The ALCo C636 were used in the iron ore mines in the Pilbara, in Western Australia. The conditions were really harsh, brutal heat, tropical cyclones, really hard stuff. The 636 series of locos, worked like a champion, for many years, hauling massive iron ore trains.
I will only say that the SD45 when combined with U boats on a single head-end, was a great safety train. That was the case on the SCL anyhow. The pulsating engines were loud and distinct. The "clickety clack" of riveted track was also loud and distinct. Those noise combination, along with the horn, meant you could hear -and feel- these trains moving for at least three miles. I experienced it multiple times a day at school in those days. It was truly something else, and there were much fewer collisions with automotive traffic.
I ran them all during my career on the Clinchfield, except the L&N Alcos. The SD45-2’s were powerful and mostly dependable, and just the thing for heavy coal trains. If there was anything “bad” about them, when 3 were lashed up together, we would pull drawheads like watch fobs when they were down to “diggin’ fer’taters” at 5 MPH……lol. U36C’s were useless on a heavy coal drag. They slipped so bad that we called them “Slip-O-Matics”. At speed they were fine; the extra horsepower really shined. But they couldn’t handle slow drag tonnage.
sounds like those U36 could use some more ballast... i worked for the chicago and northwestern hired on in 93... back then the wisconsin central interchanged with us at butler yard (milwaukee)... the 45 was their signature unit
I grew up along the Milwaukee Road main line west of Milwaukee Wi. In the 70s and got to witness one SD-45's shortcomings first hand. The westbound grade was rather steep and a heavy freight pulled by 5 SD-45s was pounding by at walking speed when the 3rd unit decided it had enough and erupted in a ball of flame and red hot pieces of metal. One of these pieces landed 10 ft. outside the dining room window where I was doing my homework and set the grass on fire. My neighbor came over with a bucket of water and doused the grass and the melted blob of metal. The Wauwatosa fire dept. soon arrived and spent 2 hrs. putting out the blazing locomotive with lots of water and foam which all went into Underwood creek. The firefighters used their fire axes to poke holes in the fuel tank and the remaining fuel also went into the creek. Not an auspicious start for the SD-45 on the MILW.
Super. I use to watch the SD-45s operate along the old C&S, and a heavy coal or covered hopper train usually got an SD-9, an SD-45, Two U-28b or U-30b units, and another SD-7 or 9. These locomotives were so loud that I think it actually changed my heartbeat when they passed by. 💙 T.E.N.
The biggest problem w/ EMD engine production was that the engine blocks were weldments not castings as GE's were. You eluded to the re-enforcement of the 20 cyl. blocks in later production but a casting is able to withstand far more stress & better resist torsional bending, which is what you eluded to about the crankshaft failures. At the time, EMD was a Division of GM & subject to the stupidity of the corporate ladder ascension protocol which is, keep it cheap or just deal w/ the failures when the customer gets mad enough. Today w/ parent Caterpillar, I haven't heard of any changes that would have the engine blocks become castings. EMD's I understand are less expensive then GE's but w/ more GE's on the road, turns out price isn't what it's all about.
There's also the point that GE in general also offered a much more comprehensive warranty than EMD and from what I've heard much better customer service overall. Not even mentioning the rebuild costs when putting EMD vs GE.
@@fernandomarques5166 but all the class 1's are rebuilding all of their EMD's and putting them back in service as the GE Junkamotives fail miserably. GE's are getting sidlined and the EMD's are getting rebuilt. They were very good locomotives when built, and even after millions of miles still twice the locomotive that Garbage Engineering ever built.
I categorically disagree with your contention that EMD's were cheap, and that the service model was fix it when they had to. That is not what history says about the hugely successful EMD locomotive campaign. And given that the class one's are scrapping the GE's as fast as they can, and rebuilding the EMD's and putting them back in service, it says something about the quality, flexibility, reliability, strength and longevity of all of the EMD products, inclusive of the SD 45, when the block/crank issue was resolved.I know many engineers, and come from a railroad family. The GN guys who ran Hustle Muscle all claim that it was one of the best locomotives they had ever driven. But it did recently suffer a crank issue. But I hear it has been repaired. Regardless it is hard to understand why anybody who knows railroad motive power history would denigrate EMD> Just a poor understanding of the real history and respect that EMD has.
@@3RTracing Hold it! You've got me wrong here. The 'cheap' I'm referring to was the generality of the mode of operation higher-ups wanted the managers to prescribe to. In business/accounting terms, 'cheap' means the least expensive alternative. As a Design Engr., the proper terminology is called Value Engineering. Many times I've designed a variety of components or subassemblies & the mgr. would always have me work on the variant that performed the function yet was 'cheaper'...i.e. least expensive to produce. Didn't matter the pro/cons of each alternative, just as long as it was the cheapest. EMD does that today according to articles in "Trains" Magazine. The Siemens AC motors for example in the EMD's have a limp-mode that will shut down the entire truck if a single motor malfunctions as opposed to GE's system were only the axle is shut down. So if a motor shut's down on a GE the crew can still have 5 driving axles compared to the EMD w/ only 3.
This fiasco, along with the later fiasco of the SD50 series, was why EMD decided to "start over" with the larger SD60 series with its larger, much more modern 710 prime mover.
the chicago and northwestern bought some 50s and 60s for powder river coal service... they didn't like the performance of either... they ended up buying some GE C- 40-8s... those performed much better... they stuck with GE until the 95 UP merger
EMD stumbled with the SD45, then fell down the stairs with the SD50, also rushed into production, from what I've read in Wikipedia. And, GE just kept on chugging until they chugged right past EMD, in terms of sales.
@@JBB4118 Read they found a number of defects upon first factory inspections. Wiring problems, engine problems, especially with later models pumped up to 3600 hp.
@@tommythomason6187 I can tell you one very annoying thing they seemed to do was lock up the dynamic brakes if the rail got a drop of water on it. I have had this happen on the 40,s but nowhere near what those junk 50,s.
@@JBB4118 It is a shame, because they were good looking locomotives, whose very presence suggested awesome power. Seems like the SD60 was a better model, and I can't tell the difference between the two, cosmetically.
Great video as always. I think one of the things I came away with from it was the relative swiftness that EMD resolved the prime mover issues. We know from past experience how that went for Alco. Long live the SD40-2! Can't even be de-throned by bigger and better! lol.
Bigger and Better Pennsy Q2 Steam Locomotive a 4-6-4-4 Non-Articulated Locomotive one unit that could and has on Record pulled 128 cars, I Love the SD40-2 but the Q2 Destroys every Locomotive ever made in Power and use as what Locomotives are used for as to Pulling Cargo from Point A to point B FACT! Q2 has De-Throned every Loco to date, a single 8,000Hp locomotive yeah.
Always loved the sound of 567's or 645's revving up and accelerating down the line. But, when I started talking to locomotive engineers, they preferred GE'S when it came to Amp ratings and constant pulling power. To bad that the corporate mentality of EMD, destroyed themselves 😔.
Two 645's pulling a train in the 7th notch, was cheaper than one 645 running in notch 8!!! This is what I was taught in Engineers School!!! This is why you see two units on a train when one unit could do the job!!!
That phenomenon isn't uncommon. I work a lot with desktop computers, servers, etc. And when it comes to efficiency it's far more efficient to run a power supply at ~75% its rated capacity than it is to run it closer to 100%. IT "can" do it but it actually draws more power from the outlet and ends up converting a percentage of that power into heat which then has to be dealt with.
It would seem that MRL has snapped up as many SD45's as they can. You can go to Montana and see lashups of multiple SD45's grinding up the passes and grades. Once the block/crankshaft issues was resolved, they became very good locomotives. And not all the early models failed.
True, but as I understand it MRL units were rebuilt at some point, not sure if they got 20 or 16 cylinder prime movers. From what I heard, they have been at least mostly scraped in more recent times. Thanks for watching!
@@alcobufff upon doing some research, most of the former SP SD45's that MRL were running had the V20's. Lots of reading on the reliability vs failures of that motor, and a huge variety of opinions from good sources. But you may be correct as according to train orders and trains magazine, MRL may have ceased revenue runs and service using SD 45's. Hard to say what BNSF will do with all of that rolling stock too. Hopefully, like UP, they will keep some of the legacy locomotives if for no other reason than posterity. But even UP is starting to see the heritage budget cut, as we saw recently with the donation of the 5011 (??), 3985 and DD A40x. I will look forward to seeing the 844 more with UP slimming down the rail fan rolling stock.
The rebuilds were SP SD45Rs, which were frame-up GRIP rebuilds. The 20-645s stayed, but the electronics were completely upgraded to as close to dash-2 specs as possible. SP did repower one 45 with a 16-645, but it was designated SD44.
@@3RTracing The 45's stayed close to Livingston Shops. They had a big collection of parts that apparently could keep trains moving in difficult conditions, as long as they could patch them up in Livingston.....Mullan Pas would get a few but they could be moved back to fix em when they went down, Helena is not too far from Livingston.....
More isnt always better. This should hold true in a society where pitbulls are apartment housepets and lifted f250 4x4 pickups are the grocery getters. Ill take the v20 locomotive....at least it has purpose and is not a status symbol .
Great video loved & learned a fair bit. Any idea in the movie " Duel " what type of loco's are in the movie. I think Southern Pacific? Cheers Louis Kats from Melbourne, Australia. ☺
Well, you can diss 'em if you want but I don't ever remember having any more trouble with them that normal. Certainly a cut above a GE. And, yes, they were fun to run.
Interesting video. As I was watching it, I saw the shot of the EL unit at about the 6:50 mark and was trying to figure out what it was about the view that was peculiar. After reviewing it several times, it hit me. The picture was taken in Somerville, Massachusetts on the B&M's New Hampshire Division Main Line just north of Mystic Junction. The crossover was called "Winter Hill". For a period of time, EL run-through power operated on piggyback trains from Boston to Mechanicville and west over the D&H to Binghamton and then over the Erie to Chicago--the so called "Alphabet Route". Do you, by any chance, know whose photo or collection that is from? I'd love to see if they have any others. We're figuring it was taken from the cab of an RDC inbound to Boston. Thinking late morning or early afternoon in the early Spring. The overhead bridge is School St. Somerville City Hall and High School (my alma-mater) would be off to the right up the hill on School St.
See now when Alco had problems with the crankshaft on the 16 cylinder 244 in the PA everybody's all Alco doesn't know what they're doing. But when the crankshaft break in the fd45 645 then it's a different story. Now the traction motor failures on the ALCO 636 we're built by General Electric so that was not alco's fault. Sd45 made 10% more horsepower but drank fuel like it was going out of style. EMD pushed the engine too far. It was at its design limits. Just like Alco the 539 only made so much horsepower, the 244 would only make so much horsepower, the 251 made horsepower reliably and could be enlarged reliably as well. These high horsepower locomotives were well suited to the hold for tonnage guys. A shipper would have to wait until the railroad felt like picking his car up. Meanwhile the shipper would be paying for DMV per car per day waiting for a train to come get it. In the steam days the railroads gave great service to their shippers. Today's modern short lines a shipper can call them up and within an hour their car will be picked up. That's service. That's something big railroads forget. Just like a big high horsepower steam locomotive a big high horsepower diesel is limited and has only one function. You don't use them on local freights and you don't use them for switching. E m d never had another 20 cylinder locomotive engine. The later sd40-2s had the old frame which is what they had called a porch on the back of the locomotive cuz there was so much space because it used the smaller engine. The bigger and the longer of a diesel locomotive that you have the worse it rides. Thealco 636 and c630 famous for being rough riding locomotives. The horn being placed on top of the cab didn't help things any better.
Yes EMD did... the SD80. it was a 20V710 making 5000 HP... the SD90 was a 16V710 briefly making 6000 HP before launching rods into space.... and then being derated to 4300HP and essentially becoming the SD70ACe...
@@kleetus92 pardon me guy I am a kid of the 70s. I am acquainted with all of the locomotives that EMD built as the later ones don't interest me. I am not off on the locomotives from the 1990s on up I was pointing out the hypocritical attitude of some railfans. People break Alco over defective turbines but the turbines were built by General Electric. EMC the predecessor purchased traction motors from General Electric before building their own. Westinghouse was the only other company that was building traction Motors. Their traction Motors were very reliable and switching and small Road locomotive. Fairbanks Morse with the trainmaster had problems with the Westinghouse traction Motors and switched over to General Electric and that prompted their exit from the traction motor business.
I'm betting they were repowered to 16 cyl... the B&LE had 11 SD45T-2's rebuilt in like 99 or 2000, but they all had regular 16V645E's in them... and they looked AWESOME.
NS is known for pushing the envelope with its fleet interims of age. If I remember correctly, they still ran U-boats all the way up to the late 90's early 2000's Thanks for watching!
Yeah I’m gonna have to stop listening to and watching your videos because so much information was wrong out of the gate, go back and do your homework on this, Wikipedia has the correct information on this, and we wonder why people believe in the Mandela effect
Note: the GE u33B was introduced after the sd45.
The ALCo C636 were used in the iron ore mines in the Pilbara, in Western Australia. The conditions were really harsh, brutal heat, tropical cyclones, really hard stuff. The 636 series of locos, worked like a champion, for many years, hauling massive iron ore trains.
The SD40 and SD45 actually had the same length frame. It was the carbody that was enlarged on the 45’s
I will only say that the SD45 when combined with U boats on a single head-end, was a great safety train. That was the case on the SCL anyhow. The pulsating engines were loud and distinct. The "clickety clack" of riveted track was also loud and distinct. Those noise combination, along with the horn, meant you could hear -and feel- these trains moving for at least three miles. I experienced it multiple times a day at school in those days. It was truly something else, and there were much fewer collisions with automotive traffic.
I ran them all during my career on the Clinchfield, except the L&N Alcos. The SD45-2’s were powerful and mostly dependable, and just the thing for heavy coal trains. If there was anything “bad” about them, when 3 were lashed up together, we would pull drawheads like watch fobs when they were down to “diggin’ fer’taters” at 5 MPH……lol.
U36C’s were useless on a heavy coal drag. They slipped so bad that we called them “Slip-O-Matics”. At speed they were fine; the extra horsepower really shined. But they couldn’t handle slow drag tonnage.
sounds like those U36 could use some more ballast... i worked for the chicago and northwestern hired on in 93... back then the wisconsin central interchanged with us at butler yard (milwaukee)... the 45 was their signature unit
Those SD45-2’s were the “stuff”. The EMD Dash 2 series were really engineer’s locomotives. I miss the days of the Clinchfield and the old N&W.
the 45's sounded GREAT though. I grew up with them on the Wisconsin Central.
I grew up along the Milwaukee Road main line west of Milwaukee Wi. In the 70s and got to witness one SD-45's shortcomings first hand. The westbound grade was rather steep and a heavy freight pulled by 5 SD-45s was pounding by at walking speed when the 3rd unit decided it had enough and erupted in a ball of flame and red hot pieces of metal. One of these pieces landed 10 ft. outside the dining room window where I was doing my homework and set the grass on fire. My neighbor came over with a bucket of water and doused the grass and the melted blob of metal. The Wauwatosa fire dept. soon arrived and spent 2 hrs. putting out the blazing locomotive with lots of water and foam which all went into Underwood creek. The firefighters used their fire axes to poke holes in the fuel tank and the remaining fuel also went into the creek. Not an auspicious start for the SD-45 on the MILW.
The shop I work at actually acquired MILW’s #9 SD-45 in the 1980’s to use as a test cell for fresh rebuilt engines
GP- General Purpose
SD- Special Duty
Super. I use to watch the SD-45s operate along the old C&S, and a heavy coal or covered hopper train usually got an SD-9, an SD-45, Two U-28b or U-30b units, and another SD-7 or 9. These locomotives were so loud that I think it actually changed my heartbeat when they passed by. 💙 T.E.N.
the sound for a 20 cyl emd was awsome I retired from the c&nw when the up took over the 645 cytl stud nuts were torqured at 2400 lps
The biggest problem w/ EMD engine production was that the engine blocks were weldments not castings as GE's were. You eluded to the re-enforcement of the 20 cyl. blocks in later production but a casting is able to withstand far more stress & better resist torsional bending, which is what you eluded to about the crankshaft failures. At the time, EMD was a Division of GM & subject to the stupidity of the corporate ladder ascension protocol which is, keep it cheap or just deal w/ the failures when the customer gets mad enough. Today w/ parent Caterpillar, I haven't heard of any changes that would have the engine blocks become castings. EMD's I understand are less expensive then GE's but w/ more GE's on the road, turns out price isn't what it's all about.
There's also the point that GE in general also offered a much more comprehensive warranty than EMD and from what I've heard much better customer service overall. Not even mentioning the rebuild costs when putting EMD vs GE.
Oh yeah, dang, early 1980's GE cast block is $300k!
@@fernandomarques5166 but all the class 1's are rebuilding all of their EMD's and putting them back in service as the GE Junkamotives fail miserably. GE's are getting sidlined and the EMD's are getting rebuilt. They were very good locomotives when built, and even after millions of miles still twice the locomotive that Garbage Engineering ever built.
I categorically disagree with your contention that EMD's were cheap, and that the service model was fix it when they had to. That is not what history says about the hugely successful EMD locomotive campaign. And given that the class one's are scrapping the GE's as fast as they can, and rebuilding the EMD's and putting them back in service, it says something about the quality, flexibility, reliability, strength and longevity of all of the EMD products, inclusive of the SD 45, when the block/crank issue was resolved.I know many engineers, and come from a railroad family. The GN guys who ran Hustle Muscle all claim that it was one of the best locomotives they had ever driven. But it did recently suffer a crank issue. But I hear it has been repaired. Regardless it is hard to understand why anybody who knows railroad motive power history would denigrate EMD> Just a poor understanding of the real history and respect that EMD has.
@@3RTracing Hold it! You've got me wrong here. The 'cheap' I'm referring to was the generality of the mode of operation higher-ups wanted the managers to prescribe to. In business/accounting terms, 'cheap' means the least expensive alternative. As a Design Engr., the proper terminology is called Value Engineering. Many times I've designed a variety of components or subassemblies & the mgr. would always have me work on the variant that performed the function yet was 'cheaper'...i.e. least expensive to produce. Didn't matter the pro/cons of each alternative, just as long as it was the cheapest. EMD does that today according to articles in "Trains" Magazine. The Siemens AC motors for example in the EMD's have a limp-mode that will shut down the entire truck if a single motor malfunctions as opposed to GE's system were only the axle is shut down. So if a motor shut's down on a GE the crew can still have 5 driving axles compared to the EMD w/ only 3.
SD-45 begins in 1966 u-33c and c-636 are GE and ALCO response to EMD beginning in 1967
This fiasco, along with the later fiasco of the SD50 series, was why EMD decided to "start over" with the larger SD60 series with its larger, much more modern 710 prime mover.
the chicago and northwestern bought some 50s and 60s for powder river coal service... they didn't like the performance of either... they ended up buying some GE C- 40-8s... those performed much better... they stuck with GE until the 95 UP merger
5:36 - LOSE THE HORNS!!
Recognized the 2 CRR units being at Oak Ridge, TN. We stopped in there several months ago. Nice video.
EMD stumbled with the SD45, then fell down the stairs with the SD50, also rushed into production, from what I've read in Wikipedia.
And, GE just kept on chugging until they chugged right past EMD, in terms of sales.
The SD50,s were just absolute junk right from the factory.
@@JBB4118 Read they found a number of defects upon first factory inspections. Wiring problems, engine problems, especially with later models pumped up to 3600 hp.
@@tommythomason6187 I can tell you one very annoying thing they seemed to do was lock up the dynamic brakes if the rail got a drop of water on it.
I have had this happen on the 40,s but nowhere near what those junk 50,s.
@@JBB4118 It is a shame, because they were good looking locomotives, whose very presence suggested awesome power. Seems like the SD60 was a better model, and I can't tell the difference between the two, cosmetically.
@@tommythomason6187 very subtle differences. VERY.
Very well done vídeo start to finish thanks for sharing 👍🏻🚂
Great video as always. I think one of the things I came away with from it was the relative swiftness that EMD resolved the prime mover issues. We know from past experience how that went for Alco. Long live the SD40-2! Can't even be de-throned by bigger and better! lol.
Bigger and Better Pennsy Q2 Steam Locomotive a 4-6-4-4 Non-Articulated Locomotive one unit that could and has on Record pulled 128 cars, I Love the SD40-2 but the Q2 Destroys every Locomotive ever made in Power and use as what Locomotives are used for as to Pulling Cargo from Point A to point B FACT! Q2 has De-Throned every Loco to date, a single 8,000Hp locomotive yeah.
Denny Washington seemed to like them for pushing freight over Bozeman Pass, and Mullan Pass west of Helena.
Always loved the sound of 567's or 645's revving up and accelerating down the line. But, when I started talking to locomotive engineers, they preferred GE'S when it came to Amp ratings and constant pulling power. To bad that the corporate mentality of EMD, destroyed themselves 😔.
on the C&NW we only had a couple of sd45's with broken crankshafts, they were never a problem engine
The SD45 had teething problems as any new diesel engine does---- IT WAS NOT A FLOP!!!
Nice video. Thanks for your hard work. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Two 645's pulling a train in the 7th notch, was cheaper than one 645 running in notch 8!!! This is what I was taught in Engineers School!!! This is why you see two units on a train when one unit could do the job!!!
That phenomenon isn't uncommon. I work a lot with desktop computers, servers, etc. And when it comes to efficiency it's far more efficient to run a power supply at ~75% its rated capacity than it is to run it closer to 100%. IT "can" do it but it actually draws more power from the outlet and ends up converting a percentage of that power into heat which then has to be dealt with.
Not to mention that if one quit on you, you could still complete your run!
@@dennisjones8991 Two is one, one is none.
SD-45 beat GEU-33c and ALCO C-636
Ford vs Chevy. Ginger vs Maryann. Emd vs Ge vs Alco. You know the drill.
Great little vid ... 1st time viewer and 1st time subscriber ... Thx for posting ...
Glad you like it! welcome to the channel!
The Alco C636 were the preferred choice over the SD-40/SD-45 in the Pilbara until the coming of the Dash-7/8
the alco c630 were total brutes
Thanks for the dn lowd...., So true so true FM
Very interesting, thank you for the upload.
It would seem that MRL has snapped up as many SD45's as they can. You can go to Montana and see lashups of multiple SD45's grinding up the passes and grades. Once the block/crankshaft issues was resolved, they became very good locomotives. And not all the early models failed.
True, but as I understand it MRL units were rebuilt at some point, not sure if they got 20 or 16 cylinder prime movers. From what I heard, they have been at least mostly scraped in more recent times.
Thanks for watching!
@@alcobufff upon doing some research, most of the former SP SD45's that MRL were running had the V20's. Lots of reading on the reliability vs failures of that motor, and a huge variety of opinions from good sources. But you may be correct as according to train orders and trains magazine, MRL may have ceased revenue runs and service using SD 45's. Hard to say what BNSF will do with all of that rolling stock too. Hopefully, like UP, they will keep some of the legacy locomotives if for no other reason than posterity. But even UP is starting to see the heritage budget cut, as we saw recently with the donation of the 5011 (??), 3985 and DD A40x. I will look forward to seeing the 844 more with UP slimming down the rail fan rolling stock.
The rebuilds were SP SD45Rs, which were frame-up GRIP rebuilds. The 20-645s stayed, but the electronics were completely upgraded to as close to dash-2 specs as possible. SP did repower one 45 with a 16-645, but it was designated SD44.
@@3RTracing The 45's stayed close to Livingston Shops.
They had a big collection of parts that apparently could keep trains moving in difficult conditions, as long as they could patch them up in Livingston.....Mullan Pas would get a few but they could be moved back to fix em when they went down, Helena is not too far from Livingston.....
Too bad MRL is gone. 💙 T.E.N.
sounds like they took some lessons from alco
Someone is a GE guy!!!
Missed what you were saying when that asshole kept laying on the horns on the clinchfield locos
Great content!! Thank you for putting this together!
More isnt always better. This should hold true in a society where pitbulls are apartment housepets and lifted f250 4x4 pickups are the grocery getters. Ill take the v20 locomotive....at least it has purpose and is not a status symbol .
Great video loved & learned a fair bit.
Any idea in the movie " Duel " what type of loco's are in the movie.
I think Southern Pacific?
Cheers
Louis Kats from Melbourne, Australia.
☺
Hello and good afternoon what locomotive did Alco refuse to make the old SD45 that the Wisconsin Central had rode ruff
Maybe not. But they sure were fun to run.
Well, you can diss 'em if you want but I don't ever remember having any more trouble with them that normal. Certainly a cut above a GE. And, yes, they were fun to run.
Interesting video. As I was watching it, I saw the shot of the EL unit at about the 6:50 mark and was trying to figure out what it was about the view that was peculiar. After reviewing it several times, it hit me. The picture was taken in Somerville, Massachusetts on the B&M's New Hampshire Division Main Line just north of Mystic Junction. The crossover was called "Winter Hill". For a period of time, EL run-through power operated on piggyback trains from Boston to Mechanicville and west over the D&H to Binghamton and then over the Erie to Chicago--the so called "Alphabet Route". Do you, by any chance, know whose photo or collection that is from? I'd love to see if they have any others. We're figuring it was taken from the cab of an RDC inbound to Boston. Thinking late morning or early afternoon in the early Spring. The overhead bridge is School St. Somerville City Hall and High School (my alma-mater) would be off to the right up the hill on School St.
See now when Alco had problems with the crankshaft on the 16 cylinder 244 in the PA everybody's all Alco doesn't know what they're doing. But when the crankshaft break in the fd45 645 then it's a different story. Now the traction motor failures on the ALCO 636 we're built by General Electric so that was not alco's fault. Sd45 made 10% more horsepower but drank fuel like it was going out of style. EMD pushed the engine too far. It was at its design limits. Just like Alco the 539 only made so much horsepower, the 244 would only make so much horsepower, the 251 made horsepower reliably and could be enlarged reliably as well. These high horsepower locomotives were well suited to the hold for tonnage guys. A shipper would have to wait until the railroad felt like picking his car up. Meanwhile the shipper would be paying for DMV per car per day waiting for a train to come get it. In the steam days the railroads gave great service to their shippers. Today's modern short lines a shipper can call them up and within an hour their car will be picked up. That's service. That's something big railroads forget. Just like a big high horsepower steam locomotive a big high horsepower diesel is limited and has only one function. You don't use them on local freights and you don't use them for switching. E m d never had another 20 cylinder locomotive engine. The later sd40-2s had the old frame which is what they had called a porch on the back of the locomotive cuz there was so much space because it used the smaller engine. The bigger and the longer of a diesel locomotive that you have the worse it rides. Thealco 636 and c630 famous for being rough riding locomotives. The horn being placed on top of the cab didn't help things any better.
Yes EMD did... the SD80. it was a 20V710 making 5000 HP... the SD90 was a 16V710 briefly making 6000 HP before launching rods into space.... and then being derated to 4300HP and essentially becoming the SD70ACe...
@@kleetus92 pardon me guy I am a kid of the 70s. I am acquainted with all of the locomotives that EMD built as the later ones don't interest me. I am not off on the locomotives from the 1990s on up I was pointing out the hypocritical attitude of some railfans. People break Alco over defective turbines but the turbines were built by General Electric. EMC the predecessor purchased traction motors from General Electric before building their own. Westinghouse was the only other company that was building traction Motors. Their traction Motors were very reliable and switching and small Road locomotive. Fairbanks Morse with the trainmaster had problems with the Westinghouse traction Motors and switched over to General Electric and that prompted their exit from the traction motor business.
Pooches and snoots. 💙 T.E.N.
I run my SD45 bicentennial with my Electromotive SD80MAC demonstrator in consist on my layout.40 cylinders at once👍
🚂🇨🇦🇺🇲🙋
So wc sd45s cn got rid of were problematic also ? and cn did have a few sd45s but the didnt last long
U33B's we're made untill 75.
Sorry! My mistake!
Good stuff here 👍
Thanks!
This is before they had DPU's
Tom the tank eng modern railroad
Literally half of the video is Santa fe😂........
BRUH 🤣
"Peen Central" in the credits? Are you sure about that?
Yes I am. Its for the user that posted a pic of a peen central U-boat I used in the video. The link with the info is below it.
WhAt about the f45
I have a video on that locomotive right here th-cam.com/video/e4xluib0cIo/w-d-xo.html
Second only to the sd50
I'm shocked NS still runs a few.
I'm betting they were repowered to 16 cyl... the B&LE had 11 SD45T-2's rebuilt in like 99 or 2000, but they all had regular 16V645E's in them... and they looked AWESOME.
NS is known for pushing the envelope with its fleet interims of age. If I remember correctly, they still ran U-boats all the way up to the late 90's early 2000's
Thanks for watching!
🙂☕👍
Either we here the continously blaring train horn or you trying to speak about Engine Fowl ups , not both at same time.
Very annoying!
This guy must work for GE. So much wrong and disinformation, where do I began. Thumbs way down.
Your narration is far from accurate!!!!
Yeah I’m gonna have to stop listening to and watching your videos because so much information was wrong out of the gate, go back and do your homework on this, Wikipedia has the correct information on this, and we wonder why people believe in the Mandela effect
I always thought that when all were combined and unmarried unmaintained screwed the crews up any way 😕
You are incorrect regarding several topics!!!
I can accept that, do have magazines currently read.
Thank you correcting me on that.