UPDATE: The HST shown for the Advanced Concept Train is NOT the same design to be used for that specific project. EMD did design a HST for the FRA in the early 2000s, but the HST shown was from the GM Pavillion of the Vancouver 86 Expo, which would later be donated to the GM Building in Epcot in Disney World. Photos and videos of this HST in Vancourver and Disney World can be found here: galleries.friendsofsdarch.com/gallery-image/EXPO-86/G00008WOF2mcVi88/I0000X9d6yj20jGQ th-cam.com/video/C1eSfQ94QB0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yrd5OKrYgeuT75Vh
Too be fair, the original SD45s suffered from engine failures due to wobbling the V20 645s and resulting it snapping right of. The SD45-2's engines were later rectified to fix the crankshaft failures. The SD50s had their engines essentially jacked up to fit into 3500-3600 and that proved to be a bust.
All of the SD45's,SD45-2's,SD45T-2's,F45's/FP45's,SDP45's,and SD45M's had numerous problems involving the crankshafts and block flexing.Most units were rebuilt with 16-645E3's to replace the unreliable 20-645E7's.Some units that weren't rebuilt had the governor settings adjusted and horsepower derated.Southern Pacific did 167 SD45R rebuilds out of 357 units that they owned.In later years 87/133 of those units became SD40M-2 rebuilds from MK Rail including 6 SD45M's that were acquired by Erie Lackawanna.The errors of these units is what EMD knew not to repeat with the GP40-2's & SD40-2's on all aspects.On top of that,with the GP50's & SD50's also being problematic,this is why the GP40-2's & SD40-2's incredibly sold well and still retain the notoriety of the greatest reliability and longevity compared to thousands of other units,both older and newer.The issues with the GP50's & SD50's were the result of the 645F3's reaching the breaking point.Two stroke motors at a certain limit require increase in displacement to withstand more horsepower.Opposed to two stroke,this is where four stroke motors are more favorable because of less RPM and more horsepower regardless of cubic inches/litres.Also,GE units. Most problems correlating to the 645F3's were easily fixed by also changing the governor settings and decreasing the horsepower. As a matter of fact,in modern years the only units that were even more unreliable than the SD50's were the PR43C's from CAT/PRLX that Norfolk Southern was doing testbed operations with. The GP40-2's & SD40-2's were the last golden years for EMD,then problems began to arise on other units while GE was just starting to really put down their market.
DE 91, shown at 3:56, still exists in cosmetic restoration form at the at the National Railway Museum, Adelaide, South Australia. The photo shown is from its service with the Commonwealth Railways of Australia where it was in use until the 1970's.
This was a great watch overall and I'm glad i joined the premiere. I can imagine this series will go far, seeing as there are many unbuilt locomotives out there. Great job and can't wait to see what more you add onto it.
Thanx for the great history lessons. Here in New Zealand the EMD G12 DA class introduced from 1955 was a very successful series of locomotive with the later batch's being rebuilt inro G22AR starting in 1978 as the DC class . Some DC class locoes still operating but not many . Both the DA and DC class are still operating in rail museums here. The EMD GT22 DFT Class series introduced in 1979 are still operating here as well.
Glad to see someone finally cover this topic! I love learning about obscure, unbuilt locomotive models, classes, and series that were either never built, or never delivered to a railroad (such as the CP and CNW's SD80MAC orders and the SD49).
It is nice to see my models of the Commonwealth Railways DD type locomotives in a video on You Tube, as I took a bit of time to collect the drawings for them from various sources and the collect all the bits an pieces to build them. The locos consist of a LifeLike F7 model front end with scratchbuilt sides and Like Like F7 B ends using the rough drawings as a guide, to power both of them two sets of Bachmann DD40AX bogies were used with Auscisin brand motors and handmade drive shafts to the gears etc on the bogies. Yes they do run and quite well also. I have not ben able to test out their pulling power as I have no layout to actually test them on at the moment. They were fun to build and would be even more fun on a layout on a train of cars. Great video though and well done except the part about the GM class Commonwealth Railways, they are in fact a lowered and lengthened F7 type on 6 wheeled bogies which were developed especially for these type of locomotives by EMD in the USA.
It's amazing how this never built model of the DD40A reminds me of the EMD DDM45 exported in metric gauge here to Brazil. Among other various locally designed EMD models under license.
I've been interested in trains for a very long time, but I never heard of most of these proposed EMD engines! Now, I know of the various unbuilt designs that EMD thought up from the 1930s to the 2000s: proposed E- and F-units, unimplemented GP and SD road switchers (including versions for use in China, of all places), lower-power switchers, many electric locomotives, and even a high-speed train! Although these designs haven't been built, it is interesting to see how they evolved to create more successful versions: the F39P and F40P to the F40PH, the GP2000 to the GP22ECO and other rebuilds, and so forth. Thanks for the video! I'll subscribe!
excellent well documented documentary. Being an EMD fan through and through I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. Thanks. I'd sure like to get my hands on a readable hi res drawing of the EMD A32B. I've seen a couple of images of the drawing but they are all low res and not readable.
This was a super well put together video. So many quirky designs. I wonder what today would be like if that electrification concept had happend in the 70s. Thanks for the video and I can't wait for the next installments!
The Milwaukee Road had that electrified route out west, decided to abandon it but some speculated that had they kept it, it might’ve allowed them to weather their own storm of incompetent management!
Yes, but that was 3000VDC with an expensive but frail design of overhead, whereas dual-mode-lite was 12.5 to 25kV AC. Note that this was NOT an "EMD" project; the engineers used a SD40-2 as representative of then-typical modern road power. (Interestingly the approach is massively facilitated by modern AC synthesis drive... but that's not a story for this video except in terms of 'what might have been'... and so much of the AC development in the '70s was obsolescent long ago)
Classic EMD locomotives. EMD is soon to be 101 years old. The boxcabs came first. The failure of the SD50 caused EMD to lose their place as top locomotive manufacturer in the United States. EMD has been around for years and they still build locomotives. This is good.
GE CEO Jack Welch had a lot more to do with overtaking EMD than the SD50; GM's Roger Smith was considered one of the worst CEOs of the century, losing market dominance to competitors. EMD was sold to Progress Rail (Caterpillar) in 2010.
@@Greatdome99... #NeutronJackWelch and his Management Culture, Policies and Greed has killed GE, it's no longer anything like it was in the 90's... it's been broken up into 3 divisions now. GE Capital will eventually cease to exist because of his policies and former Management 🤨
EMD isn't really around anymore,CAT/PRLX is their parent company.The last units that CAT/PRLX built were the SD70AH-T4's that are straight up junk which was almost a decade ago now.The units were based on the SD90MAC's which is cruel irony at the best knowing that those units also failed.Even before they were acquired,EMD had to discontinue the 710 series due to EPA regulations with the SD80MAC's and SD9043MAC's really being the last units to be made.The GP50's & SD50's weren't the worst and many units were fixed with derated horsepower thanks to adjustments with the governor settings.The absolute worst units were the SD90MAC H1's & H2's (Or MAC-H) that had far more failures than the GE AC6000CW's.EMD 567's,645's,and 710's are still around in large numbers but in stationary and marine apparatus because of no emissions standards.There will be many EMD units still around on smaller railroads,shortlines,or industrial usage but it's clear for class one use that GE units have been surpassing EMD units for years now.Better technology,tractive effort,and dynamic braking.EMD units get immediately retired or put into storage once the years catch up.Any large railroads don't clamor that much anymore to start rebuild programs for them,except for Norfolk Southern,Canadian National,Canadian Pacific,or CSX but that's still not alot in numbers.
Thanks for this informative video! As a matter of interest, some of their electric locos were shipped here to South Africa for use on our heavy haul coal lines and were used successfully for many years, only retiring recently. We classified them as Class 11E, their builder classification was General Motors GM5FC
I agree! After all, almost 4,000 of them were built, and many years later, they still plow the rails of the USA, Canada, _and_ Mexico, as well as a few other countries! This, I think, makes it the most successful EMD product!
The last greatest units manufactured by EMD were indeed the GP40-2's & SD40-2's including the SD40T-2's.In addition would be passenger units like the F40PH's,SDP40's,and SDP40F's.Once those units were discontinued,then EMD faced problems and lesser results in great performance and/or reliability on newer units.Any EMD units that have been built within the last thirty years can't uphold the notoriety of the older series.CAT/PRLX also destroyed EMD as if EPA regulations weren't enough.Nowadays the best units for serious tonnage are GE units espiecally because of better tractive effort and dynamic braking.
It is worth noting that Australia got some SD39-2 units during the 1980’s, but via a rebuild program. Between 1984 and 1985, 11 of the 1952 built B class bulldog units (unique for being double ended), were rebuilt to become the A class. Effectively, these went from being SD7 units to SD39-2 units within the same carbody structure and were reportedly a tight squeeze. The last A class rebuild remained in everyday passenger service until August 2018. Three of the A class units have been preserved. Some of the original B class locomotives, despite being over 70 years old, are still in mainline freight traffic. The local EMD classifications were ML2 for the B class and AAT22C-2R for the A class. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/Line_A_class
06:48 The tunnel motors also had the cooling air intakes at the bottom, the better to drawn in cooler air in the tunnels' confined spaces. In the non-tunnel variants the intakes were towards the top.
That was great! Awesome, in-depth research. One of my favorite what-if's is the SD30 myself, as the GP30 is my favorite of the jeeps by far. This video earned you my subscription as well.
Another great video! I hope your experiences of your hobbies have been a thrilling journey for you! Your hard work never fails to pay off and merits more praises! Despite the challenges, keep strong, assertive and great! Continued aspirations that your dreams shall come true before you know it! 🙂🚂
14:48 The fact that EMD didn't build that locomotive is a disgrace. It honestly reminds me of the Shinkansen trains from Japan, and I like the aesthetic. It could have been the USA's own version if done right. And considering now we are much more advanced in technology than back in the late '70s to early 80's I could see it potentially returning in one form or another to compete with the Siemens charger.
Well, it did, as the Spirit (a true 125mph locomotive with Caterpillar C175 power). Amusingly some EMD people ran the numbers on the early Siemens-Cummins QSK competition and realized the Charger as originally specified didn't have the horsepower to actually sustain 125mph as the spec required (as I recall, the math said about 123mph) and Progress actually brought suit to establish that the Charger be disqualified from the IDOT competition on those grounds. I'm dimly remembering that the two versions of 125mph passenger power were parallel evolution, the AMT125 being for lightweight service as a kind of locomotive-hauled alternative to the high-speed clone of SPV2000, and the other being the logical follow-on to the four-axle cowl locomotives with full high-speed running gear.
6:19 was hoping for an Australian reference (especially a Victorian Railways reference) and Y129 has a 6-567C, Y's 151 to 175 have the 6-645E motors with 151, 152, 156, 157, 159, 161, 163, 164, 169, 171 and 174 still being around either stored, under restoration or being used
There were some other Australian designs that never got off the drawing board. The first one that comes to mind is the EMD/Clyde alternative to the GE/Goninan NR class that became the most common class in the country.
I know of a couple of unbuilt class66 variants... 1) 125mph. Probably a JT42Csomething. After WC bought various UK freight companies in the 90s, they placed their huge order for 250 of what became known at the 66. The original idea was that the last batch would be 125mph machines for mail trains and occasional passenger work. Plan A was to simply regear the trucks for 65% more speed and maybe add some improved secondary springs and damping. That lasted right up until someone in UK saw it and said "good luck getting that certified". Plan B was to go looking for some suitable trucks to slide under the loco, and it turned out that worldwide there was exactly one type of high speed, low track force, 3axle truck suitable for a 40,000-45,000lb axleload - the ones made by Brush for the BR class 89. For some reason Brush turned down EMD's offer to take the drawings off their hands for free, and said "Yeah, we'll make those for you, a million dollars a set." Neither WC or EMD were willing to pay that, and there was no plan C. Eventually WC took delivery of the 250 standard 75mph 66's, and had to go shopping elsewhere for 125mph power in the form of the 67's which use the same engine/alternator as the 66's. These high speed versions *might* have had a slightly more streamlined but basically flat cab, a bit like the CIE 201 class, but I don't think I've ever seen any official renderings. 2) 3'6" gauge, for NZ Title more or less says it all. Sometime in the early late 1990's/early 2000's EMD offered a narrow gauge version of the 66 to operators in New Zealand for intermodal work. Surprisingly this was planned to have 3axle trucks, not 4 - the axleload wouldn't have been a problem, but the gauge would have restricted the traction motor size, apparently that didn't worry the operators. I don't know how close it came to reality, NZ didn't get any completely new locos between 1979 and 2009, but my understanding with these is that they would have been essentially standard except for the trucks. Correction/Update - happened to look at the wikipedia page for the NZ DL class, and the ng 66 is mentioned as being FT42CU, and also beimg single cabbed, the other cab beimg replaced by dynamic brake equipment. All this was in 2002, and the local classification would apparently have been DK.
There was apparently also a second unbuild EWS 66 derivative. A design to replace the class 37 fleet and was to be a lighter and less powerful class 66.
Makes me wonder if these locomotives were built how well do you think these concepts would preform regular earning service, like would some of these fail or succeed?
Small note: The Australian CR GM class locomotives were designated as F7/A7 based on the originating design being first the F3 then the F7 provided to Clyde Engineering in the late 1940's, to Australianise the units for local loading gauge and restrictions the design height was lowered, frame lengthened to allow for an A1A three axle bogie and the radiators were moved from above the engine to the side walls Despite appearance they are not related to the E-unit but are a stretched and lowered F Unit. Later variants under the GM 12 class, VR S class, and NSWGR 42 class utilised a 6 axle truck and the 567C prime movers were uprated to 1750/1800HP from 1500HP
Speaking of the Commonwealth Railway CL Class diesel locomotive in Australia, the CL Class was originally going to have a Do-Do wheel arrangement but never got it.
the first mainline diesel locomotive in australia was the victorian railways B class which were actually EMD f7 and f9 units that were built to a modified design by clyde engineering (they were made lower and longer and placed on 6 axle trucks) and some of the class are still in service in both their original and upgraded (A class) forms
@@beeble2003 i’m aware, i watched the video. A lot of the time the railroad didn’t need them because of the market at the time. IF these existed, and railroads took the gable on them, they would’ve been great models.
The one unbuilt loco, whose design collapse destroyed EMD (Progress) as a manufacturer of modern 6 axle freight locomotives, was the SD70ACe - tier 4 with a clean 710 2-cycle engine variant. EMD discovered too late that the 710 design was inadequate to comply with the Tier 4 emission requirements.and they needed a 4-cycle engine. When Tier 4 became required in 2015, GE was ready. Not EMD. The 4-cycle SD70 finally started minimum production toward the end of 2017 with a still buggy model. Few were built and many of those are now just stored. Sad end of a great line.
7:44 "Many [...] short line roads across the country had to rebuild various second-generation diesels that had been running for about fifty years." Yes, but note that the GP38-2 and GP40-2 were in production until 1986, so there's _a lot_ of available four-axle power that's only about 40 years old.
The thing that killed the EMD 'four-axle rebuilds' was essentially the same thing that killed Alco's rebuilding project for PRR's freight Sharks (which essentially became RS18s above the deck inside the carbody). They were expensive, expensive as hell, for little additional TE or horsepower, with new components to be expen$ively sourced through EMD. Very few 'shortline railroads' have the disposable income or potential depreciation or other tax credits for such vanity expense...
That is the Alco second-generation follow-up to the PA, the C636P. (Think of it as the Alco equivalent to a cowl unit like an FP45 or CG34 or 36) Incidentally, there is or was an actual Web description of the process of painting this, with many lovely illustrations of the stages. It has disappeared and reappeared at least twice, in my recollection at least, and you might have to search in the Internet Archive to find it now, but it is WELL worth finding and reading!
Sd50 is what caused major railways to invest in GE's and why they are so prominent now. The SD50 was a lemon, basically. It really hurt emd's reputation and put GE on the rise.
Can you do a video about the end locos of Irish rail the 121 being first then the 141 class and the 181 class then the bigger 071 class that’s still in service today and the famous 201 class that is similar to the uk class 59/66 but this one came first back in 1994 and the first loco famously being flown over to Ireland on a plane
Good catch! I'm embarrassed that I forgot to mention this, but it would've been an honorable mention since it's a proposed rebuild by NS instead of a new model from EMD.
THE SDP40F HAD NO DESIGN FLAWS! THE LOCOMOTIVES WERE PLACED ON AND WERE FORCED TO RUN ON TRACKS THAT WERE NOR EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THEM! On ALL THE RAILROADS THEY RAN ON, THE TRACK WAS THE CULPRIT IN ALL OF THE DERAILMENTS THEY HAD! IT WASN'T THE LOCOMOTIVES THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, IT WAS THE RAILS THEY RAN ON!
ANYBODY WITH ANY COMMON SENSE WILL TELL YOU THAT THE SDP40F MAIN PROBLEM WAS THE TRACKS THEY WERE FORCED TO RUN ON! THE BIGGEST LIE THEY EVER TOLD ON THEM WAS THAT THEY HAD A REPUTATION FOR DERAILING! THE TRUTH WAS, THE TRACKS THEY RAN THEM ON, COULD NOT HOLD UP UNDER THEM! THE TRACK WAS THE REASON WHY THEY HAD DERAILMENTS! THE TRACKS WERE THE CULPRITS! NOT THE LOCOMOTIVES THEMSELVES! YOU CANNOT RUN LOCOMOTIVES LIKE THIS ON POOR TRACKS! YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND DO MORE RESEARCH ON WHAT CAUSED THEM TO DERAIL! IT WAS THE POOR TRACKS THEY RAN THEM ON! THARE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE DESIGN OF THESE LOCOMOTIVES! IT WAS THE TRACKS!
29:45 SIX AXLE ELECTRIC F40PH THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REAL Imagine a world where instead of the ACS-64 this is flying down the Northeast Corridor at 225 miles per hour, or on the Metra Electric lines in Metra colors, pulling gallery cars instead of the Highliner IIs, that would be epic
Always wondered if EMD ever designed a non turbo version of the 20 cylinder 645 series. With do--do 4 axle trucks, it could have been a heavy 8 axle drag engine. Or even a co-co+co-co twin 20-645 non turbos about 5,000 horsepower double engine ultimate 12 axle low speed drag engine for immense ore haulage.
What's the point of a non-turbo 20-cylinder 645? The only reason to use 20 cylinders is that you want as much power as possible, and you can't get that from 16 cylinders. If you want as much power as possible, you want a turbocharger. The turbocharger adds about 50% to the 16-cylinder 645, so I assume it would do about the same for a 20-cylinder engine. That means that a non-turbo 20-cylinder would be about 2400hp, which is about what you get from the 12-cylinder turbo unit in the GP39-2 (2300hp). But you get the infamous unreliability of the 20-cylinder block, poor fuel consumption and poor performance at altitude. And railroads don't want enormously powerful locomotives. A 5000hp dual-engine 12-axle locomotive is just a less flexible version of a pair of 2500hp six-axle locomotives. It also has lower overall availability because, if either of the engines fails, you have to take the whole thing out of service whereas, if one of a pair of locomotives fails, you can keep running the other one, in the mean time.
@@beeble2003 Great Lakes vessels still use the EMD 20-645 as well as river towboats. You'll probably say something along the lines that a locomotive frame is a different environment for the 20.cylinder engine. The SD80MAC proved to be reliable. I dont think that it's totally asinine to consider a non turbo 20 cylinder 645. I mean, with your logic, a 16 cylinder non turbo is highly impractical when you can have a 12 cylinder. Or a 12 cylinder is impractical when you can have an 8.
You wouldn't see a Roots 645-20 for much the same reason you don't see a domestic Roots 710. You'd have all the excessive fuel-hog displacement at notch-governed speeds with colossal fuel consumption at high notch of, say, the GP38 over a GP40. Remember that any turbocharged 645 is a blower engine below about notch 5, with gear drive rotating the compressor wheel of the turbo, and in fact some 645-engined power was 'deturboed' simply by removing the turbine and associated exhaust plumbing. If you are going to run an engine at high notch for any length of time you're throwing away money in gear-drive maintenance as well as turbo boost. I don't like to think about the arrangement necessary to put Roots blowers on a 710-12 (or larger) or the beefed-up gears for a larger centrifugal-compressor scavenge arrangement... and to paraphrase Monty Python a non-turbo 710-20 is 'right out'.
Hey guys, want to see something really impressive ? Bring former class 1 Canadian and American SD40, ship them to Brazil. Increase frame lenght on both ends about 4, 5 feet. Shorten fuel tank Remove dynamic fan on top and put everything under the hood below radiators Replace CC trucks by BB+BB Replace existing coupler and draft gear by new, smaller and lowered ones. Tadammm you got a narrow gauge SD 40 (about 3 feet wide track) Pulling smaller railcars they look like monsters under steroid. They purchased their SD45 with DD trucks. The same as on UP centenial DDA40X. Named DM45 with small fuel tank cause there´s no room. Model railroader, what are you waiting to move to modern narrow gauge. Get out of the 40´ Should see brand new GE . Same thing except with 4 B trucks. They run cabooseless, DPU and roadrailer in very tight clearance tunnel. If they do in 2023, so can you !
I don't have sources for all of these diagrams, as most of them were Google image searches and can easily eb downloaded as jpg files. The electric SD40-2 conversion was part of a pdf though, but the first image of the electric SD40 (and the GP50T) I obtained through someone else posting the photos on discord rather than a Google search. Here is the PDF of the SD40 conversion program: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15203/PB81191314%255B1%255D.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL6u251qqAAxWLrokEHRTXBEoQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0rFdyGqcfQMvcF6vqw5tX0
I'll be covering unbuilt for well known steam engine builders that will also include diesels from the same company, namely ALCO and Baldwin (the latter of which might also include Lima and Hamilton).
@@andrewboyd8073 ATSF cab forward will be included for Baldwin, but I'm not sure where to put the Y7 since I believe that's the only unbuilt engine class from N&W's Roanoake shops, which itself wasn't a large manufacturer.
Can you do a video on Irish rail / Cie emd locos the 121 141 and 181 bring the baby gms 4 axle then the 071 and 201 class being the big gms 6 axle locos
Thank you for the suggestion, but Irish locomotive classes aren't my expertise. I might consider covering EMD original designs outside of North America such as the examples that you mentioned, but I'm not sure as to when I would get to it as of yet.
FG9 wasn't included because it was actually built. I haven't found any info about an E10 though, so if you have a link for further information that would be greatly appreciated.
Only the carbody of the FG9 was built. But it should have been mentioned. Of course there is a whole fascinating episode of Unbuilt for free-piston locomotives themselves -- for example why Hamilton took the engine up, why Lima acquired Hamilton, why Baldwin acquired Lima-Hamilton.. As I recall, the "E10" was the use of the turbo 645-16 in an E-unit carbody appropriately modified -- we got the cowl unit SDP35/45 instead, likely for manufacturing commonality. Note the key difference with the Australian CL42 (which used the E-unit-style nose with the cowl-type carbody and radiators).
Would the ML1 and ML2 units not count as exports? produced in 1951 and 1952, before the G12. The ML1 was delivered to the commonwealth railways and the ML2 the Victorian railways both in Australia
I gave recognition to the G12 since it was advertised as more of an export unit,l and was sold to many more countries, rather than contracting design work to Clyde Engineering just in Australia.
6:33 "GP50-T, a turbocharged or tunnel-motor variant of the GP50 road switcher." That's not what "tunnel motor" means. A tunnel motor was a design with the cooling air intakes at waist level, because roof-mounted intakes would suck in hot air and exhaust in long tunnels, leading to overheating. This has nothing to do with the presence of turbochargers. The only tunnel motor models that were built were the SD40T-2 and SD45T-2, which were both turbocharged in the "non-T" versions. Perhaps you're confusing this with the GP15T. In that case, the "T" did stand for "turbocharged". A standard GP15-1 had a 1500hp 12-cylinder naturally aspirated engine, while the GP15T developed the same 1500hp but from an 8-cylinder turbo engine. This confuses a lot of people, as all GP15 models also have their radiator air intakes on the side of the long hood, in the same configuration as a tunnel motor -- but they're not tunnel motors.
@@wizlish Yes, but the radiator arrangement on _all_ GP15s is like that -- GP15-1, GP15AC and GP15T. The "T" in "GP15T" denotes the turbocharged engine, not the radiator arrangement.
Yes, I'm agreeing with you about the 'T' in GP15T meaning only that it has the turbo 8-645. It might have been 'logical' for someone to assume that the 'T' of the SD40/45T-2 would carry over to a locomotive with the same apparent radiator-section arrangement.
Electro-Motive Corporation was acquired by GM (and incorporated as a 'division') as the next step after acquisition of the Winton Engine Company -- part of Sloan's strategy to bring GM-style coherent development to internal-combustion railroad locomotives.
8:25 "... six-axle SD-series... intended for hauling heavier loads with more horsepower." More tractive effort, not horsepower. An SD locomotive has the same horsepower as the corresponding GP locomotive -- for example, SD40s and GP40s are 3000hp; SD50s and GP50s are 3500hp (later 3600). The difference is that the SD units are heavier and have more axles, so they can apply more total force to the rail without wheelslip and, therefore, get heavier trains moving. To get the same total force on the rail, a GP unit would have to put 50% more force through each wheel, which would slip. The advantages of the 4-axle unit are that they're lighter so can run on lower-quality track. They can also run at higher speed: power equals force times speed, so the trade-off is that the 4-axle unit can supply a lower force at higher speed. High-horsepower 4-axle locomotives like the GP60 were intended for intermodal trains, which are relatively light but want to be run fast.
@@torquetrain8963 "12 axles and 5000 horsepower isnt a high horsepower locomotive" No current locomotive has over 4500hp so, yes, any 5000hp unit is high horsepower. Railroads have clearly chosen not to run locomotives that powerful -- the SD80s are all out of service, the SD90s have all been scrapped or re-engined as SD70s, the AC6000CWs have all been scrapped or re-engined to 4400hp. The fact that your proposal has 12 axles just makes it even more pointless, since you're proposing a single unit that's less powerful than a pair of SD40s and less flexible, too.
@@beeble2003 ram 2500 cummins diesels that are grocery getters are pretty pointless too, but we see them everyday, and Americans rant about fuel prices. We are the most obese car dependent nation with unwalkable cities and mass shootings because we are so divided. So with all the insanity we put up with everyday, you want to whine and bitch about a 20 cylinder locomotive? What's your definition of insanity?
![[GL][T-339] The Greatest Diesel Locomotive in History.. EMD SD40-2 50TH ANNIVERSARY (Full Series)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ylSAT62KSjg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[GL][T-339] The Greatest Diesel Locomotive in History.. EMD SD40-2 50TH ANNIVERSARY (Full Series)](/img/tr.png)
UPDATE: The HST shown for the Advanced Concept Train is NOT the same design to be used for that specific project. EMD did design a HST for the FRA in the early 2000s, but the HST shown was from the GM Pavillion of the Vancouver 86 Expo, which would later be donated to the GM Building in Epcot in Disney World. Photos and videos of this HST in Vancourver and Disney World can be found here:
galleries.friendsofsdarch.com/gallery-image/EXPO-86/G00008WOF2mcVi88/I0000X9d6yj20jGQ
th-cam.com/video/C1eSfQ94QB0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yrd5OKrYgeuT75Vh
ah yes, the classic unbuilt units, would have been cool to see an 8 axle E unit
I think Commonwealth Railways in Australia proposed a Do-Do version of the CL class diesel locomotive in 1970
It's also worth noting that the SD40-2 was available new during the entire SD50 era. The SD50 really just replaced the SD45-2.
That helps explain why it sold so well. It was reliable, and efficient enough to get the job done.
SD 45's broke too many V20 crankshafts.
SD 50 had comparable hp with a V16.
Too be fair, the original SD45s suffered from engine failures due to wobbling the V20 645s and resulting it snapping right of.
The SD45-2's engines were later rectified to fix the crankshaft failures.
The SD50s had their engines essentially jacked up to fit into 3500-3600 and that proved to be a bust.
All of the SD45's,SD45-2's,SD45T-2's,F45's/FP45's,SDP45's,and SD45M's had numerous problems involving the crankshafts and block flexing.Most units were rebuilt with 16-645E3's to replace the unreliable 20-645E7's.Some units that weren't rebuilt had the governor settings adjusted and horsepower derated.Southern Pacific did 167 SD45R rebuilds out of 357 units that they owned.In later years 87/133 of those units became SD40M-2 rebuilds from MK Rail including 6 SD45M's that were acquired by Erie Lackawanna.The errors of these units is what EMD knew not to repeat with the GP40-2's & SD40-2's on all aspects.On top of that,with the GP50's & SD50's also being problematic,this is why the GP40-2's & SD40-2's incredibly sold well and still retain the notoriety of the greatest reliability and longevity compared to thousands of other units,both older and newer.The issues with the GP50's & SD50's were the result of the 645F3's reaching the breaking point.Two stroke motors at a certain limit require increase in displacement to withstand more horsepower.Opposed to two stroke,this is where four stroke motors are more favorable because of less RPM and more horsepower regardless of cubic inches/litres.Also,GE units.
Most problems correlating to the 645F3's were easily fixed by also changing the governor settings and decreasing the horsepower.
As a matter of fact,in modern years the only units that were even more unreliable than the SD50's were the PR43C's from CAT/PRLX that Norfolk Southern was doing testbed operations with.
The GP40-2's & SD40-2's were the last golden years for EMD,then problems began to arise on other units while GE was just starting to really put down their market.
DE 91, shown at 3:56, still exists in cosmetic restoration form at the at the National Railway Museum, Adelaide, South Australia. The photo shown is from its service with the Commonwealth Railways of Australia where it was in use until the 1970's.
This was a great watch overall and I'm glad i joined the premiere. I can imagine this series will go far, seeing as there are many unbuilt locomotives out there. Great job and can't wait to see what more you add onto it.
Thanx for the great history lessons. Here in New Zealand the EMD G12 DA class introduced from 1955 was a very successful series of locomotive with the later batch's being rebuilt inro G22AR starting in 1978 as the DC class . Some DC class locoes still operating but not many . Both the DA and DC class are still operating in rail museums here. The EMD GT22 DFT Class series introduced in 1979 are still operating here as well.
Glad to see someone finally cover this topic! I love learning about obscure, unbuilt locomotive models, classes, and series that were either never built, or never delivered to a railroad (such as the CP and CNW's SD80MAC orders and the SD49).
It is nice to see my models of the Commonwealth Railways DD type locomotives in a video on You Tube, as I took a bit of time to collect the drawings for them from various sources and the collect all the bits an pieces to build them. The locos consist of a LifeLike F7 model front end with scratchbuilt sides and Like Like F7 B ends using the rough drawings as a guide, to power both of them two sets of Bachmann DD40AX bogies were used with Auscisin brand motors and handmade drive shafts to the gears etc on the bogies. Yes they do run and quite well also. I have not ben able to test out their pulling power as I have no layout to actually test them on at the moment. They were fun to build and would be even more fun on a layout on a train of cars. Great video though and well done except the part about the GM class Commonwealth Railways, they are in fact a lowered and lengthened F7 type on 6 wheeled bogies which were developed especially for these type of locomotives by EMD in the USA.
It's amazing how this never built model of the DD40A reminds me of the EMD DDM45 exported in metric gauge here to Brazil. Among other various locally designed EMD models under license.
I've been interested in trains for a very long time, but I never heard of most of these proposed EMD engines! Now, I know of the various unbuilt designs that EMD thought up from the 1930s to the 2000s: proposed E- and F-units, unimplemented GP and SD road switchers (including versions for use in China, of all places), lower-power switchers, many electric locomotives, and even a high-speed train!
Although these designs haven't been built, it is interesting to see how they evolved to create more successful versions: the F39P and F40P to the F40PH, the GP2000 to the GP22ECO and other rebuilds, and so forth.
Thanks for the video! I'll subscribe!
excellent well documented documentary. Being an EMD fan through and through I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. Thanks. I'd sure like to get my hands on a readable hi res drawing of the EMD A32B. I've seen a couple of images of the drawing but they are all low res and not readable.
im a swither man myself, and i love those canda made 1s, they where sweetlooking to me
This was a super well put together video. So many quirky designs. I wonder what today would be like if that electrification concept had happend in the 70s. Thanks for the video and I can't wait for the next installments!
The Milwaukee Road had that electrified route out west, decided to abandon it but some speculated that had they kept it, it might’ve allowed them to weather their own storm of incompetent management!
Yes, but that was 3000VDC with an expensive but frail design of overhead, whereas dual-mode-lite was 12.5 to 25kV AC. Note that this was NOT an "EMD" project; the engineers used a SD40-2 as representative of then-typical modern road power. (Interestingly the approach is massively facilitated by modern AC synthesis drive... but that's not a story for this video except in terms of 'what might have been'... and so much of the AC development in the '70s was obsolescent long ago)
Classic EMD locomotives. EMD is soon to be 101 years old. The boxcabs came first. The failure of the SD50 caused EMD to lose their place as top locomotive manufacturer in the United States. EMD has been around for years and they still build locomotives. This is good.
GE CEO Jack Welch had a lot more to do with overtaking EMD than the SD50; GM's Roger Smith was considered one of the worst CEOs of the century, losing market dominance to competitors. EMD was sold to Progress Rail (Caterpillar) in 2010.
@@Greatdome99... #NeutronJackWelch and his Management Culture, Policies and Greed has killed GE, it's no longer anything like it was in the 90's... it's been broken up into 3 divisions now. GE Capital will eventually cease to exist because of his policies and former Management 🤨
EMD isn't really around anymore,CAT/PRLX is their parent company.The last units that CAT/PRLX built were the SD70AH-T4's that are straight up junk which was almost a decade ago now.The units were based on the SD90MAC's which is cruel irony at the best knowing that those units also failed.Even before they were acquired,EMD had to discontinue the 710 series due to EPA regulations with the SD80MAC's and SD9043MAC's really being the last units to be made.The GP50's & SD50's weren't the worst and many units were fixed with derated horsepower thanks to adjustments with the governor settings.The absolute worst units were the SD90MAC H1's & H2's (Or MAC-H) that had far more failures than the GE AC6000CW's.EMD 567's,645's,and 710's are still around in large numbers but in stationary and marine apparatus because of no emissions standards.There will be many EMD units still around on smaller railroads,shortlines,or industrial usage but it's clear for class one use that GE units have been surpassing EMD units for years now.Better technology,tractive effort,and dynamic braking.EMD units get immediately retired or put into storage once the years catch up.Any large railroads don't clamor that much anymore to start rebuild programs for them,except for Norfolk Southern,Canadian National,Canadian Pacific,or CSX but that's still not alot in numbers.
Thanks for this informative video! As a matter of interest, some of their electric locos were shipped here to South Africa for use on our heavy haul coal lines and were used successfully for many years, only retiring recently. We classified them as Class 11E, their builder classification was General Motors GM5FC
In Australia Pacific National's 82 class JT42C locomotives can be considered to be an export SD59.
This is going to be a DANK.
Can't wait for GE.
The SD40-2 was the best EMD locomotive.
I agree! After all, almost 4,000 of them were built, and many years later, they still plow the rails of the USA, Canada, _and_ Mexico, as well as a few other countries! This, I think, makes it the most successful EMD product!
so as GT26CW
@@williameom Indeed, that was the export equivalent to the SD40s!
The last greatest units manufactured by EMD were indeed the GP40-2's & SD40-2's including the SD40T-2's.In addition would be passenger units like the F40PH's,SDP40's,and SDP40F's.Once those units were discontinued,then EMD faced problems and lesser results in great performance and/or reliability on newer units.Any EMD units that have been built within the last thirty years can't uphold the notoriety of the older series.CAT/PRLX also destroyed EMD as if EPA regulations weren't enough.Nowadays the best units for serious tonnage are GE units espiecally because of better tractive effort and dynamic braking.
Being partial to stainless-steel diesels, I find the Amfleet/F125 concept particularly fascinating
It is worth noting that Australia got some SD39-2 units during the 1980’s, but via a rebuild program. Between 1984 and 1985, 11 of the 1952 built B class bulldog units (unique for being double ended), were rebuilt to become the A class. Effectively, these went from being SD7 units to SD39-2 units within the same carbody structure and were reportedly a tight squeeze. The last A class rebuild remained in everyday passenger service until August 2018.
Three of the A class units have been preserved. Some of the original B class locomotives, despite being over 70 years old, are still in mainline freight traffic. The local EMD classifications were ML2 for the B class and AAT22C-2R for the A class.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/Line_A_class
06:48 The tunnel motors also had the cooling air intakes at the bottom, the better to drawn in cooler air in the tunnels' confined spaces. In the non-tunnel variants the intakes were towards the top.
I definitely want Athearn doing HO scale models of those!
That was great! Awesome, in-depth research. One of my favorite what-if's is the SD30 myself, as the GP30 is my favorite of the jeeps by far. This video earned you my subscription as well.
Stupendously entertaining video! Will watch it 2 more x's! So much info to process!
2nd time through your video was even MORE entertaining! Great research!
I like the close up engine pictures are the 071 class Irish rail emd built loco still going strong today on freight
The electric SD40 would of been really cool, too bad we never got them
One sort of SD40 in electric form was actually built; GM6C. It was actually sitting on modified SD40-2 frame, but close enough.
Another great video! I hope your experiences of your hobbies have been a thrilling journey for you! Your hard work never fails to pay off and merits more praises! Despite the challenges, keep strong, assertive and great! Continued aspirations that your dreams shall come true before you know it! 🙂🚂
14:48 The fact that EMD didn't build that locomotive is a disgrace. It honestly reminds me of the Shinkansen trains from Japan, and I like the aesthetic. It could have been the USA's own version if done right. And considering now we are much more advanced in technology than back in the late '70s to early 80's I could see it potentially returning in one form or another to compete with the Siemens charger.
Well, it did, as the Spirit (a true 125mph locomotive with Caterpillar C175 power). Amusingly some EMD people ran the numbers on the early Siemens-Cummins QSK competition and realized the Charger as originally specified didn't have the horsepower to actually sustain 125mph as the spec required (as I recall, the math said about 123mph) and Progress actually brought suit to establish that the Charger be disqualified from the IDOT competition on those grounds.
I'm dimly remembering that the two versions of 125mph passenger power were parallel evolution, the AMT125 being for lightweight service as a kind of locomotive-hauled alternative to the high-speed clone of SPV2000, and the other being the logical follow-on to the four-axle cowl locomotives with full high-speed running gear.
A third rail version of the DM30AC had 21 units sold to the Long Island RR between 1994 and 1996.
*1997 and 1999. The 3rd rail DM30AC came before the overhead wire variant since that rendering looks more realistic rather than new concept art.
Great video as ever. Keep up the good work.
Wow, so much EMD history I knew little about, and sometimes nothing at all!
Awesome video! Can’t get enough of them!
Please do another one of these
6:19 was hoping for an Australian reference (especially a Victorian Railways reference) and Y129 has a 6-567C, Y's 151 to 175 have the 6-645E motors with 151, 152, 156, 157, 159, 161, 163, 164, 169, 171 and 174 still being around either stored, under restoration or being used
There were some other Australian designs that never got off the drawing board.
The first one that comes to mind is the EMD/Clyde alternative to the GE/Goninan NR class that became the most common class in the country.
I'm upset no one ever ordered the SD30 (GP30's six-axle counterpart) which EMD designed, but never produced.
I built a H0 scale model of one waaaay back. It looked goid even if i say si myself!
I know of a couple of unbuilt class66 variants...
1) 125mph. Probably a JT42Csomething.
After WC bought various UK freight companies in the 90s, they placed their huge order for 250 of what became known at the 66. The original idea was that the last batch would be 125mph machines for mail trains and occasional passenger work.
Plan A was to simply regear the trucks for 65% more speed and maybe add some improved secondary springs and damping. That lasted right up until someone in UK saw it and said "good luck getting that certified". Plan B was to go looking for some suitable trucks to slide under the loco, and it turned out that worldwide there was exactly one type of high speed, low track force, 3axle truck suitable for a 40,000-45,000lb axleload - the ones made by Brush for the BR class 89. For some reason Brush turned down EMD's offer to take the drawings off their hands for free, and said "Yeah, we'll make those for you, a million dollars a set." Neither WC or EMD were willing to pay that, and there was no plan C.
Eventually WC took delivery of the 250 standard 75mph 66's, and had to go shopping elsewhere for 125mph power in the form of the 67's which use the same engine/alternator as the 66's.
These high speed versions *might* have had a slightly more streamlined but basically flat cab, a bit like the CIE 201 class, but I don't think I've ever seen any official renderings.
2) 3'6" gauge, for NZ
Title more or less says it all. Sometime in the early late 1990's/early 2000's EMD offered a narrow gauge version of the 66 to operators in New Zealand for intermodal work. Surprisingly this was planned to have 3axle trucks, not 4 - the axleload wouldn't have been a problem, but the gauge would have restricted the traction motor size, apparently that didn't worry the operators. I don't know how close it came to reality, NZ didn't get any completely new locos between 1979 and 2009, but my understanding with these is that they would have been essentially standard except for the trucks.
Correction/Update - happened to look at the wikipedia page for the NZ DL class, and the ng 66 is mentioned as being FT42CU, and also beimg single cabbed, the other cab beimg replaced by dynamic brake equipment. All this was in 2002, and the local classification would apparently have been DK.
Thank you for the in depth description!
There was apparently also a second unbuild EWS 66 derivative. A design to replace the class 37 fleet and was to be a lighter and less powerful class 66.
15:55 Is that Model Zero Shinkansen Train made in Diesel? or is that a successor to successful F Unit?
Makes me wonder if these locomotives were built how well do you think these concepts would preform regular earning service, like would some of these fail or succeed?
#600 is currently on the Southern Michigan railroad in Tecumseh Michigan
Small note: The Australian CR GM class locomotives were designated as F7/A7 based on the originating design being first the F3 then the F7 provided to Clyde Engineering in the late 1940's, to Australianise the units for local loading gauge and restrictions the design height was lowered, frame lengthened to allow for an A1A three axle bogie and the radiators were moved from above the engine to the side walls Despite appearance they are not related to the E-unit but are a stretched and lowered F Unit.
Later variants under the GM 12 class, VR S class, and NSWGR 42 class utilised a 6 axle truck and the 567C prime movers were uprated to 1750/1800HP from 1500HP
Thank you for the correction and for providing these specifications. I assumed the frame and trucks were the same length as an E unit.
Speaking of the Commonwealth Railway CL Class diesel locomotive in Australia, the CL Class was originally going to have a Do-Do wheel arrangement but never got it.
This was so informative and engaging I love it! Keep up the amazing work!
2:44 The Seaboard Air Line E4s
1:00 I don't understand why flatface dual cab diesel locomotives aren't a popular design in North America but saw extensive uses elsewhere?
I suppose for more power per unit?
because they dont want to losing people who work for turntable
the emd ACT is epic i wish it actually existed
the first mainline diesel locomotive in australia was the victorian railways B class which were actually EMD f7 and f9 units that were built to a modified design by clyde engineering (they were made lower and longer and placed on 6 axle trucks) and some of the class are still in service in both their original and upgraded (A class) forms
And do a video on preserved one offs
Dude the SD39-2, SD49 and GP70 would’ve been GAME CHANGERS
The only reason they weren't built is that no railroad wanted them. That's not a game-changer.
@@beeble2003 i’m aware, i watched the video. A lot of the time the railroad didn’t need them because of the market at the time. IF these existed, and railroads took the gable on them, they would’ve been great models.
14:35 would have been weird to see a amt one
fun fact with the VR Y classes, the first 50 the units were powered with a 6 clyinder 567C, and features GE motor bogies from the 1920's
The trucks are second hand off woodbodied EMU cars, if I remember right.
I call it, In the next 15 years we will get a sd40-5.
That ad at 4:29 is cool! Where did you find it?
Keep up the good work. I enjoyed this.
The one unbuilt loco, whose design collapse destroyed EMD (Progress) as a manufacturer of modern 6 axle freight locomotives, was the SD70ACe - tier 4 with a clean 710 2-cycle engine variant. EMD discovered too late that the 710 design was inadequate to comply with the Tier 4 emission requirements.and they needed a 4-cycle engine. When Tier 4 became required in 2015, GE was ready. Not EMD. The 4-cycle SD70 finally started minimum production toward the end of 2017 with a still buggy model. Few were built and many of those are now just stored. Sad end of a great line.
7:44 "Many [...] short line roads across the country had to rebuild various second-generation diesels that had been running for about fifty years."
Yes, but note that the GP38-2 and GP40-2 were in production until 1986, so there's _a lot_ of available four-axle power that's only about 40 years old.
The thing that killed the EMD 'four-axle rebuilds' was essentially the same thing that killed Alco's rebuilding project for PRR's freight Sharks (which essentially became RS18s above the deck inside the carbody). They were expensive, expensive as hell, for little additional TE or horsepower, with new components to be expen$ively sourced through EMD. Very few 'shortline railroads' have the disposable income or potential depreciation or other tax credits for such vanity expense...
This outta be wicked!
Pennsyfan… been waiting for this one❤️👍🏻
Frateschi Makes inexpensive HO gauge models of the G-12 and other EMD and GE Export locos, they are similar to Athearn and Rivarossi in design.
18:05 *WHHHHHY!!!*
Can you try unbuilt GE locomotives?
Well done.
That streamlined painting reminded me of European locos...
Nice
What is that loco on the frontispiece? Looks like a fogg or a bennett art, a hybrod s p, gtel cab, alco trucks and t2 tunnel motor rear end,
That is the Alco second-generation follow-up to the PA, the C636P. (Think of it as the Alco equivalent to a cowl unit like an FP45 or CG34 or 36)
Incidentally, there is or was an actual Web description of the process of painting this, with many lovely illustrations of the stages. It has disappeared and reappeared at least twice, in my recollection at least, and you might have to search in the Internet Archive to find it now, but it is WELL worth finding and reading!
It looks like the red car of the ACT concept train has a sedan on it, so my guess is that it would've been an autorack.
Cool video
you need to look at the emd units made by com engineering in Australia for queenland rail
Sd50 is what caused major railways to invest in GE's and why they are so prominent now. The SD50 was a lemon, basically. It really hurt emd's reputation and put GE on the rise.
Can you do a video about the end locos of Irish rail the 121 being first then the 141 class and the 181 class then the bigger 071 class that’s still in service today and the famous 201 class that is similar to the uk class 59/66 but this one came first back in 1994 and the first loco famously being flown over to Ireland on a plane
great video 🚄🚃👍
17:38 Like Septa would even think of purchasing a Diesel Locomotive 💀💀
sd80acu (rebuild program) proposed to NS for the sd80macs to convert them to 5500HP and replace the cabs.
Good catch! I'm embarrassed that I forgot to mention this, but it would've been an honorable mention since it's a proposed rebuild by NS instead of a new model from EMD.
Idea: Streamlined D-D Diesel Passenger locomotive.
Seriously, their should be more D-D diesels in service.
Unrelated question: When will fixing your branch line return?
In the coming weeks
THE SDP40F HAD NO DESIGN FLAWS! THE LOCOMOTIVES WERE PLACED ON AND WERE FORCED TO RUN ON TRACKS THAT WERE NOR EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THEM! On ALL THE RAILROADS THEY RAN ON, THE TRACK WAS THE CULPRIT IN ALL OF THE DERAILMENTS THEY HAD! IT WASN'T THE LOCOMOTIVES THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, IT WAS THE RAILS THEY RAN ON!
ANYBODY WITH ANY COMMON SENSE WILL TELL YOU THAT THE SDP40F MAIN PROBLEM WAS THE TRACKS THEY WERE FORCED TO RUN ON! THE BIGGEST LIE THEY EVER TOLD ON THEM WAS THAT THEY HAD A REPUTATION FOR DERAILING! THE TRUTH WAS, THE TRACKS THEY RAN THEM ON, COULD NOT HOLD UP UNDER THEM! THE TRACK WAS THE REASON WHY THEY HAD DERAILMENTS! THE TRACKS WERE THE CULPRITS! NOT THE LOCOMOTIVES THEMSELVES! YOU CANNOT RUN LOCOMOTIVES LIKE THIS ON POOR TRACKS! YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND DO MORE RESEARCH ON WHAT CAUSED THEM TO DERAIL! IT WAS THE POOR TRACKS THEY RAN THEM ON! THARE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE DESIGN OF THESE LOCOMOTIVES! IT WAS THE TRACKS!
29:45
SIX AXLE ELECTRIC F40PH
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REAL
Imagine a world where instead of the ACS-64 this is flying down the Northeast Corridor at 225 miles per hour, or on the Metra Electric lines in Metra colors, pulling gallery cars instead of the Highliner IIs, that would be epic
Always wondered if EMD ever designed a non turbo version of the 20 cylinder 645 series. With do--do 4 axle trucks, it could have been a heavy 8 axle drag engine. Or even a co-co+co-co twin 20-645 non turbos about 5,000 horsepower double engine ultimate 12 axle low speed drag engine for immense ore haulage.
What's the point of a non-turbo 20-cylinder 645? The only reason to use 20 cylinders is that you want as much power as possible, and you can't get that from 16 cylinders. If you want as much power as possible, you want a turbocharger.
The turbocharger adds about 50% to the 16-cylinder 645, so I assume it would do about the same for a 20-cylinder engine. That means that a non-turbo 20-cylinder would be about 2400hp, which is about what you get from the 12-cylinder turbo unit in the GP39-2 (2300hp). But you get the infamous unreliability of the 20-cylinder block, poor fuel consumption and poor performance at altitude.
And railroads don't want enormously powerful locomotives. A 5000hp dual-engine 12-axle locomotive is just a less flexible version of a pair of 2500hp six-axle locomotives. It also has lower overall availability because, if either of the engines fails, you have to take the whole thing out of service whereas, if one of a pair of locomotives fails, you can keep running the other one, in the mean time.
@@beeble2003 I believe the crankshaft issues with the 20 cylinder 645 were solved.
@@torquetrain8963 Maybe, though they were mostly solved by replacing the 20-cylinder engines with 16-cylinder ones. 😉
@@beeble2003 Great Lakes vessels still use the EMD 20-645 as well as river towboats. You'll probably say something along the lines that a locomotive frame is a different environment for the 20.cylinder engine. The SD80MAC proved to be reliable. I dont think that it's totally asinine to consider a non turbo 20 cylinder 645. I mean, with your logic, a 16 cylinder non turbo is highly impractical when you can have a 12 cylinder. Or a 12 cylinder is impractical when you can have an 8.
You wouldn't see a Roots 645-20 for much the same reason you don't see a domestic Roots 710. You'd have all the excessive fuel-hog displacement at notch-governed speeds with colossal fuel consumption at high notch of, say, the GP38 over a GP40.
Remember that any turbocharged 645 is a blower engine below about notch 5, with gear drive rotating the compressor wheel of the turbo, and in fact some 645-engined power was 'deturboed' simply by removing the turbine and associated exhaust plumbing. If you are going to run an engine at high notch for any length of time you're throwing away money in gear-drive maintenance as well as turbo boost.
I don't like to think about the arrangement necessary to put Roots blowers on a 710-12 (or larger) or the beefed-up gears for a larger centrifugal-compressor scavenge arrangement... and to paraphrase Monty Python a non-turbo 710-20 is 'right out'.
Hey guys, want to see something really impressive ?
Bring former class 1 Canadian and American SD40, ship them to Brazil.
Increase frame lenght on both ends about 4, 5 feet.
Shorten fuel tank
Remove dynamic fan on top and put everything under the hood below radiators
Replace CC trucks by BB+BB
Replace existing coupler and draft gear by new, smaller and lowered ones.
Tadammm you got a narrow gauge SD 40 (about 3 feet wide track)
Pulling smaller railcars they look like monsters under steroid.
They purchased their SD45 with DD trucks. The same as on UP centenial DDA40X. Named DM45 with small fuel tank cause there´s no room.
Model railroader, what are you waiting to move to modern narrow gauge. Get out of the 40´
Should see brand new GE . Same thing except with 4 B trucks. They run cabooseless, DPU and roadrailer in very tight clearance tunnel.
If they do in 2023, so can you !
Is it possbile to have the links to the pdfs or images of the diagrams of these never built locomotives as displayed in the video?
I don't have sources for all of these diagrams, as most of them were Google image searches and can easily eb downloaded as jpg files. The electric SD40-2 conversion was part of a pdf though, but the first image of the electric SD40 (and the GP50T) I obtained through someone else posting the photos on discord rather than a Google search.
Here is the PDF of the SD40 conversion program: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15203/PB81191314%255B1%255D.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL6u251qqAAxWLrokEHRTXBEoQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0rFdyGqcfQMvcF6vqw5tX0
@@Pensyfan19 ah thats alright thanks anyways, by any chance could you send the GP50T diagrams atleast?
@pyromaniac2766 I don't have an exact link for that one since I found it on discord, but you can screenshot the video when it appears.
18:47 Korean National Railroad 2100 class -> EMD SW1001, Wrong pic danm.
Are you going to do one for unbuilt steam engines?
I'll be covering unbuilt for well known steam engine builders that will also include diesels from the same company, namely ALCO and Baldwin (the latter of which might also include Lima and Hamilton).
@@Pensyfan19 Nice. Perhaps the N&W Y7 and ATSF cab forward duplex will be included?
@@andrewboyd8073 ATSF cab forward will be included for Baldwin, but I'm not sure where to put the Y7 since I believe that's the only unbuilt engine class from N&W's Roanoake shops, which itself wasn't a large manufacturer.
@@Pensyfan19 Maybe have an additional "assorted" group? Perhaps including some foreign unbuilt engines too?
I guessing the next one will probably be the GE, or Alco
Also, I like trains 🚂
the first amfleet powercar showed reminds me of the Shinkansen 0 Series, instead of an airliner.
Can you do a video on Irish rail / Cie emd locos the 121 141 and 181 bring the baby gms 4 axle then the 071 and 201 class being the big gms 6 axle locos
Thank you for the suggestion, but Irish locomotive classes aren't my expertise. I might consider covering EMD original designs outside of North America such as the examples that you mentioned, but I'm not sure as to when I would get to it as of yet.
The alco C620. That is one i would have liked to see what it would have looked like
What about the FG9? Or the E10?
FG9 wasn't included because it was actually built. I haven't found any info about an E10 though, so if you have a link for further information that would be greatly appreciated.
Only the carbody of the FG9 was built. But it should have been mentioned. Of course there is a whole fascinating episode of Unbuilt for free-piston locomotives themselves -- for example why Hamilton took the engine up, why Lima acquired Hamilton, why Baldwin acquired Lima-Hamilton..
As I recall, the "E10" was the use of the turbo 645-16 in an E-unit carbody appropriately modified -- we got the cowl unit SDP35/45 instead, likely for manufacturing commonality. Note the key difference with the Australian CL42 (which used the E-unit-style nose with the cowl-type carbody and radiators).
Would the ML1 and ML2 units not count as exports? produced in 1951 and 1952, before the G12. The ML1 was delivered to the commonwealth railways and the ML2 the Victorian railways both in Australia
I gave recognition to the G12 since it was advertised as more of an export unit,l and was sold to many more countries, rather than contracting design work to Clyde Engineering just in Australia.
The insane part is EMD’s are in every mid to large size tug boat out there
GP30 1961-63
SD24 1958-63
Looks like there was no reason for a SD30...
Exactly there was no reason for an sd-30. More since the early 60s market for high horsepower SDs was VERY LIMITED hence the poor sales .
Interesting video. I only wish that the narrator would slow down when saying the word "railroad". It sounds like "re rd" or "rr rr".
18:04 TWOTENNY (if you know, you wish you didn’t know the story behind it)
6:33 "GP50-T, a turbocharged or tunnel-motor variant of the GP50 road switcher."
That's not what "tunnel motor" means. A tunnel motor was a design with the cooling air intakes at waist level, because roof-mounted intakes would suck in hot air and exhaust in long tunnels, leading to overheating. This has nothing to do with the presence of turbochargers. The only tunnel motor models that were built were the SD40T-2 and SD45T-2, which were both turbocharged in the "non-T" versions.
Perhaps you're confusing this with the GP15T. In that case, the "T" did stand for "turbocharged". A standard GP15-1 had a 1500hp 12-cylinder naturally aspirated engine, while the GP15T developed the same 1500hp but from an 8-cylinder turbo engine. This confuses a lot of people, as all GP15 models also have their radiator air intakes on the side of the long hood, in the same configuration as a tunnel motor -- but they're not tunnel motors.
But isn't the radiator arrangement on the GP15T the same cold-side fan design as used on the tunnel motors, for the radiator+intercooling heat load?
@@wizlish Yes, but the radiator arrangement on _all_ GP15s is like that -- GP15-1, GP15AC and GP15T. The "T" in "GP15T" denotes the turbocharged engine, not the radiator arrangement.
Yes, I'm agreeing with you about the 'T' in GP15T meaning only that it has the turbo 8-645. It might have been 'logical' for someone to assume that the 'T' of the SD40/45T-2 would carry over to a locomotive with the same apparent radiator-section arrangement.
@@wizlish OK, yes, agreed.
🤓🧐😱
12:00 CSX YN2 knockoff
The Tanzian GEP is a young cousin of the EMD.
12:53 sd45x's are very based 😎
Wasn't EMC= Corporation, not company?
Thank you for the correction
If I am not mistaken EMD was a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors
@@joanndombrow4245 Correct, they became part of GM in 1930.
@Pensyfan19 , thanks for posting the video, understand a lot goes into making them!!, good work 👏
Electro-Motive Corporation was acquired by GM (and incorporated as a 'division') as the next step after acquisition of the Winton Engine Company -- part of Sloan's strategy to bring GM-style coherent development to internal-combustion railroad locomotives.
EMD GT46PAC left the chat
8:25 "... six-axle SD-series... intended for hauling heavier loads with more horsepower."
More tractive effort, not horsepower. An SD locomotive has the same horsepower as the corresponding GP locomotive -- for example, SD40s and GP40s are 3000hp; SD50s and GP50s are 3500hp (later 3600). The difference is that the SD units are heavier and have more axles, so they can apply more total force to the rail without wheelslip and, therefore, get heavier trains moving. To get the same total force on the rail, a GP unit would have to put 50% more force through each wheel, which would slip.
The advantages of the 4-axle unit are that they're lighter so can run on lower-quality track. They can also run at higher speed: power equals force times speed, so the trade-off is that the 4-axle unit can supply a lower force at higher speed. High-horsepower 4-axle locomotives like the GP60 were intended for intermodal trains, which are relatively light but want to be run fast.
Thank you for providing these corrections.
@@beeble2003 12 axles and 5000 horsepower isnt a high horsepower locomotive.
@@beeble2003 the jawn henry had 4500 horsepower and 12 powered axles.
@@torquetrain8963 "12 axles and 5000 horsepower isnt a high horsepower locomotive"
No current locomotive has over 4500hp so, yes, any 5000hp unit is high horsepower. Railroads have clearly chosen not to run locomotives that powerful -- the SD80s are all out of service, the SD90s have all been scrapped or re-engined as SD70s, the AC6000CWs have all been scrapped or re-engined to 4400hp. The fact that your proposal has 12 axles just makes it even more pointless, since you're proposing a single unit that's less powerful than a pair of SD40s and less flexible, too.
@@beeble2003 ram 2500 cummins diesels that are grocery getters are pretty pointless too, but we see them everyday, and Americans rant about fuel prices. We are the most obese car dependent nation with unwalkable cities and mass shootings because we are so divided. So with all the insanity we put up with everyday, you want to whine and bitch about a 20 cylinder locomotive? What's your definition of insanity?