Railroad Forums 

  • KCS returning SD90MACs in favor of B39-8s?

  • Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 5:27 am

KCS returning SD90MACs in favor of B39-8s?

Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.

Moderators: MEC407, AMTK84

 Reply

KCS returning SD90MACs in favor of B39-8s?

 #324668  by MEC407
 
According to the caption of this photo:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=166321


Is it because the B39-8s are less expensive and/or a better value, or are the SD90MACs really that bad?

 #324733  by Steve F45
 
Do these 90's have problems?

 #324772  by Jtgshu
 
I recall reading somewhere that they are off lease, and UP decided not to renew the lease. I guess it was like a five or so year lease.

It seems that they are simply too much locomotive for what the railroads need today. A train that would only require one loco runs the risk of getting stranded, while ive read that they don't MU to well with other locos and just sort of drag them around.

History does repeat itself - there is quite a history of high horsepower locos that weren't quite what they were thought to be, and not as successful as they could/should have been, and led relatively short lives. the gas/turbines, SD45X, any dual engined loco, U50, DD40, DD40X, DD35, didn't Alco build one C-640 too?

 #324819  by mp15ac
 
Probably KCS found that 6000hp/unit was too much.

Also, there wasn't a C-640, but MLW did build a M-640. It is preserved in a museum near Montreal.


Stuart

Re: KCS returning SD90MACs in favor of B39-8s?

 #325098  by Bryanjones
 
MEC407 wrote:According to the caption of this photo:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=166321


Is it because the B39-8s are less expensive and/or a better value, or are the SD90MACs really that bad?
its simply because the lease on the SD90MAC-H's expired. They were on a 1 year lease from EMD. It was this time last year when the units started to show up on KCS.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY

 #325126  by greenus90
 
ALCO built the dual engined C855- 3ea built, A-B-B. All went to the UP and all only lasted about 10 years before going the way of the torch. But wow did they look brutal!

 #325222  by es80ac
 
EMLX sure did a great job of desecrating the UP paint job and logo. :-D Wonder why UP has not sued them yet.

 #326238  by Luther Brefo
 
Jtgshu wrote: History does repeat itself - there is quite a history of high horsepower locos that weren't quite what they were thought to be, and not as successful as they could/should have been, and led relatively short lives. the gas/turbines, SD45X, any dual engined loco, U50, DD40, DD40X, DD35, didn't Alco build one C-640 too?
The M-640 was not a dual diesel engine design. It was an single 18 cylinder Alco 251 Prime mover.

 #326303  by MEC407
 
es80ac wrote:EMLX sure did a great job of desecrating the UP paint job and logo. :-D Wonder why UP has not sued them yet.
How do you know that it wasn't UP who blacked out the logo and blacklined the name before they handed the units over to EMLX? That is usually the procedure.

 #326342  by es80ac
 
MEC407 wrote:
es80ac wrote:EMLX sure did a great job of desecrating the UP paint job and logo. :-D Wonder why UP has not sued them yet.
How do you know that it wasn't UP who blacked out the logo and blacklined the name before they handed the units over to EMLX? That is usually the procedure.
If UP did it, they would have covered all traces of the Union Pacific letters to protect its corporate identity, instead of looking like a vandal job.

 #326352  by MEC407
 
Regardless, I doubt UP will be suing EMLX just because the Union Pacific name is still visible. :P If UP was really that concerned about it, I'm sure corrective measures would have already been taken -- e.g. completely blacking out the letters.

 #326417  by GOLDEN-ARM
 
U-Haul wrote:Reducing the horsepower to 4,300 would not solve many problems I am guessing. Alright, take every reusable part off the units and scrap the rest.

es80ac there are too many for Union Pacific to sue.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=165077
LTEX:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=137059
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=494252
NREX:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=166142
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=127532
HLCX:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=166084
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=476342
EMLX:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=533969
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=154572
Stick to guessing about "Union 76" gas balls. Derating HP is certainly one very effective way, to avoid failures from over-working. Taking every reusable part off? For what, rebuilding another SD-90? Railfan fantasy, and conjecture, is a far cry, from the reality of railroading. Try to guess about something, in the TAMR forum.......... :P

 #326968  by RS115
 
This could also be a largely financial transaction - perhaps the other guys offered more attractive lease terms for the other units.
 Reply
 Return to “General Electric”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -