GPF39-3

[TerryC]

For a freight railroad would reducing a F40PH's horsepower from 3,000 to 2,300 be economical? Three thousand horsepower is near the limit of a 4 axle locomotive and 2,300 horsepower would save some fuel. Also it would stop slipping caused by high horsepower or heavy tonnage.

"keep searching keep finding"
http://trainiaxindex.cjb.net/

[EDM5970]

Please quit inventing model numbers and/or trying to re-invent the wheel. Locomotive weights, horsepowers, tractive efforts and wheel arrangements were all worked out years ago by people a lot smarter (and closer to the industry) than most contributors to these forums.

Having said that, first you have to define economical. You also have to define your usage; i.e. switching, local freight, coal drags, TOFC/COFC, etc.

And a freight railroad using F40s may draw the attention of the FRA. I know you can't use an F unit in local freight service bacause of the step configuration; F units don't have "switching steps", and I'm sure F40s are similar. In fact, there were some F40s rebuilt for freight that had front steps and walkways added; I'm sure the surgery was not cheap.

As far as horsepower, didn't GE put 3600 HP on four axles as far back as the U-36B, and didn't they go to 4000 HP (and maybe more) with some of the newer units? B40-8, maybe? (I haven't kept up with the newer model mumbers).

Yes, lower horsepower MAY make for less wheel slippage, but 2300 or 3000 HP isn't the practical limit for four axles. Higher horsepower is possible, but more sophisticated wheelslip and excitation controls are needed as the HP goes up.

If you want to move freight and save fuel, remember that acceleration is related to horsepower, and weight provides tractive effort. A GP-38, 2000 HP and weighing 250,000 lbs., would make a far superior freight engine than your "F39", assuming the FRA would even let you use it.

[mxdata]

Derating a turbocharged 16-645E3 down to 2300 horsepower is hard to justify economically since you have an engine with a turbocharger designed to provide best operating economy at 3000 horsepower for traction, and are driving accessory equipment sized to handle that 3000 horsepower output. Derating the engine consequently detracts from the efficiency at lower power outputs. Installing a 12-645E3 is economically unfeasible since these are very popular engines in the marine market and a used 12-645E3 in good condition is usually much too expensive to use in repowering an old locomotive. An F40PH is a nice locomotive to walk into through the rear carbody door from a commuter train. It is not much fun when your operation requires climbing into it from the ground, particularly when the ballast is covered with ice and snow.

[TerryC]

EDM5970 please stop trying to bite my head off! I know I am not very high on the industry ladder, but give me a break. Sometimes I do not know what I am talking about; that is why come to RAILROAD.NET. To hopefully increase my knowledge of railroading.

http://trainiaxindex.cjb.net/
keep asking, keep learning
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=71966

[DutchRailnut]

First a Freight F40 would most likely not be a PH anymore (Passenger Hep)
With the Hep source missing it would be a high geared GP40 in a F body.
For shortlines the F body is no good as its not allowed to do switching other than its own road train, see:

PART 231--RAILROAD SAFETY APPLIANCE STANDARDS--Table of Contents

Sec. 231.30 Locomotives used in switching service.

(a) General requirements. (1) Except for steam locomotives equipped
as provided in Sec. 231.16 of this part, all locomotives used in
switching service built after March 31, 1977, must be equipped as
provided in this section.
(2) Except for steam locomotives equipped as prescribed in
Sec. 231.16 of this part, all locomotives built prior to April 1, 1977,
used in switching service after September 30, 1979, shall be equipped as
provided in this section. Each carrier shall so equip forty percent (40
percent) of such locomotives by October 1, 1977, seventy percent (70
percent) by October 1, 1978, and all such locomotives by October 1,
1979.
(3) Locomotives without corner stairway openings may not be used to
perform any switching service after September 30, 1979 except passenger
car switching service at passenger stations.
(b) Definitions. (1) Locomotive used in switching service means a
locomotive regularly assigned to perform yard switching service.
(2) Switching service means the classification of cars according to
commodity or destination; assembling of cars for train movements;
changing the position of cars for purposes of loading, unloading, or
weighing, placing of locomotives and cars for repair or storage; or
moving of rail equipment in connection with work service that does not
constitute a road movement. However, this term does not include movement
of a train or part of a train within yard limits by the road locomotive
and the placement of locomotives or cars in a train or their removal
from a train by the road locomotive while en route to the train's
destination.

[[Page 419]]

(3) Safety tread surface means that portion of anti-skid surface of
a switching step that actually is contacted by a shoe or boot.
(4) Uncoupling mechanism means the arrangement for operating the
coupler lock lift, including the uncoupling lever and all other
appurtenances that facilitate operation of the coupler.
(c) Switching step--(1) Number. Each locomotive used in switching
service must have four (4) switching steps. (See Plate A)
(2) Dimensions. Each such switching step must have--
(i) On locomotives built after March 31, 1977, a minimum width of
twenty-four (24) inches and a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches,
except when necessary to accommodate the turning arc of a six-wheel
truck and its appurtenances, the inside edge of the switching step shall
have a minimum width of seventeen (17) inches (See Plate B);
(ii) On locomotives built prior to April 1, 1977, a minimum width of
eighteen (18) inches, and a minimum depth of eight (8) inches;
(iii) A backstop, solid or perforated, with minimum height of
backstop of six (6) inches above the safety tread surface; and
(iv) A height of not more than nineteen (19) inches, preferably
fifteen (15) inches, measured from top of rail to the safety tread
surface.
(3) Location. Switching steps must be located on each side near each
end of a locomotive used in switching service. The bottom step of the
stairway at these locations may also serve as a switching step if it
meets all of the requirements of this section.
(4) Manner of application. (i) Switching steps must be supported by
a bracket at each end and fastened to the bracket by two bolts or rivets
of at least one-half (\1/2\) inch diameter or by a weldment of at least
twice the strength of a bolted attachment.
(ii) Vertical clearance must be unobstructed, except for minor
intrusions created by mechanical fasteners or a small triangular gusset
plate at the platform level walkway, and free for use for at least a
distance of eighty-four (84) inches over a portion of the switching step
that is not less than seven (7) inches deep by eighteen (18) inches wide
on locomotives built prior to April 1, 1977, and of not less than seven
(7) inches deep by twenty-four (24) inches wide on locomotives built
after March 31, 1977.
(5) Material. (i) Steel or other material of equivalent or better
strength and deflection characteristics, anti-skid, safety design,
having at least fifty percent (50%) of the tread surface as open space
must be used.
(ii) When the step material creates a second level safety tread
surface, the maximum difference in surface levels may not exceed three-
eighths (\3/8\) of an inch.
(iii) The safety tread surface must extend to within one-half (\1/
2\) inch of each edge of the step.
(6) Visibility. The outer edge of each switching step that is not
illuminated must be painted a contrasting color. On locomotives built
after March 31, 1977, switching steps shall be illuminated; on multiple-
unit locomotive consists used in switching service, only the front
switching steps of the leading unit and the rear switching steps of the
trailing unit must be illuminated.
(d) End footboards and pilot steps. (1) Except for steam locomotives
equipped as provided in Sec. 231.16, locomotives used in switching
service built after March 31, 1975, may not be equipped with end
footboards or pilot steps.
(2) Except for steam locomotives equipped as provided in
Sec. 231.16, locomotives used in switching service built before April 1,
1975, may not be equipped with end footboards or pilot steps after
September 30, 1978. Whenever end footboards or pilot steps are removed
from a locomotive, the uncoupling mechanism and horizontal end handholds
of the locomotive must be modified to comply with paragraphs (f) and (g)
of this section.
(e) Vertical handholds. Each switching step must be provided with
two (2) vertical handholds or handrails, one on each side of the
switching step stairway.
(1) On locomotives built after March 31, 1977, each vertical
handhold must--
(i) Be constructed of wrought iron, steel or other material of
equivalent strength and durability that is at least one (1) inch
diameter and be securely

[[Page 420]]

fastened to the locomotive with one-half (\1/2\) inch or larger bolts or
rivets;
(ii) Begin not less than six (6) inches nor more than thirty-two
(32) inches above the safety tread surface of the switching step; on
units with high snowplows, each must begin not more than thirty-six (36)
inches above the safety tread surface of the switching step;
(iii) Extend upward from switching step surface at least forty-eight
(48) inches;
(iv) Be painted in a contrasting color to a height of at least
forty-eight (48) inches above the safety tread surface of the switching
step; and
(v) Provide at least two and one-half (2\1/2\) inches of usable hand
clearance throughout its entire length.
(2) On locomotives built before April 1, 1977, each vertical
handhold must--
(i) Be constructed of wrought iron, steel or other material of
equivalent strength and durability that is at least seven-eighths (\7/
8\) inch in diameter and be securely fastened with one-half (\1/2\) inch
or larger bolts or rivets;
(ii) Begin not less than five (5) inches nor more than thirty-two
(32) inches above the safety tread surface; on units with high
snowplows, each must begin not more than thirty-six (36) inches above
the safety tread surface;
(iii) Extend upward from safety tread surface of the switching step
at least forty-eight (48) inches;
(iv) Be painted in a contrasting color to a height of at least
forty-eight (48) inches above the safety tread surface of the switching
step; and
(v) Provide at least two and one-half (2\1/2\) inches usable hand
clearance throughout its entire length.
(f) Uncoupling mechanisms. Each locomotive used in switching service
must have means for operating the uncoupling mechanism safely from the
switching step as well as from ground level. No part of the uncoupling
mechanism may extend into the switching step or stairway opening or end
platform area when the mechanism is in its normal position or when it is
operated. (See Plate A)
(g) Horizontal end handholds. Each locomotive used in switching
service must have four (4) horizontal end handholds.
(1) Each horizontal end handhold must--
(i) Be constructed of wrought iron, steel or other material of
equivalent strength and durability that is at least five-eighths (\5/8\)
inch in diameter and be securely fastened to the locomotive with one-
half (\1/2\) inch or larger bolts or rivets;
(ii) Be located not less than thirty (30) inches nor more than fifty
(50) inches above the top of rail with its outer end not more than 16
inches from the side of the locomotive; on units with a high snowplow
that makes normal end handhold location inaccessible, end handhold shall
be located on top of plow blade, with the center of the handhold not
more than fifty-three (53) inches above the top of rail, and be in line
with the slope of the plow blade;
(iii) Be at least fourteen (14) inches long; and
(iv) Provide at least two (2) inches, preferably two and one-half
(2\1/2\) inches, usable hand clearance throughout its entire length.
(2) An uncoupling lever may also serve as a horizontal end handhold
if it complies with the requirements of this paragraph. When an
uncoupling lever also serves as the horizontal end handhold, it is
considered to be securely fastened if its securement brackets are
attached to the locomotive by one-half (\1/2\) inch or larger bolts or
rivets and its movement between those brackets is limited to the
rotation necessary for performance of the uncoupling function.

[crazy_nip]

For a freight railroad would reducing a F40PH's horsepower from 3,000 to 2,300 be economical? Three thousand horsepower is near the limit of a 4 axle locomotive and 2,300 horsepower would save some fuel. Also it would stop slipping caused by high horsepower or heavy tonnage.

you come up with about the stupidest ideas...

(I hope this makes sense)

no, it doesnt... please stop

[TerryC]

I am just naturally curious; it is a a family trait. I am trying to make sense.


http://trainiaxindex.cjb.net/
"keep searching keep finding"
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=71966

[SD Shortline]

Back in the 60's many RR's tried repowering Alco 244B engined locomotives with the mostly equivalant EMD 567C. Alco's had the surperior electrics being from GE. RR's also experimented with cranking up the RPM's to obtain more horsepower, the ecomomics of both where not there.

As I recently found out, the MK, VMV, and EMD rebuilt G939ish lomotives have a re-rated 16-cylinder turbocharged "645D" cranking out merely 2300HP. These same engines produced either 2250 or 2500HP in there original state. So...

1)EMD turbos had/have overrun clutch issues from time to time
2)The 16-645E is a pleasant engine to get along with maintenance and reliabilty wise. It is possible to get a D-block EMD to squack out 2000HP like an E.
3)Turbos are more expensive.

Apparently, the ecomoics at the time were more for a "16-645D3" at 2300 rather than a 12-645E3 which is a production engine. The extra maintenance apparently offset by the replacement prime mover cost as mentioned before.

I couldn't imagine seeing a F40PH turned down to 2300. Its high gearing and weight may(would) make them unsuitable for smaller RR's It will be interesting to see how many second-hand SD40-2 get derated on behalf of economics.

Apparently people on this post would like something like SD45 loosing the 20 for a 16 or even losing the turbo for 2500HP or so...

[TerryC]

Thank you for your kind responses DutchRailnut, mxdata, & SD Shortline.

http://trainiaxindex.cjb.net/

[missthealcos]

Isn't an F40 already only producing arond 2300HP for traction with full HEP requirments?

[TerryC]

Yes it is, but with the Head End Power need removed the F40's horsepower stays at 3,000

http://trainiaxindex.cjb.net/

[Allen Hazen]

Reference has been made to the "645D" engine. This has the body (crankcase, frame...) of a 567D (the engine type from, e.g., a GP-9) with the cylinder assemblies of a 645 (the engine type introduced with the 1966-line of locomotives).
With a turbocharger, 16 "645" cylinders will happily produce 3000 hp, as on a GP40, SD40, GP40-2, SD40-2 or F40. My understanding is that "645D" engines aren't rated tat high because the engine frame isn't mechanically robust enouh to stand up to it long-term. (Question to knowledgeable: is this right?)
On the other hand, various railroads seem to have been happy with the performance of turbocharged "645D" engines in the 2300-2600 hp range. So: an E.M.D. turbocharged 645 CAN be derated to this level-- with, probably, fuel and maintenance savings. After all, on the COMBUSTION side of things (as opposed to mechanical: crankshaft, bearings, frame...) it will, after de-rating, be equivalent to a 645D, and we KNOW that THEY work! The E-type frame from the engine in a 40-series locomotive is probably a bit heavier and sturdier than needed for that power, but no shortline operator is going to object to that.
(Changing the horsepower of a diesel engine, within limits, is fairly simple: adjust the fuel pumps. Note that many F40 were rated at 3200 hp instead of the "standard" 3000 for a locomotive with a turbocharged 16-645.)
Bottom line is that the sort of derating TerryC suggests probably would be feasible, and might even be attractive to some operators. If it hasn't been tried.... Why not? My guess is that the fuel svaings wouldn't be much (since the cylinder/turbocharger combination was designed for the higher power, it may not be as efficient-- unit of mechanical energy produced per unit of fuel-- at the lower rating). And people worried about maintenance costs have an even more attractive option: get rid of the turbo altogether, fit a Roots blower, and get the functional equivalent of a GP38 or SD38.

[mxdata]

The "645D" turbocharged engines use 645 cylinder power assemblies with the 567D3A turbocharger (EMD Part Number 8296440) which is not adequate for horsepower output levels higher than 2500. There is no economic viability to installing a 645E3 turbo on the "D" as there are a number of other components that have to be changed to accomodate this, and pushing a "D" crankcase to 3000 horsepower would test the structural weaknesses which Allen mentioned. There is no point in pushing engine crankcases over their design limitations, they are very expensive to repair and replace, even in older locomotives. Turbocharged 16-645E3 engines are not normally derated as this moves you away from the point at which the engine/turbo combination gives you the best fuel economy. Some turbocharged 20-645E3 engines were derated by the railroads due to crankcase and crankshaft problems, but this degrades fuel economy and also tends to shorten turbocharger life since it increases accumulated loading on the clutch and gear train.

[trainmaster_1]

get rid of the turbo altogether, fit a Roots blower, and get the functional equivalent of a GP38 or SD38.

Just to add onto this a 2 stroke engine whether it would be a 567, 645 and 710 always need a roots blower (supercharger) and they always have to have one (even if they add a turbo to it) because without one the engine performs poorly and the efficiency goes down. You can also add a turbocharger to a 2 stroke even if you have a roots blower, what the roots blower actually does is clears the air in the cylinders and allows new air to come into the cylinders from the turbo (if the unit has a turbo)to allow an increase of horsepower and fuel economy.

With a 4 stroker you don't need a roots blower because the engine performs well without but you can add turbo to increase horsepower and fuel economy

[Justin B]

If I am not mistaken, turbo 2 strokes do need some form of artificial aspiration, be it supercharging (roots blower) or turbocharging. But not BOTH at the same time. The turbo replaces the roots blower and can deliver much higher intake pressures. I think it is possible to crank a roots blower up to the levels of a turbo charger, but it would suck so much HP from the engine it is not economical.