Western Railroad Discussion > SD45s

I'm sure this has been discussed here at length already..

Was the only downfall of the SD45 the fuel economy?? How were they as far as pulling power compared to say an SD40? Were they reliable?

If the fuel economy was better, would the SD45 be the SD40 of current?? (Working like a charm 30+ years from when they were introduced)??

From my observations the downfall was the 20 cylinder prime mover, yes it did guzzle fuel, but tended to have a problem with crankshafts blowing apart. You'll get way more detailed answers than this, so hang tight ;-)

palumbo27 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure this has been discussed here at length
> already..
>
> Was the only downfall of the SD45 the fuel
> economy?? How were they as far as pulling power
> compared to say an SD40? Were they reliable?
>
> If the fuel economy was better, would the SD45 be
> the SD40 of current?? (Working like a charm 30+
> years from when they were introduced)??

SD45 locomotives had a problem with there crankshafts failing. EMD corrected the problem and later SD45's were more reliable. However, they were still fuel guzzlers with the 20 cylinder 645 prime-movers. As far as I know, they were top-notch locomotives as most medium to large railroads acquired them. Southern Pacific/Cotton Belt had over 300 of them. Santa Fe had 125 units. Pennsylvania RR, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Union Pacific, Burlington Northern (GN,NP,CB&Q) were among owners as well. There were more owners like Seaboard Coast Line, Chicago North Western (no dynamic brakes), and Illinois Central (1 unit) etc.

SantaFeRuss

palumbo27 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure this has been discussed here at length
> already..
>
> Was the only downfall of the SD45 the fuel
> economy?? How were they as far as pulling power
> compared to say an SD40? Were they reliable?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The SD45s had issues with fuel economy, crank shaft life and radiator leakage. All these problems were solved by the time the SD45-2 line came out. Retrofits were made to existing locomotives to bring them up to current (then) standards to make them reliable. The SD40 and SD45 used the same alternator and traction motors. They would pull equal amounts, the SD45 would just pull it faster.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If the fuel economy was better, would the SD45 be
> the SD40 of current?? (Working like a charm 30+
> years from when they were introduced)??

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MRL has a fleet working like a charm 30+ years later. So did the WC until the CN purged them from the roster. The newer units can replace the SD45s at a better than one to one ratio. That means fewer units on a train, lower fuel consumption and few people to maintain fewer units. The MRL 20 cyl units upgraded or built to the -2 configuration will be around for some time to come, working like a charm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I talked to a Burnham shop foreman and he said the only problem with the SD45 the Grande had they fixed with a line bore after the block seasoned. The fuel consumption was a bigger issue during the fuel crisis in the early 70's. Didn't stop the SP from buying them. I had a SD45-2 and a SD 40 on a work train and we set out 7 loads and swapped power for 2 SD40-2's. With 7 loads less, the two 40-2's went up the same grade 9 mph slower. The SD40 was an Alstom rebuild and the other three ATSF heritage. Go figure.

A number of Alliance shop people I have talked to said that the Alstom SD40 rebuilds are pieces of junk.

SD45X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I talked to a Burnham shop foreman and he said the
> only problem with the SD45 the Grande had they
> fixed with a line bore after the block seasoned.
> The fuel consumption was a bigger issue during the
> fuel crisis in the early 70's. Didn't stop the SP
> from buying them. I had a SD45-2 and a SD 40 on a
> work train and we set out 7 loads and swapped
> power for 2 SD40-2's. With 7 loads less, the two
> 40-2's went up the same grade 9 mph slower. The
> SD40 was an Alstom rebuild and the other three
> ATSF heritage. Go figure.

As my boss at UP once said when I interned there during college, "SD45's are 20 cylinder abortions."

Unless you really needed the extra 600 HP (effective only at speeds above roughly 20 MPH) ... an SD45 was essentially an SD40 with 25% more pwoer assemblies and a larger fuel appetite.

The extra 600 HP was worthless at low (drag) speeds.

Several years ago X2200 magazine showed a chart stating that an
SD45 burns 200 gallons an hour at run 8. To me that seems a littie
high,but since I'm not paying the fuel bill who knows,so much
depends on the tonnage,grade, curves and the overall condition
of the unit plus how heavy handed the engineer is.

Al Krug has some fuel consumption tables on his website here: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm

BNSF managed to get rid of the last of its straight SD45's a few years back, but still has a number of 20-cylinder, 3600hp SD45-2's on its roster. One, the 6516, was in Richmond, CA this past weekend.

the best engine ever built!