Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSXT CW44-6 699 @ Erie

Former CSXT AC6000 699 has been outfitted with a 4400 HP prime mover, Identification under the unit number identifies her as a CW44-6. It is pictured here last Saturday, July the 20th sitting on the CSX Delivery tracks at the GE plant in Erie PA

---

Dash 6? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a U-boat?! :-)

Why was this locomotive re-engined??? As for the Dash-6… two thoughts. One, some moron got the number 9 upside down. Or, two, the 6 is a reference to the fact it was or could become again a 6,000 hp unit.

Galen Wright
Lynchburg, VA
K4CnO

More info about this came across the CSXRailfans list. Here it is below:

Subject: NMRO List - CSX AC/6000's To Be modified To C44-9


Info Courtesy Of C.R.T.S Billy Leazer

CRTS Update #07-47
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002 at 18:50 EDT

CSXT GENERAL ELECTRIC C60AC MODIFIED:
CSXT C60AC 699 has been sitting at the Selkirk, NY fuel plant for
the past couple of days. It has just been re-engined by General Electric at
its Erie, PA plant and was sent to Selkirk, NY for a "Q" inspection due
to the fact the last 92 day inspection that it received was in March.
Not only was it re-engined, it was re-engined with an "FDL-16". Instead
of having the dual stacks, it has just a single stack on the top with a
modified hatch to accept it. On the side of the cab the C60AC
designation
has been removed and replaced with "C44-9" According to railroad
officials it should be headed back for Erie, PA tonight or tomorrow to
be lashed up with the second C60AC to be modified with an FDL-16 engine
and to be pressed into service on a test basis on the Boston Line to
compare them to the O.E. version C60AC's. Which for that matter have all been derated back down to 6000 horsepower from 6250 horsepower as General Electric is experiencing some very expensive headaches as these
units are still under warrantee.
First of a series of related problems, the connecting rod studs, the
ones that hold the bearing caps on, are fracturing and breaking off due
to a faulty con-rod design which is also turnign out to destroy the
con-rod bearings as well because of the excessive flexing. General
Electric's answer is to replace the con-rod studs with the same style
ones every 12 to 18 months to prevent a major failure, considering that
the cranks on an HDL engine aren't hardened. However, the process of
just changing the studs out alone is extremely tedious and the tooling
is very dangerous. As the studs are under great
pressure, as they are "tensioned" not tourqued to 22,000 pounds of
pressure, if they are fractured and the pressure is applied to them to
back off the cap nuts, about one or two out of every 32 done snaps and
breaks off. When this happens the thirty pound device used to tension and de-tension the studs comes off like a bullet. Unfortunately for
machinists, part of using these devices requires being right there in
front of them sticking there hands in through the port holes to back the
nuts off, right in harms way.
Fortunately, no one has been hurt, but many close calls have apparently
occurred. Changing out con-rod bearings is an entirely different
nightmare. General Electric has tried to address the problem, and has
advised CSXT that the only thing they can do is just change out the
components with the same type defective components as they try to figure
out a better design.

Holy smokes, And we thought the EMD H engine had problems!

Ummm, why has this locomotive gotten fresh paint in certain spots(Ditch lights, 1/2 the plow)???

ST214 wrote:

> Ummm, why has this locomotive gotten fresh paint in certain
> spots(Ditch lights, 1/2 the plow)???
>
> [%sig%]

Maybe some left over yn2 yellow, and grey?

Are they still AC's?

More logical that they were turned into AC6044's.
That mod is something GE already does (did) on a production basis.

The incorrect stickers appear to be just a brain fart on somebody's part.

I think this is proof positive that CSX and UP bit off more than they could chew - and that GE and EMD served up too much of what they thought was a good thing. All of the 6000 hp units are pure crap and have been since day 1. I am not all surprised to see a reverse conversion taking place...
Larry

Actually, this is good example of two railroads demanding too much way too soon. Both UP and CSX wanted the 6000 horsepower, not tomorrow, not today, not yesterday, but the day before yesterday. Both EMD and GE had just announced that a 5000 horsepower loco was feasible, when all of a sudden, they were getting demands for 6000.

Neither engine (EMD's H or GE's HDL) had completed development, let alone been put into a locomotive before being ordered. The first time either was actually tested in a locomotive was the first production units. Although GE did build a demo (at the same time as the first production units). By comparison, the 645 and 710 engines were developed and tested in a locomotive for more than a year before being offered for production.

Which, of course, makes me wonder why UP and CSX bitch and whine when the untested technology fails and problems develop.

kevind wrote:

> More logical that they were turned into AC6044's.
> That mod is something GE already does (did) on a production
> basis.
>
> The incorrect stickers appear to be just a brain fart on
> somebody's part.
>
> [%sig%]

I agree. removing the AC componets would be a feat in itself, and extremely expensive. Plus GE's AC componets are sound (as deomonstrated by the near 2000 AC4400CW's in service) What we have here is a AC6044CW.

Good, no more crappy SD90MAC's and AC6000CW's.
MORE SD80MAC's and AC4400CW's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ST214 wrote:
> Good, no more crappy SD90MAC's and AC6000CW's.
> MORE SD80MAC's and AC4400CW's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No more SD80MACs or SD70MACs either. They do not meet the new EPA emissions standards required for all new locomotives built after 1/1/02...

The only two products of EMD that currently meet the new emissions standards are the SD70M (with flared radiators) and the SD90MAC-H (6000 hp version). So unless EMD spends a lot of research money improving the others, we will not see anymore of them ever built...

- BCM

PS. Over on the GE side, C40/44-9Ws, AC4400s, and C60ACs all meet the new emissions standards...

atsf5704 wrote:

> Actually, this is good example of two railroads demanding too
> much way too soon. Both UP and CSX wanted the 6000 horsepower,
> not tomorrow, not today, not yesterday, but the day before
> yesterday. Both EMD and GE had just announced that a 5000
> horsepower loco was feasible, when all of a sudden, they were
> getting demands for 6000.
>
> Neither engine (EMD's H or GE's HDL) had completed
> development, let alone been put into a locomotive before being
> ordered. The first time either was actually tested in a
> locomotive was the first production units. Although GE did
> build a demo (at the same time as the first production units).
> By comparison, the 645 and 710 engines were developed and
> tested in a locomotive for more than a year before being
> offered for production.
>
> Which, of course, makes me wonder why UP and CSX bitch and
> whine when the untested technology fails and problems develop.
>
> [%sig%]

Excellent post, atsf5704

GE - another big winner in the race to the bottom.

I'm surprised they never came out with a 25,000hp engine that could haul a 500 car train.......

These morons deserve to lose their shirts.

The only two products that meet emissions are the SD70M and SD90MAC? What makes you think that EMD can't build a flared radiator version of a SD70MAC? The diesel engines in both units are the same. What's more, all to the emissions technology can be applied to a V12 710G if demand warrants. What more, the SD80MAC could be made compliant with some R&D if a sizable enough order were to be secured. The only thing the emission regs have an impact on is the diesel engine itself. The engine is the most unitized feature on the entire locomotive.

While it is not good news, it is interesting to see some acknowledgment of the problems that GE ha had with the HDL. While EMD's problems were widely reported, I never saw any mention of the fact that GE sued the Germans over this design. When it was all said and done, GE bought a design that was further along in the development cycle that EMD's "H" engine. It takes time to develop an engine. While EMD is certainly guilty of rushing it to market, so to was GE.

The railroad paint shops need to hire a few railfans to letter their new repaints; most shop employees don't know one diesel from another. BNSF has GP35's lettered as GP38-2's, GP60M's as SD60M's and the newest one is the non-existant "SD75MAC" on newly repainted SD75M's !

Peter Arnold

Replaced with an FDL-16 prime mover!?!?!? This is what the U25B's used!!

Why they are calling them CW44-6 is beyond me, they're retaining the AC equipment. Just having prime mover swapouts.


oh well, guess we got another C44-8W/C44-9W case on our hands :D

MuskBlock wrote:

> Replaced with an FDL-16 prime mover!?!?!? This is what the
> U25B's used!!

Yep. GE hasn't really changed the overall design
of the FDL-16 from the U25B all the way up to
the AC4400. I'm not sure what they've done over
the years to increase the HP though. I don't think
they made the cylinder displacement bigger like
EMD did with the 567 to 645 and 645 to 710.