Updating a SDP35 for the 21st century

[acollins]

Hey folks,

After a near scare finacially after the passing of my Dad, things have turned out better than I had hopped.

During that time, I thinned out the EOQs roster and have started at focusing at updating it to 2011-current era.

The first unit that will be rolled into shop will be a Atlas SAL SDP35 that was recieved in a trade. It is in overall good shape, but would like to update it for 2011.

Its primary job will be hauling around EOQs 4 car business/inspection train, and filling in on the road pool when not doing that.

Now, here is where my questions start. I would like others feed back/ideas on this venture.

Here is a list of what I have thought of doing:

-Keeping the idea of a 16-567D3A or possibly upgrade to a 12-645E3 or even a 8-710G3A-T2 as a ECO unit.

-Removal of the steam generator, replaced by HEP generator and associated equipment.

-Addition of anti-climber on the front and ditchlights.

-Removal and upgrading of cab, nose and sub base to Dash-2 cab and GP60 style nose

-Addition of HEP cabling on the rear

-Addition of waste retention tank, addional current tech items

Thoughts or another ideas?

Thanks,

Alex

[jmlaboda]

-Keeping the idea of a 16-567D3A or possibly upgrade to a 12-645E3 or even a 8-710G3A-T2 as a ECO unit.

Rebuilding the prime mover with a 645E engine would be a good way to go, though a 12 cylinder prime mover would have a lower horsepower rating than a 16-cylinder prime mover... even going with a 12-645F could yield a bit more horsepower without pushing the radiator's ability to cool the unit too awfully much, though upgrading the fans still would be an appropriate change.

-Removal of the steam generator, replaced by HEP generator and associated equipment.

I can't help but to think that the changes that were made to the GP40TCs that Amtrak acquired from GoTransit could yield some appropriate detail if based on the units after they were rebuilt to GP38H-2s while keeping from having to alter all that much of the hood. While a single fan or two smaller fans would need to be added to the roof the changes that were made to the long hood on these prototypes still was not as extreme as what was done with the CNJ's GP40Ps when they were rebuilt for HEP.

Some really nice long hood and overhead shots of the Amtrak units as they are now can be found at RR Picture Archives...

rrpicturearchives.net/modelthumbs.aspx?NumCols=4&View=1&mid=1393

[acollins]

Thanks for the photo links. You are correct about the nice detail shots, and already have a couple of different ideas.

I'm not overly familar with anything newer than a 12-645E3C, weren't the 645Fs in the GP49 and GP/SD50s?

I'm thinking of trying to keep around the same HP as the orginal 2500 as to not have to modify the radiator section greatly.

But looking at pictures of a Alaska GP49s, they have two fans and bigger radiators. Being rated at 2800hp, that is closer to the 3000hp of the 12 SD40s that constitute EOQs road power.

Then I'm looking at it being a odd ball, most of the EOQs roster is 16-645Es (one GP20R and five GP38s) and 16-645E3Cs in the SDs.

Is there much difference between the 645E and 645F?

What about making it a SD40? Could I get away with the 35-series cooling system with a 645E3? I know the SD40Xs were on SD35 frames but most had flares did they not?

I know its only models, but would like to be as realistic as possible.

Thoughts?

Alex

[sgoti]

Not all SD40X locos had flared radiators:

www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=486264

As for rebuilds using 645 engines, you might consider what the BN had done with several GP30 and GP35 locos in the early 90's. Basically, they had EMD, M-K, and VMV rebuild them to GP39 specs. Some retained their original outward appearance, some had the middle radiator fan removed, and a small group of high-hood GP30 cores received a MAJOR facelift.

A very recent example of such a conversion (performed by RELCO on a GP35) can be seen here:

www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=486600

From what I can remember, the GP/SD50 were not as good of a performer as the railroads would have liked. I think some of the railroads that bought the GP50 ended up de-rating them to 3200HP, de-turboing/converting them to GP38-3 (NS), or completely rebuilding them (UP and their MP20GP).

Personally, I would stay away from the 710ECO route. Might make sense if the EOQ was going to have more than one, otherwise it would be a more complicated one-off unit.

Sounds like a winner no matter what direction you choose. I will be keeping an eye on this one.

[acollins]

Thanks for the photo link of the SD40X, has me thinking towards making it mechanically like a SD40-3.

Does anyone make that style of radiator grill?

I figured as much about the 50-series, they were never popular here in Canada compared to the 40 or 60/70 series.

Is it feasible to replace the cab and nose with a Dash 2 cab and a GP60 style nose?

Anything else I should consider?

Thanks,

Alex

[sgoti]

You could use the Cannon & Company #1409 Farr grilles, note that they would need to be stretched.

You might check out this thread for ideas.

Apparently, the radiator grills on this loco were the same size as regular SD40 grills. That means (if you wish) the 1404 early SD40 or 1403 late SD40-2 screens could also be used.

You could replace the cab and nose with GP60-style versions, my big question would be "why would this be done?".

You could follow the example of Union Pacific GP35 #798. From Don Strack's UtahRails.net site: "UP 798, as WP 3020, was wrecked on 27 July 1982 near Reno, Nev.; rebuilt by UP at Salt Lake Shops, using the long hood from UP GP35 763 in February 1984 and the cab from wrecked MP GP38-2 2031 in March 1986; UP 798 was completed in late January 1987". After photo here.

Perhaps somewhere a GP60 (or SD60) was wrecked and you road picked up the still-usable cab/nose before the loco was scrapped?

[acollins]

Thanks for the history lesson on 798. I have realized after reading that, it would zero sense to replace the cab and nose like I was thinking.

I'm not intending for the unit to be rebuilt from a wrecked unit, just a life extension rebuild. So cannon 81" nose and 35/40 cab it is.

I have seen several pictures of SD40s that recieved extended range dynamic brakes when rebuilt to -3, namely the GCFX ones. Would that be
reasonable to do on this idea? I have a spare Kato SD40-2 brake hatch that I could make use of.

I think in keeping it simple and realistic, I think I will go with the 1403 grills.

Does anyone make decent HEP cables? I seem to recall DW does, but I'm not near my catalogue at the moment. 

Thanks jmaboda and sgoti for the ideas, keep them coming, I like having to think about this before I start it.

Alex

[emd16645]

Jun 24, 2014 13:07:24 GMT -5 acollins said:

Hey folks,

After a near scare finacially after the passing of my Dad, things have turned out better than I had hopped.
Now, here is where my questions start. I would like others feed back/ideas on this venture.

Here is a list of what I have thought of doing:

-Keeping the idea of a 16-567D3A or possibly upgrade to a 12-645E3 or even a 8-710G3A-T2 as a ECO unit.

-Removal of the steam generator, replaced by HEP generator and associated equipment.

-Addition of anti-climber on the front and ditchlights.

-Removal and upgrading of cab, nose and sub base to Dash-2 cab and GP60 style nose

-Addition of HEP cabling on the rear

-Addition of waste retention tank, addional current tech items

Thoughts or another ideas?

Thanks,

Alex

Hi Alex, Here's my 2 cents on the subject.

- The most practical course for the prime mover would be to retain the 567D block that would be original to a SDP35.  As part of the rebuild, replace the 567 power assemblies with 645 assemblies.  I would suggest removing the turbo, essentially leaving you with a 2000 HP prime mover, which would be more than enough to handle four passenger cars.

- I would agree that the steam generator equipment should be removed and replaced with a HEP generator.  A similar application are the Alaska GP40H, which uses HEP for passenger service and "Keep From Freezing" power on intermodal trains.  Since the SDP35 has a longer carbody for the steam generator, it would not need to be extended in the manner of the Alaska GP40s forthe HEP generator.

www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1345720
 
-The addition of an anti climber seems fairly reasonable to me (although I don't know if this is something that is typically done with rebuilds).

- As mentioned before, I would agree that the likelyhood of the cab being replaced would be slim and only due to a wreck rebuild (exception being the NS rebuilds).  Most likely a road on a budget would only upgrade/repair the existing cab rather than fully replacing it.

- Regarding the addition of the waste tank, I would suspect that the large split tank would be modified to include a retention tank within.

[milw199]

Jun 24, 2014 13:07:24 GMT -5 acollins said:

Hey folks,

During that time, I thinned out the EOQs roster and have started at focusing at updating it to 2011-current era.

The first unit that will be rolled into shop will be a Atlas SAL SDP35 that was recieved in a trade. It is in overall good shape, but would like to update it for 2011.

Its primary job will be hauling around EOQs 4 car business/inspection train, and filling in on the road pool when not doing that.

Now, here is where my questions start. I would like others feed back/ideas on this venture.

Here is a list of what I have thought of doing:

-Keeping the idea of a 16-567D3A or possibly upgrade to a 12-645E3 or even a 8-710G3A-T2 as a ECO unit.

-Removal of the steam generator, replaced by HEP generator and associated equipment.

-Addition of anti-climber on the front and ditchlights.

-Removal and upgrading of cab, nose and sub base to Dash-2 cab and GP60 style nose

-Addition of HEP cabling on the rear

-Addition of waste retention tank, addional current tech items

Thoughts or another ideas?

Thanks,

Alex

Keep it a 16 cylinder.  Use 645 assemblies.  Deturbo for 2000 hp, or keep the turbo like BN did with their GP39 program, 2300 hp.  Turbo 12 cylinder (2300 hp) is a bit harder to find, but would allow more room in the carbody for HEP equipment or whatever.

HEP should fit mighty fine where the steam gen used to be.

Cab replacement unnecessary, unless your locality has some sort of crash-worthiness regimen applicable to rebuilt units, then a NS-style replacement cab and such might be appropriate.  Don't go for the CSX-style replacement, unless you like it....

Anti-climber would be up to you.  IC added it on the SD20 rebuilds.


Almost SD40-2 levels of room to walk around the front end on these. 

EPA tank could be added in the UP manner.

[acollins]

Thanks for the ideas.

I would like to try a keep it as close to the other SDs in the fleet as possible, just because it will fill in on the freight pool when not hauling the business train around.

So its probably going to be rebuilt like it has a 16-645E3C like the other SDs.

The cab and nose will be the orginal, it makes perfect sense to leave them be.

Thank you for the shot of the retention tank, I much prefer that idea opposed to end of tank mounted.

I've even entertained a idea of taking one of the other SD40-2s adding a HEP compartment on the back just so I have two units capable. Its either that or one of the GP40s I have planned for the EOQ will get some mods.

Thanks,

Alex

[jmlaboda]

Playing catch-up here...

I'm not overly familar with anything newer than a 12-645E3C, weren't the 645Fs in the GP49 and GP/SD50s?

Yes, and on the GP60s/SD60s as well.

I think some of the railroads that bought the GP50 ended up de-rating them to 3200HP, de-turboing/converting them to GP38-3 (NS), or completely rebuilding them (UP and their MP20GP).

One thing to keep in mind is that, at least as far as the NS units go, is that the units served as 3500 HP units for over 25 years before rebuilding involving deturboing and downgrading, took place. There are other units that remain 3500 HP (both GP50s and SD50s) in use. Two other GP50s are currently being converted to "GP33ECO" units with 12-710 engines replacing their original 16-645Fs in a similar program to that now being done with the GP59s.

As for rebuilds using 645 engines, you might consider what the BN had done with several GP30 and GP35 locos in the early 90's. Basically, they had EMD, M-K, and VMV rebuild them to GP39 specs. Some retained their original outward appearance, some had the middle radiator fan removed, and a small group of high-hood GP30 cores received a MAJOR facelift.

The BN program is a good one to look at, especially since it is an example you can follow with the SDP35. While these "GP39-things" are rated at 2300 H.P. they have 16 cylinder engines while a "real" GP39 has only 12. Rating you unit at the same 2500 HP has several added benefits since the lower rating will help to prolong the service life of the motor and alternator (if you intend to use Dash-2 electronics) further than if you sought to raise the H.P., which could be an advantage in a number of ways.

Back when Norfolk Southern rebuilt the remaining NKP and CofG SD9s they kept their 1750 H.P. rating despite being rebuilt with 645 parts since it would allow the service life to be extended, a move that proved to be very valuable. While the increase in H.P. would have served the line well not increasing it helped the motor and generator to see longer use by not having this done.

I can't deny that I have always been a lover of the SDP45s because of the Espee over the past 40 years plus living in the southeast I have grown in my appreciation of the SDP35s as well because of their use on the SCL and L&N. I look forward to what you might do with your unit... will definitely be something I will be following carefully!!!{/i]

[sgoti]

Jun 27, 2014 22:38:27 GMT -5 jmlaboda said:

Playing catch-up here...

I'm not overly familar with anything newer than a 12-645E3C, weren't the 645Fs in the GP49 and GP/SD50s?

Yes, and on the GP60s/SD60s as well.

Bzzzzt!

The GP/SD60 were the first to have EMD's 710 engine (specifically, the 710G3A)

[emd16645]

Another reason to not increase the horsepower when switching from 567 to 645 power assemblies is that I've seen written on the web that EMD didn't recommend the practice of increasing the horsepower from 567 due to increased pressures on the lower engine assemblies and block.

[acollins]

Thanks for all the good info guys, amazing knowledge.

It's interesting how most rebuilds have retained the 567 block with 645 power assemblies.

I always thought that the BN GP39E/V/Ms and the BNSF GP39-3Rs had there blocks replaced. Learn something new everyday.

Was this done because it was cost prohibitive to switch out the blocks or just the cheaper option?

I was thinking of modelling this unit as if it had its 567 block replaced with a 645 one, that way I could say it was mechanically a SD40-3. Would that be a viable choice?

This discussion has led the to the acquisition of a second beat up SDP35 from ebay, and I have 1 P2K GP20, 2 P2K GP30s and a Athearn RTR GP35 that are complete messes from years of neglect and harsh treatment from there former owner. They may be rebuilt into GP39-3s like you guys have discussed.

I was thinking of new model designations for the SDP35 rebuilts:

If 567 is retained: SD39-3H, SDP39-3, SDH39-3 or SD39-3P

If 645 is used: SD40-3H, SDP40-3, SDH40-3 or SD40-3P

Any suggestions or thoughts?

Thanks,

Alex

[milw199]

Do the passenger cars have generators on board?  Most PVs do, and have a transfer switch when hooked up to shore power or HEP. 

One engine with HEP should suffice.  That's all WSOR had for a while, with more than 4 cars.  The HEP in the back of 10C (101) is a Detroit Diesel screamer.  Keep it all GM, as the slogan used to be. 

HEP outlets would also go on the front of the engine, sometimes things happen and the front of the engine gets coupled to the cars. 

When MILW rebuilt SD7s & 9s into SD10s with 645 power assemblies, max hp was 1800 account main generator limitations.  These units featured the lowest minimum continuous speed of anything around at the time, as new D77 traction motors were installed.  MCS was something like 3-4 mph., the motors could handle more than the horsepower could put out. 

[sgoti]

Jun 29, 2014 13:56:03 GMT -5 acollins said:

Thanks for all the good info guys, amazing knowledge.

It's interesting how most rebuilds have retained the 567 block with 645 power assemblies.

I always thought that the BN GP39E/V/Ms and the BNSF GP39-3Rs had there blocks replaced. Learn something new everyday.

Was this done because it was cost prohibitive to switch out the blocks or just the cheaper option?

Don't know of any 567 to 645 change-outs, that's not to say it never happened.

I suspect the main reason for keeping the 645 and changing to 645 power assemblies was cost. Why swap in a whole new engine if only changing a few parts would give you what you need?

BN needed a large number of medium-horsepower locomotives, so this made sense. OTOH, you could argue that putting a 645 on a xx35 frame is prototypical, as this is exactly how the GP40X (original) and SD40X locomotives were made.

Personally, I would lean towards what others have suggested- Keep the 567 and upgrade it with 645 power assemblies.

[sgoti]

Heh-

I love it when I get to correct myself...

BN-1 (F9A), BN-2 (F9B), and BN-3 (E9A) all had their original 567 engines replaced with 645 engines. So did UP 949 (E9A), UP 951 (E9A), and UP 963B (E9B).

However- All of these were basically upgraded to GP38-2 specs (electrically and mechanically), so they all are 2000 HP units.

Didn't check on the NS executive fleet, I'm sure someone can chime in on those...

[acollins]

Orginally this idea was to use a baggage/power car, plus the four cars.

Then I was going to use my A-B set of Alco FA2s, with the b unit being the HEP "car".

The Alcos have been placed in storage, until a decision is made to rebuild or sell them.

I thought of even using a ex-Amtrak F40 or a ex-NJT GP40 with hep as a replacement.

Then the SDP35 came to me via a trade, and I thought what a perfect candidate for a rebuild.

The idea behind it now is that it (or they now?) will mingle with the other SDs when not hauling the business train. Now with possibly a second one coming, one could be out of service and still have another one.

Haven't decided if hep cable's will be on both ends or not. I don't envision the need for them operational, but might be a idea as backup.

Only one will be on the business train at a time, so the one HEP generator should be more than enough for 4 cars.

I never considered the traction motor changes and generator vs alternator.

So hypothetical saying, a AR10 coupled with a 16-567 with 645 PAs generating 2300hp with Dash 3 electronics would put out about the same TE as a unmodified SD40-2?

I know in model railroading that doesn't matter, but I try to run as proto as I can.

Thoughts?

Alex

[jmlaboda]

Bzzzzt!

The GP/SD60 were the first to have EMD's 710 engine (specifically, the 710G3A)

My bad... that's what happens when I stay up past my bedtime... actually a previously trusted source had the wrong info... I accepted it at face value but wish I had double checked the info.

Another reason to not increase the horsepower when switching from 567 to 645 power assemblies is that I've seen written on the web that EMD didn't recommend the practice of increasing the horsepower from 567 due to increased pressures on the lower engine assemblies and block.

Every manufacturer has had exclusion clauses in their contracts when it came to what would not be covered but don't let what you have seen influence things... there have been many examples of this being done with the final product being better than what was originally on the unit at a cost quite a bit less than a new locomotive... about the only rebuilds that were problematic were the ones rebuilt by EMD itself. It wasn't all that long ago that EMD was telling customers not to run their AC units with earlier power but it was proven not to be the problem that they claimed.

Examples abound of early EMDs being rebuilt with 645 power assemblies that operated like champs. One such example is the Santa Fe SD26s. The only real disadvantage that these rebuilds saw was that the new power trade-in credits were considerable when it came to the EMD Super Series locomotives (GP39X, GP40X, SD40X, GP49, GP50, SD50S, SD50) and this led to most of the units to be retired before their major overhaul date. What units that did survive beyond the initial order were sold to Guilford, who ran the units until they dropped, with some slugging it out while newer secondhand units died. If only Guilford was willing to fix what they had (of course it would have meant keeping or rehiring all of the pesky shop personnel that they let go) instead of just junking it and buying more used units some of them would still be in use today.

Amtrak, Burlington Northern and Milwaukee Road were also users of rebuilt/upgraded units with 645-power assemblies and these units proved to be of great use well beyond their years. And Paducah Shops rebuilt old and worn out SD24s and SD24Bs with the units seeing a lot of heavy use during their tenure, with a few going on to serve other masters. If the problem was true such examples simply would not have existed in the numbers that they did nor would they have been nearly as much use as they did.

So hypothetical saying, a AR10 coupled with a 16-567 with 645 PAs generating 2300hp with Dash 3 electronics would put out about the same TE as a unmodified SD40-2?

Ah... no. Dash-3 locomotives have wheel slip and adhesion systems that allow them to haul roughly ⅓ more than a Dash-2 unit, though an SD40-2 could haul what it does at a higher rate of speed than the SDP35 rebuild. The same was what make the Super Series (EMD) and Sentry (GE) units so appealing... they could haul more than their recent predecessors.

Wish I could tell you what to call your creation but there are so many things that you could call it with all of them being right. All I can say is that I am looking forward to seeing how this project will go... I am sure that it will be an interesting project even for us hot-headed steam fans to consider!!!

[milw199]

You wouldn't need cables hanging off the HEP plugs all the time, just have the plugs there.

They don't take up much room. 

In this shot, the HEP plugs are tucked in next to the coupler, partially hidden by the MU hoses.

On your railroad, when you get to the end of the line, is there a reverse loop or wye, so the train can get turned, or would you just uncouple the power, run around the train, tie back on, and head back?  That's why you would need HEP plugs on both ends. 

The B-unit with the HEP unit in it would probably be the way to go.  Then any engine can couple up and go. 

Most of the 567s refitted with 645 power assemblies didn't exceed the stock horsepower.  The ATSF SD26s, maybe a few other ones did, but most didn't.  SD24 (2400 hp) deturboed with 645 assemblies only puts out 2000 hp.

WC 2500 ended up being a SD35Q, as it was rebuilt with Q-Tron computer and such, similar to the road's SD45.  It received 645 assemblies, but topped out at 2500 hp.  Still with DC main gen.  Available from NRE: www.nationalrailway.com/locomotives/used-locomotives/2500