics in the engine geartrain.
There was much 'fingerpointing' on the subject between CSX and EMD. I on't know if the issue was ever resolved to the customers' satisfaction.
Another issue with the ACe's was the lack of IAC-a la' GE. Accordingly, EMD built some demos with IAC...which resulted in zero orders.
The ground relay story sounds like utter nonsense...
D.Carleton The CSX order of 70ACe's had issues with undesired harmonics in the engine geartrain. There was much 'fingerpointing' on the subject between CSX and EMD. I on't know if the issue was ever resolved to the customers' satisfaction. Another issue with the CSX ACe's was the lack of IAC-a la' GE. Accordingly, EMD built some demos with IAC...which resulted in zero orders. The ground relay story sounds like utter nonsense... CPM500 A twelve year old asset sold off because of a ground relay problem? I certainly hope there is more to it than that. On NS a problem child would be put in storage until traffic warrants spending the money to find the problem. Also, remember that EMD is still sitting on a group of SD70ACes repatriated from Oz. Even so, a few months back someone was advertising Dash 9s for sale albeit without an asking price. Since then I have not heard of any Dash 9s trading stables. We (sadly) have an over abundance of high horsepower locomotives in need of tonnage to pull. Let's hope the wait is not too long.
Another issue with the CSX ACe's was the lack of IAC-a la' GE. Accordingly, EMD built some demos with IAC...which resulted in zero orders.
A twelve year old asset sold off because of a ground relay problem? I certainly hope there is more to it than that. On NS a problem child would be put in storage until traffic warrants spending the money to find the problem.
Also, remember that EMD is still sitting on a group of SD70ACes repatriated from Oz.
Even so, a few months back someone was advertising Dash 9s for sale albeit without an asking price. Since then I have not heard of any Dash 9s trading stables.
We (sadly) have an over abundance of high horsepower locomotives in need of tonnage to pull. Let's hope the wait is not too long.
Leo_AmesIt does seem strange...
It does seem strange, but it comes from a source that I consider reliable for CSX locomotive news.
http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=362633#p362633
It's potentially not the full story though.
Perhaps the locomotive had other issues as well. It could also be the prelude to dumping the model en masse. CSX is set to slim their roster and EMD's SD70 range are oddities there among the masses of contemporary GE's, and the SD70ACe's are the oddballs of that relatively small group.
They've already sold off SD70MAC's to Four Rivers Transportation (Albeit basically a CSX subsidiary). And the related SD80MAC model was traded in for late 60's SD40's rebuilt to Dash 2's, on a 1:1 basis.
CSX clearly has never been quite enthralled with EMD's 710 engined lineup, so I don't think it's unthinkable that we'll see some movements there soon.
Leo_Ames CSX SD70ACe #4839 has been sold to LTEX due to ground relay problems.
CSX SD70ACe #4839 has been sold to LTEX due to ground relay problems.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.