Trains.com

SD60 specs and performance details plz .

2272 views
9 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
BDA
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 95 posts
SD60 specs and performance details plz .
Posted by BDA on Tuesday, May 28, 2024 6:03 PM

Hi all .

I'm interested to know what operators thought of the EMD SD60 series locomotives . I think the 90 Class built for Australias Hunter Valley may basically be SD60s designed to suit our smaller loading gauge . 

I have looked at some sites for things like gross mass and I was surprised that they (USDM SD60s) were lighter than I thought they'd be for a USD locomotive . Is it true that they were around 165-170 metric tonnes and used D87 traction motors and the power glide AR11 alternator .  

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Wednesday, May 29, 2024 7:29 AM

A total of 1144 were built so they must have been pretty good. The full SD60 specs can be found here.

https://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20SD60.HTML

 

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Wednesday, May 29, 2024 12:54 PM

BDA
Is it true that they were around 165-170 metric tonnes

In the US? 180-190 sounds likelier, with full tanks.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, May 29, 2024 1:51 PM

A metric tonne is 1000 kg or 2204.6 pounds.  The weight range is about the same for the units of measure.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Bridgman, MI
  • 283 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Thursday, May 30, 2024 6:24 PM

I believe all SD60's were built in the range of 390,000-420,000 lbs. with full supplies. 

 

The dimensions on the Diesel Shop website for EMD units are often very wrong in my experience. The linked page for the SD60 has these errors:

Min RPM is 200 in low idle,

Traction Motor Blowers are mechanically driven off the engine as all EMD locos back to the GP30 are, not electrically driven, which came in with the SD70,

Weight might have been offered as light as 368,000 lbs. but I don't believe any were built that light,

What is shown as starting tractive effort is actually the continuous TE of 98,250 lbs. The starting TE is 149,000 lbs.,

Not sure what SD50 is doing opposite Exterior Dimensions,

Total length of 71'-2" is correct over coupler pulling faces, Length over endplates is 67'-0",

Height to top of cab roof sheet is 14'-8.75", not 15'-7.5". This is the same height as the top of engine hood roof sheet. Height over cooling fans is 15'-7.12",

Top of walkway is 64.5" with 40" wheels, not 9'-4.5",

Walkway width is 24", not 3'-8.5",

Engine hood is 72" wide, not 10"-0",

"Center Bolster" dimension of 45'-10" is correct for distance between truck center bearings, (on the HTC truck, the center axle is outboard of the center bearing by 1.25")

Center bearings to end sheets is 10'-7" at both cab and hood ends, not 2'-3". The dimension from endplate to coupler pulling face is 25", an EMD standard for years.

Dave

(corrected endplate to couple pull face dimension)

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, May 31, 2024 6:36 AM

There is an apparent disparity in the numbers as given: if the length over end plates is 67' and length over pulling faces is 71'2", then dimension from end plate to pulling face would be 2'1".  But that dimension is later specified as 2'3".

This Is only a 4" disparity over the length of the locomotive, but I for one would value knowing the right number (or why the two dimensions are given differently).

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Bridgman, MI
  • 283 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Friday, May 31, 2024 9:58 AM

Error on my part - the correct dimension from endplate to pulling face is 25" and most EMD locos in the last 50 years used that same dimension until I changed it to 24" for the Tier 4 loco with 710 that I was tasked with designing in 2010. Not sure if the production Tier 4 with 1010J changed it back.

I emailed rcraig at the diesel shop so he could correct his SD60 page.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, May 31, 2024 2:40 PM

Purely out of curiosity (and because I doubt I'll figure it out any other way) what were the reasons for reducing from 25" to 24"?

BDA
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 95 posts
Posted by BDA on Friday, May 31, 2024 6:44 PM

Thank you for the details , so 176-190 metric tonnes . 

I did hear somewhere that our 90s were heavy enough at approx 167 metric tonnes to pull down slow enough and at times long enough to cook their D87 traction motors . Just on this remember that most of our standard gauge DC fleet in Australia outside the Pilbara and Hunter Valley only weigh about 120 - 132 metric tonnes . And the way I see it if they slip they can't fully load their traction motors . I don't often hear about cooked traction motors here .

The 90s and 82s , 82 being a GT42C 12 710 and 132 metric tonnes , were part of the Ready Power contract and had common components ie AR11 alts and D87 traction motors . 

Obviously SD60 was an update to the problematic SD50 and I'm curious to know if their traction motors , if they are D87s , had issues with short time ratings . We have that AR11 "power glide" , power thump , alternator in a few types here and the word is that they were lighter and more compact than the AR10 . And supposedly had some fuel consumption advantage .

I believe the AR11 can only take about 3840 crank HP which isn't an issue for a 16 645 or a 12 710 but caps the 16 710 at around that figure .  

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Bridgman, MI
  • 283 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Saturday, June 1, 2024 6:20 PM

Overmod

Purely out of curiosity (and because I doubt I'll figure it out any other way) what were the reasons for reducing from 25" to 24"?

 

It was simply to gain 2" in underframe length while not increasing the length over couplers. It figures in to stepwell size, which I was trying to increase for easier access.

When it was decided that the 710 in Tier 4 configuration would not be competitive for fuel economy, I left the project to do truck design work since the loco design was paused while the 1010J engine was being designed and others took over the project. So I am not sure what details made it into the final loco configuration, although the sloped windshield did make it.

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