Nostalgia & History > When was the last Amtrak run of a SDP40F?

When was the last run of a SDP40F in Amtrak service? They were stored in LA when the ATSF bought (traded for) the last 18. Does anyone know what was the last train to be pulled by these locomotives?

NYSWSD70M Wrote:

> When was the last run of a SDP40F in Amtrak
> service? They were stored in LA when the ATSF
> bought (traded for) the last 18.

The SDP40F's were gradually traded in on F40PH's, and following last big order in 1981 (F40's 361-390), there were just 37 SDP40F's left on Amtrak's roster. Santa Fe swapped SSB1200 switchers and CF7's for 18 SDP40F's in 1984, leaving 19.

Amtrak ordered 10 F40PH's in 1985 (391-400), and a final batch of 9 in 1987 (401-409), trading in the remaining SDP's in the process. According to the table at the back of Sean Graham-White's Electro-Motive Division's Classic Cowl Units, the 1985 order broke down like this:

F40 <=SDP40F
------------
391 <=500
392 <=523
393 <=537
394 <=611
395 <=617
396 <=621
397 <=623
398 <=624
399 <=626
400 <=642

The last nine SDP40F's were traded in for the 1987 order of F40PH's, but Graham-White doesn't indicate which SDP's were associated with which F40's. The nine SDP40F's were 618, 625, 627, 631, 636, 637, 641, 646, and 648.

Ed K. photographed a deadline of seven of the nine awaiting their fate at Hialeah in 1986:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,2242609

> Does anyone know what was the last train to be pulled by these
> locomotives?

An old post by EagleChampion1 in this thread provides a summation of their final service - a real case of "not with a bang, but a whimper." The last four to see service were 611, 631, 639, and 649, active until the fall of 1983 doing menial labor. No indication of which unit was the last to run and exactly when, though:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,1594321

One of the last steam-heated trains was the Silver Star. Here's 649/639 on the Silver Star on New Year's Day, 1982:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=313439

and by October 1982 they were in work train service in Maryland:

http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtSDPe/amt649a.jpg

Also, 611 and 631 in work train service based out of Chicago in June 1983:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=803171
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=803187

Finally, here's 611 out of service and in storage at New Orleans in June 1984:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1958032

Thank you for the very detailed reply! This was always my favorite Amtrak era.

the last time I worked 3 & 4 between Emporia & Newton, KS. with one of those was on 7-28-81. We had #4 with 292 & 622. I worked it ocassionally after that but only with the 200's. I only caught those trains when I was jumped up from my pool job or extra, so they probably lasted a little longer on 3 & 4, but I didn't work them very often. The next time was a week or so in Oct of '81 but we were using the just 200's by then. Sometime in the later 80's, Amtrak started using their own crews, instead of the Santa Fe guys. I had two of them in freight service from Emporia- Arkansas City on 10-20-84. They were the 3rd & 4th units on a grain train, the 644 & 645. Both had Amtrak markings, but might have been owned by AT&SF by then.

This excellent firsthand account (from one of the cited threads above) is something I've never read, precisely, when the story of the SDP40Fs is told.

Some reports said that some passenger train derailments at speed were caused by a harmonic couple between the bouncing SDP and certain Heritage baggage cars trailing. Other reports said the SDPs laid the rail over on certain curves at certain speeds:

Anyrailstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was an instability in the center axle of
> some of the SDP40Fs. At certain speeds over 50
> MPH the center axle would hop up and down
> violently, you could feel it from the cab and hear
> it. Bad enough on tangents but on curves it could
> (and did - on the BN) hop off the rail. The shock
> absorber/damper on the center axle was supposed to
> control the motion (and probably did when new) but
> did not on at least two of them that I rode on
> (Sunset and Starlight) while working as Division
> Engineer for the SP.


Somehow I guess the whole combo just didn't work as a sum of its parts. They were impressively large, no doubt, and steam came out of them, which was insanely cool to see. I'd feel better about that whole Amtrak era if the trains hadn't been so grossly grubby on the outside and impossible to see out of from the inside because of the scratched Lexan windows.

It all adds up to an interesting era, one of brief transition and increasingly fascinating to fans, but one that might be hard to long for if you were passenger or crew from back in the-- oh-oh, I almost used one of my least favorite phrases!

~ BZ

The first post said it. The big cowls made their last revenue runs about 1982.

In 1981-82, the presence of a strong-pulling SDP in the consist of trains 3&4 was always welcome. Two F40s weren't enough for this train's 90+ mph running, 3% mountain grades and heavy HEP load. I brought this to the attention of the Amtrak-assigned RFE in LA (Ace Henderson) and he strongly agreed but Amtrak never did and never will listen to Santa Fe passenger men.

Bob

Notch16 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This excellent firsthand account (from one of the
> cited threads above) is something I've never read,
> precisely, when the story of the SDP40Fs is told.
>
> Some reports said that some passenger train
> derailments at speed were caused by a harmonic
> couple between the bouncing SDP and certain
> Heritage baggage cars trailing. Other reports said
> the SDPs laid the rail over on certain curves at
> certain speeds:
>
> Anyrailstiesballast Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There was an instability in the center axle of
> > some of the SDP40Fs. At certain speeds over 50
> > MPH the center axle would hop up and down
> > violently, you could feel it from the cab and
> hear
> > it. Bad enough on tangents but on curves it
> could
> > (and did - on the BN) hop off the rail. The
> shock
> > absorber/damper on the center axle was supposed
> to
> > control the motion (and probably did when new)
> but
> > did not on at least two of them that I rode on
> > (Sunset and Starlight) while working as
> Division
> > Engineer for the SP.
>
>
> Somehow I guess the whole combo just didn't work
> as a sum of its parts. They were impressively
> large, no doubt, and steam came out of them, which
> was insanely cool to see. I'd feel better about
> that whole Amtrak era if the trains hadn't been so
> grossly grubby on the outside and impossible to
> see out of from the inside because of the
> scratched Lexan windows.
>
> It all adds up to an interesting era, one of brief
> transition and increasingly fascinating to fans,
> but one that might be hard to long for if you were
> passenger or crew from back in the-- oh-oh, I
> almost used one of my least favorite phrases!
>
> ~ BZ


I like the era for a few reasons. It was the time frame when I first started to ride passenger trains and as such, have fond personal memories. Yes the equipment had issues but Amtrak was making a serious attempt at improvement. It was a time when it looked like passenger service at least might have a future.

I talked to Paul Reistrup about these units at great length. He said the studies gave them some ideas but some railroads had no problems at all. The UP felt that they were fine and the ATSF not only felt that they were fine but refused to apply the speed restriction. John Reed told Reistrup to tell the other railroads to fix their track! At one point, the SP offered to buy the entire fleet.

Still, I have always felt a number of factors added up in this case. The units were based on the successful FP45 which itself was based on the successful SDP35/40/45 line of locomotives. All of the operators of these locomotives SAL,ACL,UP,GN,SP and ATSF (yes the L&N had some SDP35's but did not run them in passenger service) either had very good/excellent track or at least kept them off of their questionable track. MILW was the one with the worst track but they did not operate them in passenger service for long. Many carriers of the 70's had track that was not nearly as good as what the railroads have in place today. FRA standards did not demand the level of consistency from railroad to railroad that we see today. As big, heavy six axle unit was heading for problems.

When Amtrak ordered these units, they didn't help matters. They dropped the V20 in favor of the V16 to save weight but then added two Vapor steam generators and an odd in-carbody water tank that had an effect on the units center of gravity. Add this all up and it would seem to make sense that they were not always the right locomotive for the job. It didn't help that they were owned by Amtrak rather than the owner of the track. It was easy to just blame the locomotive.

Still, one wonders what it would have been like if they had rebuilt some of these units with HEP and kept them on the long distance trains out west.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:

> MILW was the one with the worst track but they did not
> operate them in passenger service for long.

It's worth noting, though, that MILW did have 5 FP45's, and I've never heard that they had trouble with them. The specs of Santa Fe's FP45's show them to be the same length and weight as an SDP40F, with an internal water tank only slightly smaller than that in the SDP40F. I know Milwaukee's units didn't have dynamic brakes, and I'd be curious to know if they opted not to get the internal water tank or otherwise took steps to diminish their units' weight.

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
>
> > MILW was the one with the worst track but they
> did not
> > operate them in passenger service for long.
>
> It's worth noting, though, that MILW did have 5
> FP45's, and I've never heard that they had trouble
> with them. The specs of Santa Fe's FP45's show
> them to be the same length and weight as an
> SDP40F, with an internal water tank only slightly
> smaller than that in the SDP40F. I know
> Milwaukee's units didn't have dynamic brakes, and
> I'd be curious to know if they opted not to get
> the internal water tank or otherwise took steps to
> diminish their units' weight.


I thought I noted that the MILW had FP45's but maybe I was not clear. Still, they were only in passenger service for about 18 months as they were pulled when it was thought that the railroads would need to supply Amtrak with any unit that was in passenger service at the start up date. By late summer of 1970, MILW's FP45's were pulling freights.

My overall point was to say that in the 60's and early 70's, nearly all new passenger units were 6 axle and the track record was very good. Only the U28CG's and U30CG's were discredited. Still the EL/NJDOT went on to build a fleet of 34 U34CH's.

Yes, the ATSF FP45's did have water tanks. However, I will note the following

1. The ATSF did not have issues with the SDP40F's.
2. The FP45's had one steam generator.
3. The FP45's had flexicoil trucks vs HT-C's
4. The FP45's had a heavier engine which helped slightly with the center of gravity.
5. The ATSF FP45's had consistent maintenance vs multiple shops with the Amtrak SDP40F's

I am sure there are other factors. Still the SDP40F's operated on the ATSF at higher speeds than on any other carrier and did so without issue.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:

> I thought I noted that the MILW had FP45's but
> maybe I was not clear.

Sorry about that. For some reason, my poor fevered brain interpreted the "them" that didn't run long on Milwaukee to be Amtrak's SDP40F's.

Might also note that the lighter, shorter, HEP-equipped F40C's operated on Milwaukee lines out of Chicago without apparent issue.

> My overall point was to say that in the 60's and
> early 70's, nearly all new passenger units were 6
> axle and the track record was very good. Only the
> U28CG's and U30CG's were discredited.

The E60 electrics also fell under a cloud of suspicion and were limited to 90mph.

> Yes, the ATSF FP45's did have water tanks.
> However, I will note the following
>
> 1. The ATSF did not have issues with the SDP40F's.

Right, my point was Milwaukee's bad track and their FP45's - did Milwaukee do anything to limit the weight of their units, or did they weigh the same as an SDP40F as the Santa Fe FP45's did?

> 2. The FP45's had one steam generator.
> 4. The FP45's had a heavier engine which helped
> slightly with the center of gravity.

I can see how these differences might affect weight distribution from front to back, but the top to bottom distribution should be about the same.

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
>
> > Yes, the ATSF FP45's did have water tanks.
> > However, I will note the following
> >
> > 1. The ATSF did not have issues with the
> SDP40F's.
>
> Right, my point was Milwaukee's bad track and
> their FP45's - did Milwaukee do anything to limit
> the weight of their units, or did they weigh the
> same as an SDP40F as the Santa Fe FP45's did?
>

I am not sure what the weight was on the MILW FP45's. I know that the MILW GP40's and SD40-2 that I did have personal dealings with were lighter than some other carriers units. They used smaller fuel tanks and lighter pilots/end sheets to lighten them up. Obviously, the lack of dynamic brakes saved weight. Other factors to consider was the age of the units and the fact that they did not always run in pairs. Sometimes they were mated with FP7's and E8/9's. I agree that they seemed to do fine.


> > 2. The FP45's had one steam generator.
> > 4. The FP45's had a heavier engine which
> helped
> > slightly with the center of gravity.
>
> I can see how these differences might affect
> weight distribution from front to back, but the
> top to bottom distribution should be about the
> same.


Well this gets at why this was a difficult problem to solve. Again, my opinion is that the SDP40F was fine if it was on good track. When they were on less than ideal track, all the factors added up to the problems that were encountered. When you had two units running back to back that have their heavy ends mated up, less than perfect track, a slight higher center of gravity (vs a FP45, or SDP35/40/45) and a light baggage car, problems seem to occur.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/11 10:51 by NYSWSD70M.

It appears that you never got an answer to your question.  The answer for the last "Passenger Service" revenue run of SDP40F's were on Amtrak Trains 82/92 orginiating 03-08-1982 and arriving in the NEC on 03-09-1982.  That was the last steam heated train operated by Amtrak.  The units involved were 634 STP-JAX and 631 & 639 MIA-WAS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/17 11:38 by amtk908.