|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/17/2006 Posts: 1,627 Location: Hebron, In
|
One bad thing about those high hp locos is years ago a train had four or more locos, if one locomotive failed you still had three runners. Now you might only have one or two locomotives to start with.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 10/16/2012 Posts: 124 Location: Collinsville, OK
|
Colin wrote:Most of the EMD's and the GE's produce around 4400 hp from a V16 diesel. A few years ago, several railroads placed orders for the SD90MAC and the GE AC6000. These were 6000 hp although the SD90 MAC started out with 4400 hp and was to be upgraded to 6000 hp when EMD finished development work on the new 1010 ci diesel. By the time this engine was developed, the railroads had lost their interest in the 6000 hp locomotives. There are a few around, but not in any great numbers. Actually all of them have been turned down to 4400hp, there isn't any 6,000hp engines anymore.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/12/2012 Posts: 484 Location: San Diego, California
|
Colin wrote:Most of the EMD's and the GE's produce around 4400 hp from a V16 diesel. A few years ago, several railroads placed orders for the SD90MAC and the GE AC6000. These were 6000 hp although the SD90 MAC started out with 4400 hp and was to be upgraded to 6000 hp when EMD finished development work on the new 1010 ci diesel. By the time this engine was developed, the railroads had lost their interest in the 6000 hp locomotives. There are a few around, but not in any great numbers. The SD45s with their V20s were pretty awesome as well. Time, space, money keeps me from being a scale RR collector. I have Train Simulator, it's a fun substitute.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 3/23/2010 Posts: 701 Location: Washington, DC
|
The EMD 710 series engine is still available as a marine engine in the 6,000 hp rating. The upcoming Environmental Protection Agency Tier IV standards will end this though.
EMD is current working on a successor diesel engine which is rumored to be a four cycle engine based upon the 1010 series block.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/8/2008 Posts: 4,167 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
Claus wrote:One bad thing about those high hp locos is years ago a train had four or more locos, if one locomotive failed you still had three runners. Now you might only have one or two locomotives to start with. History repeats... Back in the day of steam, UP pushed for BIG (coal fired) horsepower engines (3800,3900 and 4000 series) because the maintenance on steamers was so labor intensive, it made sense to pull as many cars as possible with the fewest engines. When steam died, UP tried to maintain the policy using new diesel / turbine configurations - notably the double engined DD35s and DD40s diesels and 8500 series turbines. But the maintenance / operating costs for individual units were so vastly cheaper that it made no (economic) sense to run such large displacement engines. As noted, with four smaller diesels, you lose one and you still have three to play with. You lose an 8000hp turbine and you have lost the equivalent of ALL four small diesels. There are probably some remote geographic areas where the argument still makes sense, but the availabiility and standardization of modern diesels has pretty much eliminated the high horsepower "one-offs."
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Colbe wrote:Colin wrote:Most of the EMD's and the GE's produce around 4400 hp from a V16 diesel. A few years ago, several railroads placed orders for the SD90MAC and the GE AC6000. These were 6000 hp although the SD90 MAC started out with 4400 hp and was to be upgraded to 6000 hp when EMD finished development work on the new 1010 ci diesel. By the time this engine was developed, the railroads had lost their interest in the 6000 hp locomotives. There are a few around, but not in any great numbers. Actually all of them have been turned down to 4400hp, there isn't any 6,000hp engines anymore. The EMD's are 4300hp, that's why you see those SD90mac's on CP decaled as SD9043MAC. Same goes for the UP ones. CSX had some GE's rated at AC6000 but they have been turned down also to 4400hp. There are EMD's that run in Australia out of the mines that are rated as 6000hp.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Not to mention that it drives me insane when the FRB's have a pic or video and see 4+ engines in a consist and act like it's a lot of power; yes it is but not every locomotive is "online" and putting out HP. There's only a certain number of powered axles a train can have online, especially with AC traction motors. Overpowered you'd literally rip the train apart and the rail too.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/17/2006 Posts: 1,627 Location: Hebron, In
|
kokosing Const Co wrote:Not to mention that it drives me insane when the FRB's have a pic or video and see 4+ engines in a consist and act like it's a lot of power; yes it is but not every locomotive is "online" and putting out HP. There's only a certain number of powered axles a train can have online, especially with AC traction motors. Overpowered you'd literally rip the train apart and the rail too.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 6/1/2006 Posts: 4,065 Location: Dublin Ireland
|
Haha,I had only seen this on youtube a few weeks ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia9aeYQAXaoThere was a small run of engines made by a small loco manufacturer who used 5000hp Cat engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK5000Chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yriBZgGf_Q
Why is "phonetically" spelt with a "ph"? ... It's better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt The complex of Newgrange was originally built between c. 3100 and 2900 BC,[2] meaning that it's aproximately 5,000 years old. According to Carbon-14 dates,[3] it is more than 500 years older than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and predates Stonehenge by about 1,000 years.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Claus wrote:kokosing Const Co wrote:Not to mention that it drives me insane when the FRB's have a pic or video and see 4+ engines in a consist and act like it's a lot of power; yes it is but not every locomotive is "online" and putting out HP. There's only a certain number of powered axles a train can have online, especially with AC traction motors. Overpowered you'd literally rip the train apart and the rail too. Looks like a grade someone didn't wanna split the train on! lol Those are some BAD rail burns!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/17/2006 Posts: 1,627 Location: Hebron, In
|
kokosing Const Co wrote:Claus wrote:kokosing Const Co wrote:Not to mention that it drives me insane when the FRB's have a pic or video and see 4+ engines in a consist and act like it's a lot of power; yes it is but not every locomotive is "online" and putting out HP. There's only a certain number of powered axles a train can have online, especially with AC traction motors. Overpowered you'd literally rip the train apart and the rail too. Looks like a grade someone didn't wanna split the train on! lol Those are some BAD rail burns! I understand, splitting the train or at least helpers on the rear would be the right thing to do but again, if you had 4 SD40-2s vs one or two larger locomotives you would have 24 wheels pulling vs 6 or 12 right?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
SD40's are only rated ~3000hp, some only at 2500hp. It all depends on the traction effort put out for each locomotive, AC power is always better than DC power. The more traction effort that is accumulated, the results speak for themselves in the picture.
Here's an example:
For us at NS, if you have three locomotives in the consist, the rules say you're only allowed to have two dynamic brakes "cut-in". If you have three dynamic brakes "cut-in", it's too much braking power (sounds stupid, right? I know) but you won't tear S#$% apart. But traction motors are rated differently, AC dynamic braking is much more powerful than DC dynamic braking.
On the other hand, if you have three AC powered engines and only an autorack train (I only picked this because it's a light tonnage train) you can't have all three for power. A;; that effort (4400hp x 3 = 13,200hp), you'd literally rip the thing to pieces if you didn't know what you're doing.
Now on the third hand, if you had those same three AC powered engines on a coal train that had to go up and down hills on heavy grade territory, you might be a happy conductor as long as you have an engineer that knows how to handle a train. It'll pull the ass out of the coal drag.
Helpers do help (duh) a lot because they're on the rear. If anyone ever watched that corny show "Railroad Alaska" and remembers the one episode when the engineer said he had "25,000hp to pull this train" that wasn't all the engines up front. There could of only been three up front and three helpers/pushers on the rear. Looks like ARR only runs EMD's so 4300 x 6 = 25,800hp. If all of that power was pulling the train over a hill, it's literally would be scattered all over the mountain side.
Is any of this making sense? I am slowly starting to understand the engineering/locomotive part of my job, before I would only get on and go and hope we made it wherever we were going! lol
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/13/2005 Posts: 1,321 Location: Latrobe,Pa.
|
Listening,yes. Watch u guys go through Latrobe. Is 'frother' the term?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2003 Posts: 2,070 Location: Rockford,IL.
|
How does a burn on the rails happen, like in the photo? Rapid acceleration from a dead stop? Getting back to the trailer, what a buffoon! This would be a DOT Bear's dream come true. I wonder how many times the guy on the top fell off? Ken
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
SDBOB wrote:Listening,yes. Watch u guys go through Latrobe. Is 'frother' the term? I'd love to come down there in coal country, damn shame that coal dropped faster than a brick in water.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
kcmtoys wrote:How does a burn on the rails happen, like in the photo? Rapid acceleration from a dead stop? Getting back to the trailer, what a buffoon! This would be a DOT Bear's dream come true. I wonder how many time the guy on the top fell off? Ken Some jackass that kept pulling and pulling not giving a damn. I'm sure he's out of service for that right there. "Rapid acceleration" doesn't quite happen! Lol. If you've ever watched a train at a complete stop, by the time the engine loads and you pull, 3mph tops. Even when it's only a single engine, the speed will pick up faster once you get going, but doing a burnout doesn't happen! Besides any kind of rapid acceleration if it did happen, you most certainly would bust a knuckle, but that's what it's intended to do.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 10/2/2007 Posts: 5,966
|
That's what happens when you have a heavy tonnage train and not enough power to move it and the crew doesn't give a !!!!, that's wheel slip to the extreme, instead of backing off the throttle they just kept on spinning those wheels, once that rail gets hot enough it melts like butter with 440k lbs sitting on it doing a burnout
|
|
Rank: Member Groups: Member
Joined: 8/17/2015 Posts: 17
|
Quote:That's what happens when you have a heavy tonnage train and not enough power to move it and the crew doesn't give a !!!!, that's wheel slip to the extreme, instead of backing off the throttle they just kept on spinning those wheels, once that rail gets hot enough it melts like butter with 440k lbs sitting on it doing a burnout Exactly right. When you start a train moving you slowly throttle up until you get up to speed, the heavier the train gets the more important this gets.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/3/2015 Posts: 643 Location: New Hampshire
|
I see NS almost daily in Bow NH, hauling coal to the power plant or cement from Canada to the Cement Qubec depot down the road from the concrete plant unload out of. I love seeing those huge trains roll through. The other day there were 3 engines all hooked up sitting on a siding for hours. I wish I had grabbed pictures.
- Kyle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/1/2006 Posts: 2,486 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
KyleS wrote:I see NS almost daily in Bow NH, hauling coal to the power plant or cement from Canada to the Cement Qubec depot down the road from the concrete plant unload out of. I love seeing those huge trains roll through. The other day there were 3 engines all hooked up sitting on a siding for hours. I wish I had grabbed pictures. I bring those coal trains from Buffalo to Binghamton from Binghamton they go north to Bow. The coal comes from PA actually, not Canada.
|
|
Guest |