P&W Locomotive Fleet

The 3 2200 series are B23's? Are these gas guzzlers or are they just getting alittle long in the tooth?

B23-7s are pretty fuel efficient for their size and pulling ability.

161pw165 wrote:It was posted on a Yahoo Groups forum that the 3004 is down because of a power assembly. Also reported, 2201, 2215, & 2216 are for sale and P&W is investigating some former Oakway SD-60's as no more BNSF B40-8's are available.

I've been wondering why P&W didn't invest in six-axle power sooner. I'm assuming that they have system-wide weight restrictions? Another question, why sell more units if your facing a power crunch? I wouldn't be suprised if they needed the money for the SD60s, but that would put them at a short term disadvantage.

161pw165 wrote:Yes, it would be their first use of 6-axle power and seems odd given their recent preference for 4-axle GE's. CN has been buying up both BNSF and UP Dash-8's as their leases expire - maybe there isn't a lot of other GE power around that hasn't been run into the ground. I also wonder just how many B40-8's (standard or widecab) are still available.

As for why SD60's? I know they didn't like the fuel consumption of the GP40's they had; maybe they have the same concern w/ SD40's. Or possibly they want more horsepower than to SD40 provides.

Maybe P&W is starting to move to more modern power. I wouldn't be suprised if we see numerous SD60s (maybe some SD60fs) and GP60s show up so P&W can standardize on parts and get more powerful locomotives. This could also fit into the theroy of unit reduction.

I'm not sure if EMD 60-series locos are any more "modern" than GE Dash 8 locos. They were built in the same time period (late '80s / early '90s), and it was during that time period that GE took over as the #1 locomotive builder in the U.S.

Regarding possible weight concerns, a typical SD40-2 actually has a lower per-axle weight (total weight divided by the number of axles) than a GP40-2 or a B39/B40-8. The whole point of the Special Duty (SD) series in the beginning was that they were better suited for lighter track. Today that's not really the case anymore with the monstrous SD70ACe, but anyway that's a little history for ya'.

SD60s are a bit heavier than SD40-2s, but I think the per-axle weight is still slightly lower than a comparable-horsepower four-axle unit.

Anywho, can we confirm this rumor of the oakway SD60s?

* Edited by the moderator: please do not quote 20 lines of text just to add a one-line response.

From What I have heard (Rumor Mill) that these unitsare for Stone service out of CT. they are to be equiped with ACES for the corridor. ... stone being big out there it will cut down on there need for extra engines in New HAven.

boatsmate wrote:From What I have heard (Rumor Mill) that these unitsare for Stone service out of CT. they are to be equiped with ACES for the corridor. ... stone being big out there it will cut down on there need for extra engines in New HAven.

P&W needs more engines that can haul more, period, underline, and exclamation point. The SD60s should provide just that, and more engines would be freed up for use in other operations.

Logic would suggest the new power will run the unit trains (stone, ethanol, maybe coal). The 2215 and 2216 were pretty permanent residents in CT; though the 2201 more often stuck around Worcester - Providence, so that leads me to think stone and ethanol. From a strictly hp perspective, they will be selling older units totalling approx. 6900 hp and acquiring 11400 hp worth of power - a big jump. Also, the new units will be getting the ACSES equipment from the ones being sold, making them suitable for the NEC. You probably won't see these much in RI, other than maybe the turn jobs from Worcester to Davisville. But, as pointed out earlier, P&W runs their power pretty much system-wide based on availability.

First, this is a report from the yahoo group. These are just my thoughts on any potential SD60s. Look at Pan Am, they've gone to almost all SD40. Not saying that P&W wouldn't have restrictions on these units, but if it's for stone service then it makes sense. Besides, if they do well, we could see more perminant residents from EMD.

daylight4449 wrote:First, this is a report from the yahoo group.

What's your point? Are you implying that the information is not accurate because it comes from a Yahoo forum as opposed to a Railroad.Net forum? There are other sources of railroad-specific info out there that are credible with their data.

Anything posted on either forum is pure spectulation at this point....


I'll wait till they are on the property then I will believe it.......



Rich B

True, true, Rich. To quote another forum, "Pics or it didn't happen".

161pw165 wrote:True, true, Rich. To quote another forum, "Pics or it didn't happen".

Who knows. They could be in a similar situation to CSRR when they traded the sisters. But, to keep all this in check, let's make sure there is solid details before we talk about any prospective SD60s further.

SD 60's would have to many restrictions.
Most North East railroads do not like SD units as it harms their rails
A SD60 is to higfh for MNCR since it is higher than 14' 6" and would be restricted everwhere.
P&W is more GE than EMD so why change ??