RAILROAD.NET

Guys, literally the same thing was ordered by Great Northern as the SDP40. The cowled body was cosmetic, both had a roadswitcher ladder frame, 645-16, and steam boiler out back. We never hear of those having problems. And ATSF never had problems with the erstwhile SDP40f in fast-ish TOFC service.

I think there’s no question that Amtrak asked for, and EMD offered, six-axle passenger power. Even though both rostered steam-generator-equipped road-switchers and occasionally sold some, EMD hadn’t sold dedicated four-axle passenger locomotives since the early 1960s’ FL9, and GE hadn’t offered them since the Alco partnership days. The various six-axle hood units on the market seemed like they would fit the bill well enough for Amtrak, and could go straight into mainline freight service if (when) their time pulling passenger trains was up. I’ve wondered for a while why Amtrak didn’t just order FP40-2s, with a 16-645 on an FP45 frame.

Or just order the FP45 that was running fine on ATSF runs. Or the roadswitcher SDP40/45 that SP and GN were enjoying at the time.

Fun fact, even the South Koreans were in the game with 14 SDP28 I've recently learned.

Tadman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:48 pm Then after the SDP40f fiasco, ATSF buys them and they run fine, and Amtrak buys 300+ F40 and 50+ AEM7? That’s not the usual MO. If Amtrak were truly screwed by EMD, one party or the other would walk away. And ATSF wouldn’t happily buy the supposed lemons.

Santa Fe changed the trucks on the SDP40Fs they bought to be the standard one found under SD40-2s and the like, and of course there was no longer a water tank in them either.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:41 pm I think there’s no question that Amtrak asked for, and EMD offered, six-axle passenger power. Even though both rostered steam-generator-equipped road-switchers and occasionally sold some, EMD hadn’t sold dedicated four-axle passenger locomotives since the early 1960s’ FL9, and GE hadn’t offered them since the Alco partnership days. The various six-axle hood units on the market seemed like they would fit the bill well enough for Amtrak, and could go straight into mainline freight service if (when) their time pulling passenger trains was up. I’ve wondered for a while why Amtrak didn’t just order FP40-2s, with a 16-645 on an FP45 frame.

For what it's worth, the FL9's had five axles-- four-wheel leading truck, six-wheel trailing truck. Needed to be like that to spread out the weight of the steam generator on the Park Ave viaduct leading into GCT.

Even they tended to ride a little rough. My first cab ride was in the RMNE's FL9 while I was still in high school and you really felt it going through some switches. In Pentrex's Along the Hudson Division DVD they show cab footage from an Amtrak FL9 making the cross over at Spuyten Duyvil and it REALLY shows there.

Tadman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:07 pm And ATSF never had problems with the erstwhile SDP40f in fast-ish TOFC service.

Santa Fe also removed the stream generator and the “above the deck” water tank.

I do think we are on to one thing here: quality of the track. Wherever I go now, on the union pacific or the BNSF, I see 135lb welded the track. In 1975, even on the elite routes of the western railroads, there was still a lot of jointed track, and road beds were not nearly as manicured as they are now. I have to (rhetorically) wonder what The improvements and track maintenance have meant for the weight of locomotives and trains on the line?

It's a very important big picture issue. You have bad situations like the nationalized railways in Argentina or the bad years for railroads here, when the tracks are covered in mud or grass, and there are frequent derailments and slow orders. I love the argentine railways but I'm always astonished at the railhead-height grass, and the 30mph speeds. On the other hands, well maintained track (achieved when the railway has money to invest in track) makes for very good railroading. Frequent fast heavy trains and little to worry about.

Was the derailment tendency seen at switches or on main line track at speed (perhaps on curves?)?

Ridgefielder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:33 pmFor what it's worth, the FL9's had five axles-- four-wheel leading truck, six-wheel trailing truck. Needed to be like that to spread out the weight of the steam generator on the Park Ave viaduct leading into GCT.

NaugyRR wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:27 pmEven they tended to ride a little rough. My first cab ride was in the RMNE's FL9 while I was still in high school and you really felt it going through some switches. In Pentrex's Along the Hudson Division DVD they show cab footage from an Amtrak FL9 making the cross over at Spuyten Duyvil and it REALLY shows there.

Didn’t realize that. The FL9 didn’t use Blomberg trucks but rather Flexicoils, both two and three-axle - did the ride quality generally suffer with those trucks as opposed to similar locomotives with Blombergs? One of the few direct comparisons that comes to mind is the SW1500 versus the SW1504.

The SDP40F used the next generation HT-C trucks, but Amtrak specified a special hollow center bolster to reduce the weight.

gokeefe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:23 pm Was the derailment tendency seen at switches or on main line track at speed (perhaps on curves?)?

At speed on curves. Specifically, the second unit was known to climb over the outside rail when coupled to some baggage cars.