Santa Fe was upset by how rough riding the GP60M turned out to be. How could EMD that had been turning out widecab locomotives for CN in 4 axle and 6 axle models screw up so freaking badly on that one. Crews said riding that one was like getting on a bucking bronco for a trip per a retired railroader I am friends with. Then throw in EMD insisting for years staying with a 1 inverter per truck while GE was offering 1 per axle. The simple fact was GE just started offering a better product. Except for BN and UP’s major orders can you think of any major EMD orders in the last 25 years of more than 300 units at one time.
To be fair, GE’s B40-8Ws rode about as bad as the GP60Ms (both were exceptionally rough). Both the GP60Ms and B40-8Ws were renowned for their rough riding characteristics, truck hunting, and bouncing at grade crossings, crossovers, etc.
Yeah, everything I’ve read says the Dash 8s were AT BEST marginally better behaved than the 60Ms. And both were horrible. Also, Everything I’ve read about the GP40-2Ls and especially the GP40-2Ws was that they were close to if not as bad as the GP60Ms. ATSF asked for a design that was going to bounce a lot. They knew that up front, because the CN units rode rough. EMD and GE both did their best to account for that. They were still rough as hell. but again, they were what ATSF asked for and both companies built rough riding units. So that’s not an indicator of the problem.
Further, ATSF bought 83 Dash 8-40BWs and 63 GP60Ms+23 GP60Bs. So roughly equivalent 152 Dash 8-40CW The SD60M was lower HP. which would mean for ATSF, slower train speed. They bought 102 SD75I/Ms. A unit designed specifically for them that upped the HP of the SD70M ATSF wanted EMD to match the Dash 9. They clearly WANTED a unit from EMD and it would seem to me that it was the SD75 that soured ATSF on EMD, not the GP60M. I don’t know why they didn’t like them. Clearly they were good enough to be kept working when needed. until their leases ended. LUGO when traffic was down, because they’re snowflakes. The GP60Ms are STILL on the roster. The Dash 8s, all flavors are mostly not.
I wonder why all the GP60/M’s and SD70I/M’s are getting rebuilt if their so bad?
Well, in the case of the GP60Ms, I’m pretty sure the answer is CARB. The California Air Resources Board and BNSF/UP’s voluntary agreement with them on fleet emissions.
??? They wanted this???
The GP60Ms and Dash 8-40BWs ride rough because they are very heavy for four axles, and have the heavy cab on one end. Santa Fe might not have asked for a rough riding unit, but that is what they recieved after specifying those parameters.
The GP60Ms are being rebuilt for use as local power, where they have been for years, as they are cleaner burning than BNSF’s other four-axles which keeps CARB happy.
A lot of the 4-axle Dash-8s are still around on BNSF, though dwindling slowly.
I never said they didn’t make a profit.
They could make the locomotive “x” price and be a very low margin on the actual locomotive price tag.
Then the usual bait and switch and make it up on the backend with financing, just like buying a car…
The locos were still balanced, they had to be or it would have been worse than a rough ride. So there was plate in the back and fuel tanks were shifted.
in the case of the GP40-2L, the L was for light in that the frame was lighter than standard.
I agree, I’m not saying that ATSF asked for units that ride rough, I’m saying ATSF asked for a GP60 with a safety cab and they had to have known the engineering issues that that design was going to present.
Did the 60Ms and 40BWs ride appreciably different on a full tank of gas vs. empty?
I find it hard to believe that the SD70 ACe is junk.
The BHP Billiton system in Western Australia is operated exclusively by 180 SD70 ACe units.
I worked on this line in the 1970s, and I’ve visited it from time to time since then.
Two units haul a load of 110 cars each of 308 000 lbs gross, so 16 940 tons over a route of around 250 miles to the most distant mine. Trains have ECP brakes and are run in distributed power sets of six locomotives and 330 cars.
Most of these units are a slightly modified design, but eleven were standard units built for BNSF that became available when the GFC coincided with a peak in iron ore demand.
Previously the line had used Alco C636 and MLW M636 locomotives, GE C36-7s and had standardised on GE C40-8s although they had eight AC 6000s as well.
Their competitor Rio Tinto went for C44-9Ws followed by ES44DCi units.
The ES44DCi was built on the AC 6000 frame with AC6000 radiators (as well as the air to air intercooling) in order to operate in the temperatures up to 45 degrees Celcius in summer. These can’t have been cheap to buy, almost certainly much more than an SD70M-2.
Strangely, the SD70 ACes
330 cars? Distributed power? ECP brakes?
I was going to say John G Kneiling’s vision of his Integral Train, but someone beat me to it: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21415
M636C (3-11):
South of the equator operations with Alco’s tells me that you are talking about niche operations, that became adept at doing what the majority was unable to do. But, BNSF, CSX, and FEC’s track record with contemporary EMD’s is for all to see.
Personally, I am an EMD man. But when sources tell me EMD’s are junk, it has to make one wonder. One source has repeatedly said UP’s SD70M’s (all 1400 plus of them) “creek” and that kind of burst’s an EMD man’s bubble. In 2008 the famous UP-Metrolink Chatsworth head-on took place. The UP was a local, with SD70ACe’s! At the time they had been regulated off hotshots. Apparently, whatever issues UP had with them has been resolved, because they again are seen on hotshots system wide.
That was just an interesting perspective, M636C. One has to accept what those that run the power have to say about that power!
Best,
K.P.
UP was also using SD70ACes as helpers out of SLO on the Cuesta Grade same time as that crash. They’d replaced the Tunnel motors. They come through Roseville all day every day. As do SD70Ms. Which probably do creek considering their age. You know what doesn’t EVER come through roseville except to sit in a dead line? Dash 9s. They’ve been banned from the UP in California. UP rebuilt some of their SD60s though…and a bunch of the rest were still being used until the new T4 units started to push SD70Ms to locals. BNSF is rebuilding their SD70MACs AND their SD75Ms. Why would they do that, especially the SD75Ms which are a relatively small group, if they were crap?
The ownership woes of EMD didn’t help the quality of the product at key times. Basically, it was cast off by GM and didn’t really get much attention from other owners. Cat is the first owner that really gives EMD its due which is good but they lost a healthy 20 years of having adequate resources, so I have to give it to the EMD guys for doing more with less.
With GE, remember making sales isn’t always about the product but also about the deal itself. GE Capital is one of the largest essentially banks in the world and GE was able to agressively finance locomotive purchases and make very attractive deals. EMD never really had a financing arm that could compete with the likes of GE Capital, but now with Cat they are able to do some more deals.
Also – sorry on the double post but I found this article to be relevant:
Thank you for calling them ‘safety cabs’ and not ‘wide cabs’, which never existed and still don’t.
AS AN EMD MECH I ALWAYS LIKED THEM THEN THE GOVT. TIER 2 3&4WAS DOABLE
THEY KEEP JUSTIFIENG THER EXISTENCE NOW TIER 5 & THEY ARE DREAMING UP 6 FUEL & MAINT COST IS OF NO CONCERN TO THEM.THE GEVO 250 SEEMS GOOD BUT HOW ARE THEY TO WORK ON WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS HERBYGD@AOL.COM
They are wide nosed. The cab itself is the same width.
We use the term widebodies where I work.