Western Railroad Discussion > Tier 4 SD70ACes (SD70AHs) going into storage?

I'm hearing several reports of several EMD (Progress Rail) SD70ACe-T4s (or SD70AH's) that have been added to Union Pacific's storage lines alongside the remaining C40-8s, C41-8Ws, C44-9Ws, SD60Ms and SD9043MACs. The locations of these are Oregon, which allegedly has 20 units up there, and Utah, where a few units were spotted in Ogden storage lines within the last 48 hours.

A. Can anyone debunk this? (Prove it's not true)
B. Are there any other known locations of these T4s in storage?
C. Is there a known justification for the 'final nail in the coffin' for the ACe-T4 project.

Schon Norris
Salt Lake City, UT
Railroad Roll-By Podcast



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/17 19:58 by Scone_Empire.

I think UP ordered these so they could legally acquire the superior 710 powered credit units. They can store these wastes of steel until they lobby the EPA to repeal Tier 4(very possible with a freedom friendly administration),then work out a re-power solution with the 710 engine.

Does anyone know how these units are performing in service? Comments or criticisms from crews at all?

MC6853 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know how these units are performing in
> service? Comments or criticisms from crews at all?

I have a few thoughts on the matter.

When I heard these units were being equipped with EMD's 265-H (commonly known as 1010) prime mover, a feeling of immediate doubt and disappointed ran down my spine, let me explain. Going back to the 90's, 6000 horsepower motors were the hot button topic. While GE had the AC6000, EMD had the SD90MAC. The original teardrop windshield 'MACs' were equipped with standard 710 prime movers, dubbing the name SD9043MAC. Anyways, EMD revealed their proposed 6000 horse engine, those units dubbed SD90MAC-Hs and SD90MAC-H2s. Unfortunately the locomotives were plagued by problems, and I'm saying that lightly. The prime mover was, and is, for the most part ineffective, inefficient and unreliable. The 'H' fleet for the most part didn't even last 5 years. So when I heard they'd try and make this already proven unreliable motor T4 compatible, I facepalmed both figuratively and literally. I predicted from the very beginning these things wouldn't last long.

From a crew's perspective, they love these T4s..... when the units actually work. I've been told they're a smooth and rather comfortable ride, and the units have decent in-cab noise reduction. But when things go south, the crews will do everything they can to slap an older motor in its place.

Schon Norris
Salt Lake City, UT
Railroad Roll-By Podcast



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/17 21:07 by Scone_Empire.

Scone_Empire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I heard these units were being equipped with
> EMD's 265-H (commonly known as 1010) prime mover,

Don't spread bad information. It IS the 1010J prime mover and it's derived from the old 256.

MP555 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scone_Empire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When I heard these units were being equipped
> with
> > EMD's 265-H (commonly known as 1010) prime
> mover,
>
> Don't spread bad information. It IS the 1010J
> prime mover and it's derived from the old 256.

Wow, my source of information was bad then, thanks for the correction. Out of interest what differentiates the 1010 from the 1010J?

Schon Norris
Salt Lake City, UT
Railroad Roll-By Podcast

NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think UP ordered these so they could legally
> acquire the superior 710 powered credit units.
> They can store these wastes of steel until they
> lobby the EPA to repeal Tier 4(very possible with
> a freedom friendly administration),then work out a
> re-power solution with the 710 engine.


Take the politics somewhere else.

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

Scone_Empire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MP555 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Scone_Empire Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > When I heard these units were being equipped
> > with
> > > EMD's 265-H (commonly known as 1010) prime
> > mover,
> >
> > Don't spread bad information. It IS the 1010J
> > prime mover and it's derived from the old 256.
>
> Wow, my source of information was bad then, thanks
> for the correction. Out of interest what
> differentiates the 1010 from the 1010J?

As far as I know, there was never a "1010" just "1010J", and I never heard that term until the Tier 4 units were announced. The "J" is just the letter progression of EMD crankcase identification; 567 A,B,C,D 645 E,F, 710G, and 1010H. I have no idea what happened to "I".

MP555 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scone_Empire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When I heard these units were being equipped
> with
> > EMD's 265-H (commonly known as 1010) prime
> mover,
>
> Don't spread bad information. It IS the 1010J
> prime mover and it's derived from the old 256.


Only 1 part number is shared with the H engine. H engine 20 years later and nearly 400 JT56 locomotives, you have to figure there's a few lessons learned going into the J engine.

bobwilcox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Take the politics somewhere else.

That is hard to do when our Government CREATED Tier 4....!!!!!??

Before any of the Tiers, locomotives were already the cleanest most efficient way to haul goods on land. Each Tier has been a diminishing rate of returns.... Even the old highly reliable AC4400s were super clean, when they were working correctly....they had a smoking problem when they were young, but for the most part that has been fixed now....The only smokers now are caused by something gone wrong. Yes there are particulates we can’t see, but put 4500 horsepower worth of trucks together and see what wins.....or better yet as many trucks as it would take to haul 12000 tons up I-5....

Posted from iPhone

NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think UP ordered these so they could legally
> acquire the superior 710 powered credit units.
> They can store these wastes of steel until they
> lobby the EPA to repeal Tier 4(very possible with
> a freedom friendly administration),then work out a
> re-power solution with the 710 engine.

Unfortunately, a lot of people on here think they know something when in fact they are obviously mistaken or just plain wrong. Unless you know something for a fact, maybe you should refrain from posting what you "Think">

Seems these rumors are generally just that. There are no T4 EMD's in Oregon at all, a couple in Utah. Most in coal service, and most show activity within the last couple days. Perhaps they are seeing SD9043MAC's in storage and confusing the two?

Railfan rumor mill. They are in service all over the system and two are leading two different passenger specials out of Council Bluffs today.

Posted from iPhone

junctiontower Wrote:

>
> As far as I know, there was never a "1010" just
> "1010J", and I never heard that term until the
> Tier 4 units were announced. The "J" is just the
> letter progression of EMD crankcase
> identification; 567 A,B,C,D 645 E,F, 710G, and
> 1010H. I have no idea what happened to "I".

Wasn't it the 265H?

Oops, my bad. 710G, 265H, 1010J. Still don't know what happened to I.

Anybody know why EMD chose to put the 1010 into the SD70ACe-Tier4 and not the Caterpillar engine used in the F125? (from Railway Age: "EMD’s other Tier 4 offering, the F125 Spirit high-speed passenger locomotive, utilizes a 4,700-hp Caterpillar C175-20 engine")
- Eric Blasko

My guess would be duty cycle issues, the C175-20 is an 1800 rpm prime mover and even in genset
use doesn't see the duty cycle you'd see in a locomotive.

Out

AlcoRSD15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody know why EMD chose to put the 1010 into
> the SD70ACe-Tier4 and not the Caterpillar engine
> used in the F125? (from Railway Age: "EMD’s
> other Tier 4 offering, the F125 Spirit high-speed
> passenger locomotive, utilizes a 4,700-hp
> Caterpillar C175-20 engine")
> - Eric Blasko

To meet tier 4 emissions regs without after-treatment. The F125 can only do it with urea after-treatment.

That and no high speed diesel has ever cracked the US freight locomotive market, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. Truck diesels are getting slower and slower all of the time. One of the versions of the latest Mack/Volvo offering will cruise in top gear at 1050 RPM. 1800 RPM for a locomotive engine is WAY too fast. I predict a rather short lifespan for those engines, but as long as some quasi-government agency is picking up the bill, who cares?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/17 13:47 by junctiontower.