To get back on topic, I see where Progress Rail is rebuilding some SD 50’s for NS and installing CAT 3516 engines rated at 3005 HP at 1800 rpm. These engines are smaller and lighter than the 16F3’s they replace but have a much higher piston speed, wear faster at that rate and the lube oil has to be changed out at 250 hrs of operation,. I noticed in the photos that they keep the same radiator so presumably they expect to operate at the higher power for a considerable period of time. The SD 50 was longer than the SD 40 in part so that there was enough room for the larger radiator. I know that the newer engines are so much more fuel efficient that now they have to stop the train to pump it off before it spills but the large radiator represents some of the energy from the fuel that’s not convertible to shaft work. So what do we have,a smaller lighter engine in a locomotive that’s pretending to be a SD 40 but’ is larger and heavier that they are going to do what with- replace GP 38’s in switching which is fine for the engine or to try it as a substitute for SD 50’s as a line haul unit. Even with the smaller engine they don’t seem to make any progress in reducing the size overall. I wonder if there will ever be any follow up on this experiment.
Are you certain about that? I’ve read online that the repowered units for NS are 4000 HP(including on one of the bigger NS fansites with lots of current roster info). That would mean that the units have either the 12-3600 engine or it’s tier III successor (C280?). I have read that UP is having some SD40-2 repowered by Wabtec/MPI with 3000HP from 3500’s…
You could be right. My source said that they are doing both UP SD-40’s, and NS SD-50’s. It doesn’t make sense to derate as large a locomotive as an SD 50 for anything but line haul service. Progress Rail as a part of CAT probably needs demonstrators of its engines for locomotive service. The whole purpose of the 3600 design was part of a plan to eat EMD’s lunch particularly for marine engines and the coupling disc and crank centerline high are purposely design to bolt in in as an easy EMD replacement. It didn’t work out though and they probably still haven’t recouped the development costs.
In the 1940s Baldwin experimented with a 6,000hp diesel with a “centipede” wheel arrangement, though this used multiple prime movers. Production locos had two 1500hp prime movers. Only an handful of this less-than-successful-loco were built, mostly for Pennsy.
There use to be someone at Electro Motive in the 70’s that that said it took 25 years for everybody to forget why something that seemed like a good idea didn’t work. He was referring to the light weight train from about 1955. Baldwin had their own ideas about what a diesel locomotive should look like. In the case of the Centipede an electric locomotive with diesel generators aboard. You will notice on there 6000 hp set up they had to use 4 engine-generators sets to get it, the same as 4 F3’s. Maintenance issues aside the locomotive market is extremely price sensitive. For the Centipede idea to work it should have been 6000 hp total for the same price. The other idea originated by Baldwin is the genset concept which they couldn’t even get a complete demonstrator locomotive completed. The original concept of represented by the FT seems valid today.
I had actually been on the railroad for quite sometime before i realized that the ice cream box wasn’t the proper name. same with Michiana tank. their still referred to that this day.
The original concept by Max Essl (see January 1963 TRAINS) involved a 2-D+D-2 running gear and eight 750 HP diesels mounted crosswise in the carbody. The carbody also involved modular construction. Due to wartime material restrictions, only four diesels were actually installed and a handful of test runs were actually run, none of them particularly successful. The only thing that got passed along to the Centipede was the running gear design, although I think that the running gear of the testbed was used under SAL 4500.
Except for the running gear, the Centipede was conceptually not that different from the E. Two 608SC engines rated at 1500 HP each were mounted in the carbody, not unlike two 567 engines in an E.
Going back to transition era technology, there was a widespread belief that 500HP/axle was the practical limit for a diesel. Thus, a truly high horsepower unit would end up with four trucks on span bolsters, like the UP 4500HP turbines.
One reason that EMD’s products blew steam off the tracks was that EMD, with its GM automotive background, went out and aggressively sold their products while the big steam builders sat back and waited for the railroads to come to them. Then, too, the EMDs were standardized, while steam remained with railroad-specific custom designs right up to its last gasp.
Chuck