EMD SD45 series official thread (covers all variations)

[Kevin B.]

Given GOLDEN-ARM's comments on the fact that the 45s didn't pull any better than the 40s, what was the point of building the higher horsepower 45 if it couldn't pull more tonnage?

[ELSDP45]

They could move that tonnage faster, to keep customers like UPS happy.

[GOLDEN-ARM]

An "over-simplification", on my part. They could move slightly higher tonnage ratings, but at the cost of additional fuel consumption, and maintanence costs, for those additional cylinders, the amount of extra tonnage did not justify the expenditures, up front, or over the long run. Plenty of SD, and SDP 45's continue to slug it out, daily, albeit with a 16 cylinder plant, under the hood. No other reason for this, than cost efficiency. Every loco was basically an "experiment", at some point. Some made the cut, some died on the drawing board. The '45's lasted longer than most, but have realistically been relegated to history. Regards

[mxdata]

The Erie Lackawanna, which had one of the major fleets of SD45, SDP45, and SD45-2 units, planned that any future orders of six axle EMD power placed after the GP38-2 order (the order that got cancelled) would be SD40-2 units. This was after a number of the SD45 and SDP45 units experienced crankshaft failures resulting from fractured "A-frame" welds in the crankcases. Their SD45-2 units, all of which were bult with the heavy crankcases, did not get into any such problems during the time they operated for the railroad. However, their bankruptcy took them out of the new locomotive market before any further orders for SD locomotives were placed.

[Conrail]

Does Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have a tight grip on its SD40F-2's,SD50F's, and SD60F's. Or are they going to appear in LTEX black, HLCX blue, or red etc. soon? Every railroad; except Kansas City Southern, is selling off SD50's.

[crazy_nip]

csx isnt getting rid of its sd50's

the only ones off the roster are some of the ex-conrail junk that was up for lease renewall and the renewall terms were terrible, so they were returned as their leases expired

[ANDY117]

I don't think NS is getting rid of theirs, as they're still going strong. Nor have I heard anything from UP, but I doubt that they'd get rid of SD50's for another few years.

[AmtrakFan]

I think they got rite of the ex-CNW SD50's.

[MEC407]

Wouldn't surprise me to see some SD50s rebuilt as SD38-3s at some point in the near future, much as NS is doing with GP50s.

[U-Haul]

Some of Norfolk Southern's original SD50s have been sold to NREX and its 4 SD50S(s) are gone. CSX retired some of its ex. Conrail SD50s and the only Union Pacific SD50s left are the former Denver & Rio Grande Western ones.

[n01jd1]

csx isnt getting rid of its sd50's

the only ones off the roster are some of the ex-conrail junk that was up for lease renewall and the renewall terms were terrible, so they were returned as their leases expired

Not all of the ex Conrail units were dumped. Only the SD50's from the second two orders (CR 6780-6834) were returned to the lessor. The SD50's from the first two orders (CR 6700-6779), a total of 80 units remain on both CSX and NS.

[Engineer Spike]

To the origional topic, the CPR 9000 class is treated like all of the other SD40s. They are less flexible. I had one on a transfer once. It was a pain because I had to turn it to come back.

[Engineer Spike]

Tractive effort is needed to get the train moving. If you had a SD 38, 39, 40, or 45, each balasted the same, with the same wheel slip system, they would start the same train. The 45 would be able to go faster. I have noticed that sd40s seem to be slow to accelerate over 40 mph. The 45 will still accelerate faster at high speeds.
The 45 was designed to be able to replace sets of f units an geeps. This implies general freight service. Later on the western roads like BN got coal trains. They likely did not need the extra speed. A 40 would do for anything. 600 hp is not much. The cost was also a factor. Like the others posted, the high speed intermodal lines liked them, and kept them.

[USRailFan]

Tractive effort is needed to get the train moving. If you had a SD 38, 39, 40, or 45, each balasted the same, with the same wheel slip system, they would start the same train. The 45 would be able to go faster. I have noticed that sd40s seem to be slow to accelerate over 40 mph. The 45 will still accelerate faster at high speeds.
The 45 was designed to be able to replace sets of f units an geeps. This implies general freight service. Later on the western roads like BN got coal trains. They likely did not need the extra speed. A 40 would do for anything. 600 hp is not much. The cost was also a factor. Like the others posted, the high speed intermodal lines liked them, and kept them.

Didn't EMD actually market the SD45 and SD45-2 for piggyback service?

[brokenrail]

The SD45 uses less fuel than an SD40 per horsepower. 3600 hp does pull harder than 3000 hp although both engines will start the same tonnage. I agree that a hogger is hard pressed to tell the difference when running one or the other.

Any engineer that bumps his head going through the nose door of an F45 deserves it. What's an engineer, an "Aristocrat of Railway Labor" (BLE slogan), doing entering through the toilet anyway? You wouldn't enter an F7 through that little door. If you can't climb a ladder with a 50 lb. grip in your teeth you might as well stay home with mommy and the electric trains on the carpet.

F45's are noisy. And that's in the cab. Imagine the engine room at run 8! I always enjoy a call to run an F45. Maybe because they are so unusual. But I still catch myself turning in my seat on curves only to look back at the cab wall.