I hear UP is putting most or all of their SD9043MAC’s in storage or something like that. I read 3 different things about them. Does anybody really know what the scoop is. Here is what I read:
UP is putting their SD9043MAC’s in EMD shops for frame repair
UP is retiring them and replacing them with GEVO’s
UP is storing most or all of them at major points such as Proviso, San Antonio, North Platte and many more
During inspections the UP discovered cracking of the locomotive frames at the location where the fuel tank attaches to the locomotive frame. Those locomotives with cracks are being stored at major UP terminals like North Platte. Those locomotives without cracks are still in service, At this point the UP plans to repair the locomotives, but the repairs are awaiting UP and EMD mechanical people engineering a permanent fix and not just a temporary Bandaid repair.
There are among us “rivet counters,” able discern there merest meager variations among locomotives and other stuff of railroading…
This weld’s/frame cracking involves, believe it or don’t, shock-absorber counters. Response to track-to-truck-to-carbody inputs of force resulting in carbody-motion, make running any locomotive a unique thrill ride, well at least a curiously surprising micro adventure.
The video in this stream shows shocks on every journal. We normally saw few of the 9043’s in the Bay Area before I retired…so I fall back to the recollections about shock absosorbers: the HTC on dash 2’s had one on each side of the each trucks center axle and if leakage was seen speed was resricted to 50 mph (from 70)…no mention was made of any restrictions
for any other engs with leaking shocks—like the GE and Alco FBs, floating bolsters, Blomberg Bs with only vertical or vertical and horizontal shocks.
The GE C truck has shocks on the outer axles; the steerable EMD truck that I picture in mind had, initially, one shock mounted on the forward axles of each truck on one side and the trailing axle on the other side. Again no restrictions if leakage was observred.
Question. What was the effect of putting a lighter prime mover in these units? One of the design issues I remember reading about when SP reengined SD 45’s with 16-645’s was concerns about balancing weight. Thx IGN
There were 16 cylinder -40 series EMDs built on -45 series frames (IC’s SD40A’s come to mind) so there certainly was some engineering precedents known to ESPEE, I would imagine the real challenge was when they started using “cut down” crankcases (i.e the original 20 cylinder crankcase with the last four cylinders “sawn off”) in the SD45 to SD40-2 conversion program, though IIRC MK Rail held a patent for that process…
At the time the “convertible” SD9043MACs were built EMD had designed a common platform locomotive frame which would accept the 16-710, 20-710(i.e SD80MAC) and 16-265H engines so the convertibles were not a case of “kitbashing” but were engineered to take any of the prime movers…
Canadian Pacific bought 60 SD9043MACs (and 3 H engined 6,000 HP SD90s whcich were quickly retired), some may be in service but all are currently for sale.
CEFX leasing has a fleet of 40 (built new for them, not bought second hand)
We caught UP 8259 coming south through Bonners Ferry, Idaho, this past weekend. That’s the only SD9043MAC I’ve seen on this route in over a month. Weird, considering how they were the most common power here for several years. UP’s Can Am Corridor, Hinkle, OR, to Eastport, ID, is now mostly UP and CP AC4400CWs , with the occasional CP ES44.
For those who missed it, Kalmbach’s “Locomotive 2012” annual contained my story on the CEFX and UP SD9043MACs which once roamed the Can Am. Editor Greg McDonnell, who is one of the most knowledgeable people out there when it comes to diesel locomotives, changed my references in the story about SD9043MACs to read SD90MACs because that’s actually how they were listed in the GM/EMD documentation, even for the 4300hp versions. It was the buyers (UP, CP, CIT/CEFX) who applied the SD9043MAC name, according to McDonnell.
i’ve seen at 2 different times an indianna rr sd9043 on cp’s paynsville sub west of mpls mn. i know they have a few. I saw them because i heard a different souding loco coming other than the GEVO’s that we usually see and hear.
According to a fellow clubmember that works in the Roseville Loco shops, Roseville and Hinkle basically do there best to get the 9043’s on the other’s section of railroad. Nobody wants to deal with the oddballs.
So you’ll often see them in bulk on either division.
The latest word is that with UP needing a lot of power and having found no buyers for them they’ll be going back into service. The ones without cracked frames first and the ones with cracked frames will be overhauled and returned to service. No one wants them so UP is either stuck with them or would have to sell them for scrap prices. I recently started work at the NP diesel shop and I’ve been told some of them have been sitting “in storage” for several years already.
My contacts in Roseville have not ever heard that these units were up for sale. They were always laid up waiting for EMD to come up with a fix. The units in storage were not in working order. Until last year when the frame crack issues pulled them all out of service they were in regular use. They were always intended to be fixed and kept. They’ve been slowly making there way out on to the system. Dribs and drabs. Coming east. There’s a “scab” shop south of here doing the work. And absolutely every single unit will get the frame fix, because even the ones that haven’t cracked. WILL Crack.