Canadian Railroads > CP SD9043MAC's surplus and up for bid

CP has just listed 58 SD9043MAC's as surplus and has them open to bids.
They're posted at cpr.ca.
Two had just been overhauled in 2012.

...just over 52 shopping days 'til Christmas;)

https://www8.cpr.ca/enetp72/snp/Pages/ViewTender.aspx?Tender=3140

Marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CP has just listed 58 SD9043MAC's as surplus and
> has them open to bids.
> They're posted at cpr.ca.
> Two had just been overhauled in 2012.



Why are they sale them, when they need Power for trains.

Because they are junk.

Bill Miller
Galt, ON

This is old, as they have been offered for years. Nobody wants them. CP has been upset with the performance of these units for years, and have been tied up when ever possible due to numorous computer and operational problems.

Surprisingly, Union Pacific's SD90/43Macs seem to do all right, and are now found all over their system, after spending alot of they're good years hauling PRB Coal.

Is it that CP has used the performance of thesae units as an excuse, not to buy anything, other than GE for the past 15 years?

Very disapointing news for Canadian railfans-just think nothing but GE's pulling trains on CP for the next 25 yrs !

Lets not forget CP built most of the 90macs in their own shops-so problems with them are who's fault ?????

Mike Bannon
St Catharines, ON

algoma11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very disapointing news for Canadian railfans-just
> think nothing but GE's pulling trains on CP for
> the next 25 yrs !
>
> Lets not forget CP built most of the 90macs in
> their own shops-so problems with them are who's
> fault ?????

You're right, they built them, but they didn't design them.

What are the differences between the CP and UP 90-macs?

When you think about it, the small number of SD90's on CP's roster can be considered "non standard power" ie not a GE. When they were delivered, DPU consists were found on bulk and unit trains, so the 90's were not equipped with DPU/Locotrol. Today's CP uses DPU on the majority of mainline freights (as do most other roads). Having a small fleet of oddball units that can't lead most freights was a good reason to store the fleet. If you want to catch an SD90 on a CP freight today, head to the Crowsnest Pass in Alberta/BC, there's lots of them leading freights, except they are painted in UP colors....
-Trevor

I wonder if this is an opportunity for Genesee and Wyoming etc to pick up power at close to scrap value? Most operations are within 100 miles of a shop, engines could be closely watched, etc.

New York Susquehanna & Western and the Alco lines of New York used that strategy for years. Buy beat up old Alco power for a dime on the dollar, rely on experts like George Hockaday and expert mechanics etc to keep them running, and operate them for 10 years...

The SD90MAC's did come with DPU and were used as bulk train power til the western crews complained about problems.When they had problems you could not cut out 1 traction motor you lost half a unit.

They did briefly try out in coal train DPU service between the Crowsnest Pass and the Roberts Bank super port. They didn't produce the performance advertised even when they were brand new. They stalled where GE's kept on going.

These trains have been equipped with remotes since inception circa 1970. CP originally ordered sets of MLW M630's for this service, quickly replaced by SD40-2's when the big MLW's proved unreliable. The SD40's were standard power until 1995/96 when the GE AC4400's came along.

Coal trains are a good train to test new motive power on because they all weigh close to the same, and there are many hundred recorded runs with the usual power to compare the performance with. Simply put, the 9100's never produced the reliable traction that the GE AC4400's did.

CP has a history of finding a reliable type of locomotive, and buying hundreds, using them until they fall apart of old age and being superseded technologically.

The 9100's saw CP change from a satisfied repeat customer to one who would buy anything but GM. The people who maintain locomotives for CP claimed that customer service by GE clinched the deals. GE has excellent "after care" and worked with the railway to fix any warranty repairs that came up after purchase. GE also listened to the railways and rectified reliability problems when they came up. To put it simply, GE seemed to care about customer service and were friendly and helpfull to the railway people they worked with. GM was arrogant and aloof and seemed to have the attitude "You bought the thing, you deal with it. Once it leaves the factory floor , we don't care, next".

As a person who operated both GE's and newer GM's like the 9100's at maximum tonnage, I have to agree that the GE's are a better locomotive.

eminence_grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
> The 9100's saw CP change from a satisfied repeat
> customer to one who would buy anything but GM. The
> people who maintain locomotives for CP claimed
> that customer service by GE clinched the deals.
> GE has excellent "after care" and worked with the
> railway to fix any warranty repairs that came up
> after purchase. GE also listened to the railways
> and rectified reliability problems when they came
> up. To put it simply, GE seemed to care about
> customer service and were friendly and helpfull to
> the railway people they worked with. GM was
> arrogant and aloof and seemed to have the attitude
> "You bought the thing, you deal with it. Once it
> leaves the factory floor , we don't care, next".
>

(snip)

didn't GE also pioneer the guarantee that the locomotive would be available 99% of the time if the factory maintenance etc instructions were followed? I believe that was a major selling point when BN bought from GE.

If GE's "after care" is so good, they why have they not fixed the design flaw in their fuel system that results in the fuel leaks which then result in yet another GE "toaster"?

It's not like this is a new problem...

Were the prime movers also an issue with the sd-90's?

Brian H.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If GE's "after care" is so good, they why have
> they not fixed the design flaw in their fuel
> system that results in the fuel leaks which then
> result in yet another GE "toaster"?
>
> It's not like this is a new problem...

They were right on it with the CP AC4400's, something to do with the fuel injection system. A few AC4400'S got toasted before they found a fix.

It probably is a design flaw which requires an after market fix. Some railroads are slower to recognise a problem than others.

More confusion here. The SD90 carbody was produced in two models: the SD90MAC, with a 6000 HP "H" engine, and a "convertible" SD9043MAC, with the SD90 carbody but with a conventional EMD 710 2-cycle prime mover. The idea was that if the "big" engines worked, the others could be "converted" with a prime mover transplant and some changes to the software.

It never happened. The carbody was junk, the electricals were junk, and the "H" prime mover was junk too. A less successful locomotive is hard to imagine. None of the "convertibles" will ever be converted, but even with a 710 prime mover, they have other issues which are sidelining them. Yes, you may see them on shortlines, bought for pennies on the dollar.

The story of the "H" engine is long, and I won't tell it here, except to say that the SD90MAC was a good example of what you get when you starve a subsidiary of capital investment and expect it to compete in the marketplace.

6000 HP six-axle diesels were never a good idea, and the US Class Is were fools to buy any.

I've often wondered about the potential they have, having mechanical experience in the auto and aviation industry, I've often wondered if they could be stripped and modified with a better prime mover and electricals, which basically would involve a new cabinet. Or is there more to it than that?....

skeezix91 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've often wondered about the potential they have,
> having mechanical experience in the auto and
> aviation industry, I've often wondered if they
> could be stripped and modified with a better prime
> mover and electricals, which basically would
> involve a new cabinet. Or is there more to it than
> that?....


There are lots of examples of doing just that in the railroad industry, in North America and abroad. Sometimes the railroad shops carry out the modifications, sometimes contract shops and sometime the manufacturers do it.

A couple of CP examples. The GP35's purchased from GMDD around 1964 featured a complex, pre-solid state electrical control system which had many maintenance problems. CP rebuilt the control panels to "Dash 2" standards after EMD introduced solid state panels and the GP35's went on to provide long service lives.

CP purchased MLW M630's for unit coal train service out west. As built they were an "epic fail" as the cooling systems leaked like a sieve. CP totally rebuilt the radiator systems on the M630's and M636's and they also had long service lives after rebuild.

Many of the locomotive leasing companies have done rebuilds and upgrades to the used locomotive lease fleets, with differing levels of success.

Re-engining also takes place. Luckily, the engine mounts on EMD products using the earlier 567 prime mover and the later 645 prime mover match up.

In the UK, English Electric introduced a new C-C locomotive called the "Class 50" in the late 1960's, the result of extensive prototype testing. Sadly, in service, it proved unreliable. BR had purchased them in a significant quantity. BR did a complete electrical and mechanical rebuild of them when they were relatively new, and again, the rebuilds were reliable and productive.

To rebuild or not? That is the question. It is cheaper to rebuild than to scrap and repurchase.

Early on, EMD and GE offered what were virtually new locomotives built with components from older locomotives. Remember the Amtrak F40PH's which were technically rebuilt SDP40F's?.

Just trying to keep this straight -- the 9100-class are SD9043MACs, yes? With a 710 engine, not a 265H? Which makes them at least somewhat similar to UP's 9043s. Am curious then as to why CP's didn't work out, and UP's did. From Wikipedia: "Over 400 SD90MAC locomotives fitted with 4300[hp] 710 engine were built."

Any info on China's experience with the H engine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_JT56ACe