Railroad Forums 

  • C39-8 survivor.

  • Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.
It is currently Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 am

C39-8 survivor.

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

Moderators: MEC407, AMTK84

 Reply

 #326447  by trainiac
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the GE's have four-stroke engines whereas the EMD's have two-strokes. A four-stroke should last longer than a two-stroke. The only bad thing about a four-stroke is that they are harder to work on due to the fact that they have more parts.
You're right that GE's have 4-stroke engines while EMD's (except the SD90MAC) have 2-stroke engines. However, historically, 2-stroke EMD engines have outlasted 4-stroke GE engines. Older EMD engines seem to be rebuilt and rebuilt and rebuilt, racking up (in some cases) over 50 years of regular service, while GE engines seem to be retired as soon as their major components are worn out. Whether this has to do with the locomotives overall or the engines themselves I'm not sure.

 #326859  by crazy_nip
 
NorfolkSouthernSean wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the GE's have four-stroke engines whereas the EMD's have two-strokes. A four-stroke should last longer than a two-stroke. The only bad thing about a four-stroke is that they are harder to work on due to the fact that they have more parts.
you are thinking of the differences between a 2 stroke gasoline engine and a 4 stroke gasoline engine

diesels are completely different

a 2 stroke gas engine does not have a valvetrain, and uses (usually) something called a reed valve and a sealed crankcase for fuel/air "injection" rather than valves like a 4 stroke, it also fires on every up stroke instead of every other stroke like a 4 stroke

I have rebuilt several 2 cycle gas engines (boats and motorcycles) before, but once someone showed me a disassembled detroit diesel engine and tried to explain to me the differences and I was dumbfounded

diesels are a whole different beast, perhaps someone here can elaborate, because I have virtually no mechanical knowledge of diesel engines

 #326864  by crazy_nip
 
Also, I think the GE vs EMD thing as far as lifecycle can be attributed to the fact the GE will not sell parts for a locomotive beyond a certain time (20 years after end of item life), whereas EMD will sell parts for much longer

it makes no sense to roster a locomotive you cant service. CSX tried it for a while by cannabilizing what it could from its u boats and -7's, but then they found buyers in south america and sold their remaining c30-7's

that said, most early GE's were junk up through the dash 8 series

nowadays they are pretty good, especially the AC's

 #332755  by D.Carleton
 
One of the Fairbanks-Morse tech reps I deal with (who had a life rebuilding locomotives before joining FM) put it best, 'EMD's are easy to work on which is a good thing since you're always working on 'em.'
Last edited by D.Carleton on Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

 #332799  by USRailFan
 
Damn that thing is ugly

 #333117  by SOU2645
 
The end is definitely in sight. NS is gathering up all remaining C39's for storage- including the C39-8E's and will retire them all by early 2007. The next GEVO order will replace them. Kiss them goodbye and for me... Good Riddance!
Larry

 #333623  by SOU2645
 
no they will be sold to the highest bidders. Most will likely end up scrapped at Cycle Systems.
larry

 #335973  by SOU2645
 
NS almost immediately pulled the C39's out of storage due to an upswing in traffic on the Pocahontas Division. It will likely be the last time they run. New GEVO's are coming.
Larry

 #339366  by lock4244
 
ToledoTerminalRy wrote:Better yet How about SD45's? they were horrible right from the gun because the long crankshafts kept breaking and were sold off pretty quickly, also had an oddball motor in them compared to the engines of the time.

Ryan
There was a three part article years ago (early 90's) in Railfan & Railroad about the SD45's written by an EMD man that handled deliveries of them. EMD was able to identify the problem with the crankshafts and a repair/retrofit was available (I don't have the articles handy so I'm going from a very foggy memory). I believe they became reliable after this point. The problem was, the customers soured on the 20 cylinder beasts because of initial issues and after they discovered eutopia in the form of the SD40-2.

The SD45's didn't really start to go down until the early eighties, when the combination of a nasty recession, aggressive trade-in allowances on new SD50's (and likely GE's), and the fuel hungry reputation saw some go. A high number of U-boats and Alco's were also junked during the same recession. Builders wanted new unit orders quite badly.

There are SD45's still operating on class one RR's. NS's ex CR, nee EL SD45-2's come to mind and CN's ex WC units, though CN is junking them (the 20 cylinders are orphans on CN). They are still out there...

 #339939  by u25b
 
What a shame that the Conrail THS couldn't aquire one of these units for preservation. I hate seeing loco types become extinct, it shouldn't happen in this day and age. Even an empty shell (EA at the B&O museum) is better than nothing.

Wes

phased out C39-8s

 #454734  by Klesse
 
It seems than these locos phased out early (some of them lasted for less than 20 years in service.)
Was there any technical problem behind this early phase out?
what are the the main differences between c39s and c40s?

 #455036  by uhaul
 
The youngest C39-8 is number 8688 which was built in 06-1987.
The oldest C39-8 on the active roster is 8551 which was built in 01-1984.
These older units consume more fuel than than the new units and NS loves to save money. I think the only differences between the last C39-8s and the first C40-8s are slight cosmetic variations, maybe slightly different wiring, and the C40-8's 100 more horsepower.
Last edited by uhaul on Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

 #462945  by trainiax
 
I think the only differences between the last C39-8s and the first C40-8s are slight cosmetic variations, matbe slightly different wiring, and the C40-8's 100 more horsepower.
That would be true with the C39-8E and C40-8, which look nearly identical. My understanding is that the earlier C39-8 is a very different beast--and not just on the outside. That's likely why the C39-8E's are still in service while most of the C39-8's are not.
 Reply
 Return to “General Electric”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -