CSX SD80MAC Disposition?

Hello all,

Over the last couple days, I have been reading with great interest that CSX has leased their 80MACs and some of their older 70MACs to Ferromex down in Mexico for the long term. I read this on the Yahoo group "CSXT Sightings". I honestly do not know how true (Or false) all of this is, but from what I did read, these units were last in Waycross, Ga and were then to be shipped onward to their destination. Can anyone who knows what's going on confirm this?

Thanks!
Charlie

Lease negotiations have been taking place for quite awhile; and the units were routed to Waycross during the negotiations. I do not kow if a lease has since been finalized.

Charlie, as of right now there's only a few (3 or 4) 70MAC's and just 1 80MAC going there according to info I saw on the CR historical society's website (which I'm a member of- theCRHS.org) under the general CR discussion forum. I can't imagine their needing that much power down there but I could be wrong. Btw, you don't have to be a member to view the posts.

I find it hard to understand that CSX is leasing out power, at a time when they are having power shortage issues.

roadster wrote:I find it hard to understand that CSX is leasing out power, at a time when they are having power shortage issues.

True but CSX never did like the 80MAC's. So leasing them to get them out of their hair would be best, get rid of them and still collect money on the lease. As for the older 70MAC's maybe CSX just doesn't want to maintain them.

Curious as to why CSX never liked the 80MAC's. After the bugs got worked out CR had no problems with these units as far as I know. NS still uses them for coal service and it seems like they could do likewise for CSX. The coal train that runs by my house once a week has had slightly longer trains lately requiring 3 units instead of the usual 2 (only after they tried to do it with two and had problems). One would think 2 units vs 3 is lower fuel bill too. And the track by me (which also has a 5 day a week local) was welded a couple of years ago so they can run on that branch line. Is it me or does CSX never seem to like units that weren't much of a problem on other roads? Would like to hear what some of you guys who are/were engineers think.

CSX has been shy of EMD products since the SD50's first came out and suffered a number of issues. As far as the SD80Mac's, because CSX only has 10 and they have a unique power plant. There are concerns of maintainance, parts, support and fuel comsumption. I haven't heard of any direct concerns with the SD80Mac's. They actually were some of the first to be reactivated from storage this spring. While numerous GE C60Wac's stayed in storage till mid summer.

It's a shame CR was the only 80MAC buyer, especially with the 6000HP units never really working out from both the 90MAC and the AC6000. Seems that 6000 was too many horses for an engine as UP got rid of the 90's (and only the 9043's were of any luck) and the AC60's spent a lot of time recently in storage. With heavier tonnage on trains today vs a decade or so ago, it seems that 5000HP would be just right and I'm surprised neither EMD or GE jumped on that. I'm guessing there's not that big a difference from 4400 to 5000HP?

Regarding the HP, issues. CSX has in fact downrated their newest GE's. The ES44DC's are now ES40DC's, and the CW44-9's are now CW40-9's. CSX feels the extra 400 hp in these units is not worth the extra fuel consumption.

Roadster, thanks for your answers. I take it fuel use is the main issue involved with HP rating-that at least 4000HP on these new widecabs is more than enough to move the trains with no problem?

The difference is undetectable for crews, as each train varies in weight and length. Fuel consumption is a big concern with CSX. I remember NS doing some studies a few years ago and they determined that 4400 was the optimum HP rating as far as useful tractive effort vs fuel consumption. CSX experts seem to have settled on 4K.

roadster wrote:Regarding the HP, issues. CSX has in fact downrated their newest GE's. The ES44DC's are now ES40DC's, and the CW44-9's are now CW40-9's. CSX feels the extra 400 hp in these units is not worth the extra fuel consumption.

IIRC, correctly, they have not downrated any of the AC units. This is most likely due to the fact that an AC traction motor can use the full 4400 HP even at low speeds and the the AC's are operated in heavy coal service.

Correct, I never said they downrated the AC's. Only the DC 4400's. While heavy coal trains always get big AC's, they are also utilized for all other types of road service, from Vans, freights and autoracks.