Western Railroad Discussion >

A lot of talk about C4's lately. Thought I would share my two cents.

Right now, I cringe every time I have a C4 or two in my engine consist. They have the potential to be great locomotives, but currently have some software issues that need to be worked out. Once the two major issues are corrected, I will have no problem with them at all.

I first heard about these locomotives right before the first batch was delivered. My initial reaction was disbelief to the rumor of a modern 6 axle locomotive having two unpowered axles. We’ve already tried pumping 1,000 hp through a single traction motor with the GE B40’s and GP60’s. These B40’s and GP60’s were great (only talking about pulling power here) on any train-tonnage/grade combination that would not have the locomotives operating in full power below their adhesion/tractive effort ratings, which was somewhere around 20 mph. Drag a train from the flats onto any grade that would reduce the speed of the train into the teens, the locomotive’s computers would prevent wheel slip and overloaded traction motors by cutting horsepower. Usually the train would end up stalling. I was interested in seeing how these new C4’s would perform in a world where the modern Class 1’s seemed to have found the sweet spot with 6 axle, 4400 hp locos. Why change?

After operating C4’s on a variety of different trains and territories over the past couple of years, I have a pretty good idea of how they compare to the locomotives they were designed to replace or work alongside with, the ES44DC.

Pros:

-They are Evolution Series locomotives, which can go from idle to full horsepower much faster than a Dash-8 or Dash-9. They are fast loading and very responsive. I would not even hesitate to use any ES series locomotive on a yard job if it was the only power available. Dash-9’s take 60 seconds to go from 0 to 4500 HP when slapping the throttle back (I have timed them many many times while observing the Loco Monitor screen), where the ES locos load much faster, taking about 30-40 seconds from 0 to 4500 HP.

-The same comfy cab as the rest of the ES locos.

-They have very responsive dynamic brakes (characteristic of AC traction motors).

Cons:

-Trucks ride better than 4 axle locos, but still not as good as normal 6 axle locos. One would think they would ride the same as the rest of the GE HiAd trucks, but they don’t. In my opinion, they don’t ride quite as well as the regular roller blade truck. They have a very loud rattle/slamming sound and have a very unstable feeling on jointed rail in yards. This must be the Weight Management System linkages slapping around while at rest.

-Will never have the same starting or continuous tractive effort as an ES44DC. I have been on these units under extreme conditions and they can’t even dish out a continuous 90 kips (Kilopounds of tractive effort) to start a train. An ES44DC can dish out a good steady 110-120 kips on dry rail. These C4’s can not deliver the full HP to the rail at speeds below 20mph. They start derating and never regain their footing. They don't seem to be any better than GP60's or B40's. In “hard-pull” conditions around 12mph, they can only deliver a maximum of about 3,000hp to the rail, while the DC’s can still, for the most part, put down their 4,000-4,400 hp. Basically C4’s are more slippery in power and dynamic brake, even while running on optimum dry rail conditions.

Take a C4 and couple it to a tonnage/grade combo that will need Run4 or more to get the train started and graph out the tractive effort on paper and what do you think the graph would look like? It will look like a SEISMOGRAPH during a MAGNITUDE 10.0 earthquake! NO JOKE! In the same situation, the ES44DC and Dash 9 will look half as bad and the ES44AC and SD70MAC will graph out almost straight lines.

-Weight management system never activates when it is needed. This system only needs to activate when speeds are low and the throttle is in high power settings (like Run8 and under 15mph, or about 100Klbs of TE). Some foamers and railroaders alike think this weight management systems is switching on and off all the time. It is not needed often, but when it actually IS NEEDED, it NEVER activates. Recently, I operated the same set of C4’s on the Lee Ranch Sub on 3 consecutive trips on a 128 car 3x3 coal load. Leaving the El Segundo Mine (and other places on the sub) there is a continuous 1.5% climb. All three trips I had my head out the window on the “hard-pull” locations to see if the weight management system was activated. We made the same speed on all the trips up each grade, but the weight management system only activated for about a half mile on one of the trips when we were in Run8 and making 11-12 mph. The two other trips, we were making the same 11-12mph, but the system did not activate. One would think that the computer(s) onboard the locomotive would know that the locomotive is supposed to be giving it everything it's got in this situation, but since it can't hold the rail worth a damn, it is cutting HP down to 2500-3000hp to try to gain some footing. One would think that as soon as the HP needs to be cut back in any situation for the wheels to regain traction, that the weight management system would also kick on at the same time. From my experiences, the system does not do what it is supposed to do since it never activates when needed. Hello, we are in Run8 at 12mph for minutes on end and our C4 is only putting out half the HP and TE as it's DC brothers and the system is still not activating? Something is not right here.

-In the cab, there is no indication of whether the weight management system is activated unless you stick your head out the window and look down at the truck, or if you get into Level 2 access on the computer and set up the Custom Locomotive Monitor and find the command to display it.

-Too much dynamic braking effort in the lowest handle position of DB1 (characteristic of AC traction motors, but I believe can be fixed with computer updates). This is annoying when I can not gently bunch the slack in my train. Way too abrupt in DB1.



I can deal with the above listed cons, but the next two issues are a deal breaker for me. However, I would think that these two things can be corrected with a software update. C4'sy will never be as good as a regular ES44DC, but we can try to get them close.

Issue #1 -Tapered Dynamic Brakes. Yes, these locomotives have tapered dynamic brakes. I’ve heard many complaints that C4’s have horrible dynamic brakes. Yes they are slippery, but they are actually decent and actually do put out the same braking effort as their DC brothers. Many engineers think they are horrible because when they get to handle position DB5 at speeds above 25mph, they are getting 100% dynamic braking effort. The uninformed engineer, thinking he has three more notches of braking effort and reaches for more, gets no additional braking, making him think the DB is worthless. They are listed as “Flat” on our train profile sheet, but they are not. At speeds above 25 MPH, less and less of the dynamic brake handle position is needed to achieve full dynamic braking. At speeds above 30 MPH, only DB5 handle position is needed for full braking effort. At the slow speed end of the spectrum, besides the “boogie shake” at slow speeds below 10mph or so, they are even better than ES44DC’s because of the AC traction. On a side note, I believe the ES44AC locomotive also has tapered DB, but not to the same degree as C4’s. We don’t get many ES44AC’s on my turf.

When operating an engine lashup consisting entirely of C4’s, the tapered DB is not an issue at all. But when mixing these units in with the rest of the ES44DC and C44-9W fleet, they make for some sloppy train handling. Imagine operating a train with Distributive Power. Let’s say, for example, a 2x2 double stack train. The two locos on the head end of the train are ES44DC’s and the two locomotives on the rear are ES44C4’s. Let’s say we are transitioning from power over to dynamic braking for whatever reason (to maintain speed or slow down…etc.) To gather the slack gently at the head end of the train (and stretch it out gently from the rear DP), the engineer gently moves the DB handle from DB Setup and into the braking zone and feels for the slack bunching up at the head end. In the lower handle positions (DB1-4), the C4’s produce 2-3x the braking effort that the ES44DC’s are producing. In other words, there are many instances where a train built like this where the C4’s on the rear suck the carpet out from under the DC units they were built to work alongside with. The C4’s will have the whole train stretched out from the rear before the DC units barely even hold their own weight back from the head end of the train. When operating a DP train with C4’s, the Node (the point in the train where the slack condition changes) is sloshing back and forth a lot more than it should be. Smooth as glass with full DC consists, and a throbbing mess when C4’s are thrown in the mix. Tapered and Flat Dynamic Brakes don’t mix when operating DP trains when the engineer is trying for a smooth ride.

Issue #2 -Loading Glitch. About 25-50% of the ES44C4’s have a loading glitch that prevents them from loading above Run4 horsepower level for 2-6 minutes. I’m the type of nerd-ball engineer that often has my Level 2 locomotive Monitor up and running, and most of the time I have a Custom monitor set up (unless I am just too damn tired to set it up), and I am a freak when it comes to observing HP levels to monitor my locomotives loading rather than observing AMPS or TE (except when starting a train, I look at the TE/AMPS as my main concern).

For better understanding of what I’m talking about in the following, here are the HP Settings for modern GE locomotives:

Run1 = 200 HP
Run2 = 500
Run3 = 1000
Run4 = 1500
Run5 = 2200
Run6 = 3000
Run7 = 3600
Run8 = 4500

Of course these numbers vary with elevation and auxiliary systems being used (air compressors…etc.). Also, these HP settings don’t apply at slow speeds. At slow speeds, the throttle notch and actual speed equate to a specific TE setting until the speed is high enough where the HP constant takes over.

I recently had a train with two C4’s as the sole power. Using the Consist Monitor screen, we can now view what our trailing units are doing if they are also equipped with the Consist Monitor. The glitch works like this. Notching up to get the train moving and up to speed, when the throttle is in Run4, both units were putting out identical TE and 1500 HP. As soon as the throttle is advanced to Run5, the locos with the loading glitch immediately drop to 900-1000HP and stays there for 2-6 minutes (sometimes multiple train lengths) before very slowly climbing. Drop the throttle back to Run4, and they increase load and HP back to 1500HP. Even in Run8, they will only put out about 900-1500hp for the whole 2-6 minutes. Eventually, the HP does increase to maximum while in Run8, but in Run5 through Run7, the HP settings listed above are never actually achieved. You only get about 50-75% for those notches. This glitch happens at all speeds all the way up to 70mph. It has nothing to do with the weight management system or limiting HP due to poor adhesion as it happens even while running light engines.

In a nutshell, Run1 through Run4 work like normal. Run5 to Run7 are glitched where HP first reduces to 1000hp and slowly slowly climbs to about 50-75% of normal HP settings for each specified notch. Run8 is glitched by reducing to 1000hp and then very very slowly climbing to full HP.

For all those Fuel Card whores like myself (just trying to do what is right), it is incredibly frustrating to know that I am being charged with Run8 fuel consumption while only getting Run3 for many many minutes per trip. But the fuel card BS is not what bothers me, it is the fact that we have some screwed up locomotives, and nobody seems to notice. I have just started the process of reporting every C4 that I see with these problems. As I said before, it is not all C4’s that have this loading glitch. I would venture to say that 1/3 of the C4 fleet suffer from it, but it could be higher. When I have C4’s that are working correctly, they are a fine locomotive. Are they as good as the ES44DC? No!.... they are not and never will be. But if my employer is going to keep ordering them, I just wish the bugs could be worked out of them. Why not make the dynamic brake curve identical to the ES44DC and Dash-9? The computer should be able to be reprogrammed so the braking effort to handle positions are identical.


If anybody has any contact info for somebody at GE that deals with these things, PM me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/13 09:34 by SoftSet.

Well said I am engineer and run the oil trains with 1% grades and 3 OLD dash9s its 14mph and get 1 C4 its 13 mph and wet rail its 11mph. They need to be on high speed trains. thanks Matt

The drop and gradual increase makes no sense, you've got enough engine rpm to handle
the alternator load, sounds like a screwed up algorithm.

Thanks for a great write-up, it's very informative to know how these units perform. That said, I'd still like to know the bigger picture as to why BNSF keeps buying these things. There's got to be some reason there, i.e., do they cost less? less maintenance with two fewer traction motors? I would think the axle lifting equipment maintenance might offset some of the other maintenance savings. Do they intend them to work in a certain type of service, such as high speed intermodal? Does anybody know what the rationale is behind these units?

AC loco at a DC price. Performance be damned!

Railroad management and design engineers are convinced computers can replace locomotive engineers and do a better job. Computers are completely reactive devices. By the time they recognize a changing condition they are already too late in response. As the RRs add more GPS input to the computers things could improve a bit. Until then, let the engineers on the ground do their jobs.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

I wonder if the sluggishness in higher throttle notches is a "Bug" (aka Feature) only on Tier 3 versions to meet the higher emissions standards? If so that might explain why some have it (Tier 3) and some don't (Tier 2).

I was not aware these units are basically a1a type trucks (like the old E-units had) as far as having one unpowered axle. I don't know much about the technology of this model so can anyone tell me what the proposed benefit was to this truck arrangement? Thanks.

They are crap! I run way too many of them!

PT Smith

SoftSet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if my employer is going to keep
> ordering them, I just wish the bugs could be
> worked out of them.

So who do you work for? LOL

Thanks for this, very concise post, I've never sat in the seat on one, so it's interesting to hear the goofy crap they do at certain speeds because I do know what, say a Dash-9 or a UP AC4400CW do at those speeds. I'm another one of those guys who almost always has the locomotive monitor up.

Pump

CrudPunko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was not aware these units are basically a1a type
> trucks (like the old E-units had) as far as having
> one unpowered axle. I don't know much about the
> technology of this model so can anyone tell me
> what the proposed benefit was to this truck
> arrangement? Thanks.

Fewer traction motors and AC inverters to buy and maintain.

Seems like to me if there ever was a case for running a locomotive model in matched sets, this is it.

Great report! I think BNSF would be wise to promote you to a management job and put you to work on getting the most out of the locomotives. But then again, I'm guessing you would not want to leave New Mexico (I presume that is where you live).

You mentioned the DB's. I caught a few of these C-4's before I retired in late '10, but mostly on intermodal stuff, KC-Wellington. A few hard pulls starting, just enough to get a feel on how they worked. I thought they had a good strong DB hough, no complaints. But, I noticed a funny thing about the 7500 class ES-44DC's when we first got them. AT 70 mph, I set up the DB, and worked it to DB-8. I noticed a real weak brake, and kept watching it. As the speed reduced, the DB effort went up accordingly, For every MPH the speed dropped, the DB got stronger, finally peaking out at about 33 mph or so, but after that it began to fade out again, pretty weak at walking speed when crossing over to independent. All the newer GE power before that would go to 100% at any speed in DB-8, and stay at 100% almost to a stop. Of course no explaination from anybody, but it didn't take long to realize at speed the DB on these was pretty weak. When the C-4's came around, nobody knew the difference, we were never told such a thing existed, only a few of us on TO's knew they were only four motor units. If you told the typical KC-West Hoghead they only had four motors, they just wouldn't believe it unless they bent over and looked. Still a few like that I'd imagine. Even our RFE didn't know anything about them. And until the day I quit, I never did find out for sure if the lift mechanism worked in DB, or just in power, and if it was computer "managed", or just "On or Off". (might have been 7600's, can't remember which came first now!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/13 12:57 by ddg.

ddg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... When the C-4's came around, nobody knew the
> difference, we were never told such a thing
> existed, only a few of us on TO's knew they were
> only four motor units. If you told the typical
> KC-West Hoghead they only had four motors, they
> just wouldn't believe it unless they bent over and
> looked. Still a few like that I'd imagine. Even
> our RFE didn't know anything about them. And until
> the day I quit, I never did find out for sure if
> the lift mechanism worked in DB, or just in power,
> and if it was computer "managed", or just "On or
> Off".

It's amazing that BNSF has such a disconnect there between those responsible for the purchase of such an innovative locomotive and those that manage or use them everyday.

the first time I got a c4 I was trying to cut the tractiomn moters IN LOL oops

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ddg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .... When the C-4's came around, nobody knew
> the
> > difference, we were never told such a thing
> > existed, only a few of us on TO's knew they
> were
> > only four motor units. If you told the typical
> > KC-West Hoghead they only had four motors, they
> > just wouldn't believe it unless they bent over
> and
> > looked. Still a few like that I'd imagine. Even
> > our RFE didn't know anything about them. And
> until
> > the day I quit, I never did find out for sure
> if
> > the lift mechanism worked in DB, or just in
> power,
> > and if it was computer "managed", or just "On
> or
> > Off".
>
> It's amazing that BNSF has such a disconnect there
> between those responsible for the purchase of such
> an innovative locomotive and those that manage or
> use them everyday.


"Amazing" is too kind of description of what has become the norm.

I have been saying the same thing since day one. The engines just don't cut it with me either.

Thanks for the awesome write up on the C4's. I always wondered how they were compared to Gevo's and Dash-9's. I used to run BNSF power at my previous job, but left before I ran any C4's. Going to have a little fun with you HP chart here;

Run1 = 200 HP = Trackmobile
Run2 = 500 = Early Boxcab
Run3 = 1000 = SW1000
Run4 = 1500 = GP7
Run5 = 2200 = GP30
Run6 = 3000 = SD40
Run7 = 3600 = SD45
Run8 = 4500 = ES44AC

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

One small suggestion regarding your comment on DB1 being too much to smoothly bunch slack. Try gently easing the handle from set-up toward DB1 but stop and hold the handle half way between set-up and DB1. On the ES44's I have run I can get about 5 klbs when I brace the handle with my fingers in this position instead of 10+ that db1 sometimes gives. Once the 5k eases in the slack go to DB1 to bunch further. Works for me;)

Posted from Android

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great report! I think BNSF would be wise to
> promote you to a management job and put you to
> work on getting the most out of the locomotives.

I agree BNSF needs someone like you in the Motive Power Department. Your report was unbiased. You have observations and factual data. You have ideas to maximize performance. This is the type of stuff that you should forward to the right people and see if they will utilize the resources they have available (you) or if they will be stubborn and ignore you as "just another engineer" that doesn't know anything. That is how the brass at CSX always treated us. If we had (what we thought was) a good idea we were always told to stay out of it, we "don't know the big picture". Corporations that won't at least listen to the ideas of their motivated and optimistic employees (i.e. utilizing their available resources) will never be progressive or innovative.