GE AC6000CW and SD90MAC Demise

[Saturnalia]

This video talks about the end of the 6000 horsepower era, and how a once promising idea has turned out as a mistake. I focused on the CSX CW60ACs because that's what I have footage of, but it goes for every single CW and SD90 ever produced. None are left with the intended 6,000 horsepower rating anywhere, of either type.



Copyright 2015 Thornapple River Rail Series

[CSX_CO]

Uh, CSX AC6000 are just tuned down. They're fully capable of 6000 hp operation if needed. So you're not 100% correct in saying they're incapable of 6000hp service. Im sure a shop manage somewhere knows the codes to turn them back up if needed. If not that, software mods in the field would have them back at 6000hp in a couple hours.

I also wouldn't call the AC6000's a mistake. They lasted 15+ years in 6000hp service and were beasts of locomotives. The EMD offering fully deserves that mistake billing, they never reached their potential.

[Saturnalia]

Uh, CSX AC6000 are just tuned down. They're fully capable of 6000 hp operation if needed. So you're not 100% correct in saying they're incapable of 6000hp service. Im sure a shop manage somewhere knows the codes to turn them back up if needed. If not that, software mods in the field would have them back at 6000hp in a couple hours.

Watch it again. I said that they could be upgraded again someday at the 2:18 mark. I also noted that it was a software downgrade. I'm not hiding anything.

As for the CW60s v SD90, I suggest they were both mistakes. Your analysis may be different. If so, go ahead and expand upon that thought, but don't outwardly declare that mine is flatly wrong, because there is always room for analysis of history - and is what makes it exciting.

The way I see it they were a flop based on what they intended to create, which was creating a much more sizeable fleet if high-horsepower locomotives to become the standard for the industry in many applications. Sure, they work well in and of themselves, but the concept of upping the horsepower standard to 6000 was a flop. Otherwise, everybody would roster them, and there would have been more orders in the last decade. Instead, the breed died out pretty quickly.

I'd be excited to discuss the merits and whatnot of it all, but please, everybody refrain from taking a "my perception art holier than thou" approach

[Y@]

Calling an AC60 a "mistake" is blasphemous and warrants a public stoning.

[CSX_CO]

I wouldn't call the AC6000's mistakes. They fit a nitch pretty well. If it weren't for them being reassigned, they'd probably still be 6000hp. They were standard van train power post split. A pair of those on most of the intermodal trains was the SOP. In fact, if you spent a couple days on the Garrett and Willard subs, you'd probably see the entire roster over that time span. So those ~115 engines were able to pull the vast majority of the hot shot trailer trains, freeing up the rest of the 'fleet' for the other lower priority traffic. Two motors for 12,000hp. Which, coincidentally, is what they're currently putting on trailer trains, but taking 3 motors to do it. Granted, when 1 AC6000 goes down, you lose 1/2 the HP of the consist, whereas if 1 of the 3 on a current trailer train goes down you're only losing 4000hp. Problem is, that 3rd engine is 'robbing' power that could have been used elsewhere. Which, IMHO, the power issues on CSX started when those 3rd motors didn't come off the trailer trains post peak in 2013. Anyway, those AC6000's must have guzzled fuel if it is more cost effective to tie up 3 locomotives on a consist where you used to get away with only 2 for the same hp.

I also 'get' the limiting them to 4000 (or is it 4400 hp now? I can't keep track) to help make power assignments easier. Plus, that additional hp is really wasted if they're assigned to knock down drag out freights and coal trains. I'm sure someone has done the math on it, and limiting the hp saves money in the long run, but why not use the full asset? They probably won't be rebuild candidates in another 10 years, so run them nuts off them.

Those things were raw power too. They would shake and vibrate the cab as they dug in starting a train, and the dynamics were absolutely amazing. Going past a pair at speed had a sound unlike anything else. Sounded like a pair of jet engines going by.

[Y@]

Aren't they at 4,600 hp? I don't know for sure.

[SD80MAC]

They are 4400 HP. They are designated CW46AC/CW46AH purely to differentiate between the former 6000s and a regular CW44AC.

[JStryker722]

I wouldn't call the AC6000's mistakes. They fit a nitch pretty well. If it weren't for them being reassigned, they'd probably still be 6000hp. They were standard van train power post split. A pair of those on most of the intermodal trains was the SOP. In fact, if you spent a couple days on the Garrett and Willard subs, you'd probably see the entire roster over that time span. So those ~115 engines were able to pull the vast majority of the hot shot trailer trains, freeing up the rest of the 'fleet' for the other lower priority traffic. Two motors for 12,000hp. Which, coincidentally, is what they're currently putting on trailer trains, but taking 3 motors to do it. Granted, when 1 AC6000 goes down, you lose 1/2 the HP of the consist, whereas if 1 of the 3 on a current trailer train goes down you're only losing 4000hp. Problem is, that 3rd engine is 'robbing' power that could have been used elsewhere. Which, IMHO, the power issues on CSX started when those 3rd motors didn't come off the trailer trains post peak in 2013. Anyway, those AC6000's must have guzzled fuel if it is more cost effective to tie up 3 locomotives on a consist where you used to get away with only 2 for the same hp.

I also 'get' the limiting them to 4000 (or is it 4400 hp now? I can't keep track) to help make power assignments easier. Plus, that additional hp is really wasted if they're assigned to knock down drag out freights and coal trains. I'm sure someone has done the math on it, and limiting the hp saves money in the long run, but why not use the full asset? They probably won't be rebuild candidates in another 10 years, so run them nuts off them.

Those things were raw power too. They would shake and vibrate the cab as they dug in starting a train, and the dynamics were absolutely amazing. Going past a pair at speed had a sound unlike anything else. Sounded like a pair of jet engines going by.

I rather have 1/3 of my power lost and still at least limp into the yard than lose 1/2 my power and potientally stall out on the High Iron blocking the main and tying up traffic,which makes the 3rd unit protection power at the minimum,#1. #2 if all goes well,basic math: 2*6,000=12,000hp vs 3*4,400=13,200hp. And if it don't go well: 1*6,000 = 6,000hp vs. 2*4,400 = 8,800hp. Big difference.

[CSX_CO]

[
I rather have 1/3 of my power lost and still at least limp into the yard than lose 1/2 my power and potientally stall out on the High Iron blocking the main and tying up traffic,which makes the 3rd unit protection power at the minimum,#1. #2 if all goes well,basic math: 2*6,000=12,000hp vs 3*4,400=13,200hp. And if it don't go well: 1*6,000 = 6,000hp vs. 2*4,400 = 8,800hp. Big difference.

But by putting that third engine on that consist for the 'just in case' you now have other freight sitting because that engine is tied up as protection power.

On the flip side, with most freight sets just 2 units, if you assign two 6000hp units vs two 4000 or 4400 hp units, you lose one engine you're down to 6000hp or 4000/4400hp respectively. So, by having the bigger units, you're having more hp available on a two unit set.

Again, benefits and downsides to doing it both ways. The biggest waste is that 'just in case' motor for a failure. The only time it is a benefit is if you have a failure. Otherwise, its just out there rolling along 'just in case'. Meanwhile, somewhere else, freight is sitting because that asset is tied up for a 'just in case' scenario.

[Raildudes dad]

RR's aren't the only ones that operate that way. I managed 125 employees in a county highway maintenance organization for 10 years.

It used to bug me when a foreman would send a truck to pickup say some pipe at a vendor. Invariably, he would send not only the driver but another employee to help "just in case' the driver needed help. I would ask why does he need help, the vendor loads the pipe and the driver better be able to secure it himself.

I took a superintendents place for a week. I watched the foremen put the crews together in the morning. Again, invariably the crew leaders would say "I'll take another person "just in case" I need an extra person".

I told the superintendent to let them form their crews in the morning, then take 1 person from every crew and make new crews . I had some success but old habits die hard

After 10 years of fun, I returned to being an engineer Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the maintenance division, but engineering is my true love .

[JStryker722]

[
I rather have 1/3 of my power lost and still at least limp into the yard than lose 1/2 my power and potientally stall out on the High Iron blocking the main and tying up traffic,which makes the 3rd unit protection power at the minimum,#1. #2 if all goes well,basic math: 2*6,000=12,000hp vs 3*4,400=13,200hp. And if it don't go well: 1*6,000 = 6,000hp vs. 2*4,400 = 8,800hp. Big difference.

But by putting that third engine on that consist for the 'just in case' you now have other freight sitting because that engine is tied up as protection power.

On the flip side, with most freight sets just 2 units, if you assign two 6000hp units vs two 4000 or 4400 hp units, you lose one engine you're down to 6000hp or 4000/4400hp respectively. So, by having the bigger units, you're having more hp available on a two unit set.

Again, benefits and downsides to doing it both ways. The biggest waste is that 'just in case' motor for a failure. The only time it is a benefit is if you have a failure. Otherwise, its just out there rolling along 'just in case'. Meanwhile, somewhere else, freight is sitting because that asset is tied up for a 'just in case' scenario.

If there is no failure,you got 13,200hp instead of 12,000hp,not that 1,200hp is gonna make that big of a difference in tractive effort?? Thought I'd point that out/ask lol

[Dan Cluley]

The question is what is the failure rate of locomotives?

The Rock Island used to put a bunch of engines on a train, because they were old and worn out, and they could count on several of them shutting down. New power seems pretty reliable, but I don't think I've ever seen actual numbers on how often they break down.

[CSX_CO]

If there is no failure,you got 13,200hp instead of 12,000hp,not that 1,200hp is gonna make that big of a difference in tractive effort?? Thought I'd point that out/ask lol

That HP is all well and good if you're not exceeding the powered axle limit most railroads have on their trains to limit in train forces. If you have power on a set you can't use because you're exceeding the maximum powered axles, then you have 8800hp you can use, with 4400 in reserve you can't touch without having a failure.

Again, pros and cons to each side.

[JStryker722]

If there is no failure,you got 13,200hp instead of 12,000hp,not that 1,200hp is gonna make that big of a difference in tractive effort?? Thought I'd point that out/ask lol

That HP is all well and good if you're not exceeding the powered axle limit most railroads have on their trains to limit in train forces. If you have power on a set you can't use because you're exceeding the maximum powered axles, then you have 8800hp you can use, with 4400 in reserve you can't touch without having a failure.

Again, pros and cons to each side.

Then answer me this CSX_CO since you are an CSX yardmaster,of the two 6,000hp models,which one you think was a total flop and which one you think was okay but could've done better if it had been engineered better??

[CSX_CO]

If there is no failure,you got 13,200hp instead of 12,000hp,not that 1,200hp is gonna make that big of a difference in tractive effort?? Thought I'd point that out/ask lol

That HP is all well and good if you're not exceeding the powered axle limit most railroads have on their trains to limit in train forces. If you have power on a set you can't use because you're exceeding the maximum powered axles, then you have 8800hp you can use, with 4400 in reserve you can't touch without having a failure.

Again, pros and cons to each side.

Then answer me this CSX_CO since you are an CSX yardmaster,of the two 6,000hp models,which one you think was a total flop and which one you think was okay but could've done better if it had been engineered better??

EMD was the flop. The GE ones are still going strong and probably approaching 20 years of service shortly. I'd take a pair of AC6000's or AC4400's any day as an engineer.

[JStryker722]

EMD was the flop. The GE ones are still going strong and probably approaching 20 years of service shortly. I'd take a pair of AC6000's or AC4400's any day as an engineer.

Thought you would say that. What makes EMD the flop in your opinion if I may ask?