I recently saw a video about the Morrison Knudsen M5000 locomotives. Only six of these were ever built and they are now in service with the Utah Railway. Another thing unique to these locomotives is their use of Caterpillar engines. Does anyone know why this equipment didn’t sell to the railroads? Also, I have often wondered why Caterpillar has never been a major player in rail power. Years ago, I worked in the offshore oil drilling business and Caterpillar engines were highly regarded. We also used EMD, White - Superior, and MAN diesels, but, interestingly I don’t recall ever seeing GE diesel powerplants offshore or in marine use. Any comments?
One guess is that the GE diesels typically produced max power at 1050 to 1100 RPM, which made them inconvenient to use with 60 Hz electrical systems. The Cats were designed to run at 900 RPM, which blends in nicely with 60 Hz electrical systems.
The MK 5000 units are just SD50s now since they have had their Caterpillar engines replaced by EMD 16-645F3B engines rated at 3500 HP instead of the 5000HP from the Caterpillar model 3616. Some SD45s were fitted with 3600 series engines as tests by Santa Fe and other roads, in conjunction with MK. They weren’t good enough to fit to the whole fleet. It is possible that the cost of spares for the really big Cat engines was higher than the much more common EMD engines, and the engines were unfamiliar to maintainers.
The smaller 3500 series engine is used a lot in MPI switchers, including those sold by EMD as GP15D and GP20D, in which it was called an “EMD 170B” engine, based on its bore of 170mm (compared to 270mm for the 3600). The EMD four stroke “H engine” which was rated at 6000HP in the sixteen cyinder, had a bore of 265mm, less than the Caterpillar 3616, which gives you an idea of how big it is!
So it seems that the smaller 3500 series Caterpillar is a bigger success with railroads than the bigger 3600 series.
M636C
Another hang up with Cat was that they franchised out their service and maintenance support to private vendors. The RR’s didn’t want multiple points of contact for service and support issues depending on location. They much preferred a national point of contact with the Cat and Cat wasn’t set up for it nor interested in that sort of arrangement.
The above scenario may have been due to the fact that Cat had little desire to alienate its dealers by going direct to the customer with its own service contract.
Another factor, which has been mentioned in other threads is that while Cat engines are good performers, they suffered by being oddballs. Six re-powered SD45’s each on UP and ATSF are not going to get the same level of maintenance support in a world dominated by EMD and GE engines. It would be a good comparison to see how well PTRA in Houston does with an all-Cat-powered locomotive fleet.
They are coming up on their ten year rebuild.
Not just the engine, but the entire locomotives get shopped for a comprehensive overhaul.
So far, in the ten years we have used them, none have had any major component failure, and flat yard switching is pretty rough on locomotives.
Back in the early 90s a handfull of BN GP20’s and some GP30’s were rebuilt with Cat engines too. Those Cat GP20’s don’t appear to be part of BNSF’s roster either.
Well,
Most of them held up pretty well.
On the other hand, shoving a pipe through the alternator can cause problems.
The Cat lived, the Kato croaked!
Lyon Wonder Said: Back in the early 90s a handfull of BN GP20’s and some GP30’s were rebuilt with Cat engines too. Those Cat GP20’s don’t appear to be part of BNSF’s roster either. And I say: The CAT GP 20s and 30s are now on the roster of the Twin Cities and Western, and Red River Valley and Western, earning their keep.
Uh, Houston? We’ve got a problem.
(Ha! Got that one in first. [:D][:D])
Except for the two killed by the BN, they drowned one in the Mississippi River near Alma, and they ran over one of Soo Line’s GP15Cats at St. Paul Yard. Neither Kitty survived.