|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Nov 14, 2013 8:05:00 GMT -5
Not sure but they wouldn't have said no if someone wanted 12-710 units.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 10:04:29 GMT -5
I recall from similar topics before that an SD49 was catalogued but an SD59 wasn't. I don't know if this is official though.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by T on Nov 14, 2013 13:51:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 16:16:25 GMT -5
I've seen this before and its an equally interesting concept.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 18:25:57 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the issue with the acceleration with the GP49s was related to a mismatch of the engine and the computerized control system...I'm grossly over simplifying but seems that was it, and it couldn't be fixed...Ive got a GP49 operators manual a friend at the railroad gave me.... one of my armchair project involves putting three axle trucks...SD40-2 or such, under a bb GP38-2/40-2/50 frame, and use a GP50 body as a starting point (Model Railroader and Mainline modeler both did articles on building a gp49; the MR article was actually for a Katy gp39-2)to construct a Chilean sd49...I would need some better photos than what Ive been able to find, and Im not sure how the SD trucks compare to the ones used in Chile... Sound like you guys are brainstorming on a 49 series engine in a "stock" SD package ala SD382/-40-2/50/60.... Don When the Southern GP49's were originally delivered in 80' they were delivered as GP39X's and only rated at 2600hp. Do you happen to know if they suffered acceleration issues thenbor only after the upgrade to 2800hp that was the result of a factory upgrade in 82'. Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
deez
Chairman
Midland Belt Railway
Posts: 949
|
Post by deez on Nov 14, 2013 21:40:49 GMT -5
What I would like to do with this SD49/59 concept is explain their need in a helper invironment. I live 10 min from Cajon Pass in So. Cal. It's one of the steepest grades in the country. My freelance is not only a shortline hauler service railway but a small leassor of power mostly used in helper services in the corner states. I think the concept would be just like the reason Southern Pacific proposed the SD39's in the late 60's. of course my freelance does have a stable of 39's also. I was going to follow the same patterns as Santa Fe & Southern Pacific in the 80's by purchasing high horsepower 4 axle units but I really want to be based more on medium hp locomotives, mainly EMD GP39-2's 39X's, 49's & 59's and the neweest GE's for the Midland Belt. The GE's for my time frame would be the Dash 8-32B's. with the idea of these SD49/59 units though I want to justify them as purchases for leased helpers. In the same as built purpous as the SP SD39's these are just the newer evolution of super helpers.
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Nov 14, 2013 22:06:36 GMT -5
Any thought towards also making them 420,000lbs 'heavies' (that was the heaviest a locomotive at the time was thought to be able to weigh)?
|
|
deez
Chairman
Midland Belt Railway
Posts: 949
|
Post by deez on Nov 14, 2013 23:08:50 GMT -5
I think SP's SD39 were ballasted at an amazing 417,000. About as heavy as a new SD70m-2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2013 5:15:57 GMT -5
This is an interesting one, I've never come across either mid-horsepower locomotives being used as helpers or ballasting locomotives prior to hearing about CSX AC44's that were ballasted.
I'm trying to justify the SD49 to augment Southern SD40-2's in merchandise service and as a more fuel efficient option for NW in coal drag service, as well as merchandise service in the Midwest.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
deez
Chairman
Midland Belt Railway
Posts: 949
|
Post by deez on Nov 16, 2013 0:08:22 GMT -5
That's what I want to do also macbeast. I think in the way the whole SD39 concept was created in the first place was in fact the better fuel economy. The tractive effort was very high on these SD39's plus higher hp was not needed for a slower pusher environment. Southern Pacific already had a large stable of turbocharged EMD's so maintaining another batch of them was no big deal. Half of the Midland Belt roster is turbo medium hp EMD's. I kinda want SD39X's 49's & 59's instead of the GP versions just for the fact that the are the newest "super helpers" of the time. From what I heard & read the SD39's were a success on both the SP and Santa Fe. Santa Fe held onto theirs do a long time. They did their intended jobs well. I think SD49's & SD59's could be well justified in heavier drag helper services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 5:49:45 GMT -5
I don't have a layout where I can simulate long trains and big grades so I won't be able to have helper operations but the idea is intriguing. I hope I might be in a position to model that kind of thing in 10 years so I guess I'll be building for the future but I think I csn employ this idea.
Certainly I can use them at modular meets just for running trains in the meantime. Tge southern version would definitely suit me best for that reason.
Deez; did you draw thst SD59?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
deez
Chairman
Midland Belt Railway
Posts: 949
|
Post by deez on Nov 16, 2013 16:02:32 GMT -5
You're right about the big over all situation for helpers to be introduced. In reality there were no SD49's or SD59's for a reason. But, I think the 49's being in EMD's catalog just shows that they were oh so close to being a real thing. How about this for the SD59's: You were talking about a replacement for SD40-2's. well in 1965 railroads like SP were ordering GP35's right into 1966. Since the new GP40 replaced the GP35 in EMD's catalog they just changed the order to GP40's. The same concept could be given to the SD59's. The SD40-2 is a 3000hp 16cyl. Well the newest 3000hp SD's were the 59's. Your railroad needs more SD40-2's but the SD40-2 is replaced by the SD59 so the order is changed. Ill post my SD59 drawings in a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 16:12:05 GMT -5
Sounds like a plan that is plausible. I still might build that southern SD49 though. The high nose has me intrigued.
Is the SD59 based on the 71'2" platform?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Nov 16, 2013 22:52:06 GMT -5
Only thing that has me slightly concerned is the idea of dedicated helper lease power, that's one hell of a risky thing to get into...
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Nov 17, 2013 4:27:26 GMT -5
Only thing that has me slightly concerned is the idea of dedicated helper lease power, that's one hell of a risky thing to get into... I'm curious as to why you think this is risky. Pretty much all class 1 power is leased in one form or another. A long term lease like what BN used on the Oakway SD60s or LMX B39-8s could be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Nov 17, 2013 6:17:32 GMT -5
If it's a normal lease of power then that makes sense but leased for a specific duty? (in this case helpers)
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Nov 17, 2013 6:32:13 GMT -5
I think that leasing power for a specific reason is very practical. I would also think that when a railroad acquires a new group of locomotives, typically they have specific plans for the use of that power, whether it be a particular service helpers, coal unit trains, or general service on a specific subdivision.
For example, Pan Am Railways leased a bunch of Helm SD40-2s for use in horsepower hours payback. They have pretty much spent the entire lease so far on CSX. Until they were recently sent back since they are junk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 16:43:05 GMT -5
I know locomotives for specific uses doesn't seem to be an official trend but I know certain roads use certain power on very specific duties and other on more general roles. Surely leasing for helper duty isn't that unheard of? I mean if the road wants the power specifically for helper duty then leasing is a viable option because any shortfalls in traffic wouldn't see this power sat around idly costing the RR money as they could return it to the leasor?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
deez
Chairman
Midland Belt Railway
Posts: 949
|
Post by deez on Nov 17, 2013 16:45:39 GMT -5
Southern Pacific rode theirs almost into the ground. I does seem risky being the task these locomotives have but I don't think its any worse than any other mountain job. California has plenty of mountain passes to get used up on. Its bound to use up a locomotive maybe a little quicker than usage in flatter states. For my Railroad its inevitable I guess since they are mostly leased to the surrounding railroads. I gives me the green light to heavily weather them. Here is the SD59 I've been working on: It's real similar to the SD49 of course. The engine doors are of the "59" type of arrangement and of course the three radiator fans just like the GP59's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 18:43:29 GMT -5
At the end of the day we all do this to have fun so just envoke modellers license.
I like this SD59! I think I like it more than the SD49 to be honest.
I'd probably model one of these with a short, offset fuel tank to counterbalance the weight of the prime mover as on other 12-cylinder EMD's. I was studying this feature on Santa Fe GP39-2's only this morning.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|