What if had they continued the GP production?

1: new GP38AC's appear
2.Widecabs such as a GP70MAC would appear with the original EMD safety cab because i hate the box cab in the ACe's and m-2's and not the 4 or 3 window cab.
3. Complies with the EPA Tier Emmision requirements
4. A refurbishment for the Older GP units with DC power and replace the DC power with a new AC power.
5.Powerful Horns
6.4 prive movers so if the others fail the back up will be on and the Geep will still move.
7.Passenger units called the GP70FH pulling trains
8.international versions

9.Custom cab compatible so if the Geep loses its cab it can use a GE cab or a another cab and can be a cabless unit

CorenDirebrew wrote:1: new GP38AC's appear
2.Widecabs such as a GP70MAC would appear with the original EMD safety cab because i hate the box cab in the ACe's and m-2's and not the 4 or 3 window cab.
3. Complies with the EPA Tier Emmision requirements
4. A refurbishment for the Older GP units with DC power and replace the DC power with a new AC power.
5.Powerful Horns
6.4 prive movers so if the others fail the back up will be on and the Geep will still move.
7.Passenger units called the GP70FH pulling trains
8.international versions

I'll adress your points one by one..
1.Canadian Pacific is buying a number of new GP22ECO units,which, although using the trucks,traction motors, and some other components from traded in GP9Rs will be brand new locomotives with new frames and 2,000 HP 8-710 engines, the modern equivalent of a GP38AC......

2.to build a 70 series locomotive with the newly required emissions system (requires a bigger cooling system,etc.), decent capacity fuel tanks and AC electrical equipment yields a unit that is much too heavy to ride on 4 axle trucks, so you need six axles. BNSF is getting a new order of SD70Aces that use CC trucks with the first axle in each truch unpowered, the equivalent of a GP70Ace with a couple of extra axles..

3. read my comments about the cooling system required by Tier compliance and the weight penalty they impose..

4. Older Geeps delivered with DC generators are commonly rebuilt with Alternators (the difference between a GP38 and GP38 AC,note the GP38AC DID NOT have AC traction motors like the EMD 70 series AC units ) but they retain DC traction motors. Retrofitting AC traction motors alondg with the other required AC traction components (inverters, ect.)onto a DC motored unit is extremely expensive. The only locomotives so converted in the US (otherthan test unit) were some ex -New Haven FL9s that cost almost as much as a new locotive would have..

6.that's a Genset locomotive which EMD parent company progress rail builds. It's not 4,000 HP though..


7. Again, a 4,000 HP AC unit built on a roadswitcher frame would be too heavy, EMD is designing new passenger units but they will use Monocoque carbodies like the GE Genesis units..


Basically the systems required for a modern,high horsepower road freight locomotive mean an engine that is too heavy for 4 axle trucks..

Don't forget about passenger locos!

There is a 4 axle, AC locomotive built. It is heavy, but not overly heavy. The Alstom PL42AC built for NJT in 2004. Its a 4 axle, 4200 HP EMD 710 V16 powerplant. It has 5 AC inverters, one for each axle, and another for Head End power requirements. Yes, its a few years old now, but it complies with Tier 1 emissions from the time it was built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL42AC

Also, MPI has built the MP36 and MP40 locos more recently that comply with all emission standards (at the time of their building) in a 4 axle loco, not AC propulsion, but still conforming with emissions.

I remember reading somewhere that the GP60s weren't like so much by some crews and railroads, as they were kinda "slippery", meaning too much power to the wheels, and hard to control wheel spin. I can say that I believe it, the PL42 (I run them often) are VERY slippery, and while the modern wheelslip/slide computers help tremendously, they are sometimes tough to control and get moving with bad rail. They have gone through some software upgrades which seems to have smoothed out the power delivery, so they aren't as slippery as they were in the past, but they still sometimes get touchy.

But they are a beast, they can pull anything and keep pulling and pulling

There are a few trends worth observing. Both GE and EMD are offering versions of their AC locomotives with one axle per truck non-powered. There is also a rise of 'high-speed' prime movers (i.e. 1800 rpm) becoming available for rail service which are lighter than the standard medium speed engines. If a combination of lighter engines and lighter AC transmission electronics become available such as to fit within the desired weight per axle then the four-axle mainline freight locomotive may come back.

Jtgshu (two posts up) says:
"There is a 4 axle, AC locomotive built. It is heavy, but not overly heavy. The Alstom PL42AC built for NJT in 2004."
The Wikipedia article he links to says that they weigh 290,000 pounds: 72,500 pounds per axle, with (I assume) conventional, nose supported, traction motors. Not, I suppose, "overly heavy"for a drag freight engine, but this is a passenger locomotive! (Higher speeds lead to greater stress on the track. Passenger locomotives OUGHT to be lighter than freight ones.) For comparison, the British Rail HST power car (= class 43 locomotive) of the 1970s weighed under 40,000 pounds per axle... and even so was designed with frame-mounted traction motors and cardan shaft drive because it was thought that conventional traction motors had too much unsprung weight for high speed service.

D.Carleton wrote:There are a few trends worth observing. Both GE and EMD are offering versions of their AC locomotives with one axle per truck non-powered. There is also a rise of 'high-speed' prime movers (i.e. 1800 rpm) becoming available for rail service which are lighter than the standard medium speed engines. If a combination of lighter engines and lighter AC transmission electronics become available such as to fit within the desired weight per axle then the four-axle mainline freight locomotive may come back.

Indeed - will the "medium speed" engines be the engines of the future? The NJT ALP45DP (dual modes) are 288,000 lbs (or somewhere around there) and they are two locos in one! An electric loco AND a diesel loco! However, Caterpillar engines had to be used, to keep the weight down. How the Caterpillar diesels hold up is going to the key factor, but so far they are doing pretty good, as is the entire loco, testing is going well.

The PL42s are heavy, they are much to heavy for their suspension, as they ride like absolute garbage.....but the ALP45 rides very well. Remember too, that NJT still operates the "CNJ Geeps" - the former CNJ GP40Ps, which were the heaviest 4 axles built for a long time, I dunno if they still are, especially since loosing their Steam Generators and got smaller fuel tanks, but they are still REALLY heavy....you can feel it when running them, especially light, with the independent brake.

Seems like we are just getting heavier with all the emissions and AC components, etc (like mentioned above) Instead of A1A trucks which were "old school", we now have the ES44C4s from GE and the new locos from EMD with the dummy axle. We might be getting to the upper limits of 4 axle weight limits......but the inherent cheapness of the railroads, they like only 4 traction motors! I bet thats driving the development of these locos more than anything!

The reason that BNSF are staying with six axles even though only four are powered is fuel capacity. A freight geared PL42 would have to tow around a fuel tender to make it between refueling points.

If you want a four-axle unit, EMD offers the ECO series with all the latest bells and whistles-DC motors, of course. GE may have a smilar arrow in its quiver.

Jtgshu wrote:Don't forget about passenger locos!

I didn't. Read # 7 in my post, where I point out that current production high HP passenger units are 4 axle locomotives built with European style Monocoque car bodies i.e NOT roadswitchers. They are not designed for freight service....

Bright Star wrote:If you want a four-axle unit, EMD offers the ECO series with all the latest bells and whistles-DC motors, of course. GE may have a smilar arrow in its quiver.

GE has done presentations on an ES22B locomotive using a straight 6 version of the GEVO engine. They could either be ramanufactured from older units or new built but so far no railroad has ordered one...
IIRC, GE has a contract to repower some older MP2000D units for the Port of Houston..

The MP-series are borderline too heavy for four axle. Metra, the second largest operator, cannot use them on the ex-CNW lines due to bridge weight restrictions. It strikes me that it's time for modern passenger locos to be A1A-A1A on an SD70 frame. This allows plenty of room for a separate HEP setup, to provide better emissions and fuel economy. It also allows for better weight distribution. Given the extensive use of E-units as commuter power in Chicago and out east, it's not unheard of.

I can't imagine it would take too much effort to design a full-cowl carbody for the SD70ACe-P4, change the gear ratio, and call it an F70ACe-PH. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would be pretty much what you're describing. A modern successor to the F40C, with AC traction and two less traction motors to maintain. In other words, greatly reduced maintenance costs.

Given that the nose cone on F59PHi and P42 is fiberglass, you could put an attractive fiberglass nose cone on an SD70 as well if appearances were important.

Frankly, I don't think they really are - I always recall the Trains Mag story regarding CDOT painting their P32 in NHRR livery. One person tells another "this is how the locomotives were painted fifty years ago", and the other person replies "you mean these are fifty years old???".

The average person cares if the 5:15 gets them home by 6:15, not if it's an EMD or streamlined or high-tech. Although rumor has it Metra is trying to justify their fare increase by claiming it's going to help keep the trains cleaner (not sure if they mean inside or out).