The GE of yesteryear has nothing on the product of today, everything Dash-9 and newer (AC44, GEVO) is as good as anything EMD can put out (some cases better) and will last as long as any EMD built over the same time period. Thinking the C4s FEC has bought will be failling in a few years has clearly never taken notice of the reliability of current GEs. As for the ‘well documented’ turbo failures, they’re not actually that frequent…
Besides the locomotives, the very interesting thing about that train was the flatbed trailer TOFC loads.
You just don’t see that anymore. One of the things I like about the FEC is that they’ll do the unconventional. If a shipper will pay them good money to haul a flatbed trailer, they’ll just take the money and haul the freight.
You should know better than to confront people with actual facts.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, while post Dash 9 GE locomotives were good, the FDL engines never reached EMD levels of longevity due to cracking failures in the cast block. The Hamersley Iron original Dash 9s had their FDLs replaced after about ten years (Just as BHP Billiton introduced SD40s with forty year old engines). The Pacific National C40-9is had their lower rated (4000 HP) engines replaced after 16 years. The GEVOs might last longer but we’ll see in time.
The GEVO turbochargers were a different matter. With the technical data included with the Rio Tinto ES44ACi units was a drawing of a revised turbocharger which claimed a 1.5% increase in efficiency. It did however have a much more rigid set of shaft bearings set further apart which, not having previously heard much in detail about the turbo failures, was a fix for the failures you discounted.
If GE designed a new turbocharger, I’d say the failures were serious…
M636C
A lot of the reason why GEs die early is parts supply. GE is very protective and there are few who build their parts, and so when they end their parts support, the entire model line dies (for example, the last of the Dash-7s died rather suddenly about 2007.) EMD is not, and so you can find their parts from many suppliers.
I doubt Dash 8s and, especially, Dash 9s will dissappear from the rails anytime soon. NS is currently rebuilding it’s spartan-cab 6-axle Dash 8s into C40-8.5W (or C40-8E) with a new wide-nose cab, which is similar to their admiral cab SD60E rebuilds. And there’s even talk of NS upgrading their DC Dash 9s with AC traction motors. BNSF also rebuilt BNSF 616, a former ATSF C44-9w, into what is essentially an AC44C4.
I get your point Peter and respect your experience in the field, my post is more directed to the individual comparing a GEVO to a U25B and making the point that the GEs of today aren’t the ‘garbaGE’ they once were (hell GE even admitted the early U boats werent that good).
Those are some good points. I’ve never heard of the ES44ACi, but I’m assuming it’s an export variation. Since my last post, I have read about the BNSF -9 conversion in a magazine, and I have seen a NS dash8 rebuilt with the admiral cab. Those look promising.
These GE’s probably will last a little bit longer, and I have noticed that some railroads take better care of their engines than others. NS is turning into the 1970’s ATSF with all of their rebuilds. While CSX is a little less enthusiastic, I will take note that they take better care of their 1970’s EMD’s than GE’s of the same time, if there are any -7’s left on the roster…
I say that it’s a little early to predict the future for aging GE’s. From history EMD has better long term reliability and can take a little more abuse (remember the CSX8888 that ran in full throttle for two hours with only a melted parking brake to fix?) , but GE may be onto something with their new prime mover. However, I would not dive into a largely GE fleet after seeing how some engines age, and after hearing the words of a GE worker.
Quick question, how come EMD’s get rebuilt into slugs while GE’s aren’t? The only GE slugs I’ve seen are the Sandersville set, which are powered By EMD mothers.
I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I’m just wondering. GE has good tractio
I probably came over a bit more abrupt than I meant to, something to do with too many Christmas functions and Family gatherings.
The three original Hamersley C 36-7s were a bit of a surprise. These were obviously designed for use in a cold climate, with dynamic brake grids under the radiators cooled by the radiator fan. This wouldn’t work in the Pilbara, so they drained the radiators to operate the dynamic brakes and cooled the engine (which had to run the traction motor blower) with an extra radiator located above the blower. This was eight years after the Australian M636s had introduced adequate radiators and reasonable dynamic grids cooled by the main blower. Later rebuilds of the Alcos had electric fans cooling the dynamic brake grids.
GE did introduce better dynamic brake arrangements at the end of the Dash 7 production, that have carried through to the ES series.
But the short effective life of the FDL has been a limit on rebuilding of GE units compared to EMD. GE will sell EMD parts and would sell many more FDL spares if there was a demand. I think some replacement FDLs were built up using a new crankcase casting and the crank and power assemblies from a used engine. But in general, locomotive rebuilds are described as having new FDLs.
M636C
The ES44 DCi and ACi are built on the AC6000 frame and have AC6000 radiators with two cooling fans to suit the high temperatures in northern Western Australia. Rio Tinto resisted buying AC locomotives, and bought 100 ES44DCi units while their main competitor bought SD70ACe units.
The interesting thing was that the standard SD70ACe radiators were used quite successfully, with both types meeting Tier 3 emissions.
I can only assume that the GEVO engine was more sensitive to temperature variation. Rio Tinto GEVOs suffered a number of early turbocharger failures, hence the references to the improved turbo in the GE description of the ES44ACi…
M636C
i don’t think so, but BNSf engieers don’t like the C4’s in mountainous territory, claim they stall with a heavy train. Thought the C4’s were supposed to be used on high-speed trains, not heavy grain or coal. Also, I read that the SD70ACe-P4’s were changed to SD70ACe-P6’s
Not sure where this came from, but I think it’s in response to speaking clock’s comment about the potential longevity of the GE C4 design. Some of the ‘better’ BNSF commentary on the C4 is in this Trainorders post, and I think that it is at least possible to extrapolate how some of the reported ‘issues’ might be observed … or fixed … as the locomotives “mature”.
Considering the subject matter of the original thread, however, why would experience in ‘mountainous territory’ concern FEC? There are more significant issues in other aspects of performance – and, I might add, it would be interesting to know what’s been done since the time of the Trainorders ‘review’ (in April '13) to address the observed issues with the C4 design…
The 8500-8519 SD70ACe-P4s were built as P4s, converted to P6s then turned back to P4s, all before entering service.
Having worked with computers for 45 years untill my retirement. many of which were as a programmer. I can say after carefully analyzing the computer problems stated by the engineers in the Train Orders thread that they can be easily fixed with updates. That thread is almost 2 years old and I am wondering if GE has fixed the problems. I would be interested in an update on the C4’s from the BNSF engineers. I also wonder from a professional point of view what compute language(s) GE is using for their programming. I can think of a number of them that would be appropriate including Assembler, Java, C and C++, with Fortran for the number crunching.
I keep reading that FDL’s can’t be rebuilt once the crankcase needs a rebuild. Apparently NS has an answer for that.
" The railroad’s rebuilding efforts evolved from the GE arrangement, says Graab. To ensure the Roanoke shop is optimally equipped for the program, NS last year installed a $1 million CNC line-boring machine that’s designed to repair engine frames that typically had been scrapped.
NS now saves about $155,000 for each salvaged GE frame."
(From progressiverailroading.com)
If this works I can see NS doing FDL frames for 3rd parties.
Those Roanoke diesel guys must be descended from the Roanoke steam guys.
When I heard about the ES44C4’s having a problem on the BNSF, I assumed it was the trubocharger.
I’m sorry for making an assumption, but ( with all of the information from above posts ) I think that the ES44C4’s would probably do better on the flatter FEC, instead of the mountainous BNSF. I was unaware the units were being used in mountainous territory, but I should have seen that coming.[banghead] I thought they would be doing lighter but still important runs.
From what Overmod said before about the engines operating in mountainous territory, it sounds like the locomotives were misapplied.
I was born before this, but can anyone Remember what happened when the PRR tried to replace the A5s with the 44 tonner, or the GS4?[#offtopic] Philidalphia docks are a far stretch from mountainous territory, but according to an old trains magazine article ( the diesel that could not replace steam) the GS4 class was purchased to try to save some money, yet they were a headache.
The GS4’s were great engines, at least two are still operating today (stratsburg’s and vulcan materials) they were just misapplied.
The ES44’s will probably be right at home on the FEC, but to me it sounds like the BNSF is trying to get a bottle opener to open a tuna can.
You’re being a little unfair. Santa Fe did fine running over the Transcon which is mountainous with 4 axle GE and EMD units. The problem seems to be some bad computer settings. otherwise, they way I read it is that they perform just as well as any 4 axle and perhaps close enough to a Dash-9/ES44DC to not care. And that’s all that was required. BNSF uses them system wide…just like ATSF used to use 4 axle system wide. They don’t swap units out for mountainous territory nor should they.
I’m going to let the engineers that run these things answer that.
However, the mainline trains have gotten bigger since the days of engines like b40-8’s and GP60’s.
I’m just a train watcher, and the first GE I ever saw was a small white center cab switcher in the railway museum of greater cincinnati. It is not the pink one that is here today.That was a good engine, but it was put in a museum because the trains Outgrew it.
That also explains why the four axle road units can be found switching.I know that BNSF has done a few gp rebuilds (remember this: BNSF rebuilding GP35s intoGP39-3s)Didn’t atsf gp60’s replace the gensets at the LAJ?
Again, not trying to sound sarcastic, just trying to get correct info.
my bad for bringing up the u25b, that was like comparing Disney’s Donald Duck to Marvel’s Howard the duck. He was marvel right?