Western Railroad Discussion > A future for EMD's SD90 series?

Is EMD's SD90 series still in production? How many units were built? Were the Union Pacific and the Canadian Pacific the only buyers?

What about the future of the 6000 horsepower SD90AC?

James

---

UP and CP were the only buyers of the 6000 hp. SD90MAC-H, but EMD still owns 2 Demos that could go to someone else. UP, CP and CIT Leasing (CEFX) were the only buyers for the "convertable" 4300 hp. variant sometimes called the SD9043MAC. CEFX's SD9043MACs are on long term leases to UP and CP, but do wear a CEFX paint scheme.

The 6000 HP SD90s used a newly-developed four-stroke cycle engine that never worked right from the start. In fact GM, which bought the rights to a prototype from a German firm, sued and recovered money over apparent misrepresentations by the seller.

The H engine does not meet Tier II emission requirements and there appears to be no indication that EMD is working on modifying it to do so. So I would assume there will be no more SD90s and no "convertibles" will be converted.

A 6000 HP unit has limited usefulness. The railroads have found that out.

Seems like in the end, the railroads decided that having too much power wrapped up in one unit offered less options then they needed. If you have three units and one goes out, you're not as dead as two units with one out, and half of your train's power gone.

Dave

-DPD Productions - Home of the TrainTenna RR Monitoring Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

DaveD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like in the end, the railroads decided that
> having too much power wrapped up in one unit
> offered less options then they needed. If you have
> three units and one goes out, you're not as dead
> as two units with one out, and half of your
> train's power gone.
>
> Dave
>
> -DPD Productions - Home of the TrainTenna RR
> Monitoring Antenna-
> http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/


Hmm.. well, we could go back to 1,500 hp F-units.. if one goes out, the other five in the lashup might still be up!

Cheers,
Harry

Wasn't it GE that sued a German firm over the HDL, not EMD over the H? I thought the H was a totally in house product. I have never seen a really comprehensive story about exactly what the problems were with the H, or how the units in service are actually doing now. Also, did the problem affect ALL H engines, or just those in railroad service? Like a race car, a locomotive will expose any weakness in a design.

Juctiontower is right, it was GE that not EMD, EMD's H engine was a totally in house design. The problems involed with the H engine was the EMD relied on outside contractors to the build the parts for the prime mover. these outside contractors quality control was somewhat suspect. It is said that the problems with H engine have been solved but most roads have found that 4000 to 4400 HP per unit is just right for their needs.

When these came out & UP got the first few 6000hp converted units, I predicted that most of the fleet would wind up as unconverted, overbuilt 4300hp units. With all of the extra cost for a few more horsepower, the ability to use it 24 hrs per day just aren't there. I don't have an exact figure, but the benefit comes only when the locomotive is putting out full power; not coasting, waiting in a siding, being serviced, waiting for a train, waiting for a crew, etc. The CEFX units seem to be the only ones that consistently run together, and presumably with the fewest units needed for a train.

The UP was proud enough when they first got them to have one head up a Directors Special. The train is crossing the Sacramento River just were it meets the waters of Shasta Lake near Delta.

---

Actually, the 265H engine was built and designed with Tier II in mind. Had EMD not been able to design a Tier II compliant 710G. You would have seen SD89 units with a 12 cylinder 265H.

The H engine is not dead yet. It is still listed on thier webpage. But it apears not to be offered in a locomotive.

http://www.gmemd.com/en/pmi/diesel_engines/series/

hmmm. Indyspy, EMD hasn't been able to develop a tier II version of the 710G. well, what they putting into the SD70ACE and SD70m-2. They have modified the 710G to be tier II compliant. I think someone needs to check out the EMD website.

indyspy, nevermind the previous post, I misread your conments.

I think the SD90s will be retired in 5-10 years. 9043s will live forever.

1000 hp/axle will be back in a couple years. B40s had 1000 hp/axle, if it wasn't for the low quality of both the AC60 and the SD90, we'd see half of the new power being 6000 hp.

Ted in Davis

Hmm.. well, we could go back to 1,500 hp F-units.. if one goes out, the other five in the lashup might still be up!


as long as there not ex rock island f-units..... :+)

Way back in the 1940's, Baldwin tried to cram 6,000 hp. into a single unit, but settled instead for two 3,000 hp. units, the famous Centipedes. The original idea was to put six 1,000 hp. engines in a single 4-8-8-4 locomotive. 6,000 horsepower was a "magic" number, much like the 4-minute mile or a .300 batting average or a 20-victory season. EMD's "Building Block" principle proved much more practical, if less spectacular, of course.

indyspy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, the 265H engine was built and designed
> with Tier II in mind.


Yea, I thought that was the whole purpose behind going 4-cycle in the H development.... to BE tier II compliant.


> The H engine is not dead yet. It is still listed
> on thier webpage. But it apears not to be offered
> in a locomotive.
>


Its almost like some customers prefer EMD's 2-cycle product line (for whatever reasons) and are still willing to buy that spec in a Tier II compliant package. If EMD offers both a 2 and 4 cycle option that are Tier II, let the customers decide for themselves. If the customers still prefer 2 cycle, then why should EMD steer them in any other particular direction?

The future of these engines??? Toasters!!! The sooner the better. No traction, worthless piles of rolling scrap metal.. EMD should have paid UP to take the darn things...

photobob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The UP was proud enough when they first got them
> to have one head up a Directors Special. The train
> is crossing the Sacramento River just were it
> meets the waters of Shasta Lake near Delta.

This is a SD9043 and not a 6000 HP SD90. The SD90s have a beveled hood section over the engine and on the UP the numbers are in the 8500 series.

On the original question posed by James Belmont, I would suspect that in a few years, the 6000 HP locomotives will be back. If you look at history, the power has been on a steady climb with some over reaching such as the 2400 hp FM Trainmasters, the 3600 hp SD-45s, the 5000 hp SD50s and the 6000 hp SD90s and the AC60s (or whatever GE called them). Will the H engine make a return or will EMD crank out a larger 2-stroke? There are advantages to both. Apparently the H engine is still in production for applications other than locomotives. Locomotive use is really tough on engines. Just ask Caterpillar whose engines seem to be quite successful everywhere else.

GO FIGURE , A Bad or stUPid idea and UP is all over it. Big pieces of overpriced junk .....

The 265H is hot dead, and is being further developed for rail, marine and stationary power use. We are designing tugs using pairs of the 265H presently. EMD did not sue anyone over the engine in Europe. It was GE that had issues with the Deutz design they adapted.

No 4-cycle engine out there at 6000 HP is presently Tier II compliant, including European designs. EMD has made the 710 series compliant, will soon have a refit kit for the 645F block engines to make them compliant, and is working on a kit to make even the roots-blown 645 compliant. We will be using 265H, 710G and 645E6 engines in our designs for quite a while.

Bob