Why are the SD45s hated.....

[WCfan]

9093 was scrapped very early in its career with the WC, and good thing because it was one ugly unit!

Alec

I looked at the picture of it. Yeah it wasn't the prettiest.

[Randy Stahl]

We had more than that , I don't think WC owned any of them , they were courtesy of the Oxford group . I don't remember the 9093 , I do recall the 8093 and others of that ilk . I just had a flashback and I recall the 8993 being moved to Chicago in about 1992.

 

[wctransfer]

9093 was scrapped very early in its career with the WC, and good thing because it was one ugly unit!

Alec

[Anonymous]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

I'm not saying Wisconsin is ALL flat. But it's flatter than the rockies, which is where WC got most of there SD45s. But Wisconsin Does have it's share of grades.

Thats whats called a contradiction. Also, I wasnt aware that either GN, CB&Q, NP and Frisco ran through the Rockies.....

The GN and the NP ran through the Rockies, and the Cascades for that matter. Also the CB&Q and Frisco units ran over the Rockies while owned by the BN.

Bert

Don't forget that the Frisco had a rough line through the Ozarks. Not quite the rockies but the profile was still difficult enough for it to be in the hands of a short line now.

[coborn35]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

I'm not saying Wisconsin is ALL flat. But it's flatter than the rockies, which is where WC got most of there SD45s. But Wisconsin Does have it's share of grades.

Thats whats called a contradiction. Also, I wasnt aware that either GN, CB&Q, NP and Frisco ran through the Rockies.....

The GN and the NP ran through the Rockies, and the Cascades for that matter. Also the CB&Q and Frisco units ran over the Rockies while owned by the BN.

Bert

Ahh thats right I was thinking about the MILW for some reason! My bad.

[n012944]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

I'm not saying Wisconsin is ALL flat. But it's flatter than the rockies, which is where WC got most of there SD45s. But Wisconsin Does have it's share of grades.

Thats whats called a contradiction. Also, I wasnt aware that either GN, CB&Q, NP and Frisco ran through the Rockies.....

The GN and the NP ran through the Rockies, and the Cascades for that matter. Also the CB&Q and Frisco units ran over the Rockies while owned by the BN.

Bert

[WCfan]

Which is pretty much why the WC never bought an of their SD45s lol. Just because something isnt AS big, doesnt mean it doesnt put the same strain on the engine.

Alec

Yeah I guess so. A Step short grade is same as a gradual long grade. Yeah WC only bought two SP SD45s, Numbered 7637 and 9093.

[wctransfer]

Which is pretty much why the WC never bought an of their SD45s lol. Just because something isnt AS big, doesnt mean it doesnt put the same strain on the engine.

Alec

[espeefoamer]

The Southern Pacific and Rio Grande ran their SD45s over some of the roughest grades in the nation.

Both roads really beat their locos hard.

[WCfan]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

I'm not saying Wisconsin is ALL flat. But it's flatter than the rockies, which is where WC got most of there SD45s. But Wisconsin Does have it's share of grades.

Thats whats called a contradiction. Also, I wasnt aware that either GN, CB&Q, NP and Frisco ran through the Rockies.....

I was talking about BN. And BN ran Through the Cascades/northern Rockies.

[coborn35]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

I'm not saying Wisconsin is ALL flat. But it's flatter than the rockies, which is where WC got most of there SD45s. But Wisconsin Does have it's share of grades.

Thats whats called a contradiction. Also, I wasnt aware that either GN, CB&Q, NP and Frisco ran through the Rockies.....

[WCfan]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

I'm not saying Wisconsin is ALL flat. But it's flatter than the rockies, which is where WC got most of there SD45s. But Wisconsin Does have it's share of grades.

[coborn35]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

Yea, coming into Neenah youve got a fairly steep hill, big enough Ive never got up it going more than 20, considering I charged it going 50. Onthe way down, got to use heavy dynamics with them heavy tank trains. 

[WCfan]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

It's pretty flat considering what the BN and ATSF SD45s where running through.

[WSOR 3801]

The old WC is not all that flat.  Lots of hills and valleys, a roller coaster if you will.  From Waukesha to Slinger northbound is mostly uphill, with a little down at Rugby.  That is the part I have run on, not sure of the rest of the line.

They were moving pretty big trains, and the SD45 were acquired cheaply.  GP40s might have cost the same, or more per unit, and SD40-2s weren't on the market like they are now.

[WCfan]

Yes they would of been. WC at the end was having trouble with money, and if they kept the 45s in the shape they got them, it would of drove them deeper into the ground.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

 

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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