The Alco HH600 and HH660 introduced in the 1930's opened the door to the diesel transition. A basic yard switcher and not intended for main line use it became a replacement for aging 0-6-0 yard engines. EMD quickly followed with their NW & SW series and as they say the rest is history. I think its safe to say that each new model from each builder was significant in some way or other. The ones that worked evolved into bigger and better models while the failures were quickly forgotten except by historians.
Most significant diesel electric locomotive of all time..
- Thread starter rodney mcgiveron
- Start date
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
I have to agree. In my opinion the GP7 (no dash by the way), was basically an F7 with out a covered wagon body. Popularity, reliability, nor even longevity does not necessarily indicate historical significance. Originally relegated by the purchasing railroads to branch lines, locals, and low volume mains the GP7s were not given the opportunity to prove themselves.
If I were to pick a GP as significant it would be the under appreciated GP20. That is the model where GPs overtook the F units for regular road service. The standard low hood set a new standard for visibility. The turbo charged prime mover set a new standard for horsepower. Its competition was EMDs own SD24.
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
It has to be the FT, the diesel that killed steam. Sure there were other diesels that came prior to it, but they were specialized in their duties. The FT was versatile enough to be able to do what some said couldn't be done. The N&W even ran some specialized tests between a Class A, and some diesels. Although the steamer had been equipped with special appliances and it did out class the diesels in every aspect but one, it was that one aspect MAINTENANCE where the diesel completely and totally dominated. This one aspect was the thing that played the biggest part in killing steam nationwide.
And Louis you are correct. This is a great thread!
rodney mcgiveron
Member
G'day all...Thanks ....In regard to the change from the General Purpose (GP) to Special Duties SD...for EMD at least , was either ALCO or General Electric building six axle prime movers also when the first EMD CO-COs started happening ? I recall reading somewhere , not sure where now , but the SD series locos were pushing up over 3000 h.p. in the very early 1970s which I expect was a fair increase of tractive effort over the locos they gradually replaced..
I 've never really thought of fuel consumption costs before but I suppose the extra horse power might come at a cost as well . I also remember seeing a video on the GEVO's once when they said that the 12 cylinder Evolution engines were going to save as much as $200,000 per locomotive over it's lifespan with a 3% fuel saving...another significant change I suspect if correct...Just recently our own local company TasRail ..decided to buy 17 new PL22 EMD based locomotives to replace 37 older locos..The power with two would equate what a four lash up used to and would run a much cheaper fuel burn as a consequence...For a company like TasRail this is most definitely a big and important change and a reason why I wanted to ask about similar situations in American rail history regarding locomotive equipment...and how we depict it as modellers...Thanks again...Cheers Rod
I 've never really thought of fuel consumption costs before but I suppose the extra horse power might come at a cost as well . I also remember seeing a video on the GEVO's once when they said that the 12 cylinder Evolution engines were going to save as much as $200,000 per locomotive over it's lifespan with a 3% fuel saving...another significant change I suspect if correct...Just recently our own local company TasRail ..decided to buy 17 new PL22 EMD based locomotives to replace 37 older locos..The power with two would equate what a four lash up used to and would run a much cheaper fuel burn as a consequence...For a company like TasRail this is most definitely a big and important change and a reason why I wanted to ask about similar situations in American rail history regarding locomotive equipment...and how we depict it as modellers...Thanks again...Cheers Rod
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Alco was there too with their RSD-5, and Baldwin with their AS-616, but the biggest player in this area was the Fairbanks Morris Train Master. A locomotive ahead of its time. The SD7 with 1500 hp. and the RSD-5 with 1600 hp. were babies compared to it at 2,400 hp. In response, the Alco developed the RDS-7 to match the HP output. So during the 1950s EMD was way behind in HP on CC units. They didn't catch up until the SD24.
Fuel economy is why the SD45 wasn't more popular the extra HP was not worth the extra fuel. In comparison the SD40s sipped fuel and the SD40-2s even more so.
Likewise the rapid replacement of all older units (even the SD60s) as largely due to the SD70s fuel economy. I heard it said somewhere that the SD70s fuel economy kept several railroads from going bankrupt. I'm certain it was an exaggeration, but I do remember being amazed at how quickly all models of the SD45, SD40, U30C, U33C, SD50, C30-7, Dash 8-3x, and SD60s vanished. Seemed like over night. I had gotten used to 5-6 locos on the point of a coal train going over Monument Hill with 2 at the rear. Suddenly, it was three on the point and 1 in the rear. It was yet another time I kicked myself for not getting photos of all those locos that were just common and a part of the rail yard vista.
Last edited by a moderator:
rodney mcgiveron
Member
G'day Iron Horseman...THANKYOU....This information is great stuff...Re the Dash 8 too....It started out as a four axle loco didn't it ? My regular model supplier had an Atlas model of the 8-40 BW as well as the more common 8-40CW...which I suppose later led to the 9-44CW in the early 1990s...and with the SD 70 series , was there just an SD70
or was the first one the SD70M...then SD70 Mac , and of course the famous SD70ACe..Way less common was the SD75 , The SD80 , and SD90/43..I understand with the SD90 they were supposed to have a powerplant of well over 5000hp but were unreliable so they reverted back to the trusted 4300hp engines..Most are scrapped now though aren't they ?...Only Union Pacific ran any numbers much of them...Kato do make a nice model of the SD90/43 Mac..I nearly bought one..Then of course there is the GE Gevo revolution with the powerful and efficient fuel burn 12 cylinder powerplants that changed the game again...and the later AC6000 monsters...Thanks again..Cheers Rod..
or was the first one the SD70M...then SD70 Mac , and of course the famous SD70ACe..Way less common was the SD75 , The SD80 , and SD90/43..I understand with the SD90 they were supposed to have a powerplant of well over 5000hp but were unreliable so they reverted back to the trusted 4300hp engines..Most are scrapped now though aren't they ?...Only Union Pacific ran any numbers much of them...Kato do make a nice model of the SD90/43 Mac..I nearly bought one..Then of course there is the GE Gevo revolution with the powerful and efficient fuel burn 12 cylinder powerplants that changed the game again...and the later AC6000 monsters...Thanks again..Cheers Rod..
Last edited by a moderator:
For the great locomotive test on the N&W, the railroad was not the only one to try to make sure its locomotive came out on top. After the fact, EMD admitted to adjusting the fuel racks on the F7s to give them almost 1800hp instead of the factory 1500.
As for the SD70, I think it had more to do with Federal emissions laws than fuel economy, though that probably played a part. The early SD45 had a problem with throwing lube oil from the extra long crankshaft. That, and 4 more power assemblies for a mere 600 horsepower, more than fuel consumption, were what made the SD45 not so great. The same thing held the SD80 to the original units built for Conrail, only 700 more horsepower from 20 cylinders vs 16. Now, GE is managing to regularly get 4400hp from 12 cylinders.
The SD90/43 was supposed to get the 6000hp 16V265H engine when it became available, but the H engine had so many problems, UP ran screaming away from them. The same thing happened with GE and the 6000hp HDL that was supposed to go in the AC4400 convertibles. The Deutz engine developed a nasty habit of breaking internal engine components. A few AC6000CWs have had their Deutz engines replaced with 16 cylinder GEVO engines, with good results so far.
Oh, and the "1400hp" for the FT? The engine really only put out 1350. Creative marketing, even in 1939.
As for the SD70, I think it had more to do with Federal emissions laws than fuel economy, though that probably played a part. The early SD45 had a problem with throwing lube oil from the extra long crankshaft. That, and 4 more power assemblies for a mere 600 horsepower, more than fuel consumption, were what made the SD45 not so great. The same thing held the SD80 to the original units built for Conrail, only 700 more horsepower from 20 cylinders vs 16. Now, GE is managing to regularly get 4400hp from 12 cylinders.
The SD90/43 was supposed to get the 6000hp 16V265H engine when it became available, but the H engine had so many problems, UP ran screaming away from them. The same thing happened with GE and the 6000hp HDL that was supposed to go in the AC4400 convertibles. The Deutz engine developed a nasty habit of breaking internal engine components. A few AC6000CWs have had their Deutz engines replaced with 16 cylinder GEVO engines, with good results so far.
Oh, and the "1400hp" for the FT? The engine really only put out 1350. Creative marketing, even in 1939.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
I do not know. I was fairly ignorant of the GE units during the 1980s. I actually thought they were going out of business. And I guess they would have had not a couple railroads done what I call "mercy purchases" just to keep more than 1 vendor in the loco market.
rodney mcgiveron
Member
G'day Iron Horseman ...I remember finding a video called Fast Freight..with Santa Fe red and Silver warbonnets ..and I'm sure they were GE Dash 8 (8-40 BWs)...I remember thinking at the time "Hang on , where's the other set of wheels on each truck"...I think it was a four engine consist...and the undeniable GE turbo boost noises were evident as the chasing film car showed 70 mph and matching the speed of the train...Not sure on the overall history of the Dash 8 BW...Cheers Rod...
it is measured at the flywheel with accessories installed and operating. That is why the GE U36C with its passenger equipment was a U34CH, 200hp was lost.
Horsepower?? We use Killerwasps down here.
That's only because we have more horses available for testing locomotives here... ;/
Louis, I'm around, just annoying people in other threads.
Terry, we have plenty of wild horses, they're called brumby's here. Can't say I've ever heard of Brumbypower though.
Terry, we have plenty of wild horses, they're called brumby's here. Can't say I've ever heard of Brumbypower though.
Brett_Henderson
New Member
I'll add a vote for the SD9.. it's like the DC-3 of the rails.. broke ground and there are still many in service today..
The older diesels were a lot more forgiving than the newer ones. I've hacked off the end of wooden flag mounts with my pocket knife and wedged them between the tension spring and worn out motor brushes on the fuel pump of a Geep 30 to get it to work for one more day. I don't think I could wedge a piece of wood into a circuit board on a dash 2 model to get it to run.
rodney mcgiveron
Member
G'day all Brett ,The SD9 was a high hood wasn't it ?....A friend has a hard to come by (I believe) Proto 2000 model of this loco...BNSF971, Re the Geep 30...Aren't they dear old things...I agree ..one good thing about old technology ..what we call here "bush mechanics"..allows you to find an ingenious way of getting home...because you can..
Necessity is the mother of invention and locomotives would be no different..I'm going to show more of my ignorance here ...Here goes Geep 7s ,9s, 15, 18s , 20, 30s 35s 38s and 40s.
On SDs..I also recall seeing mention of an SD 38 and 39.How many others between SD9s and SD38s were there? Several I expect....I had til then thought the SD 40 was the natural progression of the GP38s and 40s..that us modelers often buy as our first basic train set models..My first one was a Bachmann ready to run set..to test the waters...I soon added another similar set..with a few different components , then I was hooked....Both sets came with GP40-2 s as their locomotives... Now I have numerous variant models of Geeps , SDs and GE stuff...No ALCO's yet though or Baldwin as you guys have since educated me on...Cheers again Rod...
Necessity is the mother of invention and locomotives would be no different..I'm going to show more of my ignorance here ...Here goes Geep 7s ,9s, 15, 18s , 20, 30s 35s 38s and 40s.
On SDs..I also recall seeing mention of an SD 38 and 39.How many others between SD9s and SD38s were there? Several I expect....I had til then thought the SD 40 was the natural progression of the GP38s and 40s..that us modelers often buy as our first basic train set models..My first one was a Bachmann ready to run set..to test the waters...I soon added another similar set..with a few different components , then I was hooked....Both sets came with GP40-2 s as their locomotives... Now I have numerous variant models of Geeps , SDs and GE stuff...No ALCO's yet though or Baldwin as you guys have since educated me on...Cheers again Rod...
