Home Open Account Help 265 users online

Eastern Railroad Discussion > NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?


Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


Date: 09/10/08 16:32
NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: mc5725

Can anyone tell me the mechanical differences between NS SD40Es and CSX SD50-2s? I know they're both derated SD50s at 3000 horsepower, but are the derated versions basically the same locomotive in a mechanical sense? TIA...

>>MC



Date: 09/10/08 17:07
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: NSDash9

Yes, they are basically the same. The biggest difference is that CSX simply derated its existing SD50's without any rebuild, while NS is doing a complete capital rebuild program with its SD50's as it coverts them to SD40-E's.


Chris Toth
NSDash9.com



Date: 09/10/08 18:27
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: video7105

Well this is the different between a class railroad and one that keeps fixing things with glue and safety pins...... just to get by..... no more said Welcome to TCI



Date: 09/10/08 20:50
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: jdrtrainwatcher

The SD40E is a way better locomotive than the SD50-2 simply because the SD40E's belong to the Thoroughbred of Transportation. CSX sucks. NS actually took the time and money to completely rebuild these units, they will last a long time.



Date: 09/10/08 22:20
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: ESPEEFAN

The last two posts were very well put!



Date: 09/11/08 02:24
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: CSX_CO

video7105 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well this is the different between a class
> railroad and one that keeps fixing things with
> glue and safety pins...... just to get by..... no
> more said Welcome to TCI

My guess is that the SD50's being de-rated are 10 to 15 years younger than the SD40-2 counterparts. Derate them so they use less fuel and less stress on the prime mover and they will last longer, WITHOUT an expensive rebuild. When they do get worn out, you can then rebuild them if economically feasible.

The SD50-2's in question were renumbered into the 2400's correct? If so, the only ones I've had were in work train service. One of them died and wouldn't restart because of dead batteries, while the other handled 6000 tons of Ballast on the steepest pull on my territory single handed. It was at 'walking speed' because we started dumping ballast (good thing I didn't want to be going any faster), but it made it. I was impressed.

I have to agree with ESPEEFAN, these are two of the best posts I've EVER seen on trainorders. Insightful and fact based I'm sure.

Practice Safe CSX



Date: 09/11/08 03:16
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: csxt4617

I'm pretty sure I've seen some 8500 and 8600's (pre-CR CSX SD50's)
also labeled SD50-2.



Date: 09/11/08 06:34
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: ajy6b

NS predecessor N&W bought some SD50's. I believe they were the roads first full locomotive order that was all low-hood. Of course N&W designated them long hood forward. These units if still around would be pushing close to 30 years old and would warrant a full rebuild. N&W did not buy to many of them and these units were one of the main reasons NS started buying from GE. Chessie System bought some SD50s and they were in the Chessie Scheme. These units were also in the same time frame. Chessie and then CSX ran some of them into the ground but did not buy to many more. I believe CSX decided to go full GE after their dislike for the SD50's. Conrail was favoring some of the GE units, the C30-7 and C30-7a and the C-39. They also had a lot of SD40-2s. I believe, I could be wrong, but they were one of the last buyers of the SD50's and one of the first buyers of the SD60, SD60i and SD60m. I don't believe that Conrail liked them as much and they had a short lease on them. When the lease came up in the mid-late 90's Conrail would not renew the lease for a while. I have seen pictures of whole lines of Conrail SD50's sitting out of service. I would speculate that some of these units were the ones for rebuild by NS. Of course these units on CSX might be the ones being derated. We all know that the SD50 was the locomotive that pushed GE to the top and almost killed EMD and it was ironic it was built by EMD.

AJ



Date: 09/11/08 07:00
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: Larry576

CSX is derating ALL SD50's. The units in the 2400's are all former CR and were assigned that number block for use primarily in MofW service when the last C30-7's and C36-7's were retired and with the SD38/40's being used as MW power also being retired.
Larry



Date: 09/11/08 07:12
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: Larry576

ajy6b Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS predecessor N&W bought some SD50's. I believe
> they were the roads first full locomotive order
> that was all low-hood. Of course N&W designated
> them long hood forward. These units if still
> around would be pushing close to 30 years old and
> would warrant a full rebuild. N&W did not buy to
> many of them and these units were one of the main
> reasons NS started buying from GE.



Wrong. The N&W units were the first SD50's (built 1980) and were preproduction versions on SD40-2 frames. They became known as SD50S's as a result (tho NS simply classed them SD50). They were NOT LHF set up. They had the standard control stand arrangement - short hood forward. They were not the first low nose only order for N&W either - that status goes to the 3 unit U30C order in 1974. NS until the C40-9W's pretty much split ordering between EMD and GE. NS only bought 20 SD50's but went for the succeeding SD60 quite heavily (151 units) and has the largest fleet of them.



Chessie System
> bought some SD50s and they were in the Chessie
> Scheme. These units were also in the same time
> frame. Chessie and then CSX ran some of them into
> the ground but did not buy to many more. I
> believe CSX decided to go full GE after their
> dislike for the SD50's.

The SD50's had various ailments that CSX wanted EMD to address and fix. They also had issues with the token SD60's and weren't too pleased with EMD's attitude towards fixing their sizable investment (144 units total).



Conrail was favoring some
> of the GE units, the C30-7 and C30-7a and the
> C-39. They also had a lot of SD40-2s. I believe,
> I could be wrong, but they were one of the last
> buyers of the SD50's and one of the first buyers
> of the SD60, SD60i and SD60m. I don't believe
> that Conrail liked them as much and they had a
> short lease on them. When the lease came up in
> the mid-late 90's Conrail would not renew the
> lease for a while. I have seen pictures of whole
> lines of Conrail SD50's sitting out of service. I
> would speculate that some of these units were the
> ones for rebuild by NS. Of course these units on
> CSX might be the ones being derated. We all know
> that the SD50 was the locomotive that pushed GE to
> the top and almost killed EMD and it was ironic it
> was built by EMD.
>
> AJ


No CR SD50's had their leases terminated until 2001. Both NS and CSX chose not to renew or purchase the final batch built for CR in 1985-86. These were the only ones sent back. Both NS and CSX are reworking ex CR SD50's along with those bought new (NS - plus 2 ex NW SD50S's) and in CSX's case the former C&0/B&O and SBD versions are being derated too. CR was the only customer for SD60I's, was the last new customer for SD60M's and didnt buy new SD60's until 1989 (although 3 former demos built in 1984 were purchased a few years prior).
Larry



Date: 09/11/08 07:15
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: Robbman

ajy6b Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS predecessor N&W bought some SD50's. I believe
> they were the roads first full locomotive order
> that was all low-hood. Of course N&W designated
> them long hood forward.
> AJ

The U30Cs and C30-7s were also low-hood, as was the last order of 1600 series SD40-2s and all the 6000 series SD40-2s. With the C30-7s, N&W went to short-hood forward, and all subequent orders were as such (SD50S, last order of SD40-2s, and the first two orders of C36-7s and the demo C39-8s.. the C36-7s delivered later were built to Southern spec)



Date: 09/11/08 07:35
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: ajy6b

OK, OK, I have been taken to the wood shed and beaten. I was not that far off. I was just remembering a shot of a N&W SD50 on the N&WHS calendar that information. So it I should have specified it was the first full order short hood of EMD of one model. My memory is foggy, the short hood might have been designated as front. Forgive me for I have sinned :).

Late 90's vs. 2001. I am off by two years. Face it the SD50's were dogs. No-one liked them. EMD pushed the limit with the 645 power plant and had the same attitude towards customer care and quality as its parent company GM had towards the automobiles. I think we can all agree on that.

I won't get more on the dates, but I know the SD50's were around since the early 80's. The railroads got stuck with dogs. Conrail's dogs were probably younger than the rest, but it seems all surviving are being worked on. Cheap S X is going the cheap route. NS is spending money to do it right. CSX has a different management philosophy in that it wants to short term gains to get stockholder's happy. NS keeps its stockholders happy by looking at the long term on a consistent basis. Some railroads need a good shake-up, CSX is one that needs a shake-up.

AJ



Date: 09/11/08 08:09
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: csxt4617

FYI, CSX's decision to derate the SD50's was a year or two ago, and most
likely has nothing to do with TCI.

edit: Here's a post from almost 2 1/2 years ago about the derating:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1133382,nodelay=1

so it certainly was long before TCI tried to get their grubby hands in the mix.



Date: 09/11/08 08:17
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: mc5725

Never thought this thread would get so long! Thanks for the answers everyone!

>>MC



Date: 09/11/08 08:17
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: NYSWSD70M

Larry576 Wrote:

>
> The SD50's had various ailments that CSX wanted
> EMD to address and fix. They also had issues with
> the token SD60's and weren't too pleased with
> EMD's attitude towards fixing their sizable
> investment (144 units total).
>
>
>
> Conrail was favoring some
> > of the GE units, the C30-7 and C30-7a and the
> > C-39. They also had a lot of SD40-2s. I
> believe,
> > I could be wrong, but they were one of the last
> > buyers of the SD50's and one of the first
> buyers
> > of the SD60, SD60i and SD60m. I don't believe
> > that Conrail liked them as much and they had a
> > short lease on them. When the lease came up in
> > the mid-late 90's Conrail would not renew the
> > lease for a while. I have seen pictures of
> whole
> > lines of Conrail SD50's sitting out of service.
> I
> > would speculate that some of these units were
> the
> > ones for rebuild by NS. Of course these units
> on
> > CSX might be the ones being derated. We all
> know
> > that the SD50 was the locomotive that pushed GE
> to
> > the top and almost killed EMD and it was ironic
> it
> > was built by EMD.
> >
> > AJ
>
>
> No CR SD50's had their leases terminated until
> 2001. Both NS and CSX chose not to renew or
> purchase the final batch built for CR in 1985-86.
> These were the only ones sent back. Both NS and
> CSX are reworking ex CR SD50's along with those
> bought new (NS - plus 2 ex NW SD50S's) and in
> CSX's case the former C&0/B&O and SBD versions are
> being derated too. CR was the only customer for
> SD60I's, was the last new customer for SD60M's and
> didnt buy new SD60's until 1989 (although 3 former
> demos built in 1984 were purchased a few years
> prior).
> Larry



Larry,

Very good response. However, I would add that CSX was just basically pissed at EMD in general by the time the SD60 was offered. The units were fine except they only had 10 units on a railroad that had over 2500 locomotives. Being built in 1989, they basically were free from the teething troubles that the early SD60's experienced.

EMD was quite active in overhauling and upgrading both the Conrail and CSX SD50 fleets. Conrail had a dedicated area at Juniata just for the EMD SD50 upgrade-retrofit program. While these unit were still far from prefect, it did help their service record.

No CSX or Conrail SD50's have ever been stored while considered active units. Conrail had four orders of SD50's (vs one C30-7's (10 built in 1977) one for C30-7A's (50 built in 1984) and one for C39-8's (22 built in 1986)). The last two SD50 orders (25 built in 1985 and 30 built in 1986) were returned by NS and CSX. Many of these have been picked up buy the KCS.

As I have stated in a previous post, CSX was upset with EMD over more than the SD50 issues. I was working with (not for) CSX's motive power people at the time of the big switch to GE vs EMD. The years of EMD's way or the highway had worn thin. CSX would admit when they were in private, it was not the product, it was the attitude. When GE's product became viable, the customer base revolted against EMD. Sometimes the extent of the revolt depended on how good (or bad) the local EMD people were.

As an example of what had upset the customers, in the late SCL/L&N Family lines days, the L&N desperately needed an order of SD40-2's. EMD accepted the order but built them to another carriers spec and wouldn't price them until they were completed. EMD knew they had them over a barrel and took advantage of the customer. Unfortunately, the customer had a long memory.



Date: 09/11/08 08:22
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: mc5725

Larry576 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CSX is derating ALL SD50's. The units in the
> 2400's are all former CR and were assigned that
> number block for use primarily in MofW service
> when the last C30-7's and C36-7's were retired and
> with the SD38/40's being used as MW power also
> being retired.
> Larry


This is basically correct; there's a small handful of ex-CR SD50s to this day still bearing 8660-class numbers, but I'm pretty sure all of those have been downrated by now as well...

>>MC



Date: 09/11/08 08:51
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: Larry576

Ive always heard that CSX's SD60's were more troublesome than the C40-8's (at least in the earlier years) - possibly due to the fact for several years they were the only 710 powered and microprocessor equipped EMD's on the roster. I'll hafta check with CSX contacts to get a better scoop.
Larry



Date: 09/11/08 09:47
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: OHRY

video7105 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well this is the different between a class
> railroad and one that keeps fixing things with
> glue and safety pins...... just to get by..... no
> more said Welcome to TCI

Those who think the NS maintains everything to perfection clearly don't work for the NS.



Date: 09/11/08 10:18
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: CSX_CO

video7105 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well this is the different between a class
> railroad and one that keeps fixing things with
> glue and safety pins...... just to get by..... no
> more said Welcome to TCI

In all honesty, the 'glue and safety pins' will only get WORSE with TCI control. What do you think they are trying to do? Run a railroad? HA! They are going to cut spending, buy back more stock, and jack up the divident to line their own pockets.

Practice Safe CSX



Date: 09/11/08 11:07
Re: NS SD40E versus CSX SD50-2?
Author: ChessieSystem

ESPEEFAN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last two posts were very well put!

Actually there is nothing 'well put' or even remotely intelligent about any one liner quick slam. Two different approaches to similar but not equal motive power concerns. This bash and go mentality, that for whatever reason became popular, really needs to go.

C27A



Pages:  [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ Next ]
Current Page:1 of 2


[ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.4908 seconds