I’ll buy it. As has been said, of all the diesels around, it probably best exemplified the KISS principle, and was built to run and be repaired as needed. And as Don notes, a good set of hand tools and a test light is all you need…
In cars, I’d compare it to my 1970 Chevy C10 pickup. You can’t kill it…
Hey Eric,
The Lake County Railroad just aquired former SJVR 1761 from Western Rails Inc of Spokane, WA and it is currently in service on the LCRR.
Well yeeeeeeeeeeees, I guess you could make a pretty good aurgument in favor of the Geeps but…
Lets not forget the venerable SW series, lots of them lasted a very very long time also doing work every day of their lives, just not as glamourously as Miss Highnose.
Thanks for the information. It looks like I will have to go up there some time.
I see they rebuilt and sold SJVR 1755 also. They probably also got SJVR 1751
http://www.westernrailinc.com/rebuild.htm
I also found a page that has SJVR 1761 on it…
http://www.westernrailinc.com/loci3.htm#gp9W
I wonder if all three of those GP9s headed north on the same train. If so I would have liked to have seen it.
[:D] The elevators around here that don’t have a GP 9 usually have an SW. Seems both are pretty much made out of the same parts?
I guess it depends on who you ask… A lot of guys I’ve talked to that have been around a while, really liked the SD9… and actually still prefer it over some of the modern power today. I’ve often heard old heads say they don’t like any of the geeps, because the ride is rougher.
Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/
I do have to agree with you on the GP9’s diversified applications. Overall, I support you concept that the GP9 is an excellent locomotive. I do have to say that it was an excellent locomotive of it’s time, it was considered to be advanced locomotive technology, all in one package. The GP9 is also a good locomotive to have for inter city passenger service, shortline applications, and switching movements. However, it isn’t too good in terms of todays high speed intermodel, slow haul heavy freight, mixed freight, or any other form of present time mainline traffic.
In todays terms, it is considered outdated. Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high
Sarah-
Your points are right on. If they weren’t, the RRs would just be rebuilding GP9s instead of purchasing new!
A couple of points of clarification, though. The HTCR produces track forces very similar to a GP and high degree of curvature track. It’s really not an improvement. It is a BIG improvement over the HTC and Flexicoil trucks, however.
An onboard flange lube system is something that can be added to any locomtive. They do save fuel, but are a huge pain to maintain - and since the “cost” occurs to the mechanical dept and failure does not stop a locomotive from pulling a train - but the benefit accrues to the transportation dept (fuel is in their budget), flange lube systems are often inoperative.
I have no idea how the HTCR would do at high speed (>80 mph). But at those speeds, the extra TE from a 6 axle is usually not needed and four axles rule the roost.
CSX rules4eva said:
"Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it’s low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. "
The low gear ratio comment is not true. All of CSX’s big ACs can cruise at 75 MPH, which is higher than the freight gearing EMD supplied with the orginal GP9.
What? They stole my paint scheme!
The GP9 is the best all purpose diesel in my books! The only one I like better is the SD40-2. The H16-44 you may ask? It cetainly is one of my favorites, but it was not popular for good reasons. I am not a sellout!
Matthew
62:15 gearing gets you 65 or 70 mph on a GP9, depending on how close to the edge you like to live. Not a big difference with the 75 mph AC loco limit.
Passenger gearing on a GP9 would generally get you 90-100 mph - quite a bit faster than 75 mph. Back when GPs were being purchased, many roads still had one or more divisions with train control that allowed operation >79 mph. I think that’s what Sarah is talking about…
I know I am going to be drawn and quartered on this one. In my opinion the best engine is the U-25-B. Now before you get the rope ready here are my points for it. 1st with a pressuzied air intake system that used a single air filter. 2 pressurized carbody that kept dirt and junk from getting in the motoor in the first place. 3 It had the FDL-16 engine the same engine that with simple changes got all the way up to 4400 HP. 4 The first true second generation unit, without GE coming out with these the GP30 on up would not have come out when it did. GE forced EMD to come out with a better product than it wanted to. GM had gotten lazy on locomotive design. 5 GE went to the railroads and asked them what they wanted in a new engine andgave it to them.
Certainly can’t question the points given - they would tend to point toward the U25B furthering the cause of, and improving, the diesel electric. But how many are still on the road?
I neglected to mention that New Haven bought GP9s in their infamous 1956 diesel order, that almost killed their electrification!
Only somewhat true. The “speed limit” on an AC locomotive is not as directly gear-ratio driven as on the GP9. On GE AC’s the speed limit is simply a programmable feature in the control computer. Both AC4400’s and AC6000’s have a traction motor capacity in excess of 110 MPH. However, the thought of a CSX 440,000 lb “rail crusher” AC60CW entering a curve at 110 MPH somewhat scares me…
edbenton -
There are a couple of drawbacks to the U-25-b that outweigh all those advantages you list.
First - with that 3-foot 16-notch throttle, they were more than unhandy to run; the GP9 was a very pleasant locomotive to run. Did you ever pick up and set out on line of road with a U-25? No contest, unless you were an octopus.
Second - they’d never load up fast enough to be a good switch engine, which a GP9 would do.
Third - compared to a GP9 with its Blomberg trucks, the U-boat rode like a log wagon.
GE might have gone to the railroads and asked them what they wanted, but they sure didn’t ask the guys who were going to have to run them.
Old Timer
Yes old timer the u-25 had its problems so does everything. Remember the gp-9 had manual transition at first. A 4 stroke never loads as fast as a 2 stroke do to simple mechanics. Yet around here a short line the IL Railnet RETIRED its CF-7 in favor of GE and I talked to a crew the GE actually rides better than the CF-7. But the biggest probelm everyone has with GE is they REPLACED ALCO!!!
You think people hate GE because they replaced Alco? I’m aghast.
As for the U-25-B, what a miserable engine to operate and its obvious that you never operated one, you are telling your very best mechanical opinion. That’s ok but, as someone already pointed out, how many can you find today?
The U25B was inovative, but a miserable locomotive in just about every other respect. A slimy, oily, gooey mess of a locomotive to try to keep running. This thread is about the “best” - which presumably would include every aspect, not just design inovation.
Yes I have never operarted a u boat however I have worked on both types of engines. The 567 had a nasty habit of leaking water into the crankcase and turning into mayonase not a god thing for main or rod bearings. The fdl on the other hand yes it leaked oil But it would not turn the bearings into so much scarp. It did have its problems and was not the best design when it came out. GE stuck with the same design and model of engine just made improments to it. EMD on the other hand had the 567 a-d series and then the 645 series a-d and now the 710 series and then the H series.