Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 11:38:06 GMT -5
Yeah, I had a hard time spelling it.
|
|
c415rock
Moderator
"Linking the East with the West"
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by c415rock on Aug 27, 2013 23:21:34 GMT -5
This speaks volumes as to why CN is getting the SD60s and C40-8s, they can perform the duties the SD40s generally do with a higher availability rating and using less fuel in the process. As for LS&I, the reason they haven't bought new AC units is because their operations are seasonal, the financial outlay is just not justified. I'd also doubt they'd sell off their old GEs, they'd be left with no backup if they did! www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=448206&nseq=2NSM picked up the lease on the ES44ACs earlier in June iirc with the units entering service in the last month. And you don't need 4 locomotives to run one train...the ES44ACs are run in 2-1 DPU setup as their power doesn't require any more than 3 units. They evidently need the bigger power.... As for the tonnages? It's the bottom line! QNSL and ArcelorMittal both run a couple hundred wagon long trains round the clock which adds up in the tonnages hauled and the company's balance. This sort of operation generates the capital required to purchase the latest and greatest motive power hence the ES44ACs and SD70ACes showing up on these operations. The integration of the mines and railroad in the one company reduces haulage costs (essentially to the break even point), this allows the company a higher share of the profits and thus the capital to improve and maintain their infrastructure, motive power, rolling stock, etc. If CSRR owned the mine served they'd have more in the coffers to throw at the railroad aspect. First the CN purchase of these units is to increase the number of locomotives available system wide to meet traffic demands. And not to improve the bottom line. Yes the new ES44 will be effective in fuel consumption and help the bottom line. But CN dose not have any major plans to retire units because of this purchase. Also you did not address the reason why CN would continue to purchase SD40-3 if they were costing them money and not efficient. Now Back to the topic of doing less with more. Which Brian is wanting to do. After talking to some people in the know at Cliffs they explained the LS&I and the North Shore motive power state. First the LS&I: When the LS&I went looking for new used power. They found out that they could get a 6 year lease cheaper on the AC4400CW then they could get used units for. This is why the SD50's from NREX were on the property first. There was strong consideration to purchasing the used SD50's from NREX. Then they found out that they could get the AC4400CW lease cheaper than the used units. Yes the AC are more fuel efficient and good pullers. But them being on the property comes down to the price of the units not the bottom line. Back to the saying " Doing more with Less ". I was told without a doubt, if the SD50's were cheaper they would be there and not the AC4400CW's. Yes the management and the crews would like new power on the road, but upper management ( Board of Directors ) make the final call. In there view is how can we do more with less = What ever power is cheapest. As for the LS&I being seasonal. Wrong, wrong, wrong both mines are year round operations in th UP of MI. Besides the ore dock on the lake they ship ore via CN to points south. Second the three CITX units on the North Shore. These units just showed up last month and are there for testing for a 4 month period. No lease has been signed on these units. These units have been in storage in Kansas City for about a year. The bank wanted some miles put on these units. Cliffs/North Shore agreed to test these units out and are getting to use them for next to nothing. So upper management said of course. Almost free HP why would we say no. Once again field management and the crews would love to have new power, but the word from upper management is once the testing is done these will go back to CITX. They will look for used power at the point or if they can get a lease deal like they got on the AC4400CW's on the LS&I. Were the lease is cheaper than used units they will go that route. The thing to remember is "DO MORE WITH LESS" Now back to our regular scheduled SD40-2 discussion! Erik
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Aug 28, 2013 0:29:54 GMT -5
I never said they shouldn't get more SD40s nor did I say they should scrap or replace their SD40s.
As for the rest, it appears you've got a better eye than I do on the Michigan/Minnesota ore operations, atleast for the most part. Thanks for the 'insider' information. Whilst I generally concentrate on the Pilbara iron ore operations here in Australia I do take an interest in what the North Americans do (tho only the Quebec ore lines are anything like my freelanced system).
Only thing I'll add is I don't take much stock in what 'higher ups' say until things actually happen, Rio Tinto has supposedly been going to buy ES44ACis for the last 5 years now according to contacts I have with 'higher ups' in the Pilbara....
|
|
c415rock
Moderator
"Linking the East with the West"
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by c415rock on Aug 28, 2013 1:49:06 GMT -5
Hi gdrmco,
This is what I like so much about this forum. We both were able to educate each other on how operations happen or flow with railroads we know. We shared info and no one called each other names. In the end we all know more now than we did when this discussion started. I do agree with you about upper management, but Cliffs has a pretty extensive track recorded to look back on. To be able to see which way they are thinking.
Erik
|
|
|
Post by oldrail on Aug 29, 2013 1:46:29 GMT -5
Take this for what it's worth to you.
I would stick with the SD40-2 platform. If your railroad is to be tonnage first and just over minimum continuous speed up the hills, the SD45 (-2) is NOT your locomotive.
I base this on real world experience on the BN in the late '70's. Most of our consists were five 3000hp locomotives, U30C and SD40-2 in any combination. When the number of coal trains expanded faster the new loco deliveries we started getting a SD45 mixed in the consist. It did not equal faster speed up the hills, we instead got slower speeds and more wheel slip problems. If we got a four unit consist (same size trains) with a SD45 it usually resulted in a knuckle/drawbar (wheel slip) or a stall.
The SD45 was a very good through freight locomotive, but not when dragging hills at 10-15 mph.
Dick Haave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2013 9:25:37 GMT -5
I did some research on the disposition of the Conrail SD40-2 fleet. When Conrail was split between CSX and NS, they split the SD40-2 fleet and those locomotives are still working for their respective railroads. So according to my list of criteria for the Copper State Railway to purchase locomotives, the Conrail SD40-2 is off limits. This means that my one Athearn Conrail SD40-2 cannot be used and I will have to replace it with something else.
I still have time to put all this together. I am going to stay with the 40-2 platform or rebuilt SD40/45 platform.
Thanks Dick for the input on the 45's. I will definitely take your experience into account. The route my line takes through Arizona is flat as flat can be flat. There may be a small bump here and there, but for the most part it is dead flat. I think for added realism, I am going to have to through in a 40/45 or two. They seem to be fairly prolific with short lines and rebuilds. I already have one straight SD40 for a work train. If Athearn comes out with a Genesis SD40 or 45, that will be a big help.
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Sept 10, 2013 10:52:53 GMT -5
Dick's comments about the SD45 got me wondering a bit. He mentioned issues with wheelslip with the SD45 as compared to the SD40-2s/U30Cs. My wondering leads to this, is the wheelslip an issue inherent to the design of the SD45, or due to the extra horsepower developed by the 20 cylinder prime mover. Does the wheelslip issues Dick mentioned occur with the rebuilt units?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Snyder on Sept 10, 2013 12:07:39 GMT -5
Brian,
I model the FWWR and they just got 3 engines from CEFX that are SD40M-2 ex SP's. Two are on SD45 chassis that were rebuilt to -2 standards, which replaced the engines to 3000hp engines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2013 12:27:43 GMT -5
It is what the Arizona & California had also. Two ex SP SD40M-2's. Think I am going to have to add some Kato SD45's, but use the P2K hoods. Those are going to be expensive models having to buy two to build one. I like the Kato drive and trucks much better than the P2K. I'll put Athearn side frames on them though. I think I may do three of the rebuilt 45's. I think they will look good in CSR paint.
Now I just need Athearn to restock their 4000 gallon fuel tanks.
So this puts my CSR roster with really only one oddball unit and that being the SDP45. I like the roster line up now.
|
|
|
Post by mandealco on Sept 10, 2013 14:18:33 GMT -5
Just a quick comment before I get off to work. Going back a generation of motive power, what prompted railroads to use Alcos in mineral service? C&NW put 6 axle Alcos into ore service till they were worn out. They replaced them with SD-50s (IIRC)and they failed to deliver in the tough grind of ore service. LS&I were using older Alcos in the same service, till they were worn out.
In Conrail's early days, they put all the big Alcos into mineral service at Mingo Jct. In this service, Alcos were top performers. Their slow lugging ability, lower fuel consumption and captive service, showed where they were meant to be. CArtier and the Aussie ore railroads are further examples. If they had the TLC they needed, they would out perform the others.
These are just the comments from a very biased railfan.
Cheers Steve
|
|
|
Post by enginseer on Sept 10, 2013 16:23:45 GMT -5
A very enjoyable thread.
I think what is obvious considering all of the excellent information supplied here is that well taken care of SD40-2's are fine, but having a few modern high horsepower locomotive(s) is also appropriate.
Perhaps the Freelance is in transition from old to new power or rebuilds. Maybe business is booming necessitating hiring lease units with an eye to new power? Or, is the road struggling to survive with maintenance suffering and locos cannibalised for parts...
I guess it all depends on the state of the freelance during the period your modelling. The success of your road reflected in the units it operates.
On my road, for instance, I went a little farther with the "what-ifs" and the local economy is booming once again allowing me to operate as a successful small road with lots of varied products to ship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2013 17:38:53 GMT -5
My motive power decisions are based on long conversations I have had with a couple of friends who work for short line railroads.
Steve, if my freelanced railroad was back east, it would be an Alco line. For some reason eastern railroading and Alco are synonomous with each other. Before I settled on what I am modeling and the location, I tried desperatly to havemy road back east. Only problem I had was I am not at all familiar with any eastern regions so I had no idea where to put my railroad and what the scenario would be. I am VERY familiar with the region and area my railroad is in and it all just seemed to work.
What I really wanted was an eastern setting around the early 1970's. But then you have to look at teh state of railroading then. No way would a short line be buying SD40's, 45's or SD40-2's. Those were all new at that time. It would be more like GP7/9's or F units or Alco RS type units. No way would they be owning the big power that Class 1's were running.
|
|
|
Post by mandealco on Sept 10, 2013 22:45:20 GMT -5
I'm enjoying this thread too. Sorry I couldn't tempt more Alcos out of your workshop Brian ;-) Not too many Alco mineral short lines west of the Mississippi. Utah RR would be the most obvious.
From a more realistic view point, the reason Alcos were good luggers, was the GE traction motors. Looking back on most of the Alco replacements, in the USA, Canada and Aussie, it was GE's in most cases. GE's were often refered to as cheaply built Alco's. But they still don't look or sound as good!
Cheers Steve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 8:34:45 GMT -5
Steve,
I do have a couple of other freelanced roads that are based in Minnesota. One is called the Vermillion Railway named after the Vermillion Range running along the eastern side of Minnesota that is rich in iron ore. The other called Two Harbors Iron. Based in Two Harbors, MN. Those would have been great candidates for Alco power. I settled on Two Harbors Iron. I like the non-railroad sounding name.
The scenario was that new technology reopened deep shaft iron ore mines. The only problem I had was not knowing the area or the route my railroad would take. I know it would end up in Two Harbors for offloading iron ore, but the inland route was a mystery for me. But again, it would be modern due to how the scenario plays out with the key word "reopening" deep shaft mines because of new "modern" technology.
But my Copper State Railway has all the ingredients for a "prototype" railroad. the infrastructure is already there. I only needed to find a way to transfer the Phoenix area operation to Copper State and UP did that for me when they took over the SP and shut down the Phoenix yard for a brief period. The story built itself and I added life to it.
I am enjoying the flux in my motive power roster. I am understanding it a bit more and it is starting to solidify. I originally was not going to put rebuilt SD40's and 45's into it, but I believe it is the right direction to go with it to maintain a very real scenario. I think the SD45 would look really cool in CSR paint. I have three slots I need to fill and I think those will be rebuilt SD45's. Maybe one ex Penn Central and two ex SP SD40M-2's. I will need to update my web site again. I have also added a straight early SD40 (ex UP/PNC) for a work train locomotive. The SD40 will retain its original UP road number 3065. Considered the first locomotive CSR purchased, it arrived with on the property with this number and it was never changed. Later on it was relegated to work train duty. it will be the one model that is severely weathered. Not abused, just heavily weathered.
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Sept 11, 2013 9:04:38 GMT -5
Funny that, I've had on the backburner for a while another freelance operation, 'Gogebic Iron'. GEs and ALCos for that one....
I'm liking the direction you've got Brian and the drive to stick closely to it. Really makes things easier to believe with a solid story!
|
|
|
Post by fyrfotog2 on Sept 11, 2013 22:56:15 GMT -5
Brian,
About where does your railroad operate here in Arizona? Not many places where its flat....
David Phx
|
|
Kurt
Road Foreman
Posts: 56
|
Post by Kurt on Sept 11, 2013 23:10:01 GMT -5
I've really been enjoying this thread as there have been some great discussions regarding the used motive power market and what would be picked up by an upstart regional. In my worthless opinion I think the biggest overlooked group of locomotives in this discussion would be the BN SD40-2's. They started to become available in the mid to late 90's and were in good enough shape to go right into the lease fleets. I think one or two could easily fit into the Copper State roster and be totally believable. Kurt
|
|
|
Post by oldrail on Sept 12, 2013 1:48:04 GMT -5
Dick's comments about the SD45 got me wondering a bit. He mentioned issues with wheelslip with the SD45 as compared to the SD40-2s/U30Cs. My wondering leads to this, is the wheelslip an issue inherent to the design of the SD45, or due to the extra horsepower developed by the 20 cylinder prime mover. Does the wheelslip issues Dick mentioned occur with the rebuilt units? This was the 1976-78, the BN SD45 were not dash two's nor did they have the higher adhesion trucks. At the slow speeds (11-17mph)we were dragging, the SD45's were working more amperage (due to their higher horsepower). There was a difference between GE's (U30C, U33C, U36C) and EMD units as to how they correct the slip. The end result was the EMD smoothly reduces the load to correct the slip and them smoothly loads up again. The GE normally gave a noticeable jerk when they corrected their slip. The problem we encountered was the SD45's slipped more which in turn caused the other units to take up more of the load which caused them to slip more. With an mostly all EMD consist the slips weren't a problem, with a mostly GE consist (as was the norm) the extra slips became more of a problem which could (and did) lead to break-in-twos. Most often it was a rotary end drawbar five to ten cars deep. The unit coal trains used a F111 knuckle which had a solid pulling face knuckle and they turned out to be stronger than the rotary drawbars.
Why didn't we use more sand you ask? Using the MU sand (all units direction of travel) with a five unit consist caused your speed to decrease one mph or more (increased train resistance) which caused all the units to work higher amperage and causes more wheel and rail wear. You almost always had to use some sanding (normally lead axle only) into and out of the transitional spiral on curves due to the head of the rail changing angles with the wheel tread. There were times you had to use lots of sanding, like frosty rail, when it first starts to rain, when you had a unit (SP, MILW) that just didn't want to work and play well with others.
If by rebuilt units you mean the dash three electronics, probably not. It was amazing how much more the CP "Posi traction" SD40-2/3 could pull as compared with a standard dash two. I believe some of these same issues are why the WC upgraded the electronics on their SD45 fleet.
Dick Haave
|
|
|
Post by oldrail on Sept 12, 2013 1:55:34 GMT -5
Just a quick comment before I get off to work. Going back a generation of motive power, what prompted railroads to use Alcos in mineral service? C&NW put 6 axle Alcos into ore service till they were worn out. They replaced them with SD-50s (IIRC)and they failed to deliver in the tough grind of ore service. LS&I were using older Alcos in the same service, till they were worn out. In Conrail's early days, they put all the big Alcos into mineral service at Mingo Jct. In this service, Alcos were top performers. Their slow lugging ability, lower fuel consumption and captive service, showed where they were meant to be. CArtier and the Aussie ore railroads are further examples. If they had the TLC they needed, they would out perform the others. These are just the comments from a very biased railfan. Cheers Steve Alcos had GE electrical equipment which was just plain better than EMD. Go back further and you could ask the same question about the use of Baldwins and FM's. They (FM had some units with GE electrical equip) had Westinghouse traction motors and main generators, the toughest there was. Dick Haave
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Sept 12, 2013 2:43:15 GMT -5
If by rebuilt units you mean the dash three electronics, probably not. It was amazing how much more the CP "Posi traction" SD40-2/3 could pull as compared with a standard dash two. I believe some of these same issues are why the WC upgraded the electronics on their SD45 fleet. Dick Haave [/p][/quote] Dick, thanks for the detailed explanation, it really provides some great insight. When I referred to a rebuilt SD45, I was referring to one rebuilt to SD40 specs with a 16 cylinder prime mover, as is common in today's lease fleets. These locos are typically upgraded to -2/-3 specs as well. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in the first place.
|
|