• AC6000 --> ES60AC

  • Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.
Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.

Moderators: AMTK84, MEC407

  by MEC407
 
It was reported on the LocoNotes Yahoo group today that at least two, and possibly "several" more, CSX AC6000s (a.k.a. CW60ACs as CSX calls them) have been rebuilt with new 6000 HP GEVO engines. It was also speculated that these units received new (or upgraded) computer systems, and possibly other new (or upgraded) components, essentially turning the units into ES60ACs.

I had a feeling that this was something GE would try eventually, but this is the first I've heard of it actually happening. One of the LocoNotes members who commented on the subject said that the upgrade process on the first unit began "a while ago" -- but I'm not sure if that means weeks or months or what.

At any rate, it should be interesting to see how many other AC6000s get this upgrade.

Credit to LocoNotes member Matthew Ryan for the report.
  by Jay Potter
 
MEC407 wrote:At any rate, it should be interesting to see how many other AC6000s get this upgrade.
All of the CSXT AC6000CWs will be upgraded.

  by D.Carleton
 
The notion of the 6Khp locomotive getting a second look is thrilling but is there an official 'source' for the story of all CSX's AC6000's receiving new GEVO prime movers? I really do want this to be true but it doesn't make financial sense. Who footing the bill for this, GE or CSX?

  by Bryanjones
 
D.Carleton wrote:The notion of the 6Khp locomotive getting a second look is thrilling but is there an official 'source' for the story of all CSX's AC6000's receiving new GEVO prime movers? I really do want this to be true but it doesn't make financial sense. Who footing the bill for this, GE or CSX?
Jay Potter, a well known and respected author on CSX motive power, is the source for this info. He has already commented on this exact thread. Jay is THE authority on CSX motive power and if he says that something is going to happen then you can take that to the bank. Jay does not start rumors, he states the facts and nothing but the facts.
While the initial expense for the prime mover swapout isn't cheap, it will most definitely pay for itself in the longrun as the HDL prime mover is flawed design, maintainence headache and costly in itself to keep in operation. The flaws of the HDL design have been corrected in the GEVO prime mover. The repowered locomotive should result in a more reliable locomotive, reduced maintainence costs due to the improved prime mover, not to mention being a step toward allowing GE to discontinue support (i.e. Parts) for the HDL prime mover.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY

  by SSW9389
 
Who is paying the cost of the engine change outs? Is it GE, CSX, a shared cost? Didn't GE take the HDL engine designer to court and win? :wink:

  by MEC407
 
If this project is successful -- and frankly, I have no reason to believe that it won't be -- I wonder if we'll see a similar project on Union Pacific.

I also wonder if this could mean that the horsepower race is back on... and if so, it should be very interesting to see what EMD's response is.

  by D.Carleton
 
MEC407 wrote:I wonder if we'll see a similar project on Union Pacific.
Uncle Pete is already turning back SD90's at the end of their lease. Word has it the AC6000's will follow them. This is why I'm a little hesitant to accept GE re-engineing CSX's units. These units are over ten years old and probably due for a midlife overhaul. This would be the opportunity to implant a new prime mover. CSX also has had greater success with less than stellar production runs such as the SD50. As best as I can tell CSX has the largest SD50 fleet still going. Why would CSX stick it out with their SD50's and AC6000's when UP did not? Does CSX own these outright and therefore have more than a vested interest in them?

Obviously, the main drawback (or blessing) of boards like these is that most of us don't know each other. Each of us has a story to tell and we run the gambit from railfan to railroader and all stations in between. The last thing I want to do is insult or alienate anyone in these pages. All I'm looking for is the facts as close to the source as possible. Any and all enlightenment is appreciated.

  by MEC407
 
D.Carleton wrote:Uncle Pete is already turning back SD90's at the end of their lease. Word has it the AC6000's will follow them.
Point taken, although quite a few (most?) of UP's AC6000s had the HDL removed and replaced with an FDL, essentially giving you an AC4400. So I would actually be kind of surprised if UP got rid of those units. If UP does get rid of them, perhaps GE will go ahead and re-engine them with the new 6000 HP GEVO, or even the smaller 4400 HP GEVO, and lease them to other roads. Who knows. Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

  by D.Carleton
 
MEC407 wrote:...although quite a few (most?) of UP's AC6000s had the HDL removed and replaced with an FDL, essentially giving you an AC4400.
UP was the only customer for an upgradeable AC6000 delivered with an FDL prime mover. There are about 100 of these rostered. Ironically, these will most likely be retained by UP. To my knowledge, no UP AC6000's were rebuilt with FDL's. EMD hasn't had much success leasing former UP SD90's choosing to store some of them on the B&P in NY state. I honestly don't see anything different for the UP AC6000's but we shall see.

  by MEC407
 
I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification. I guess my supposedly-reliable source of UP information wasn't so reliable after all. I hate when that happens! :wink:

  by Jay Potter
 
D.Carleton wrote:Uncle Pete is already turning back SD90's at the end of their lease. Word has it the AC6000's will follow them.
What is the weight and fuel capacity of a UP AC6000CW? My guess would be 420K lbs and 5500 gal, respectively; but I don't really know.

Thank you.

  by D.Carleton
 
Jay Potter wrote:
D.Carleton wrote:Uncle Pete is already turning back SD90's at the end of their lease. Word has it the AC6000's will follow them.
What is the weight and fuel capacity of a UP AC6000CW? My guess would be 420K lbs and 5500 gal, respectively; but I don't really know.

Thank you.
I'm afraid I'm wintering at the home office, Florida, and as such I'm a thousand miles away from my library. Wikipedia gives the generic weight for an AC6000 as 423K# and fuel capacity as 5500 gal. Their spec list looks like it was block copied from the GE spec sheet and without my references I'd say their numbers are plausible. I would doubt there are any serious differences between the CSX and UP models.

  by Jay Potter
 
D.Carleton wrote:I would doubt there are any serious differences between the CSX and UP models.
Dan, thanks. I'll see what I can find about the UP specifications. The reason that's significant (in the context of UP and CSXT perhaps taking differing views of the AC6000CW) is that GE's standard weight and fuel-capacity specifications are applicable to CSXT's first three AC6000CWs but not to its last 114 AC6000CWs.

  by Jay Potter
 
D.Carleton wrote:Why would CSX stick it out with their. . .AC6000's when UP did not?
I'll give my best operational (as opposed to financial) guess. And it is a guess, because I know basically zero about UP's locomotive-application practices.

The AC6000CWs are less numerically significant to UP than they are to CSXT. Specifically, UP's roster is much larger than CSXT's roster; however only 80 (I believe) of UP's units are AC6000CWs, while 117 of CSXT's units are AC6000CW's. So UP has apparently structured its operations in ways that minimize the need for 6000-hp units; but CSXT still sees an advantage to having 6000-hp units. Its primary need is probably to be able to move intermodal traffic with two-unit consists. Hopefully the "EVO 6000" (the railroad's informal term for an AC6000CW with a GEVO prime mover) will facilitate this. One factor that makes CSXT's AC6000CWs particularly well suited for intermodal service is that 114 of them (units 603 and above) have 6200-gallon fuel tanks, as opposed to the standard 5500-gallon tanks

If, for some reason, the EVO 6000s turn out to be inappropriate for intermodal service, I expect that CSXT will be able to shift them advantageously into coal service. CSXT prefers its GE coal-service power to be AC traction, "heavy" (i.e. 432,000 pounds), equipped with steerable trucks, and equipped with HTE (high tractive effort) adhesion-management software. The 6200-gallon fuel tanks on 114 of the AC6000CWs give them nominal weights of 432,000 pounds; 116 of the AC6000CWs have steerable trucks; and HTE software can easily be applied to them.

UP's AC6000CWs obviously should be judged by UP's standards. However for the sake of discussion, if CSXT standards were applied to them, they would be lighter (I believe 425,000 pounds), have less fuel capacity (perhaps 5500 gallons, but at least less than 6200 gallons), and have rigid HiAd (as opposed to steerable) trucks.

In summary, I don't know the extent to which UP's locomotive-application practices differ from CSXT's practices. However for the reasons that I've discussed above, it seems logical to me that CSXT would assign a higher degree of usefulness to its AC6000CWs than UP would assign to its AC6000CWs.