Aren't the new GEVOs pumping out 4400HP out of only 12 cylinders(367 HP/cylinder)? The V16 (375 HP/cylinder) should easily be able to handle 6000 ponies...
As far as HP, Class 1s seem to be settling on the 4400 HP mark from the AC4400Ws and ES44s (both AC and DC). Norfolk Southern, however, has all their hi-horse units rated at no higher than 4000 HP. Thus what may be called an ES44DC on, say, BNSF or CSX would be an ES40DC on NS. As for GE's Evolution series, I refer you to the first issue of Locomotive from Kalmbach Publishing- your local hobby dealer may have back copies, or you can order one from Kalmbach. I have shot pics of AC6000Ws on CSX recently rolling thru Cordele, but they're kinda lost in the GE crowd. IIRC, UP also still has AC6000s, as well as AC6044W (C6044AC on UP) units. The latter I've seen only on coalies, and even out in "Junction" on the former Rio Grande North Fork coalies.
Well took a closer look yesterday and yes they are all 6000hp units in the 89XX series. I should have looked closer the first time. Steve
Doesn't look like UP was all that happy about 6000 HP EMDs. From what I've read on the KCS Yahoo group list, the KCS hoggers didn't care much for the '90s all that much when they got 'em on lease from EMD.
So, are the 9043s staying then? I haven't seen one in ages though to be fair, it takes more effort then it used to to get to UP territory. I wonder what the specific complaints were from KCS? I mean UP had them for a while and I think was unhappy with the availability and such, but KCS didn't seem to even have them long enough to form an opinion. Incidently don't the AC6000's generally suffer the same bad rap? I wonder what it is about China and other Non-US railroads that the 6000HP units seem to work out better?
I've seen AC6000Ws on CSX often, even in pairs, and apparently CSX still uses them. It could be that EMD was having issues getting their new prime mover to perform (among other things) on their SD90s, while GE was able to largely overcome these problems. With domestic HP levels staying at 4300 for EMD and 4400 HP for GE, the market for more AC6000s has dries up. Besides, GE's working on its GEVO units (more HP with more fuel efficiency, 4 fewer power assemblies and less emissions), and EMD's focusing on their 70-2 series.
If the 6000s really are the GEVO prime mover in V-16 form, maybe it's just a matter of having the parts whereas the H-mac is totally different. I've gotten the impression that the 265-H is pretty stable now. I think the biggest problem was getting railroads to stock the additional parts.
With 6000 hp units, a big issue is adhesion. See http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=89090&page=2 AC6000s are used on iron ore trains in northwest Australia, and I can guess why they worked out there. Not much risk of wet or icy track - or worse, wet leaves - in the Outback. They can consistently get the adhesion to use their horsepower to advantage.
That would imply that it's not the prime mover at fault but rather that they weren't able to create better adhesion to make use of it. One would then assume that GE and EMD are looking into that matter. My next question is, if the 265-H is so much better, Then wouldn't it make sense for EMD to pull out a few cylinders and perhaps realize some fuel economy? I understand that part of the problem is that the 710 is a known quantity based on 75 some years of engineering design, but still.
IIRC, the AC6000 runs with a souped-up FDL prime mover- I'm under the impression that the GEVO prime mover came out much later as a 12-cylinder block.
Yeah, I'm not sure at all. All I remember is that the 6000 prime mover had issues too, but apparently they were better resolved. Or maybe, again because it's the same crankcase, stocking parts was less of an issue. Sorry to be bugging everybody in 2 threads now. I'm always curious about this kind of stuff though.
There are about a dozen 8200 and 8300 UP running Spokane to Lethbridge, I have seen solid Up trains on the Crow sub lately.
The 9043's have the same engine as the SD75 and the late SD70 series. Incidentally, why aren't the 4300 hp SD70s called SD75s?
It's not just the engine that changed though. Or rather, I'm trying to verify that something other then the prime mover changed. Supposedly KCS had issues with the computerized controls and the Air brakes. I'm wondering if those same subsystems are in the 9043s? Also, just sniffing around Wikipedia, the different versions of the 16-710G3 engine in use on EMD 60/70 series engines is ridiculous. I think they were just consolidating names. The Tier 1 70s and the 16-710G3C are where things get wonky. So it's not just HP that's determining things.
