EMD SD45 series official thread (covers all variations)

[Jamshid]

you do realize a new prime mover with all the associated electronics and accessories costs on the order of 3/4 to a million dollars...

I think Maximum 500000 $ is more correct for a new medium speed diesel engine rated around 3250 hp and if the power held the same the accessories will suffice. (no need to change them)

When repowering take places in overhaul schedule the existing diesel engine overhaul cost could be subtracted. (so the total extra money to be invested on a overhauled locomotive with new diesel engine will be less than 400000$ in compare with an overhauled loco with its own old diesel engine. The repowered engine will be virtually as economic as a brand new locomotive (with about 2.5 million $ price) and will be trackworthy for extra 10 to 15 years in comparing with those which have old engines)

High speed diesel engines are preferred now, because with the same thermal efficiency and power their price are about half of medium speed ones and mid-age repowering is justified for them. (After 15 years of operation repowering with in hand new engines is prescribed!)

Due to these facts the price of second hand locomotives are so low! Because they are not economical at all but for some regional or second class railroads.

But just for fun I tell you there is somewhere that still produces locomotives with 645E3 engines in Turkey, follow the link! (As Allen writes GRIN )

In turkish but specifications can be found out easily:
http://www.me.metu.edu.tr/~ergin/TCDD/DE33000/

In english: (TCDD roster)
http://www.trainsofturkey.com/modern_eng_overw.htm

New GT26CW photo:
http://www.trainsofturkey.com/diesel/DE ... msas_l.jpg

[Jamshid]

A brand new GE 7FDL12 with Alternator and twin Aux and exciter generators and all needed adaptors to repower an Ukranian TE10 locomotive is just 611000$ (33 Million $ for 54 kits)

Click to find more:

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/Detailed/11464.html


https://www.getransportation.com/genera ... SESSION=NO


http://www.contact-teplovoz.lugansk.ua/ ... ve/t10.htm

[Allen Hazen]

Jamshid--
Thank you for the two very informative posts, with links. (Imagine me, not just grinning, but smiling broadly!)
Do you read Turkish? 1.016 meters is 40 inches, so I assume the first number (at the top of the page on your first link in your first psot) is driving wheel diameter, but what is the next one-- the one close to 1.8 meters?
"Tampondan tampon" is given as a bit over 20 meters, so that's the overall length. Is "tampondan tampon" Turkish for "buffer to buffer"?
Thanks, again!
---
My father taught in Turkey, at a school in Tarsus, for two years a long time ago, but only passed on a few words to me, most of which I've forgotten. One of my nicknames as a child was "Kuçuk Ayi" from a Turkish children's book: "Little Pokey Bear."

[crazy_nip]

O.k., suppose YOU were running Metrolink. You've got a limited budget: everybody has a limited budget. You want some improved passenger locomotives; the bean-counters on your staff tell you not to even THINK about ordering new. You also want some worktrain power. Between what you already have and what's available secondhand, you have available to you (a) passenger locomtoves with elderly, low power, engines (b) some decent-looking six-axle hood units-- just what you need for the work trains-- with engines too good to waste on that service.

you completely disregarded my comments about the high availability, low cost and readily available parts for SD/F40's...

UP was selling SD40-2's recently at very cheap prices. LOTS of railroads and leasing companies picked them up

similiarly AMTRAK just sold off ALL of their F40's very cheaply. Some even went to scrap

considering the readily available parts for the 40 series, one would be a fool to buy used SD60's considering these deals available recently.

furthermore for work train service, you dont need an SD60, that is not good use of horsepower in my opinion

plus the metrolink staff are familiar to a T with the 40 series internals

[Jamshid]

Allen, Thanks for your kind comments.

Do you read Turkish? 1.016 meters is 40 inches, so I assume the first number (at the top of the page on your first link in your first psot) is driving wheel diameter, but what is the next one-- the one close to 1.8 meters?
"Tampondan tampon" is given as a bit over 20 meters, so that's the overall length. Is "tampondan tampon" Turkish for "buffer to buffer"?

Yeni tekerlek çapý (New wheel diameter): 1016 mm
Boji dingil arasý(Bogie Wheel base): 1816 mm
Tampondan tampona uzunluk( length over the buffers): 20 770 mm

(You are right Tampon means Buffer)

More info could be found here:

http://www.trainsofturkey.com/diesel ... m#DE33000

[Allen Hazen]

Jamshid:
Thank you! 1816mm is too short for the wheelbase of a three-axle bogie*: at a guess it is the distance between two axles, making the total truck* wheelbase twice that. It's a significantly shorter truck than the one used on domestic CC units. The short truck used on some export models and domestically on the SDL39 is similar in overall length, but has uneven axle spacing: 66.5 inches between one pair and 79.5 between the other two, for a total wheelbase of 146 inches (=3608.4mm). ... I'll have to look through your links more carefully to see if there is a photo showing the truck at a good angle.
---
* More linguistic confusion: I started out replying to you in English-- "bogie" -- and, without intending to, switched to American-- "truck" -- in the middle of a sentence!
---
Crazy Nip:
Far be it from me to defend the rationality of the people who run Metrolink! (They live in Southern California, for a start-- that's one piece of evidence to suggest that they are crazy!) But on the particular question at hand...
Agreed, if you want a 3000 hp locomotive, an SD40 or an F40 is a far more sensible thing to buy than a 60-series. BUT these people have (or at least think they have) specialized operational needs: they want a passenger locomotive with significantly more than 3000 hp (but they don't need enough power to justify putting two units on a train). So a second-hand F40 isn't suitable... until rebuilt with an engine with more oomph.
As for using SD60 on work trains, you have no argument with me therre: that would be silly. But after they re-engine their passenger power they are going to have spare 16-645 engines (taken out of the old F40) and engine-less SD60 hulks (the donors). If you have those ingredients at hand.... Essentially they are getting the equivalent of SD40 for their work trains by puttin together parts from their scrap box.
You make the good point that spare parts (and maintenance skills) for 40-series locomotives are more readily available than those for 710-engined units. This would probably be a good reason for most short lines not to buy 60-series locomotives, but doesn't apply to Metrolink: they ALREADY have a 710-engined fleet of F59.
I don't honestly know if the project is a good idea. I don't, however, think it's as OBVIOUSLY a bad one as you do.

[Jtgshu]

When I first read that article in Trains, I couldn't figure out why they just wouldn't rebuild the SD60's and put them in passenger service, and add an HEP motor to the loco. Then I realized they would have to re gear the axles for passenger service, and 6 axles isn't really needed in commuter passenger service.

I think its a good idea......the SD60 is no longer state of the art, but still, its relatively new, (within 20 years) and puts out good HP, 3800. Swap the prime mover and electronics with the F40's, and you would have a rocketship - 3800 HP, 4 axles, lightweight loco which would have no problem hauling passenger cars around.

In the end, Metrolink would have a "new" passenger loco, with 3800 hp for a much cheaper price than say NJT (where I work btw) where they just bought a completely brand new design from Alstom, the PL42, which only puts out 400 moreHP (4200 HP) out of an EMD 710. But NJT is not installing a seperate HEP motor like on our GP and F40 units, but rather power the HEP directly from teh Prime mover, and Im not sure the 4200hp is before or after taking into consideration the loss for HEP - I THINK its before HEP loss.

So for lots of millions more, NJT is getting a "state of the art" diesel loco that is putting out practically the same HP as this hybrid Metrolink loco. I would like to think that the NJT loco would have better technology and wheelslip controls and the like and would be able to get more of that power to the rails, but only time will tell, how much of a difference there would be between the brand new technology and the Metrolink units, if built.

As a side note, I hope these new diesels are as reliable and as bulletproof as the CNJ GP40's they are replacing (but not our GP40FH's, they are junk and need to go away, and thank god are also going away when the PL's arrive)

[TerryC]

When the Wisconsin Central got FP45's from the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe did they convert them to F45's?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=29344
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=41585
Keep asking keep learning
http://trainiaxindex.cjb.net/ (out of order as of 10-7-04)

[crazy_nip]

what do you think?

if you really want to know, they gutted them, put 265H prime movers in them, put AC traction motors on them and then put an HEP generator on them


www.google.com is your friend

[498]

I don't think the management of the railroad sits around sniffing Floquil as they dream up ways to convert one type of locomotive into another.

[SSW9389]

The WC only got one FP45 from Santa Fe, the rest were F45s. The other six remaining Santa Fe FP45s are preserved.

[SSW9389]

Santa Fe sold six F45s to the WC. Information on the disposition of the Santa Fe F45s and FP45s can be found at qstation.org, specifically on Evan Werkama's Santa Fe Subjects website.

[Allen Hazen]

What would "converting" an FP45 to an F45 amount to? Disenabling, perhaps physically removing, the steam generator? Santa Fe surely did that when they moved the units into freight service. Rearranging the plumbing so the whole fuel tank (including the portion that was used to carry boiler water in passenger service) could be used for fuel? I would be utterly amazed if this wasn't done almost immediately after Santa Fe moved them to freight service (so: about the time Amtrak was established). Shortening the Carbody and frame to match an F45? No reason to do this, I doubt anyone would be tempted. Changing the engine? NO CHANGE NEEDED! Changing the gearing on the traction motors? That one I can't answer. Santa Fe, when they ordered the FP45, had some sections of the main line with a ?? 90mph ?? speed limit for passenger trains, so the FP45 probably were delivered with a higher-speed gearing than standard freight units: after they came off passenger trains, Santa Fe used them for a while on the "Super C" express TOFC train, which was allowed ?? 79mph ?? and so would probably also have needed higher gearing than standard. Later they used their FP45 in general freight service.
I think there's an interesting historical question here.
>>> Were the ATSF FP45 units regeared after they were removed from passenger service? If so, when?

[SSW9389]

I saw a set of three FP45s on a Santa Fe Director's Special coming and going through Flagstaff in the mid '80s. I'll check to see if they were regeared.

[SSW9389]

According to sources on THE Santa Fe list the FP45s were regeared to standard 62:15 freight gearing. One source says immediately after Amtrak started and the other says after their rebuilds. Both are or were ex-Santa Fe employees.