Western Railroad Discussion > Is the ES44C4 the Successor to the B40-8W?

I've been wondering about the GE E444C4. Isn't it essentially a 4,400 HP B40-8/B40-8W due to the middle Axle being underpowered. Why did BNSF buy so many of them then?

railfaneric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did BNSF buy so many of them then?

Maybe because they are cheap?

There have been many comments posted by crews, especially engineers, regarding the ES44C4, right here on TO. Slippery is the most frequently used word. Not sure if operating problems were worth the money saved for not paying for 2 traction motors per unit?

I don't consider the ES44C4 the successor to the B40-8W at all, although it's tempting to look for some kind of "hereditary behavior" as if these machines are like living beings (they are not). You can argue that the once ubiquitous Dash 9s were successor to the B40-8Ws (and also GP60Ms) because of how they were assigned to the fast intermodal trains on the Transcon.

I make plenty of snarky remarks about UP, but one thing they did right was NOT order the ES44C4s. Even with their reputation for penny-pinching, they might have realized that it's not cost effective to assign specific locomotive types (ES44C4) to specific assignments (fast intermodal trains)?

Assigned to fast intermodal? Someone in Ft. Worth must have their bubble stuck cause we sure got allot of them on heavy junk trains on the BNSF Springfield Division. As for the B40-8W's, you can take them on allot more questionable track on a local then those big C4's. Give me a 6-motored locomotive anyday.

Posted from iPhone

Plenty of people who work for BNSF have commented on the shortcomings of the C4s. However Bnsf were told by GE that if they weren't happy with the performance then the missing traction motors would be replaced...so it seems someone at Bnsf is/was happy with them...

Posted from Android

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so it seems someone at Bnsf is/was
> happy with them...
>
> Posted from Android

Not disagreeing with your logical speculation, but don't forget the mismanagement practice of not second-guessing their own mistakes for reputation and promotional purposes. There are other "decision" making process like "we 'invested' too much money already, so we can't go back" B.S. :-)

The ES44C4 was supposed to replace the ES44DC, four AC motors vs six DC's to do the same job. On light trailer trains with 4-5 of them it would probably work in high speed service, but of course they are mis-used.

Bill Miller
Galt, ON



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/17 12:20 by CCMF.

One of the big problems that occurs when they show up on other railroads, is no one seems to understand the concept that they are only 4 motor locomotives, This applies to both labor and management. All they see is "AC" and think its just as good as any other 6 motor AC locomotive.

BN and GE could do a better job of explaining to the rest of the world that "THIS IS A 4 MOTOR AC LOCOMOTIVE, EQUIVALENT TO A 6 MOTOR DC LOCOMOTIVE" Yeah I know in practice it doesn't work that well, but explaining that would solve some of the problems we have here on the eastern class ones.

I think using specialized locomotives for certain types of trains works good in theory. But the trains the ES44C4s get assigned to and the videos of SP using GP60s in helper service, on manifests over mountains, and on the oil cans show it does not work good in real life.

It's a total misuse of a fine engineered piece of equipment. The people that made the choice to buy C4's, should have to operate them in not so perfect conditions and applications. Such a waste.