Moderators: AMTK84, MEC407
Jay Potter wrote:... it seems logical to me that CSXT would assign a higher degree of usefulness to its AC6000CWs than UP would assign to its AC6000CWs.Very well allocuted, sir; your conclusions appear more than plausible. Uncle Pete's motive power goals were similar in direction to those of CSX. Back in 1992 I witnessed numerous UP intermodal trains traversing Cheyenne with braces of four or five 4Khp DC traction locomotives. The intent was to replace these with lash-ups of three 6Khp locomotives with the greater adhesion of AC traction. The name of the game is always the same: the greatest amount of tonnage with the least amount of fuel. Thus far the story doesn't have a happy ending with UP assigning these units rock-hauling duties in Texas before turning them back at the end of the lease. The situation is not too different on CSX. It really torches my turbocharger to see an AC6000 leading a 45 mph junk train out of my roomette window. They also seem to be prime candidates to wind up on XYZ Railway to repay owed horsepower hours.
Herr Spreng wrote:Don't forget that the 6000 hp GEVO engine will be applied to 300 new Chinese locomotives-as well as the small fleet of existing AC6000 units owned by one of the Australian iron ore outfits.BHP has had four or five of their AC6000 fleet fitted with the 6000 hp EVO engines as a trial for the Chinese units, as Australia doesn't have the strict emission rules like the US.