Western Railroad Discussion > P4s In Service

SD70ACE-P4s 8511, 8506 and SD70ACE 9352 lead the HPASNTW124A out of Mesa, WA on BNSF's Lakeside sub today. It will be interesting to see how these stack up against the ES44C4s.

---

---

They don't.

Posted from Android

SD45X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They don't.
>
> Posted from Android

Okay, tell us what's wrong and what's right.

Please

Same consist rolled by my backyard in Ritzville, WA this afternoon and looked good, sounded good and had a great sounding 5-chime.

Larry

Which axles are powered? The 4 closest to the fuel tank due to weight proximity?

No, it is the four axles farthest from the fuel tank. Axles 3 and 4 are the idler axles.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SD45X Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They don't.
> >
> > Posted from Android
>
> Okay, tell us what's wrong and what's right.
>
> Please

They slip when wet. Then stop. This is how management saves money on traction motors.
No weight management to offset the lack of a traction motor.
Did I mention they slip?
And since trains get heavier not lighter it was a stroke of genius to save money with.....Yes sarcasm.
Why use a SD40 when a GP 9 is cheaper.
I often wonder what happens during truck wrap up if it hinders it a little.

What happens? You're trying to compensate without active suspension, it loads
the middle axle and partially unloads the other. Sort of dumbass vector analysis
based on common sense which seems to be lacking on a couple parties parts.

Out

Who cares how they " stack-up"??....I can tell you that they probably sounded awesome.

U.P. chose to go the other direction and ADDED weight to their C45AH's. These engines are incredibly surefooted. And no, they kept all six traction motors, thank you. None of that C4 crap.
Is Uncle Warren the only one going discount with that junk?

Posted from iPhone

stampedej Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U.P. chose to go the other direction and ADDED
> weight to their C45AH's. These engines are
> incredibly surefooted. And no, they kept all six
> traction motors, thank you. None of that C4 crap.
> Is Uncle Warren the only one going discount with
> that junk?
>
> Posted from iPhone

Warren has absolutely nothing to do with this. As he has said many times in the past, he doesn't deal with the day to day running of his companies, that's why he doesn't replace the management team when he buys a company. It's their job.

SD45X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SD45X Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > They don't.
> > >
> > > Posted from Android
> >
> > Okay, tell us what's wrong and what's right.
> >
> > Please
>
> They slip when wet. Then stop. This is how
> management saves money on traction motors.
> No weight management to offset the lack of a
> traction motor.
> Did I mention they slip?
> And since trains get heavier not lighter it was a
> stroke of genius to save money with.....Yes
> sarcasm.
> Why use a SD40 when a GP 9 is cheaper.
> I often wonder what happens during truck wrap up
> if it hinders it a little.


You tell them LOL I hate the C4s JUNK

Uhhh, those of us who have to deal with these thinga at work?????

rev66vette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares how they " stack-up"??....I can tell you
> that they probably sounded awesome.

Posted from Android

The whole concept of saving money on a 2+ million dollar locomotive by having four traction motors instead of six is about as absurd as buying a car with a four cylinder instead of the six cylinder option becuae you don't want to have to pay for the two extra spark plugs and wires at tune up time.....

And if you're spending all that you'd expect the OEM to come up with some way
of handling the traction issue.

Out

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole concept of saving money on a 2+ million
> dollar locomotive by having four traction motors
> instead of six is about as absurd as buying a car
> with a four cylinder instead of the six cylinder
> option becuae you don't want to have to pay for
> the two extra spark plugs and wires at tune up
> time.....


To the bean counters saving those $$$ times X locomotives adds up -- especially if you are BNSF and you just received 300 new GEs in the last year. I don't know the actual savings, but let's say its $300,000. Over the course of the last year BNSF has saved $90 Million. Now that either goes to other projects, stays in the bank, or $90 mil will get you about 40 additional locomotives.

If they buy 300 C4s that's 600 less traction motors and inverters they have to buy vs 300 ES44ACs. It adds up in that context.....

Could they be buying cheap and in bulk to beat tier 4? Get the locomotives quickly up front and , if needed, worry about traction motors later. BNSF was (is) in need of mass quantities of locomotives and this helped them pick up the slack.