The SD38 is roots blown, “lacking a super charger” is incorrect. SD39/40 are turbocharged. Being a 2 stroke, forced induction is required for them to run.
You are correct! Not sure why people in "the know" cant understand the difference between a supercharger, a turbo charger and a hybrid supercharger/turbocharger as used by EMD on many of its products starting with the GP20
SD39 actually is interesting and useful for what it’s intended purpose was which was never fully utilized by railroads that purchased it, it was smaller and lighter so it could be operated on lightweight rail where a 6 axle locomotive was needed but the rail couldn’t support the weight of the larger heavier 6 axles. That’s typically why SD39s had smaller fuel tanks and why you also see some Geeps with tiny fuel tanks. It’s so they can be operated on poorly maintained team tracks and lightweight branch lines
BL-2's weren't as bad as people made them out to be. Even with the sightlines, it was a major improvement for crews when switching compared to F units, and for guys on the ground the end platforms were much easier to get on and off of. They were very popular on the Bangor and Aroostook on locals and road switchers and were used until the 80's, when the railroad modernized the locomotive fleet by buying some second hand GP38's. Had those not come along, they probably would have continued to use them. Which really, once radios became commonplace on the railroad, the sightline while switching issues more or less were resolved. The other big plus about the BL-2's (especially in northern Maine) was the heaters and cab insulation were very good, and crews also liked the seats they had.
While the SD39 may be unremarkable. I'd argue that the EMD BL2 was probably the most useless. It was meant to be a branch line diesel. But the curves made it impossible for switching. The SD39 at least had a better advantage for road and locals.
BL-2's weren't really that bad. My grandfather worked on the Bangor and Aroostook and the BL-2's were some of his favorite units. The end platforms made them much easier to get on and off of than a F3, and the seats and heaters were really good. As for the sight lines, yes when hand signals were still being used, switching could be a pain. However, once radios came along even according to him, "that hinderance more or less went away". Which also it seems like if they were that bad, the BAR probably wouldn't have used them in freight service until the 80's when they were retired once the used GP38's showed up.
I operated many of the locomotives mentioned. The Union Pacific Fast 40s (SD-40) were some of the most reliable, smooth running and riding diesel-electric locomotives ever built.
It's often interesting the massive difference between railfans and railroaders on topics such as locomotives. The SD39 was far from "useless". They were built for very specific reasons. It was a high tractive effort medium horsepower unit. It was a direct sister to the SD38 as mentioned in the video. But it was offered with a 12V-645T engine instead of the super charged 16V-645 as mentioned. The primary reason was to give a choice of engine that some customers would benefit from under certain conditions. One being fuel consumption... The 12 cyl turbo when used in high load operation can maintain higher amperage output in run 6,7, and especially 8. And can therefore achieve higher efficiency(its where the extra 300hp comes from despite less cylinders). The Roots Blown 16cyl can barely make the 2000hp in run 8 with only small gains above run 6... Why? The turbo is clutch driven and forced similar to the blown engine, until the exhaust gas pressure over rides the clutch and becomes a true turbo, therefore provides much better combustion under high load. The SD39 was by far a better choice over the 38 for high altitude operation for this exact reason. Hence SP and AT&SF opting for them for mine haul, local, transfer, and branch line use. They were also a very good unit for helper service on mountain grades. The SD39 was a very good performer in many roles. The higher price was a factor in their low production numbers with most class ones just going for SD40s. The economy was poor at the beginning of the 70s with most roads running older power into rebuild programs over the next decade or so. Most railfans have no idea that SD 38, 39, and 40 have near identical pulling power under 25/30 mph, with the higher HP really making a difference at higher speed in main line use(as well as the 4 axle GP counterparts being able to pull at faster speed for the same hp). This is why the 38 and 39 were made to handle high tonnage outside main line fast freight use. Most also don't know that the SD45 and 45-2 often used less fuel than the SD40 on fast inter-modal trains despite more cylinders, because of higher output. Now the SD-L 39 is an entirely different animal. The "L" stands for Light Weight... The Milwaukee Road had several hundred miles of branch lines constructed with 55-lb and 70-lb rail in several states that was never upgraded. This is where the bulk of RSC2 Alcos, non ballasted SD7, SD9, and various SW's were used. When newer power was needed? The result... a GP39 with export 3 axle trucks was designed. The short frame and 12cyl engine spread over 6 axles resulted in a higher horsepower unit that functioned well on light trackage. These units had significantly lighter foot print than a typical SD unit. Most of the 7s and 9s were rebuilt into SD10's when the SDL39's were delivered. I hope this provides useful information, and clears up some misunderstanding on the SD39. @Ranting Railfan. @rantingrailfan316
Every trip that I had the SD-90 as a lead locomotive was a trip that ended up as an hours-of-service relief. The back panel (electric components) would get so hot you could burn your hands on it. The computers would shut down and there you were, unable to move. The automatic brake handle just flopped around as if it were not connected to anything. With the isolated cab, it was a quiet locomotive and even more quiet because it usually wasn't running.
The electronics alone on the SD90MAC's was an upmost headache for any technicians and the same problems continued even with the SD70ACE's. Those units were probably the worst ever built by EMD,it was a mistake by debuting the SD70AH-T4's which were based on those and ironically were totally useless as well. Most SD9043MAC's ended up scrapped because of cracked frames,that's why Union Pacific just wanted them gone. It was a waste of money for Norfolk Southern to do the SD70ACU program,thankfully PRLX is scrapping all of the units that were sold to them. The modern GE units are far better for several reasons.
Here’s the inside scoop on the SD39s: My father, who used to have 2 SD39-3 (serial 35816 & 35822) as assets on the shortline that he manages, has the following opinions on SD39s. The ones they had were upgraded to -3, but had very primitive POS QTron systems in them. They had so many electrical failures and struggled to find parts for the QTron in them that they opted for SD40-2s. He said the SD39s were mechanically solid units, but the -3 upgrade was not good because they have problems when with other units in the consist. He wished they continued them to the -2 line, because of what they offered. In some applications, the SD40-2s had too much horsepower, and would wheel slip in about 3rd notch. They also have a couple of ex-Kennecott GP39-2s, and those are some of his favorite units on the roster. They rarely have issues relative to other units, they have good fuel efficiency (not that it matters much in this case), and they pull hard. He loves the 645E-3 12cylinder, and wishes that EMD made a SD39-2. In his and my opinion they would have been perfect.
Quick note: the SD38Ms for Brazil are horses of a slightly different colour. They are direct descendants of the various demo locos that EMD tested before settling on the production version of the 38 and 40. As such they ride on SD-35 underframes and lack the verandas at either extremity.
In the mid ‘80s the master Mechanic of the Seaboard Coastline told me that a better breathing head design called the Fireball head was licensed by GE and EMD as well as high end car companies. This allowed the use of smaller engines, gas and diesel, to make high horsepower reliably.
There were several cylinder head designs from various manufacturers that used that name. The most referenced one I see is the Crane Fireball head for big block Ford V8s. The 2 stroke diesels used by GE and EMD would use a completely different cylinder head design than a gasoline engine. GE and EMD engines have also generally gotten bigger over time not smaller. The current engines are pushing 200 liters for the V12 versions of the current GEVO and EMD 1010 tier 4s, for comparison the GE 7FDL and EMD 710 were both around 185 liters in their V16 versions.
I don't know where you got your fuel figures from, but the difference in fuel burn between an SD39 and SD40 is huge. The SD39 burns 128.2 gallons/hr in run 8 while the SD40 burns 167.7. It also gets the same hp/gal/hr as an SD40, 17.9, which is significantly better than an SD38's 16.3. Effectively, you get a locomotive that burns less fuel per horsepower than an SD38*, and less fuel overall than an SD40, and won't suffer problems at higher altitudes like the SD38 will. As others pointed out below, it was built for a specific purpose and excelled at that task. If the fuel crisis had hit earlier, I guarantee it would have sold significantly better, especially since the SD38, SD39, SD40, and SD45 all have the same tractive effort figures at low to moderate speeds. The extra HP only helps maintain higher speeds, it doesn't actually pull more train because tractive effort at low speeds is adhesion limited. Ask yourself this: why is EMD churning out moderate horsepower rebuilds of old locomotives with 8 or 12 cylinder 710 engines? Why is demand for units in that class so high right now when a 710 could produce up to 4,400 hp? *Overall fuel consumption at any given power setting is higher for an SD39 vs an SD38, at 128.2gal/hr and 122.9gal/hr in run 8, respectively, but the SD39 is a 2,300hp locomotive while the GP38 has 2,000hp. In run 7, where I'd wager the SD39 produces roughly 2,000hp, it consumes 102.6 gallons per hour. Note the stark difference in hp/gal/hr figures above.
A 12-cylinder turbocharged 645 sounds suspiciously like the New Zealand Railways DFT class diesel, which is an EMD G22C it's funny that they were 'meh' in the US but in NZ after they were turbocharged they became some of the most loved locos the railway had, after the GE U26C 'DX' class
They weren't completely useless. The 39 line was conceived becuase Santa Fe, and soon joined by SP, had issues with the 38 line in dry and high plains area. The 39 wasn't a cut back back 40, it was beefed up 38. Santa Fe and SP made heavy use the of the 39 series in the LA area and the high dry South West where air was thin and 38's couldn't operate to their full potential without higher then normal fuel consumption. They did in fact use less fuel then an SD40 (and 38), and were cheaper to maintain. If you view them as a knock off SD40, then yea, they come off as useless, but thats not what the 39's were. They were beefed up SD38's (and GP38) and they performed very well for those roads. Now why a railroad like the IT would buy them but the road like the McCloud River didn't....is a mystery.,
The IT bought them for use on their deteriorating trackage, the 6-wheel trucks spread the weight better than the 4-wheel trucks. The 2300 hp came from a turbo installed on the same 2,000 hp prime mover of the GP/SD38 series units. IT also had 4 GP38-2s, they were the last NEW units the IT purchased.
@@paulsmith5398 But why not SD38's? The slow heavy haul nature of IT would have been better suited for SD38's We aren't a a thiun air state (dry and/or high altitude) where chunking on a turbo would be benefit. The *only* thing I can see would be lower fuel and maintenance costs...though the added expense of maintaining a turbo that they dont need in a shop that has no experience withing their fleet with turbo's kinda offsets that.
@@snagletoothscott3729 from the late 1960s/early 1970s onward, the IT was failing badly, and not much of their original trackage was in use, they had trackage rights on I.C., N & W,(formerly Wabash), and even a former PRR branch that was at the time PC. And those were mainly in central Illinois, while it was a different ballgame in the St. Louis area. There is one remaining short segment of original IT left, and its on the south side of Springfield, the overpass thats over 5th & 6th streets, and goes from the CN's "19th street" line to the junction of NS, UP, Amtrak, and CPKC, on Springfields far southwest side. The SD39s never used that trackage, as the trestle west of the former GM&O burned in the late 1960s, and the roadbed that remains is now a bike/hike trail from Springfield to Chatham. Theres also a 5 mile stretch of former IT roadbed from Sherman to Williamsville thats also a bike/hike trail, the south mile of it goes up a fairly steep incline, ive been on that one, and its a human killer!
@@paulsmith5398 I live in Illinois. Im very well aware of IT's history. None of that has *anything* to do with my point. Operationally, the they would have been better off with SD38's. The only reason for them to go with SD39's is becuase of lower fuel consumption and maintenance, with the latter being questionable becuase of maintaining a turbo they didn't need. But even the fuel/maintenance issue gets cancelled out becuase they did in fact buy GP38-2's...so the decision to buy SD39's was clearly a bad decision and they quickly recognized it.
@@snagletoothscott3729 i do agree with you on the overkill that was made on the IT purchase of the SD39s, but i believe they were financed by an entity in the New England area, hence, thats where most of them went when IT was absorbed by NS. And yes, i also live in Illinois, fairly close to one of the "IT bike/hike trails". But i cant go on them now, due to a skin cancer issue on my back, and a lot of the shade tree branches have been removed, due to the high voltage power lines adjacent to the trail.
The SD39 only has 2 radiator fans. SD40/45 has 3. Othe other two fans in the middle of the long hood (on units so equipped) were dynamic brake fans. The 39 line was unique in that they featured a 12 cyclinder block as compared to the 16 cylinder block in the 38 and 40 series.
You are conflating the SD39 with the 10 SDL39 units EMD built for the Milwaukee Road to replace their aging RSC-2 locomotives. The SD39 is the same size and weight as any other 40-series locomotive, and consequently has the same tractive effort as an SD38, SD40, or SD45.
I beg to differ on the SD 39's on the Illinois Terminal. They were work horses for the road. Then went on to the B&M to finish out their lives in one hell of an ugly paint scheme.
Why didnt you mention the Illinois Terminal?, they had 6 of them, they spread the weight better on crappy track with 6- wheel trucks instead of 4-wheelers. All 6 IT SD39s went to Guilford, and have long been scrapped, my mom lived near the IT yard in Springfield Illinois, and when they would power-up for a run, she would cover her ears, the turbo noise would drive her nuts, but it was music to mine!
Guilford had 690-693, AKA 4 units. Not sure what happened to the remaining 2, if they stayed at N&W or ITC. But overall I didn’t want the video to be too long.
@@rantingrailfan316 i got my info from a retired NS detective, who is also a close friend, when NS absorbed IT, they didnt want the SD39s, so they were sold off, supposedly all to Guilford, but if Guilford only had 4 of them, the other 2 must have gotten lost in the shuffle somewhere down the track. The SD39s were the only 6-axle units the IT had, and were apparently geared slower to allow for the deteriorating track the IT ran on.
Get qualified as a locomotive engineer. You’ll learn to hate that POS 70MAC. They are prone to slipping, have dynamic brakes far inferior to their GE competition, and the computers in them are absolutely awful. They’re running MS Windows, for god sakes. I have literally seen the blue screen of death on a locomotive. Not to mention the abysmal user interface. Just as I’m about to hit the counter, the computer decided to back me out about four menu levels in order to tell me that I’m now in dynamic. No shit! I’m the one who did that, you @$@!! POS! And don’t get me started on that damn desktop control stand, electronic brake valve, and all the various controls like the horn button or alerter. All of it is technically functional, but inferior to virtually every locomotive model that came before it, and more frustrating to have to use. No sir, the ONLY SD70 that was any good at all was the last order for Conrail, built to NS specs before the merger. They had standard cabs, 26L brake valves, and mechanical governors. They were basically just a 710 powered SD40-2. Still slippery, but far more useable than any other SD70 I’ve ever run. The SD70MAC marks a turning point, in my opinion. That’s when EMD went from making simple, reliable, bulletproof locomotives like the SD40-2 to making the railroad equivalent of cheap disposal consumer grade electronics. There’s a reason you still see 40s being run or rebuilt, but you see 70s being sold or scrapped.
The 26 SD39's they purchased were meant to be only used in helper service due to better efficiency and cooling capacity compared to the GP38-2's & SD38-2's. Those same units were also used as yard switchers just like the others. Southern Pacific at one point was planning on restricting and relocating these units including their 29 SD35's to Texas for rock train service only. Some of the trackage between Houston and Austin only had 96 pound rail at the time and couldn't handle the extra weight of any SD40's or SD40T-2's & SD45T-2's. Suddenly they decided to cut down and shut down some of their business out there and the idea was discontinued.
@@Slim_Slid Extra weight? Those SP SD39's weighed in at 417,000 lbs. They were no lite weights my friend. The SD40/45's weighed in at 410,000 lbs. I'm a retired engineer and ran many SP engines. We get paid by weight on drivers. The SP bought heavy 6 axel engines. I'll go with what my engineer friends told me.
@@gordonvincent731 Your numbering is off...Recheck your weight limits. The SD39's all weighed 360,000 lbs (Base weight) compared to 368,000 lbs of the SD40's and roughly the same for the SD40T-2's. This also includes the SD45R's & SD45T-2R's after the rebuilds of the 20V645E7's being removed for 16V645E3's. How was it possible that the SD39's weigh more than the SD38-2's or SD40's when those had 12V645E3's versus 16V645E3's? It can't be because of the smaller prime movers. Please explain. On top of that,most of the SD70 series units actually vary between 390,000 lbs all the way to 428,000 lbs depending on variant. How is it possible that the SD39's,SD40's,and SD45's were in the exact same weight range as the modern EMD units? Please explain.
@@Slim_Slid I really get tired of dealing with people who are not railroaders, I don't have much patience. SP painted the engine weight inside the cab on the electrical cabinet. The weight of 417,000 lbs was painted there, period. Other railroads who owned SD39's probably ordered them with the base weight. I just checked my SP motive power annual and they report a weight of 390,000 lbs. I've been on these engines many times and 417,000 lbs. was painted in the cab. The SD35's weighed 390,000 lbs. SP bought heavy 6 axle engines. The U30/33C's weighed 419,000 lbs. I ran them out of Denver in pool service on the unit coal trains going South out of Denver. Six of those was a money maker for us engineers.
@@gordonvincent731 I get really tired of people who can't give an answer,even when asked politely,so they either resort to insults or ramble instead of answering the initial question,that kills any patience of mine. You honestly just had me at 390,000 lbs for the SD35's... It's not even about base weight,those numbers I mentioned entirely cover the units with full tanks of fuel and it's individual for each and every unit. Have a good day.
Regarding what you said about "radiator fans", an important clarification can be made. When comparing differences between the SD-39 and SD-40, it was not a difference of four radiator fans on the roof versus five. It was a difference of two radiator fans versus three. The SD-40 had three radiator fans because it had a bigger engine, while the smaller engine of the SD-39 required a smaller radiator and only two radiator fans. In the photos you used for comparing the SD-39 to the SD-40, the two fans which are located forward of the "two" or "three" radiator fans (for the SD-39 and SD-40, respectively) are for the dynamic brakes, and both of those locomotives used two fans for the dynamic brakes because they had six traction motors (locomotives with four traction motors produced less heat by dynamic braking and had a smaller brake grid which only required cooling by a single fan). To those who are not familiar with this, this is all worth knowing because some railroads ordered locomotives with no dynamic brakes, and so of course they had zero brake fans on the roof, but the number of radiator fans was not affected. Knowing that, a newbie who has just seen your video won't be confused the first time he sees pictures of locomotives from that era which don't have dynamic brakes.
Hey, don't compare the SD50 to the SD90. At least there are still SD50s in revenue service. Much better looking, too. I love those clean lines. Also, the SD38 is differentiated because it doesn't have a turbocharger, not a supercharger. Technically, every EMD locomotive has a supercharger, the Roots Blower, which is required for a two-stroke diesel to function.
Unforunately the SD90MAC's didn't really go away...They were resurrected as the SD70AH-T4's and ironically were another massive failure...And now there is the SD70H...CAT/PRLX is sure making fun of themselves at this point. Norfolk Southern was ignorant enough to purchase SD9043MAC's from Union Pacific and do the SD70ACU rebuild program only to sell half of them to PRLX and thankfully are finally getting scrapped because of the same inevitable problems involving the frames getting cracked.
The railroads which did use the SD39's seemed to have lived them. From what I heard Guilford crews liked the SD39's and GP39's pretty well and the GP39's were commonly used on the Rumford jobs due to the fuel efficacy they had.
A 39 (GP or SD) is more or less nearly identical in capability as a 38 of the same type. The point of the 39 vs the 38 is that with a smaller 12 cylinder turbo charged engine you get better fuel efficiency. However, the trade-off for that is you do get higher maintenance cost associated with the turbo charger. It’s worth noting that GP39’s and GP39-2’s were MUCH more popular!
The GP39 seemed to fare better. After only selling a whopping 23 units (20 of which went ti the C&O), they went on to sell a few hundred Dash2 versions to the Santa Fe, BN, D&H and Reading.....Chessie, OTOH, went on a GP40-2 buying sprree,
Very nice video, I Like that you are using my clip in this video. But I Wasn't aware that you had used my clip, But thank you for crediting me, Next time if you want to use my clips, Please ask me before you use them. Other than that this was a great video. :) I Hope you have a great night!
If you check I think you’ll find all the EMD 567/645/710 series engines have at least a supercharger and then some also have a turbocharger. SD38 only supercharger. SD40 supercharger and turbocharger. The strange world of a two stroke engine with valves.
@@pootispiker2866 indeed. So they have a turbo that’s engine driven but at some point has a disconnect from the engine and then becomes exhaust driven. 2 stroke diesel with valves and cylinder ports are just weird.
Guilford is so crap--- thank God they are gone. Screwed up railroading in New England to the max . Mellon should have bought a lionel, if he wanted to play with trains. The only thing that MIGHT be passable about them is the paint scheme--- maybe!!
there is no way you are arguing that the SD39 is the most useless EMD engine when the SD28 (and SDP28) exist Nah but fr good video. One thing to note is that a few of the SP SD39s still exist, mostly as leaser units that have been upgraded to sd40-2 specs. I've always found the SD39 interesting. It's not like its an incredible engine or anything but after buying a model of an SP one I guess the design has stuck with me. Also little fun fact, two SP SD39s were painted into DRGW colors for a movie.
The SD38 is roots blown, “lacking a super charger” is incorrect. SD39/40 are turbocharged. Being a 2 stroke, forced induction is required for them to run.
You are correct! Not sure why people in "the know" cant understand the difference between a supercharger, a turbo charger and a hybrid supercharger/turbocharger as used by EMD on many of its products starting with the GP20
🤓☝️
This also applies to cars trucks and tractors and everything else it's a long list
Two stroke bikes don't use turbos.
most of the santa fes still exist in ohio, all abandoned though
SD39 actually is interesting and useful for what it’s intended purpose was which was never fully utilized by railroads that purchased it, it was smaller and lighter so it could be operated on lightweight rail where a 6 axle locomotive was needed but the rail couldn’t support the weight of the larger heavier 6 axles.
That’s typically why SD39s had smaller fuel tanks and why you also see some Geeps with tiny fuel tanks. It’s so they can be operated on poorly maintained team tracks and lightweight branch lines
"The SD39 was EMD's most useless locomotive." Evidently you've never met EMD's BL2...
BL-2's weren't as bad as people made them out to be. Even with the sightlines, it was a major improvement for crews when switching compared to F units, and for guys on the ground the end platforms were much easier to get on and off of. They were very popular on the Bangor and Aroostook on locals and road switchers and were used until the 80's, when the railroad modernized the locomotive fleet by buying some second hand GP38's. Had those not come along, they probably would have continued to use them. Which really, once radios became commonplace on the railroad, the sightline while switching issues more or less were resolved. The other big plus about the BL-2's (especially in northern Maine) was the heaters and cab insulation were very good, and crews also liked the seats they had.
SD90MAC,SD90MAC-H,SD9043MAC,SD89MX,SD70ACE,SD70M-2
SDL39 has to be one of my favorite EMDs no joke.
A PERFECT example of real life kit- bashing,to create a loco for a unique situation.
@@Joe-d7m6k For real
T H E M I L W A L K I E R O A D
While the SD39 may be unremarkable. I'd argue that the EMD BL2 was probably the most useless. It was meant to be a branch line diesel. But the curves made it impossible for switching. The SD39 at least had a better advantage for road and locals.
I call the GP30 the BL3. It was the oddball transition from 1st generation to 2nd generation diesel power.
@@chuckgillyGP 30 was a pretty successful loco and the only EMD with that unique roof line.
BL-2's weren't really that bad. My grandfather worked on the Bangor and Aroostook and the BL-2's were some of his favorite units. The end platforms made them much easier to get on and off of than a F3, and the seats and heaters were really good. As for the sight lines, yes when hand signals were still being used, switching could be a pain. However, once radios came along even according to him, "that hinderance more or less went away". Which also it seems like if they were that bad, the BAR probably wouldn't have used them in freight service until the 80's when they were retired once the used GP38's showed up.
I operated many of the locomotives mentioned. The Union Pacific Fast 40s (SD-40) were some of the most reliable, smooth running and riding diesel-electric locomotives ever built.
It's often interesting the massive difference between railfans and railroaders on topics such as locomotives.
The SD39 was far from "useless". They were built for very specific reasons.
It was a high tractive effort medium horsepower unit. It was a direct sister to the SD38 as mentioned in the video. But it was offered with a 12V-645T engine instead of the super charged 16V-645 as mentioned. The primary reason was to give a choice of engine that some customers would benefit from under certain conditions.
One being fuel consumption... The 12 cyl turbo when used in high load operation can maintain higher amperage output in run 6,7, and especially 8. And can therefore achieve higher efficiency(its where the extra 300hp comes from despite less cylinders).
The Roots Blown 16cyl can barely make the 2000hp in run 8 with only small gains above run 6... Why? The turbo is clutch driven and forced similar to the blown engine, until the exhaust gas pressure over rides the clutch and becomes a true turbo, therefore provides much better combustion under high load.
The SD39 was by far a better choice over the 38 for high altitude operation for this exact reason.
Hence SP and AT&SF opting for them for mine haul, local, transfer, and branch line use.
They were also a very good unit for helper service on mountain grades.
The SD39 was a very good performer in many roles. The higher price was a factor in their low production numbers with most class ones just going for SD40s. The economy was poor at the beginning of the 70s with most roads running older power into rebuild programs over the next decade or so.
Most railfans have no idea that SD 38, 39, and 40 have near identical pulling power under 25/30 mph, with the higher HP really making a difference at higher speed in main line use(as well as the 4 axle GP counterparts being able to pull at faster speed for the same hp).
This is why the 38 and 39 were made to handle high tonnage outside main line fast freight use.
Most also don't know that the SD45 and 45-2 often used less fuel than the SD40 on fast inter-modal trains despite more cylinders, because of higher output.
Now the SD-L 39 is an entirely different animal.
The "L" stands for Light Weight... The Milwaukee Road had several hundred miles of branch lines constructed with 55-lb and 70-lb rail in several states that was never upgraded.
This is where the bulk of RSC2 Alcos, non ballasted SD7, SD9, and various SW's were used.
When newer power was needed? The result... a GP39 with export 3 axle trucks was designed. The short frame and 12cyl engine spread over 6 axles resulted in a higher horsepower unit that functioned well on light trackage. These units had significantly lighter foot print than a typical SD unit.
Most of the 7s and 9s were rebuilt into SD10's when the SDL39's were delivered.
I hope this provides useful information, and clears up some misunderstanding on the SD39. @Ranting Railfan. @rantingrailfan316
3:11 where did you find these? Looks like my closest hobby shop called “hobby emporium”
Every trip that I had the SD-90 as a lead locomotive was a trip that ended up as an hours-of-service relief. The back panel (electric components) would get so hot you could burn your hands on it. The computers would shut down and there you were, unable to move. The automatic brake handle just flopped around as if it were not connected to anything. With the isolated cab, it was a quiet locomotive and even more quiet because it usually wasn't running.
The electronics alone on the SD90MAC's was an upmost headache for any technicians and the same problems continued even with the SD70ACE's. Those units were probably the worst ever built by EMD,it was a mistake by debuting the SD70AH-T4's which were based on those and ironically were totally useless as well. Most SD9043MAC's ended up scrapped because of cracked frames,that's why Union Pacific just wanted them gone. It was a waste of money for Norfolk Southern to do the SD70ACU program,thankfully PRLX is scrapping all of the units that were sold to them. The modern GE units are far better for several reasons.
Glad to see you’re back to uploading!
Here’s the inside scoop on the SD39s: My father, who used to have 2 SD39-3 (serial 35816 & 35822) as assets on the shortline that he manages, has the following opinions on SD39s. The ones they had were upgraded to -3, but had very primitive POS QTron systems in them. They had so many electrical failures and struggled to find parts for the QTron in them that they opted for SD40-2s. He said the SD39s were mechanically solid units, but the -3 upgrade was not good because they have problems when with other units in the consist. He wished they continued them to the -2 line, because of what they offered. In some applications, the SD40-2s had too much horsepower, and would wheel slip in about 3rd notch. They also have a couple of ex-Kennecott GP39-2s, and those are some of his favorite units on the roster. They rarely have issues relative to other units, they have good fuel efficiency (not that it matters much in this case), and they pull hard. He loves the 645E-3 12cylinder, and wishes that EMD made a SD39-2. In his and my opinion they would have been perfect.
The SD39 shares engine with the export model GT22, which 101 of 1676mm gauge and 54 of 1000mm gauge were built for Argentina
Quick note: the SD38Ms for Brazil are horses of a slightly different colour. They are direct descendants of the various demo locos that EMD tested before settling on the production version of the 38 and 40. As such they ride on SD-35 underframes and lack the verandas at either extremity.
Guilford Fail System 💀💀
Chile has since procured 14 SD39-2s from NRE rebuilt from GP35s and GP40s. Apparently they did not find it useless.
Looks like Chile puts a spacer car between engines on some runs to make the point load even lighter, lol.
Agreed!
In the mid ‘80s the master Mechanic of the Seaboard Coastline told me that a better breathing head design called the Fireball head was licensed by GE and EMD as well as high end car companies. This allowed the use of smaller engines, gas and diesel, to make high horsepower reliably.
There were several cylinder head designs from various manufacturers that used that name. The most referenced one I see is the Crane Fireball head for big block Ford V8s. The 2 stroke diesels used by GE and EMD would use a completely different cylinder head design than a gasoline engine. GE and EMD engines have also generally gotten bigger over time not smaller. The current engines are pushing 200 liters for the V12 versions of the current GEVO and EMD 1010 tier 4s, for comparison the GE 7FDL and EMD 710 were both around 185 liters in their V16 versions.
@@mrvwbug4423 Thanks but that many liters means nothing. Can you use cubic inches too.
Santa Fe bought its 20 SD39s for drag service. All 20 of them lasted well into the BNSF merger.
I don't know where you got your fuel figures from, but the difference in fuel burn between an SD39 and SD40 is huge. The SD39 burns 128.2 gallons/hr in run 8 while the SD40 burns 167.7. It also gets the same hp/gal/hr as an SD40, 17.9, which is significantly better than an SD38's 16.3. Effectively, you get a locomotive that burns less fuel per horsepower than an SD38*, and less fuel overall than an SD40, and won't suffer problems at higher altitudes like the SD38 will. As others pointed out below, it was built for a specific purpose and excelled at that task. If the fuel crisis had hit earlier, I guarantee it would have sold significantly better, especially since the SD38, SD39, SD40, and SD45 all have the same tractive effort figures at low to moderate speeds. The extra HP only helps maintain higher speeds, it doesn't actually pull more train because tractive effort at low speeds is adhesion limited.
Ask yourself this: why is EMD churning out moderate horsepower rebuilds of old locomotives with 8 or 12 cylinder 710 engines? Why is demand for units in that class so high right now when a 710 could produce up to 4,400 hp?
*Overall fuel consumption at any given power setting is higher for an SD39 vs an SD38, at 128.2gal/hr and 122.9gal/hr in run 8, respectively, but the SD39 is a 2,300hp locomotive while the GP38 has 2,000hp. In run 7, where I'd wager the SD39 produces roughly 2,000hp, it consumes 102.6 gallons per hour. Note the stark difference in hp/gal/hr figures above.
N&W loved the SD45s ran them for decades.
The Illinois Terminal bought the SD39 because it meant that they wouldn’t have to upgrade their shop cranes to lift the prime movers.
1:40 the SD39 had 2 radiator fans and 2 dynamic brake fans, the SD40 had 3 radiator fans and 2 dynamic fans.
A 12-cylinder turbocharged 645 sounds suspiciously like the New Zealand Railways DFT class diesel, which is an EMD G22C
it's funny that they were 'meh' in the US but in NZ after they were turbocharged they became some of the most loved locos the railway had, after the GE U26C 'DX' class
They weren't completely useless. The 39 line was conceived becuase Santa Fe, and soon joined by SP, had issues with the 38 line in dry and high plains area. The 39 wasn't a cut back back 40, it was beefed up 38.
Santa Fe and SP made heavy use the of the 39 series in the LA area and the high dry South West where air was thin and 38's couldn't operate to their full potential without higher then normal fuel consumption.
They did in fact use less fuel then an SD40 (and 38), and were cheaper to maintain. If you view them as a knock off SD40, then yea, they come off as useless, but thats not what the 39's were. They were beefed up SD38's (and GP38) and they performed very well for those roads. Now why a railroad like the IT would buy them but the road like the McCloud River didn't....is a mystery.,
The IT bought them for use on their deteriorating trackage, the 6-wheel trucks spread the weight better than the 4-wheel trucks. The 2300 hp came from a turbo installed on the same 2,000 hp prime mover of the GP/SD38 series units. IT also had 4 GP38-2s, they were the last NEW units the IT purchased.
@@paulsmith5398 But why not SD38's? The slow heavy haul nature of IT would have been better suited for SD38's We aren't a a thiun air state (dry and/or high altitude) where chunking on a turbo would be benefit.
The *only* thing I can see would be lower fuel and maintenance costs...though the added expense of maintaining a turbo that they dont need in a shop that has no experience withing their fleet with turbo's kinda offsets that.
@@snagletoothscott3729 from the late 1960s/early 1970s onward, the IT was failing badly, and not much of their original trackage was in use, they had trackage rights on I.C., N & W,(formerly Wabash), and even a former PRR branch that was at the time PC. And those were mainly in central Illinois, while it was a different ballgame in the St. Louis area. There is one remaining short segment of original IT left, and its on the south side of Springfield, the overpass thats over 5th & 6th streets, and goes from the CN's "19th street" line to the junction of NS, UP, Amtrak, and CPKC, on Springfields far southwest side. The SD39s never used that trackage, as the trestle west of the former GM&O burned in the late 1960s, and the roadbed that remains is now a bike/hike trail from Springfield to Chatham. Theres also a 5 mile stretch of former IT roadbed from Sherman to Williamsville thats also a bike/hike trail, the south mile of it goes up a fairly steep incline, ive been on that one, and its a human killer!
@@paulsmith5398 I live in Illinois. Im very well aware of IT's history. None of that has *anything* to do with my point. Operationally, the they would have been better off with SD38's. The only reason for them to go with SD39's is becuase of lower fuel consumption and maintenance, with the latter being questionable becuase of maintaining a turbo they didn't need.
But even the fuel/maintenance issue gets cancelled out becuase they did in fact buy GP38-2's...so the decision to buy SD39's was clearly a bad decision and they quickly recognized it.
@@snagletoothscott3729 i do agree with you on the overkill that was made on the IT purchase of the SD39s, but i believe they were financed by an entity in the New England area, hence, thats where most of them went when IT was absorbed by NS. And yes, i also live in Illinois, fairly close to one of the "IT bike/hike trails". But i cant go on them now, due to a skin cancer issue on my back, and a lot of the shade tree branches have been removed, due to the high voltage power lines adjacent to the trail.
Wrong about the radiator fans on the SD40s. Three radiator fans, and two for the dynamic brakes.
Fair enough, I was just counting fans
@rantingrailfan316 Is cool dude!
I found another guilford person hands down I wish they saved the Guilford units cause I’d love to have seen one
The SD39 only has 2 radiator fans. SD40/45 has 3. Othe other two fans in the middle of the long hood (on units so equipped) were dynamic brake fans.
The 39 line was unique in that they featured a 12 cyclinder block as compared to the 16 cylinder block in the 38 and 40 series.
the SD39 was a lightweight unit for branch lines, it was not useless at when used for its intended market.
You are conflating the SD39 with the 10 SDL39 units EMD built for the Milwaukee Road to replace their aging RSC-2 locomotives. The SD39 is the same size and weight as any other 40-series locomotive, and consequently has the same tractive effort as an SD38, SD40, or SD45.
Subscribered!
Who makes that Pan Am Box car. I just pre ordered a Berlin Mills one from Rapido.
I beg to differ on the SD 39's on the Illinois Terminal. They were work horses for the road. Then went on to the B&M to finish out their lives in one hell of an ugly paint scheme.
At least the Guilford scheme doesn't look like a half baked John Deere lawn mower.
@@benhartin5499 🥱 whatever.
Why didnt you mention the Illinois Terminal?, they had 6 of them, they spread the weight better on crappy track with 6- wheel trucks instead of 4-wheelers. All 6 IT SD39s went to Guilford, and have long been scrapped, my mom lived near the IT yard in Springfield Illinois, and when they would power-up for a run, she would cover her ears, the turbo noise would drive her nuts, but it was music to mine!
Guilford had 690-693, AKA 4 units. Not sure what happened to the remaining 2, if they stayed at N&W or ITC. But overall I didn’t want the video to be too long.
@@rantingrailfan316 i got my info from a retired NS detective, who is also a close friend, when NS absorbed IT, they didnt want the SD39s, so they were sold off, supposedly all to Guilford, but if Guilford only had 4 of them, the other 2 must have gotten lost in the shuffle somewhere down the track. The SD39s were the only 6-axle units the IT had, and were apparently geared slower to allow for the deteriorating track the IT ran on.
@@paulsmith5398 I would assume the N&W. And that low gearing would help with guilford too. Most tracks max out at 25 MPH.
The greatest EMD loco ever is the SD70MAC change my mind
F40ph
@@Mnbaco2 dang I'd forgotten about that one
Sd40-2:Am I a joke to you
nothing beats the SD80MAC
Get qualified as a locomotive engineer. You’ll learn to hate that POS 70MAC. They are prone to slipping, have dynamic brakes far inferior to their GE competition, and the computers in them are absolutely awful. They’re running MS Windows, for god sakes. I have literally seen the blue screen of death on a locomotive. Not to mention the abysmal user interface. Just as I’m about to hit the counter, the computer decided to back me out about four menu levels in order to tell me that I’m now in dynamic. No shit! I’m the one who did that, you @$@!! POS! And don’t get me started on that damn desktop control stand, electronic brake valve, and all the various controls like the horn button or alerter. All of it is technically functional, but inferior to virtually every locomotive model that came before it, and more frustrating to have to use.
No sir, the ONLY SD70 that was any good at all was the last order for Conrail, built to NS specs before the merger. They had standard cabs, 26L brake valves, and mechanical governors. They were basically just a 710 powered SD40-2. Still slippery, but far more useable than any other SD70 I’ve ever run.
The SD70MAC marks a turning point, in my opinion. That’s when EMD went from making simple, reliable, bulletproof locomotives like the SD40-2 to making the railroad equivalent of cheap disposal consumer grade electronics. There’s a reason you still see 40s being run or rebuilt, but you see 70s being sold or scrapped.
I was told many years ago by a few SP engineers I knew that the SD39 was bought to be the replacement for the SD9's. It never happened.
The 26 SD39's they purchased were meant to be only used in helper service due to better efficiency and cooling capacity compared to the GP38-2's & SD38-2's. Those same units were also used as yard switchers just like the others. Southern Pacific at one point was planning on restricting and relocating these units including their 29 SD35's to Texas for rock train service only. Some of the trackage between Houston and Austin only had 96 pound rail at the time and couldn't handle the extra weight of any SD40's or SD40T-2's & SD45T-2's. Suddenly they decided to cut down and shut down some of their business out there and the idea was discontinued.
@@Slim_Slid Extra weight? Those SP SD39's weighed in at 417,000 lbs. They were no lite weights my friend. The SD40/45's weighed in at 410,000 lbs. I'm a retired engineer and ran many SP engines. We get paid by weight on drivers. The SP bought heavy 6 axel engines. I'll go with what my engineer friends told me.
@@gordonvincent731
Your numbering is off...Recheck your weight limits. The SD39's all weighed 360,000 lbs (Base weight) compared to 368,000 lbs of the SD40's and roughly the same for the SD40T-2's. This also includes the SD45R's & SD45T-2R's after the rebuilds of the 20V645E7's being removed for 16V645E3's. How was it possible that the SD39's weigh more than the SD38-2's or SD40's when those had 12V645E3's versus 16V645E3's? It can't be because of the smaller prime movers. Please explain.
On top of that,most of the SD70 series units actually vary between 390,000 lbs all the way to 428,000 lbs depending on variant. How is it possible that the SD39's,SD40's,and SD45's were in the exact same weight range as the modern EMD units? Please explain.
@@Slim_Slid I really get tired of dealing with people who are not railroaders, I don't have much patience. SP painted the engine weight inside the cab on the electrical cabinet. The weight of 417,000 lbs was painted there, period. Other railroads who owned SD39's probably ordered them with the base weight. I just checked my SP motive power annual and they report a weight of 390,000 lbs. I've been on these engines many times and 417,000 lbs. was painted in the cab. The SD35's weighed 390,000 lbs. SP bought heavy 6 axle engines. The U30/33C's weighed 419,000 lbs. I ran them out of Denver in pool service on the unit coal trains going South out of Denver. Six of those was a money maker for us engineers.
@@gordonvincent731
I get really tired of people who can't give an answer,even when asked politely,so they either resort to insults or ramble instead of answering the initial question,that kills any patience of mine. You honestly just had me at 390,000 lbs for the SD35's... It's not even about base weight,those numbers I mentioned entirely cover the units with full tanks of fuel and it's individual for each and every unit. Have a good day.
I watched it , you did a good job , I like your formula
I've been trying to find the video of that one dude with the SD90's but no cigar.
I don’t have any way side signals on my line so no high greens cuz cab signals 😭
Regarding what you said about "radiator fans", an important clarification can be made. When comparing differences between the SD-39 and SD-40, it was not a difference of four radiator fans on the roof versus five. It was a difference of two radiator fans versus three. The SD-40 had three radiator fans because it had a bigger engine, while the smaller engine of the SD-39 required a smaller radiator and only two radiator fans. In the photos you used for comparing the SD-39 to the SD-40, the two fans which are located forward of the "two" or "three" radiator fans (for the SD-39 and SD-40, respectively) are for the dynamic brakes, and both of those locomotives used two fans for the dynamic brakes because they had six traction motors (locomotives with four traction motors produced less heat by dynamic braking and had a smaller brake grid which only required cooling by a single fan). To those who are not familiar with this, this is all worth knowing because some railroads ordered locomotives with no dynamic brakes, and so of course they had zero brake fans on the roof, but the number of radiator fans was not affected. Knowing that, a newbie who has just seen your video won't be confused the first time he sees pictures of locomotives from that era which don't have dynamic brakes.
Thank you. Beat me by an hour!
Progressive rail has SD39 still in service in Minnesota ex MNS number 40
0:22 I Need A Link To That Video
Love it! Thanks for the info!
Cool video and channel just subscribed
Good video 👍🏻
Hey, don't compare the SD50 to the SD90. At least there are still SD50s in revenue service. Much better looking, too. I love those clean lines.
Also, the SD38 is differentiated because it doesn't have a turbocharger, not a supercharger. Technically, every EMD locomotive has a supercharger, the Roots Blower, which is required for a two-stroke diesel to function.
Even when the 90s were in revenue service they weren't making money.
Unforunately the SD90MAC's didn't really go away...They were resurrected as the SD70AH-T4's and ironically were another massive failure...And now there is the SD70H...CAT/PRLX is sure making fun of themselves at this point. Norfolk Southern was ignorant enough to purchase SD9043MAC's from Union Pacific and do the SD70ACU rebuild program only to sell half of them to PRLX and thankfully are finally getting scrapped because of the same inevitable problems involving the frames getting cracked.
whats the guy yelling at the sd90 i cant understand what they forgot
The railroads which did use the SD39's seemed to have lived them. From what I heard Guilford crews liked the SD39's and GP39's pretty well and the GP39's were commonly used on the Rumford jobs due to the fuel efficacy they had.
A 39 (GP or SD) is more or less nearly identical in capability as a 38 of the same type. The point of the 39 vs the 38 is that with a smaller 12 cylinder turbo charged engine you get better fuel efficiency. However, the trade-off for that is you do get higher maintenance cost associated with the turbo charger. It’s worth noting that GP39’s and GP39-2’s were MUCH more popular!
When will there be another “Dumb [censored] That Foamers Do”?
The GP39 seemed to fare better. After only selling a whopping 23 units (20 of which went ti the C&O), they went on to sell a few hundred Dash2 versions to the Santa Fe, BN, D&H and Reading.....Chessie, OTOH, went on a GP40-2 buying sprree,
i looked into the GP39's, thought they were crap, but then like you mentioned, saw that the dash 2 sold quite well.
What is the railcar at 5:19 between the locomotives?
It is an idler car. its to separate the locomotives on bridges that have weight restrictions.
0:34 Was that photo taken at East Deerfield, MA?
Based on the B&M caboose, sure looks like it. I didn’t even do that on purpose.
@@rantingrailfan316 Nice!
Very nice video, I Like that you are using my clip in this video. But I Wasn't aware that you had used my clip, But thank you for crediting me, Next time if you want to use my clips, Please ask me before you use them. Other than that this was a great video. :) I Hope you have a great night!
my new favorite emd
Built for less fuel comp , With a v12
Does that model have dcc and sound?
it did yeah. Athearn RTR with Econami sound.
If you check I think you’ll find all the EMD 567/645/710 series engines have at least a supercharger and then some also have a turbocharger. SD38 only supercharger. SD40 supercharger and turbocharger. The strange world of a two stroke engine with valves.
No turbo EMD has ever had a blower. Check it for yourself.
@@pootispiker2866 indeed. So they have a turbo that’s engine driven but at some point has a disconnect from the engine and then becomes exhaust driven. 2 stroke diesel with valves and cylinder ports are just weird.
@@pootispiker2866 : as built by EMD, no, but the Omaha GP20s retained their blowers. See the UtahRails article.
Nice. Very informative.
babe wake up ranting railfan posted 🤑
real video
Don’t forget about the GP 39-2s.
guilford is so peak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so real!!!!!!
Guilford is so crap--- thank God they are gone. Screwed up railroading in New England to the max . Mellon should have bought a lionel, if he wanted to play with trains. The only thing that MIGHT be passable about them is the paint scheme--- maybe!!
Wait this isn't about the SD50
link for 0:22
3:57 Looks like Hooksett or Bow, NH.
That is Bow, yes.
@@rantingrailfan316 Coastal Forest Products gets a lot of center-beam traffic.
there is no way you are arguing that the SD39 is the most useless EMD engine when the SD28 (and SDP28) exist
Nah but fr good video. One thing to note is that a few of the SP SD39s still exist, mostly as leaser units that have been upgraded to sd40-2 specs. I've always found the SD39 interesting. It's not like its an incredible engine or anything but after buying a model of an SP one I guess the design has stuck with me. Also little fun fact, two SP SD39s were painted into DRGW colors for a movie.
The movie was Switchback.
4th comment and 38th view
how did bro get 2k subs from uploading 10 vids
magic?
@@rantingrailfan316 i believe so
3:33 C&O Piedmont Sub Mentioned🗣️
0:22 YOU FORGOT SOMETHING-
Ok explains Waupaca cam
Dude works less than I do, and still makes more popularly, but, my videos are pretty shit, ngl.
W vid bro
A locomotive useless? This being in the land of overkill compensator pickup trucks blowing smoke and tailgating other motorists? Sorry, its a rant .
SD39-2 ftw
As the world is going electric word around the water cooler is there is work being done to electrify locos too.
!
EMD's most useless locomotive....
you mean all of them?