New ES44DC locos for CSX

chessie Jul 30, 2005

  1. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    I got this from an e-mail list:

    Picture of new CSX ES44DC loco, number series 5200+
    http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=113931

    So what's the deal??? :confused: I thought CSX was happy with their 600+ GE AC locos? Are they content with the SD70ACe's enough to break from GE??

    Harold
     
  2. Robbman

    Robbman TrainBoard Member

    1,141
    0
    27
    It has do do with Tony Ingram, CSX's Chief Operating Officer...

    He came from NS (where he was senior vice president: transportation network and mechanical)
     
  3. mmi16

    mmi16 TrainBoard Member

    720
    1,323
    39
    Ingram has yet to have it driven home to him that the expense of AC locomotives is worth the improvement to operations that they permit.

    On a territory I have familiarity with, when Dash-8 and Dash-9's were the best power available 90 car coal trains would stall when the least hint of moisture was in the air...rain, snow, or a heavy dew or frost. If the rail was absolutely dry the assigned power could make the run, the least moisture the DC traction control system could not cope. The advent of the CW44AC's solved that particular operational problem.

    The CW60AC, had a period of time when they were derated to 4400 Hp to enhance their reliability....they have since had their rating returned to 6000 HP.

    The lastest GM engines from the SD70MAC's on have been reliability nightmares, this includes the SD70ACe's. The new EMD owners have their work cut out for themselves if they intend to remain in the locomotive manufacturing business, and if the intend to succeed in the business. GM did not leave them much of a product to start their business life with.
     
  4. Robbman

    Robbman TrainBoard Member

    1,141
    0
    27
    NS doesn't have a problem running 150-175 car coal drags up grades of 1.2 and 1.7% in my area behind C40-9Ws...
     
  5. ac60cw

    ac60cw TrainBoard Member

    324
    0
    18
    NS doesn't have a problem running 150-175 car coal drags up grades of 1.2 and 1.7% in my area behind C40-9Ws... </font>[/QUOTE]NS may not have any problems, but is it more efficient to use AC propulsion? I can understand CN's stance since they have no grades, but I have never understood the NS stance since they have grades. I find it hard to believe all the other roads can find efficiency with AC propulsion and NS cant.
     
  6. GP30

    GP30 TrainBoard Member

    3,527
    2,337
    81
    CSX hasn't been happy with EMD's products starting with the SD50, I don't know what the general opinion is about the SD70's or the newer SD70ACe's.

    Robbman...when those 170 car trains roll by, are they loads? How many units?

    Used to be CSX would only haul 80 cars both ways (eastbound= empty; westbound = loaded) with one pair of AC's, occasionally a 70MAC or 80MAC. They're gone now, but I see 3 burnt out SD50's pulling 110 cars loaded.
     
  7. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    I still think it is odd that CSX suddenly turns its back on AC technology, but whatever! :rolleyes:

    Harold
     
  8. GP30

    GP30 TrainBoard Member

    3,527
    2,337
    81
    Are these supposed to begin a transition from SD40-2's to newer stuff?

    SD40-2's no AC power, ES44DC no AC power.

    Just a thought.
     
  9. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    I don't know the answer to that...

    However, the first units, 5201-5208 have been running up and down the east coast this week.

    Harold
     
  10. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    1:

    If CSX is so fed up with EMD, why did they purchase a buttload of ACes? Or UP?


    2: ACs cost a lot more money. I don't doubt there are places where the advantage of AC is irrelevent given it's cost. I doubt these are intended to replace ACs again, they've recently purchased new AC units from EMD.

    3: Last I heard, GE and EMD were both cranking out units as fast as they could. It seems to me that CSX is just making sure it has the units it needs, not preferring one over the other.
     
  11. Robbman

    Robbman TrainBoard Member

    1,141
    0
    27
    NS doesn't have a problem running 150-175 car coal drags up grades of 1.2 and 1.7% in my area behind C40-9Ws... </font>[/QUOTE]NS may not have any problems, but is it more efficient to use AC propulsion? I can understand CN's stance since they have no grades, but I have never understood the NS stance since they have grades. I find it hard to believe all the other roads can find efficiency with AC propulsion and NS cant. </font>[/QUOTE]Is it more efficient how? In terms of what?
    Locomotives used, fuel used, maintenance costs etc?

    FWIW, NS tested both SD60MACs and AC4400CWs on Williamson-Norfolk export trains...
     
  12. Robbman

    Robbman TrainBoard Member

    1,141
    0
    27
    Both. They'll run 170-180 MTY sets up C'burg Hill (1.3%) behind two C40-9Ws...

    On loaded 800s, on the Elkhorn grade (1.7%) two C40-9Ws are used up front, three pushing.

    On the Whitethorne grade (1.2%) same two units up front, with two C40-9Ws pushing.

    For NS, AC technology costs more per unit, requires a different parts inventory, and above all, doesn't reduce unit count.

    As for efficiency, NS has the lowest operating ratio of the Class 1s...
     
  13. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    Reports from last week indicated the CSX ES44DC's up thru 5265 have been sighted running the rails. My highest number sighting (so far) has been 5247, oddly enough, painted, not primer.

    Harold
     
  14. ac60cw

    ac60cw TrainBoard Member

    324
    0
    18
    NS doesn't have a problem running 150-175 car coal drags up grades of 1.2 and 1.7% in my area behind C40-9Ws... </font>[/QUOTE]NS may not have any problems, but is it more efficient to use AC propulsion? I can understand CN's stance since they have no grades, but I have never understood the NS stance since they have grades. I find it hard to believe all the other roads can find efficiency with AC propulsion and NS cant. </font>[/QUOTE]Is it more efficient how? In terms of what?
    Locomotives used, fuel used, maintenance costs etc?

    FWIW, NS tested both SD60MACs and AC4400CWs on Williamson-Norfolk export trains...
    </font>[/QUOTE]Robbman, I guess I'm referring to a Trains article I read on ac power, belive the issue was called "AC Rules".

    Efficency in terms of #of locos used, say 2 ac verses 3 dc. Adhesion from the traction motors was greater on AC. Thermal loading of AC traction motors was greater than dc. I think they also said that AC traction motors could get greater mileage than their dc counter parts before they required rebuilds.

    Not sure what the cost of an AC traction motor is to a DC traction motor, verses miles served. I think the bottom line they were trying to convey was that AC was great for Mountain applications, but was of no great advantage on non grade lines.
     
  15. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    Interesting response... I admit that I don't know much about the "controversy"...

    Harold
     
  16. Robbman

    Robbman TrainBoard Member

    1,141
    0
    27
    NS wouldn't get any unit reduction with AC power... one AC4400CW can't replace two C40-9Ws...

    NS could use AC traction and run slightly heavier trains... but again, two Crap9s can already handle the heaviest trains NS runs.

    DC traction motors have advanced over the years too... I've watched two Crap9's lug 180 empties up C'burg hill at less than 1.5 mph.

    AC traction may be more efficient, but certainly not more cost-effective for NS.

    That extra $600,000 per unit really adds up, especially considering the 1000 plus Crap-9s NS has...
     
  17. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    Someone spotted # 5274 & 5275 in service last week.... GE is turning them out pretty quickly! Maybe it is time for CSX to place their next order.... :D

    Harold
     
  18. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    A sighting was made on units # 5294 & 5295 this week! So their original 100 unit order must be completely delivered by now....

    Hmmm,,,, I wonder if they are going to order more :confused:

    Harold
     
  19. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    I heard a CSX dispatcher talking to a train today. She asked: "You didn't get stuck with those 5200's did you?" She said something else that I can't remember, but basically inferred that the crews were not happy with them...

    Anyone else heard anything to that effect? :confused:

    Harold
     
  20. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    I saw two pair of GEVO's today: 5247 / 5250 and 5259 / 5201.

    Harold
     

Share This Page