Nostalgia & History > UP's SD45 Deadline

On December 27, 1984 UP's SD45s were caught on film on their deadline at Yermo CA. A couple of No. 25 flashbulbs at dusk almost makes one believe these units were still on the active roster. Even in the deadl;ine, they looked sharp!

---

They look pretty good there - not sure why UP dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.

Cheers, Jim Fitch

Because UP was smart since they were 20 cylinder abortions.

SPDRGWfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They look pretty good there - not sure why UP
> dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.
>
> Cheers, Jim Fitch

Posted from Android

Nice photo, even shows the detail under the antenna ground plane.

Rumor has it that UP gave up in the odd-ball power and settled on the 16 cylinder block for the SD40. The SD45's were close but had trouble with the longer crankshaft of the 20 cylinders. ATSF and SP figured out how to deal with it but UP had already committed with lower hp but more reliable units of power. That decisions also killed off all the oddball U50B/C/D whatevers, Turbines, double diesels etc. It's been explained that the UPRR SD45's were set up for a specific commodity in the PNW where the RCL equipment and support was focused.

The 20 cylinder vs 16 cylinder story is pretty well documented in the ATSF and SP Hobby books. Rob_L has supplied a great deal of info on the SD45 re-assignments. Maybe they can explain better or provide links to some interesting reading.

cdub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because UP was smart since they were 20 cylinder
> abortions.
>
> SPDRGWfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They look pretty good there - not sure why UP
> > dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.

LOL! Smart, or just bruised and beaten by all of their custom-made mega-power?

-E.O.

As stated, UP was trying to standardize their locomotive fleet, buying SD 40-2s like nobody's business. Look at all the other power to go around the same time, the DDs, GP30s, SD24s etc. Really make your parts supply chain more manageable when everything on your roster is an EMD Dash 2.

SPDRGWfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They look pretty good there - not sure why UP
> dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.
>
> Cheers, Jim Fitch



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/14 19:51 by CCT41.

I would have thought the UP SD45's would have been a hot product on the used market as the UP had a reputation for keeping good care of their fleet and they clearly wanted to get them off their roster so they should have been available at a decent price. I believe most of them went to scrap instead. Were they sold just a little to early for the rush of regionals that came in the 80's using spun off routes from the Class 1's?


CCT41 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As stated, UP was trying to standardize their
> locomotive fleet, buying SD 40-2s like nobody's
> business. Look at all the other power to go around
> the same time, the DDs, GP30s, SD24s etc. Really
> make your parts supply change more manageable when
> everything on your roster is an EMD Dash 2.
>
> SPDRGWfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They look pretty good there - not sure why UP
> > dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.
> >
> > Cheers, Jim Fitch

SPDRGWfan Wrote:

> They look pretty good there - not sure why UP
> dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.

Were UP's SD45's owned or leased? They lasted from 1968 until the early 80s, and 15 years was a fairly standard lease term. BN and Conrail gave their 45's the boot around the same time, while Santa Fe and SP decided to rebuild theirs. Seven ex-UP SD45's, mostly units that had been rebuilt with unsuccessful Sulzer prime movers, lingered in back lots long enough to be rebuilt once more with 16-cylinder 645's and returned to the fold as UP "SD40-2's." Their return was brief, but reportedly they are still around as CITX leasers:

CITX 2790 = UP 41
CITX 2792 = UP 37
CITX 2799 = UP 8
CITX 2803 = UP 14
CITX 2806 = UP 15
CITX 2808 = UP 13
CITX 2811 = UP 34

As I understand it, the problem with the 20-645 wasn't the length of the crank, it was the way the crankcase was fabricated with insufficient crank journal support. Once the bearing area in the case was redesigned, the cranks stopped breaking.

Mark

Forgot to mention that the trucks for the SD45's had some development going on as well. Note the UP SD45's had 'iron' brake shoes (not real sure what that term means) with cylinders on all three axles of each truck, SP had a different shoe but two cylinders per truck. This may have made the UP's version less marketable, although Leasers, re-sellers and such had not really been invented yet.

Most of these details are in Strapacs SP SD45 book. Another interesting history is how BN dealt with all the heritage SD45 and F45's that they brought in. Eventually they were also retired in favor of the 16 cylinder SD40-2 as well.

'Iron' brake shoes means they were made of Cast Iron. Composition brake shoes used to be made of an asbestos (!) compound, but they evolved into what is a very hard rubber-like substance like the clutch facing in an automobile.

mwbridgwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand it, the problem with the 20-645
> wasn't the length of the crank, it was the way the
> crankcase was fabricated with insufficient crank
> journal support. Once the bearing area in the
> case was redesigned, the cranks stopped breaking.
>
> Mark


You are correct. The V20 went on to be just as reliable at the V16. Obviously, having 10% more power packs meant 10% more in maintenance. even if the reliability was equal.

CCT41 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As stated, UP was trying to standardize their
> locomotive fleet, buying SD 40-2s like nobody's
> business. Look at all the other power to go around
> the same time, the DDs, GP30s, SD24s etc. Really
> make your parts supply chain more manageable when
> everything on your roster is an EMD Dash 2.
>
> SPDRGWfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They look pretty good there - not sure why UP
> > dumped them so much sooner than D&RGW and SP.
> >
> > Cheers, Jim Fitch


The UP published a Locomotive Master Plan around 1980 that stated their intention to focus on just 8 locomotive types. Obviously SD40-2's and U30C/C30-&'s were a large part of this plan.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mwbridgwater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I understand it, the problem with the 20-645
> > wasn't the length of the crank, it was the way
> the
> > crankcase was fabricated with insufficient
> crank
> > journal support. Once the bearing area in the
> > case was redesigned, the cranks stopped
> breaking.
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> You are correct. The V20 went on to be just as
> reliable at the V16. Obviously, having 10% more
> power packs meant 10% more in maintenance. even if
> the reliability was equal.

And ten per cent more fuel because of the four more
cylinders. That was the real killer.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

ntharalson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mwbridgwater Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > As I understand it, the problem with the
> 20-645
> > > wasn't the length of the crank, it was the
> way
> > the
> > > crankcase was fabricated with insufficient
> > crank
> > > journal support. Once the bearing area in
> the
> > > case was redesigned, the cranks stopped
> > breaking.
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> >
> > You are correct. The V20 went on to be just as
> > reliable at the V16. Obviously, having 10%
> more
> > power packs meant 10% more in maintenance. even
> if
> > the reliability was equal.
>
> And ten per cent more fuel because of the four
> more
> cylinders. That was the real killer.
>
> Nick Tharalson,
> Marion, IA


Not always that simple. Yes in drag service. If you need the speed, adding one more locomotive burned more fuel and SD45's could be the better option.

As an example, Five SD40-2's would burn more fuel that Four SD45-2's on the Super C. Of course not all trains are the Super C. As speed became less of an issue, the need for the HP waned. It became a factor again when adhesion started to increase as one locomotive could handle more train, but at a slower speed. This is why GE and EMD kept pushing for more HP in the late 80's and early 90's.

The SD45 had no similar adhesion advantage over the SD40.

Also, it is a myth that modern locomotives burn less fuel. They are more efficient as they do more work. However, an SD70Ace, burns more fuel in run 8 vs. an SD40-2, a ES44AC vs. a C30-7 etc. But they will pull far more, offsetting the fuel consumption.

Also the even bigger factor (killer) was the huge glut of locomotives that the carriers faced in the early 1980's which killed many locomotives off. The sever recession that first hit Conrail spread to the west and killed off the remaining Alco's, many GE U-Boats most SD35's and many SD45's. Railroads could pick from the cream of the crop. It killed new orders for locomotives for years as well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/14 10:29 by NYSWSD70M.

Good looking locomotive. No flag, no slogan, just a road name and a number.