Western Railroad Discussion > C4 Question

Has any other road besides BNSF ordered this model?
TIA,
—Mac

MacBeau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has any other road besides BNSF ordered this
> model?
> TIA,
> —Mac


Not yet.

The inside word is that the UP has no interest in them and GE's preference is to test them on BNSF.

Okay, MY question is what the hell is the big following on these units? So they have two less traction motors. Why are railfans drawn to them like moths?!?!

GP-38 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, MY question is what the hell is the big
> following on these units? So they have two less
> traction motors. Why are railfans drawn to them
> like moths?!?!


Basically two reasons. One, because the ES44C4s are showing up on various BNSF freight trains in solid sets making for interesting and unique photographs displaying clean, new motive power pulling goods across America. Two, these are only test models. There is always the possibility that the idea of A1A trucks pulling hotshot intermodal trains doesn't pan out as hoped meaning these 24 ES44C4s will be absorbed back into BNSF's standard ES44AC fleet.

There has been plenty of coverage on both the Western and Eastern Forums over the last few years highlighting the deliveries of new locomotives to other large railroads across the US. This isn't any different.

Mr. MRL

Yah but that's the point, it isn't any different. It's a bitch being older and jaded and remembering
when new things looked new and different.

Does anybody have any information on the Weight and Maximum Tractive effort of these loco's. The tractive effort may have two values, one with and one without wheel lift (actually the mechanism reduces weight on the center axle effectively transferring weight to the first and third axle). This seems like a maintenance nightmare.

What Next? Mag-na-Traction? No wait, Lionel already tried that back in the 50's. But, maybe it's not such a bad idea, Magnatize all the drivers, so they stick to the rail better. It would eliminate all the complicated axel lift stuff. That much magnatism might make my Rolex run backwards, my hair stand up straight, and my socks roll up & down, so I guess weight shift is better.

rhotond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anybody have any information on the Weight
> and Maximum Tractive effort of these loco's. The
> tractive effort may have two values, one with and
> one without wheel lift (actually the mechanism
> reduces weight on the center axle effectively
> transferring weight to the first and third axle).
> This seems like a maintenance nightmare.


Yes, that's the issue - Weight on Drivers, as Al Krug ably explains on his Web site. An A1A locomotive won't be able to develop as much low-speed tractive effort as a locomotive with six driven axles, because, even with the weight shifting, axle load limitations will prevent putting as much weight on drivers as the standard ES44AC unit can. That will limit the ability of the C4's to be used interchangeably with ES44AC's, on coal drags for instance.

The C4's look like GE's effort to build a dedicated high-speed locomotive without going to the effort of paring down weight to allow only four axles. If it doesn't work out, those units will be orphans.

ddg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stuff. That much magnatism might make my Rolex run
> backwards, my hair stand up straight, and my socks
> roll up & down, so I guess weight shift is better.


Hey ... if it will make your hair stand up straight, will it make the follicles hidden under my bald spot suddenly come back to life and give me some hair back?
If the answer is yes, bring on the magne-traction (I loved that feature on my Lionel!)
Will

ddkid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, that's the issue - Weight on Drivers, as Al
> Krug ably explains on his Web site. An A1A
> locomotive won't be able to develop as much
> low-speed tractive effort as a locomotive with six
> driven axles, because, even with the weight
> shifting, axle load limitations will prevent
> putting as much weight on drivers as the standard
> ES44AC unit can. That will limit the ability of
> the C4's to be used interchangeably with ES44AC's,
> on coal drags for instance.

These units are considered the equivelent of ES44DCs as far as tractive effort is concerned, and so will not be used on coal drags.

> The C4's look like GE's effort to build a
> dedicated high-speed locomotive without going to
> the effort of paring down weight to allow only
> four axles. If it doesn't work out, those units
> will be orphans.

It has nothing to do with high speed -- I'll say it again, they are considered the equivelent of ES44DCs.

If the testing does not work out they will be converted to standard ES44ACs.

I presume that to mean they will get center axle motors, and become C-C's?

TIAFYR,

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

alamode Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It has nothing to do with high speed -- I'll say
> it again, they are considered the equivelent of
> ES44DCs.
>
> If the testing does not work out they will be
> converted to standard ES44ACs.

ddkid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, that's the issue - Weight on Drivers, as Al
> Krug ably explains on his Web site. An A1A
> locomotive won't be able to develop as much
> low-speed tractive effort as a locomotive with six
> driven axles, because, even with the weight
> shifting, axle load limitations will prevent
> putting as much weight on drivers as the standard
> ES44AC unit can. That will limit the ability of
> the C4's to be used interchangeably with ES44AC's,
> on coal drags for instance.

How much weight is being transfered and what controls it (i.e., the traction control system)? Give axle loadings are probably near the normal limit (70k) lbs, it couldn't put too much weight on the outer axles with out overloading the track structure, at least that's how I see it...

rhotond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> one with and one without wheel lift (actually the mechanism
> reduces weight on the center axle effectively
> transferring weight to the first and third axle).
> This seems like a maintenance nightmare.

This has been used for years in the trucking industry without any 'maintenance nightmares'.
There are literally thousands of trucks and truck tractors with lift axles on them. The basic premise though is to put less weight on the drive axle to make the load legal by sharing it with another axle. But,,,when the weather was snotty, we would dump the air off the air bags in the tag axles suspension and that way the drive axle would get mashed making them gain traction so you could get up the grade without chaining up.

Butch,,,,,,,not missing 'iron time'

The superior low speed pulling power of the AC C-C units will assure them as the power of choice for coal trains. For high speed service AC units have one advantage and one disadvantage. The plus is the much lower maintenance costs of AC traction motors vs DC motors. The minus is the initial price. GE AC locomotives have one inverter per traction motor so using four motors instead of six reduces the cost of both motors and inverters by one third, a substantial saving in purchase price.

JimQuigg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The superior low speed pulling power of the AC C-C
> units will assure them as the power of choice for
> coal trains. For high speed service AC units have
> one advantage and one disadvantage. The plus is
> the much lower maintenance costs of AC traction
> motors vs DC motors. The minus is the initial
> price. GE AC locomotives have one inverter per
> traction motor so using four motors instead of six
> reduces the cost of both motors and inverters by
> one third, a substantial saving in purchase price.

Again, the ES44C4 will not be used in coal service. Their 4 AC traction motors do not provide the low-speed tractive effort as a standard ES44AC. Regarding cost - the ES44C4 costs less than an ES44AC due to two less traction motors and two less inverters.

rhotond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one without wheel lift (actually the mechanism
> reduces weight on the center axle effectively
> transferring weight to the first and third axle).
> This seems like a maintenance nightmare.

If you look at a picture of the truck design the wheel lift is actually incredibly trivial mechanically, so should be a breeze to maintain and very difficult to make fail.

That said, It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to discover that a railroad won't be able to maintain it.

rhotond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anybody have any information on the Weight
> and Maximum Tractive effort of these loco's.

Weight is 416,000 lbs.

ddg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What Next? Mag-na-Traction? No wait, Lionel
> already tried that back in the 50's. But, maybe
> it's not such a bad idea, Magnatize all the
> drivers, so they stick to the rail better. It
> would eliminate all the complicated axel lift
> stuff. That much magnatism might make my Rolex run
> backwards, my hair stand up straight, and my socks
> roll up & down, so I guess weight shift is better.

If you aren't real interested in speed, the way you get traction is to build a tractor for an engine. That is, make an engine with treads that run on the track. Each tread section will be an electromagnet. The treads would be gear-drive, just like on a tank or tractor, so you don't have slip between the motor and tread. This should give you about 6 feet of contact surface on the rail for each truck, and an adhesion factor that is just a whole lot better than the 30% or so of weight you get with friction alone.

Pop the clutch (as it were) on an engine like that and you ought to be able to pick up rails and spit them half a mile out the back.