What sort of things can the Union Pacific do with the retired SD90MACs?
They could repaint the shell or hood in paint schemes of the Chicago & NorthWestern and the Wisconsin Central to see what it would have actually looked like if CNW and WC had SD80MACs.
They could take the bodies off the frames and build new locos or passenger cars upon them.
They could take the bodies or shells from the frames and put them on a GIMBLE platform surrounded by large video display screens to make an authentic Locomotive Operations Simulator.
Why? I’m not trying to rain on your parade but UP is in the business to make money, not to repaint retired locomotives they’re never going to use again.
UP had two batches of 265H-engined SD90MACs. SD90MAC-Hs with the standard SD70M/MAC-series teardrop window cab, and the later SD90MAC-H Phase 2 with the newer square-window cab that’s used on the SD70ACe/M-2. The Phase 2 SD90MAC-Hs were returned to EMD in 2006, while the Phase 1 90MAC-Hs were retired and sent to East St. Louis for scrapping. Supposedly these SD90MAC-Hs were dismantled with parts taken that could be used as spares for UP’s 16-710 powered SD9043MACs. Maybe UP should have turned some of their SD90MAC-Hs into slugs.
Now we only have 307 more of the stupid SD90s to get rid of. When they are working, nothing else can touch them for braking or power, unfortunatly that doesn’t happen very often.
The technology of solid state inverters is on going and the Siemens equipment furnished with the SD90’s is unique to that design locomotive. Parts, if available at all are going to be very expensive hence the policy of cannibalization to keep the others running. Their might be a possibility that the 4300-hp units can use inverters from EMD that are used on the latest 70MACe’s but if their is any problem with these units, just park it and drag out a couple of SD 40’s. Probably one reason UP announced a program to remanufacture 500 SD 40’s undoubtedly with the Tier 0 upgrades to their engines.
If I was “Uncle Pete”, I’d purge all who were involved with recommending the purchase of the “Jimmy Junk”. Other than that, one would look cool in your back yard, painted in your choice of prototype scheme. You could kennel your Rotweillers in it and they’d never get out, depending on the size of the rust holes, of course.
To have progress you have to ‘push the envelope’ and try things that are new and different…sometimes those things don’t work as intended…such is the price of progress.
Nah, UP was just going through a cyclical phase. Every other decade-or so UP has the temptation to get untried and unproven high-hp locos that are more powerful than anything else on the market, and more often than not suffer from reliability problems or other issues and are retired after only 10 years or-so of service, sometimes even sooner. The 1970s-era GE U50C was “Jimmy Junk” too.
How different is the electrical equipment between the SD9043s, SD70ACE, and SD70MAC. It would seem that you needed the SD90 to make progress towards the SD70ACE.
Other than the basic body styling and 4300 HP rating, there is almost zero similarities between the 90Mac’s and the 70ACEs. the MAC’s use Seimens electrical equipment that was state of the art in 1995, well after 15 years they turned out to be not up to the demands of the North American locomotive demands. its a smart system… too smart for their own good. the SD90’s are a good locomotive until they started to think and look at their insides, then they go into panic mode and shut down. The SD70ACE’s use Mitsubishi (sp?) iverters and switch gear. they are MUCH much more ruggedized and relaible. the ACE’s have some engine problems; but over all are more relaible month over month then the C45’s and SD90’s, not quite where the C44AC’s are though. only the SD70’s and SD40’s can touch them.
You would think that somebody at UP would have knowledge of lack of success of the GE turbines, Big Boys, U50’s, DD35, DD40 and the big Alcos that all would up in the scrap pile very quickly. Seems like sombody has reinvented the wrong wheel more than once.
The Centennials had reasonably long service lifes, the Gas Turbine fleet did what they were designed to do but the increasing cost of the Bunker Fuel they ran on made them uneconomical…in what way were the Big Boys “unsuccessful”?
A total of what seven engines built? I wouldn’t consider a steam engine built near the end of steam as a highly successful engine. All the others have repeat histories of high horsepower for their time quickly retired.
For progress to happen you have to take some chances. AC motored locomotives were a complete dud until they got some bugs worked out of them, now look where that chance has taken us. The DDA40X’s were a wonderfully reliable locomotive, the whole -2 series is based on the modular electrical system pioneered in the 6900’s. They had just reached the end of their economic life and needed to move on. The 6000 Horse monsters were as much of an experiment as anything. the H-engine was plain too heavy and ridged for reilable railroad service, but it is a good P,M,I engine. the GE’s suffered relaibility problems as well, but that locomotive is the precurser to the EVO series. While I have no taste for them, they have been a very successful locomotive from a sales perspective for GE.
25 engines built…the fact that RR’s were rapidly moving towards dieselization says nothing about whether the basic engine design of the Big Boy was sound or not…