Hi I am a Loco Driver (Engineer) with BHPBilliton in the Pilbara region of Australia and was wondering whether anyone has heard or knows when the 13 new SD70ACE’S we are expecting over here have left Canada yet and what date,thanks in advance.
I have had it confirmed internally that these 13 new SD70ACE’S will arrive this Sunday the 11th of Jan,we dont tend to hear about these things till the last minute almost.They should be running out on track by the end of the month or early Feb i would imagine.
Hi,
I have always been curious to get information about locomotives from people that operate them. How do the AC6000CW’s and SD70ACe perform on the railroad? Also why do they get EMD engines rather then GE’s? Very curious.
Frank
The AC6000CW’s go ok,I believe they have all been fitted with new engines,Tier2 compliant I think.One of the problems we have with them is the Inverters,which can get flooded with water from torrential rainfall and sometimes render the locomotive a failure.Overall though these Locos are my favourite.As for the SD70ACE’s,they have proven reliable considering the extreme heat we operate in up here,and have probably proven correct the decision to go for these locos over what GE had available at the time.I dont know for sure though I believe 3 factors were in play regarding ordering the SD70ACE,these locos were available for order to BHPBillitons schedule,they are Tier2 compliant and so more environment freindly and thus fuel efficient and their tractive effort I believe was better than the the GE AC Traction package available at the time which was the AC4400 as the Evolution series was not available at the time to meet BHPBillitons order schedule and its tractive is less than the SD70ACE I believe,plus the SD70ACE was a proven package.
Thank you,
I appreciate your reply. I find it fascinating reading and speaking to people that have experience with working on the railways. It is also interesting that they decided to go with EMD, specially considering how GE is outselling EMD over here in America.
Frank
The starting and countinuous tractive effort of both EMD and GE’s products are comparable to each other. Also the EMD SD70ACe as well as GE’s ES44AC went into regular production at the same time, so had the railroad wanted to order GE units they would have had the option to order either the newly introduced ES44AC or the older AC4400CW. Likewise they could have ordered he older SD70MAC from EMD rather than the SD70ACe.
Bryan Jones
There appears to be a difference between the SD70ACe and the ES44DC regarding operation in in the consistent high temperatures of the Pilbara.
BHP Billiton have successfully run ex BNSF SD70ACe units in normal service, but Rio Tinto purchased special ES44DCi units with longer AC6000 frames and larger radiators for their operation.
Rio Tinto aren’t known for spending money on a special design if a standard unit would do the job (hence the DC units in a service where AC units might be normal).
Rio obtained a number of Dash 9s after the ES44 was introduced, so I think Pilbaraman is right.
GE did not have a design suitable for the Pilbara available when BHP Billiton ordered the SD70ACe.
I don’t know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does, and BHP Billiton were able to take advantage by buying off the shelf locomotives.
M636C
If I’m interpreting your message accurately, why are the AC6000CWs your favorite?
Thank you.
Perhaps the temperatures are high enough to increase the DC traction motors’ susceptibility to overheating.
I don’t think that is the problem.
The ES44DCi has much bigger radiators but the same traction motors (and blowers, as far as I know) as the Dash 9s. So the problem with heat is with the diesel engine, not with the electrical system.
Of course, trains with only DC locomotives on the BHP Billiton system sometimes have to stop on the grades to cool their motors, (even in mid-winter) and it is clear why they have gone for AC traction locomotives.
The GE V250 engine must be more temperature sensitive than than the EMD 710G3 or even the GE FDL (V228).
M636C
To answer one question,the AC6000 is my favourite loco because its the most powerful Loco i have driven or operated,I like the cab layout and control stand setup and 6073 was my leading loco on My first train by myself on the BHPB system,a 300 plus car train too.Now to go back to the tractive effort for a ES44AC=166,000 Pounds for 738 Kns,a SD70ACE=157,000 Pounds for 698 Kns,so there is an advantage there to GE.I just am not sure that what was available when BHPB ordered the SD70ACE in 2004 as in a fuel efficient Next Gen Locomotive and proven would include the ES44AC.I found that BNSF ordered 30 pre-production ES44AC Locos in 2003-2004,but it looks like most of the orders for these locos have been since 2006,all i found approx 1900 ES44AC’s have been ordered and approx 850 SD70ACE’s,maybe that says something,hey maybe the BHPB order came down to Price.
my understanding was that an EMD cost more
That might be the case for locomotives for use in the USA, but if you take into account a longer frame, the bigger radiators and the extra radiator fan required by the GE to work in the Pilbara, and the extra time to design it and slot it into production, the standard EMD might actually be cheaper.
M636C
This discussion is becoming confusing to me, so I decided to try to clarify something.
When you mentioned that the SD70ACe “operates better” than the ES44DC, what did you mean by “operates better”?
My reason for asking is that I’ve always understood that AC-traction units cost more than comparable DC-traction units and that when railroads decide to pay the increased cost of AC-traction units, that decision is generally based on the expectation that an AC-traction unit will outperform a comparable DC-traction unit.
So to me, it seems natural that an SD70ACe would “operate better” than an ES44DC.
And that leaves me wondering if, when you say “operate better”, you’re referring to something different than the usual performance differentials (for instance, tractive-effort levels) between AC-traction units and DC-traction units.
The difference I am concerned with is solely related to the diesel engine and the cooling system.
There are no SD70M-2s or ES44ACs operating in the Pilbara, but I assume that an SD70M-2 could operate with a standard radiator and that an ES44AC would require the longer frame larger radiator and extra radiator fan.
It seems that, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, that the GE engine is more temperature sensitive than the EMD, or the EMD cooling system has more reserve capacity.
The reason that there are no ES44ACs is that Rio Tinto has always trusted the DC system despite having steeper grades than the BHP Billiton system. BHPB were unhappy with the early performance of the AC6000 units, but have re-engined all of them with 16V250 engines, but that influenced the selection of EMDs.
Even the Pilbara AC6000s had bigger radiators than the US units.
Generally, it appears
Interesting to see the SD70ACE’s are referred to as ex BNSF. I believe the first orders were BHPB specs and while the last batch were from a BNSF order, I believe they never turned a wheel in revenue service for BNSF. BNSF for whatever reason allowed BHPB to take loco’s out of BNSF’s current build. Something that happens in other industries as well and would obviously be a benefit to both parties. GMS-AU
Are we dealing with a comparison between EMD Tier 2 units (regardless of specific model) and GE Tier 2 units (regardless of specific model)? My reason for asking is that we’ve apparently shifted from discussing the SD70ACe and ES44DC to discussing the SD70M-2 and ES44AC.
If you are making this more general comparison, are you saying that one of the manufacturers has a more effectively designed cooling system than the other manufacturer has?
I think that the reason this discussion keeps confusing me is that I’m used to dealing with design differences in relation to performance differences. In other words, if one of the manufacturers has designed a better cooling system, I would expect that the other manufacturer’s locomotives would derate themselves more quickly and frequently than the first manufacturer’s locomotives would derate themselves. If that – or some other design-related problem – has been occurring, I would be interested in learning about it.
The reason the locomotives are regarded as ex BNSF is that they were delivered in the BNSF base coat of orange with silver trucks rather than the BHPB TerraCotta and grey and their builders numbers are in the BNSF order series. They will probably remain in orange for quite some time and look quite distinctive.
There have been a number of batches of SD70ACe at BHPB. LC stands for low clearance but the actual height reduction is only an inch or so.
4300 to 4313 were the original group of SD70 ACe/LC. 4300 was used for spare parts.
4314 to 4323 were fitted with isolated cabs, model SD70ACe/LC.
4324 to 4333 were the orange standard SD70ACe, with isolated cabs.
4334 to 4347 are currently being unloaded in Port Hedland and are SD70ACe/LC with isolated cabs.
4348 to 4355 are on order and will be standard SD70ACe with isolated cabs (from a USA order).
M636C
I’m just talking about Tier 2 engines from both manufacturers.
The GE Dash 9s used in the Pilbara were relatively standard, with standard radiators for the FDL engine. There were additional air vents for the radiator and the engine intake to assist in the high temperatures.
The AC6000 had slightly larger radiators than the US version for the HDL engine. These have been refitted with GEVO (16V250) engines retaining water cooled intercoolers with the same radiators.
What is now Rio Tinto continued to buy Dash 9s well after the ES series were introduced in the USA, and it appears that this was at least partly because GE had not completed design work on a version of the ES44 suitable for use in the sustained high temperatures in the Pilbara. The very last Dash 9s were delivered to Fortescue Metals, a new operator just before the first E
Yes, thanks, I think that I understand your approach.
When you said that the “SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC” you were referring to your belief that there is “an inherent advantage in the EMD engine in meeting emission requirements”. In other words, your focus is on the issue of how particular prime movers are designed to limit emissions; and I take regulatory compliance as a given and focus on the issue of the ability of particular locomotives to move traffic.