Why are the SD45s hated.....

[Lord Atmo]

go figure. the pretty stuff ALWAYS handles like crap

[CPRail modeler]

well, since you're talking about SD45's...

CP Rail owns a few Morris-Knudsen rebuilds that are SD45's on the outside, yet have SD40-2 prime movers inside. these are classified as SD40M-2. as of today, all 6 are still in service (better get your cameras) and #5498 has been declared surplus. does anyone know what that means? the surplus thing was started in 2007. the other units are #5493-5498. i think CP Rail owns these because they are basically identical in power to their massive fleet of SD40-2's.

P.S. the units are all US styled and built.

[WCfan]

I found a site that modeled a Morris-Knudsen locomotives, They look alittle diffrent than the SD45s. Surplus means that there's extra equpiment that isn't need at the moment. Kinda like the miltary surplus stores.

Wow, I read this thread again and it's really gave me alot of info. I like your stories and your info cleared the confusion I had about the SD45. Thanks alot!

(here's the Morris-Knusen SD40M-2 http://www.dakotabranch.com/index.php?content=showmdlloco&n_stk_id=175 )

[EJE818]

The days for SD45s are numbered not only on CN, but in general. MRL sold about a dozen SD45s and two F45s, and IC&E scrapped their lone ex-NYSW SD45. The reason MRL is selling some SD45s is because of a combination of two things. When MRL bought its SD70ACes, the only reason MRL kept them is because they were leased to BNSF and NS. The lease to BNSF ended last summer and the engines were returned to Montana. MRL had no need for all the extra SD45s and F45s so they were sold. I like SD45s but I do have to admit they do hog up a lot of fuel. They were oddballs on CN's roster, and CN is known to retire oddballs from its roster.

[coborn35]

They still got those GP9Ms.

[Anonymous]

Well, I have to say that I loved the SD 45-t2's.  The SD 45-t2's where the first 6 axle locomotives that I ever operated and I love how they ran.  They were very smooth and very quite on the inside.  The worst thing about them was the bell being right over the cab.  Working for a shortline and having a conductor trying to sleep a little and then coming up on a crossing and ringing the bell was not that good.

I know most of the folks reading this are saying, The Conductor trying to sleep while the train is moving.  That not Safe.  Well, you are right, but sometimes you just got to break the rules to do your job. Especially when someone is telling you to do 14 hours worth of work and you die at 12 hours.  14 hours worth of work not including the running time from point to point.

[EJE818]

CN is getting rid of another group of GP9Rms also. There about 10-15 of those in the deadline at Homewood. CN does use a GP9Rm/slug/GP9RM set as one of the yard switchers at Homewood. They use IC SW14s for all other yard duties, thankfully. The SD45s that are stored there now are on the south side of the yard. There are also 4 Savage Alberta Railway C39-8s (2 still in CSX paint, one in Conrail paint, one in SAR paint) along with a few BC Rail B23-7s and B36-7s. One of the B23-7s is still in ATSF paint. They still have two GMD1s stored there, the same ones that have been stored for almost two years.It is kind of too bad to see CN getting rid of all this unusual power, but all of the engines stored there are oddballs. I am surprized CN hasn't gotten rid of all the DM&IR SDMs yet, but I am not complaining about that!

[BigJim]

They are fuel hogs and have a number of non-standard features making maintenance more difficult and non-standard.

I worked in the RH for a year before going out on the road. One day we had a SD45 in the house for some power assembly changes. In the next bay was an ALCO RS11, also in for a power assembly change.

I changed out five complete P/A's on that SD45. The Mac in the next bay only just finished the one P/A on the ALCO!

[BigJim]

Getting back to the original question, let's look at the time line. Back when the SD45 was introduced, it was the best thing going. It was powerful, the train crews loved them and they were NEW. They were the cutting edge, for their time.

On our district, all SD type locos, from the 35 on up, were rated at 2000 tons each. Three six axle units were the norm for a 6000 ton train. The SD35's would get the train over the mountain, just barely. The SD40's would get you over the mountain comfortably. The SD45's would get you over the mountain in fine style. We loved to get an all SD45 consist as we knew we wouldn't be down to a dead crawl going uphill.

Now look at what you have to work with today. They are the cutting edge. For the most part, almost forty years newer than an SD45. Now why would I rather have the SD45 back in the consist and not on the head end?

First you have Air Conditioned Cabs! Quieter cabs. And depending on how big of a pig rode the units before your tour of duty, cleaner cabs. And that's about the gist of it.

The newer units, while they can pull more tonnage up a hill than an SD45, they CANNOT pull it with the same elan as the pre Hi-Ad could!!! Given equal trains, you can have the GE power and I'll take the SD45's (or even SD40's, for that matter) and I'll be waiting for you at the other end of the road while I finish off my seven course meal.

[Randy Stahl]

I agree , I'd take a 45 anyplace , anytime .

[Kathi Kube]

My locomotive first love is an SD45 — WC7501, to be exact. And I'll never be able to thank you enough for that, Randy. Beautiful engines.

Beyond that, though, I've got a friend who's a WC/CN hogger who loved running them, too.

I do hope at least one gets preserved.

Kathi

[coborn35]

My locomotive first love is an SD45 — WC7501, to be exact. And I'll never be able to thank you enough for that, Randy. Beautiful engines.

Beyond that, though, I've got a friend who's a WC/CN hogger who loved running them, too.

I do hope at least one gets preserved.

Kathi

So if we DO end up getting the WC #7495 like we are supposed to, youd come up here and do an article on us?

[espeefoamer]

The SD45 is my favorite second generation diesel.It is the flares radiators that attract me to these units. Southern Pacific liked them for use over the Sierras.SP had over 600 counting both SD 45s and SD45T-2s. Many are still running,though rebuilt with 16 cylinder engines.

[WCfan]

I love those things so much. You can feel the power as the engine revs up. It's even Better turbo Charged. The rumble in the ground, the shaking in your feet. Pure Power. I love it. I would do any thing to just see one more for one last time. It's even better when the long hood is forward.  The SD45 was Pure power, and Beauty.

[wctransfer]

I can finally put the Myth to sleep! Last night at a slide show, we were looking at a bunch of WC SD45 slides, and we got on a discussion about fuel. My uncle, who worked for the WC, was telling me the numbers on fuel consumption in idle, and in notch 8 etc. If you look at the numbers, the SD45s dont eat anymore fuel than a 16 cylinder SD40! For the Horsepower that they gave you, you were actually using fuel more efficiently. I had a feeling this was more a myth than anything, and It was cool to hear the numbers stack up against other units. So please, no more talk about fuel.

Alec

[WCfan]

I can finally put the Myth to sleep! Last night at a slide show, we were looking at a bunch of WC SD45 slides, and we got on a discussion about fuel. My uncle, who worked for the WC, was telling me the numbers on fuel consumption in idle, and in notch 8 etc. If you look at the numbers, the SD45s dont eat anymore fuel than a 16 cylinder SD40! For the Horsepower that they gave you, you were actually using fuel more efficiently. I had a feeling this was more a myth than anything, and It was cool to hear the numbers stack up against other units. So please, no more talk about fuel.

Alec

Nice! You should be on Myth Busters. But they did have other problums from what I've read. Plus they where a odd locomotive and didn't fit in with standards of modern day railroading. But was this when WC rebuilt them? I'm sure the WC made them more fuel effeciant.

[wctransfer]

What Im saying is,

The SD45s used more fuel, yes, but the HP that you got in return made it more efficient than what the SD40 gave you. All engines have problems, and If you had a maintenance program like the WC, you would have good running SD45s. When the WC got the Santa Fe SD45s, they were all rated at 3,600. Oh, and guess what, they were no more troublesome than the ex Algoma Central SD40-2s! If you replace (oh crap, brain fart) a part that deals with the crank often, you'll be fine. The WC never derated the Santa Fe ones, and even bumped up some of the ex BN ones to 3,450. BN  derated them to 3,250 or something when they used them to avoid crankshaft issues.

Alec

[oltmannd]

I can finally put the Myth to sleep! Last night at a slide show, we were looking at a bunch of WC SD45 slides, and we got on a discussion about fuel. My uncle, who worked for the WC, was telling me the numbers on fuel consumption in idle, and in notch 8 etc. If you look at the numbers, the SD45s dont eat anymore fuel than a 16 cylinder SD40! For the Horsepower that they gave you, you were actually using fuel more efficiently. I had a feeling this was more a myth than anything, and It was cool to hear the numbers stack up against other units. So please, no more talk about fuel.

Alec

Nope.  Gonna talk about fuel some more. 

First, you uncle is correct that the specific fuel consumption (lbs of fuel/hp-hr) for and SD45 is nearly identical to an SD40.  But, that's not the end of the story....

For any given train, you have to power it so that it won't stall on the ruling grade.  Lets say you have a 5000 ton train and you have a 1.5% ruling grade.  In order to make it up the grade w/o stalling, you need 2 SD40s or 2 SD45s.  (5000 x 1.5 x 20#/ton = 150,000 # TE needed,  and SD45 and SD40 both have about 75,000# TE max)  An SD45 won't pull more tonnage up the ruling grade than an SD40.  If all you have to worry about is not stalling on the grade, the two models are interchangeable.

So, what does that extra HP get you?  Speed.  With 20% more HP, you'll walk up that ruling grade at 14 mph instead of 12.  You'll get up to track speed quicker on the level and be able to hold it better through the dips and sags. 

What does speed get you?  A quicker trip.  Maybe you make it between terminals in 7:30 instead of 8:00.

But, what does speed cost you?  Fuel.  Aerodynamic drag increases with speed squared, so that 30 minutes of time savings might cost you 10% more fuel.  And, what's that 30 minutes worth, commercially?  With so much of a typical frt car's time eaten up being switched in yards, saving a few minutes on the road has very little worth.  The "saved" time most likely winds up becoming increased dwell at the next terminal. 

However, you might argue:  "An SD50 has 3600 hp compared to an SD40's 3000.  Doesn't the time is not worth the fuel arguement hold there?  Why did RRs buy SD50s after they rejected the 3600 HP SD45s?"

The difference is that EMD increased the max TE on an SD50 to match the increased HP through "super series" wheelslip control to improve adhesion.  An SD50 can produce 100,000# max TE.  So, a pair of SD50s could handle nearly 7000 tons over that same route with the same HP/ton ratio as that 5000 ton train with a pair of SD40s.  Or, some trains that required 3 SD40s or SD45s could be powered by a pair of SD50s.

[zardoz]

I agree , I'd take a 45 anyplace , anytime .

I'd rather have a 40-2. Superior to the 45 in almost every respect.

[WCfan]

I can finally put the Myth to sleep! Last night at a slide show, we were looking at a bunch of WC SD45 slides, and we got on a discussion about fuel. My uncle, who worked for the WC, was telling me the numbers on fuel consumption in idle, and in notch 8 etc. If you look at the numbers, the SD45s dont eat anymore fuel than a 16 cylinder SD40! For the Horsepower that they gave you, you were actually using fuel more efficiently. I had a feeling this was more a myth than anything, and It was cool to hear the numbers stack up against other units. So please, no more talk about fuel.

Alec

Nope.  Gonna talk about fuel some more. 

First, you uncle is correct that the specific fuel consumption (lbs of fuel/hp-hr) for and SD45 is nearly identical to an SD40.  But, that's not the end of the story....

For any given train, you have to power it so that it won't stall on the ruling grade.  Lets say you have a 5000 ton train and you have a 1.5% ruling grade.  In order to make it up the grade w/o stalling, you need 2 SD40s or 2 SD45s.  (5000 x 1.5 x 20#/ton = 150,000 # TE needed,  and SD45 and SD40 both have about 75,000# TE max)  An SD45 won't pull more tonnage up the ruling grade than an SD40.  If all you have to worry about is not stalling on the grade, the two models are interchangeable.

So, what does that extra HP get you?  Speed.  With 20% more HP, you'll walk up that ruling grade at 14 mph instead of 12.  You'll get up to track speed quicker on the level and be able to hold it better through the dips and sags. 

What does speed get you?  A quicker trip.  Maybe you make it between terminals in 7:30 instead of 8:00.

But, what does speed cost you?  Fuel.  Aerodynamic drag increases with speed squared, so that 30 minutes of time savings might cost you 10% more fuel.  And, what's that 30 minutes worth, commercially?  With so much of a typical frt car's time eaten up being switched in yards, saving a few minutes on the road has very little worth.  The "saved" time most likely winds up becoming increased dwell at the next terminal. 

However, you might argue:  "An SD50 has 3600 hp compared to an SD40's 3000.  Doesn't the time is not worth the fuel arguement hold there?  Why did RRs buy SD50s after they rejected the 3600 HP SD45s?"

The difference is that EMD increased the max TE on an SD50 to match the increased HP through "super series" wheelslip control to improve adhesion.  An SD50 can produce 100,000# max TE.  So, a pair of SD50s could handle nearly 7000 tons over that same route with the same HP/ton ratio as that 5000 ton train with a pair of SD40s.  Or, some trains that required 3 SD40s or SD45s could be powered by a pair of SD50s.

Now you got to take in to consideratition that the WC had No MAJOR grades. You had Bryon hill(the most famous) and probably more. But no as much as ATSF, BN, of SP. So the ratio will be diffrent. But it is true about what you said. Just saying WC didn't have much grdes at all.(But they did have there share)

[WCfan]

I agree , I'd take a 45 anyplace , anytime .

I'd rather have a 40-2. Superior to the 45 in almost every respect.

The 45 looks better(in my opinion), sounds better(in my opinion), can haul more at a faster speed, more HP. The 40-2 had a less manitnce cost, cost less to run. Shall I say more? But in Railroad terms, the 40-2 was better. In Opinion terms, the 45 was better.

 

[wctransfer]

Remember though, the WC SD45s were heavily rebuilt. They had the trucks totally overhauled, new springs to reduce bouncing on poor track, had EM2000 and Q-Tron installed, and used fuel more efficiently by using more power on the train. If you have 3 SD45s pulling a train in notch, 4 lets say, that will actually save you MORE fuel than running 2 in notch 8 the whole way. Which in turn, cut down on fuel costs and made it minimal at most, which meant that having SD45s didnt hurt the profits that the WC was making. Ask any engineer that ran WC SD45s, and ask them if they would rather have an old BN SD40-2. Most would take the 45.

Alec

[WCfan]

Remember though, the WC SD45s were heavily rebuilt. They had the trucks totally overhauled, new springs to reduce bouncing on poor track, had EM2000 and Q-Tron installed, and used fuel more efficiently by using more power on the train. If you have 3 SD45s pulling a train in notch, 4 lets say, that will actually save you MORE fuel than running 2 in notch 8 the whole way. Which in turn, cut down on fuel costs and made it minimal at most, which meant that having SD45s didnt hurt the profits that the WC was making. Ask any engineer that ran WC SD45s, and ask them if they would rather have an old BN SD40-2. Most would take the 45.

Alec

I get what Oltmannd is saying. He is comparing the Stright out of the box SD45. Not the Re-builts. But you do prove a point wctransfer, that after hevy overhaul, The 45s would be better.

[eolafan]

Who's whining about the SD45's noise? I love it. I can tell a turbocharged SD-45 from any Locomotive.(Probably because I grew up aroung them and can't tell the diffrence) I guss they aren't hated as more of don'f fit in any more. I never realized that those locos where that old! I thought they where from the late 70s to early 80s.  But they where pretty bad. (Correct me if I'm wrong) The SD45 from Santa Fe and BN where pretty beat up. The link is at the bottom of a pic I found. And yes they wouldn't fit into the EPA. 

Another question, where the SD45s a experment loco? From the info you guys gave me it sounds like it. The angled radiators, the odd prime mover, and the low MPG(Miles Per Gallon). I have to say those where some of the most beautiful locos out there(in my opinion). Especally when there run High Hood forward, but that's another story. 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=182264

Hi WCFan, how are things in Wausau ref. railroading.  I live in Wausau from 1974-1978 when the Milw. Road had the shop and yard near the Marathon County Sheriff's office...not there any more?  Also C&NW had a small yard on the South side of town...anything left of it?  What else is happening railroad wise in Wausau?

[WCfan]

Who's whining about the SD45's noise? I love it. I can tell a turbocharged SD-45 from any Locomotive.(Probably because I grew up aroung them and can't tell the diffrence) I guss they aren't hated as more of don'f fit in any more. I never realized that those locos where that old! I thought they where from the late 70s to early 80s.  But they where pretty bad. (Correct me if I'm wrong) The SD45 from Santa Fe and BN where pretty beat up. The link is at the bottom of a pic I found. And yes they wouldn't fit into the EPA. 

Another question, where the SD45s a experment loco? From the info you guys gave me it sounds like it. The angled radiators, the odd prime mover, and the low MPG(Miles Per Gallon). I have to say those where some of the most beautiful locos out there(in my opinion). Especally when there run High Hood forward, but that's another story. 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=182264

Hi WCFan, how are things in Wausau ref. railroading.  I live in Wausau from 1974-1978 when the Milw. Road had the shop and yard near the Marathon County Sheriff's office...not there any more?  Also C&NW had a small yard on the South side of town...anything left of it?  What else is happening railroad wise in Wausau?

Yep the MILW. shop burnt down, I think. Gotta check. Maybe it got torn down. I can't rember. The south yard is the Main yard in town used by the WC. The MILW. Down town yard is gone after WC purchased the CNW line in wausau. Also the CNW west yard(by marthon park)is still there. Otherwise not much changed. But they did re-rout Juction Street. it use to go over the South Yrad but they re-routed it to go by the side of it. So now I think it's a little bigger. Also there is like 4 miles of parked Grainal hoppers on the old CNW line going east to Shawno.

[oltmannd]

Remember though, the WC SD45s were heavily rebuilt. They had the trucks totally overhauled, new springs to reduce bouncing on poor track, had EM2000 and Q-Tron installed, and used fuel more efficiently by using more power on the train. If you have 3 SD45s pulling a train in notch, 4 lets say, that will actually save you MORE fuel than running 2 in notch 8 the whole way. Which in turn, cut down on fuel costs and made it minimal at most, which meant that having SD45s didnt hurt the profits that the WC was making. Ask any engineer that ran WC SD45s, and ask them if they would rather have an old BN SD40-2. Most would take the 45.

Alec

All other things being equal (ride, cab comforts, toilet) engineers will always prefer a consist with higher HP/ton - the quicker you get there, the quicker you turn to go home (or have more time off before the next call)

A turbocharged EMD (any EMD) in notch 4 will be very slightly less fuel efficient than in notch 8. (N8 is 4% more efficient than N4 on and SD40-2, for example)

Running 3 of any kind of locomotive vs. 2 will always cost you a lot of fuel if full HP is applied to accelerate to track speed and then used to maintain track speed wherever possible - as is normal operating practice.  Fuel consumption always goes up with HP/ton.

If RR is basically flat (i.e. with required HP/ton on the train to keep the schedule, speed never drops below 20 mph or so on the ruling grade), then 4 axle locomotives are a better choice.  They are more fuel efficient (45 Hp less for TM blower), improve train fuel economy (50 tons lighter weight), easier on the track, cheaper to purchase (new, anyway.  used mkt might differ), and cheaper to rebuild and maintain.

Rewiring and replacing a the control system will make the locomotive more reliable but will have very little difference on the fuel efficiency.  Gains in fuel efficiency come from 1) improving the efficiency of the diesel engine (improving brake specific fuel consumption) and 2) reducing auxiliary HP (motor drive TM blower and air compressor, multi-speed cooling fans, etc.) 

[WCfan]

Remember though, the WC SD45s were heavily rebuilt. They had the trucks totally overhauled, new springs to reduce bouncing on poor track, had EM2000 and Q-Tron installed, and used fuel more efficiently by using more power on the train. If you have 3 SD45s pulling a train in notch, 4 lets say, that will actually save you MORE fuel than running 2 in notch 8 the whole way. Which in turn, cut down on fuel costs and made it minimal at most, which meant that having SD45s didnt hurt the profits that the WC was making. Ask any engineer that ran WC SD45s, and ask them if they would rather have an old BN SD40-2. Most would take the 45.

Alec

All other things being equal (ride, cab comforts, toilet) engineers will always prefer a consist with higher HP/ton - the quicker you get there, the quicker you turn to go home (or have more time off before the next call)

A turbocharged EMD (any EMD) in notch 4 will be very slightly less fuel efficient than in notch 8. (N8 is 4% more efficient than N4 on and SD40-2, for example)

Running 3 of any kind of locomotive vs. 2 will always cost you a lot of fuel if full HP is applied to accelerate to track speed and then used to maintain track speed wherever possible - as is normal operating practice.  Fuel consumption always goes up with HP/ton.

If RR is basically flat (i.e. with required HP/ton on the train to keep the schedule, speed never drops below 20 mph or so on the ruling grade), then 4 axle locomotives are a better choice.  They are more fuel efficient (45 Hp less for TM blower), improve train fuel economy (50 tons lighter weight), easier on the track, cheaper to purchase (new, anyway.  used mkt might differ), and cheaper to rebuild and maintain.

Rewiring and replacing a the control system will make the locomotive more reliable but will have very little difference on the fuel efficiency.  Gains in fuel efficiency come from 1) improving the efficiency of the diesel engine (improving brake specific fuel consumption) and 2) reducing auxiliary HP (motor drive TM blower and air compressor, multi-speed cooling fans, etc.) 

The WC did exactly what you said in the last paragragh. Other wise if they didn't, they would of been in deep trouble.

[oltmannd]

Remember though, the WC SD45s were heavily rebuilt. They had the trucks totally overhauled, new springs to reduce bouncing on poor track, had EM2000 and Q-Tron installed, and used fuel more efficiently by using more power on the train. If you have 3 SD45s pulling a train in notch, 4 lets say, that will actually save you MORE fuel than running 2 in notch 8 the whole way. Which in turn, cut down on fuel costs and made it minimal at most, which meant that having SD45s didnt hurt the profits that the WC was making. Ask any engineer that ran WC SD45s, and ask them if they would rather have an old BN SD40-2. Most would take the 45.

Alec

All other things being equal (ride, cab comforts, toilet) engineers will always prefer a consist with higher HP/ton - the quicker you get there, the quicker you turn to go home (or have more time off before the next call)

A turbocharged EMD (any EMD) in notch 4 will be very slightly less fuel efficient than in notch 8. (N8 is 4% more efficient than N4 on and SD40-2, for example)

Running 3 of any kind of locomotive vs. 2 will always cost you a lot of fuel if full HP is applied to accelerate to track speed and then used to maintain track speed wherever possible - as is normal operating practice.  Fuel consumption always goes up with HP/ton.

If RR is basically flat (i.e. with required HP/ton on the train to keep the schedule, speed never drops below 20 mph or so on the ruling grade), then 4 axle locomotives are a better choice.  They are more fuel efficient (45 Hp less for TM blower), improve train fuel economy (50 tons lighter weight), easier on the track, cheaper to purchase (new, anyway.  used mkt might differ), and cheaper to rebuild and maintain.

Rewiring and replacing a the control system will make the locomotive more reliable but will have very little difference on the fuel efficiency.  Gains in fuel efficiency come from 1) improving the efficiency of the diesel engine (improving brake specific fuel consumption) and 2) reducing auxiliary HP (motor drive TM blower and air compressor, multi-speed cooling fans, etc.) 

The WC did exactly what you said in the last paragragh. Other wise if they didn't, they would of been in deep trouble.

Having insulation on the wires is generally helpful

[WCfan]

Remember though, the WC SD45s were heavily rebuilt. They had the trucks totally overhauled, new springs to reduce bouncing on poor track, had EM2000 and Q-Tron installed, and used fuel more efficiently by using more power on the train. If you have 3 SD45s pulling a train in notch, 4 lets say, that will actually save you MORE fuel than running 2 in notch 8 the whole way. Which in turn, cut down on fuel costs and made it minimal at most, which meant that having SD45s didnt hurt the profits that the WC was making. Ask any engineer that ran WC SD45s, and ask them if they would rather have an old BN SD40-2. Most would take the 45.

Alec

All other things being equal (ride, cab comforts, toilet) engineers will always prefer a consist with higher HP/ton - the quicker you get there, the quicker you turn to go home (or have more time off before the next call)

A turbocharged EMD (any EMD) in notch 4 will be very slightly less fuel efficient than in notch 8. (N8 is 4% more efficient than N4 on and SD40-2, for example)

Running 3 of any kind of locomotive vs. 2 will always cost you a lot of fuel if full HP is applied to accelerate to track speed and then used to maintain track speed wherever possible - as is normal operating practice.  Fuel consumption always goes up with HP/ton.

If RR is basically flat (i.e. with required HP/ton on the train to keep the schedule, speed never drops below 20 mph or so on the ruling grade), then 4 axle locomotives are a better choice.  They are more fuel efficient (45 Hp less for TM blower), improve train fuel economy (50 tons lighter weight), easier on the track, cheaper to purchase (new, anyway.  used mkt might differ), and cheaper to rebuild and maintain.

Rewiring and replacing a the control system will make the locomotive more reliable but will have very little difference on the fuel efficiency.  Gains in fuel efficiency come from 1) improving the efficiency of the diesel engine (improving brake specific fuel consumption) and 2) reducing auxiliary HP (motor drive TM blower and air compressor, multi-speed cooling fans, etc.) 

The WC did exactly what you said in the last paragragh. Other wise if they didn't, they would of been in deep trouble.

Having insulation on the wires is generally helpful

I guess so..... At least that is smarter than putting an electric heater next to a shower!

[wctransfer]

Deep trouble? Really, so how did they get through the first 6 or so years without it? They were already making major profits in 1992/1993. No question the SD40-2 is a better locomotive in general, but I still believe that a WC 7500 (or 74,76) would be better any day of the week.

Alec