GP40MC specs

On these engines is the frame and body from and SD45? I know the radiator fans were forward to add an additional one for the HEP generator but the body is obviously much longer then the original GP40-2W. Wikipedia doesnt say too much about these locomotives. Also noticed they are the same length as the F40PH-2C's.

Anyone help me out??

Thanks!

The 1100s are ex CN GP40-2LW. They have been heavily modified. The Dynamic Brake units were added, the frames were lengthened for the HEP units. The cab roofs were raised, and the noses lowered.

Right but the frames and bodies are original to original CN GP40-2W??

I'm not exactly sure, but from what I hear the EMD 16-645E3 engines are originals from the CN engines, however I think that they would have had extensive bodywork. They probably put new flared radiators in, and lengthened the original frame to make room for the Cummins KTA19 HEP unit.

The frame was extended 5' 8" inches .

As SERY says, the cab was also modified. Other features are desk top control stand and underfloor HVAC.

How much of the long hood is original, I don't know. Trucks are original.

MC stands for microprocessor Cummins.

Prime movers were rebuilt

Electronic engine control and air brake control, 9 Aspect US&S cab signal.

Steps cut into fuel tank - Due to the different cab configuration (all doors to rear) and other body frame differences.

HEP - Cummins 6 cylinder (KTA-19) / single turbo

D

The cab has been changed. the windows are more american style than the Canadian cab which has 4 panes rather than two. The front door was taken out. The back radiators are flared like an SD45 for the HEP. This is seen on numerous other agencies rebuilt passenger engines. The roof cover over the walkways was taken out and the fuel tank was shortened. Also the T has dynamics and the CN does not.
MBTA front http://jwdp.rrpicturearchives.net/showP ... id=1684795
CN front (not my pic)http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=407276
Notice the flared radiators and SD45 looking back. http://jwdp.rrpicturearchives.net/showP ... id=1784114
MBTA side http://jwdp.rrpicturearchives.net/showP ... id=1684802
CN side(not my pic) http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=947685

If you want to compare them in person, Guilford's 500 series locomotives are from the same fleet as the T's 1100s, and they've not been modified. Somewhere there's a list of what CN locos became what MBTA/Guilford locos, but I can't remember where it is.

The nose door wasn't removed. It was welded shut (for safety reasons).

Do the GP40MCs have 16-645E3s? The F40PH-2Cs have 16-645E3s and they sound like 710s when starting up while the GP40MCs sound like a geep starting up. (starting up from being off)

Im just trying to figure out where to start when modeling one of these units. I have a SD45 body and frame with GP40-2 trucks and a kaslo EMD cab. The SD45 frame and body seems to fit well but an additional radiator for the HEP generator will have to be added.

diburning wrote:The nose door wasn't removed. It was welded shut (for safety reasons).

Looking closely at my own photos of the GP40MCs, it looks like the nose door was taken off and the hole plated over. Perhaps there's some evidence of it if you're standing on the front walkway, but from where I took the pictures the nose appears completely smooth, with no traces of the original door. So yeah, Id' say that counts as the door being removed.

The door was removed and a plate was put in it's place. The reasoning for the removal of the door is the lowered nose made the nose too small to pass through.

Wasn't it also removed for the reason that in a collision shrapnel and debris would fly into the cab and kill the engineer in the event of a high speed (commuter train speed) collision?

IIRC, that's why the nose doors on widecab units sit "on" the nose, and open out, so that the force of something striking them will hold the door closed against the nose of the locomotive. Look at the links to the CN GP40's above, or at any freight widecab for that matter.

diburning wrote:Wasn't it also removed for the reason that in a collision shrapnel and debris would fly into the cab and kill the engineer in the event of a high speed (commuter train speed) collision?

There is two doors in the nose, so in a collision it wouldn't make it into the cab. That's the most crazy reason I have heard. WHERE did you hear that???

Not to mention some freight trains (not sure about how many instances of this there are on CN territory) travel at the same speeds as most commuter trains. I don't know of any areas where they exceed 70, but I know there are some 70mph freights in the US.