Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSXT GE C44AC "Heavyweights"

I have heard continual references to the newest order of General Electric AC4400CW's purchased and operated by the CSX Railroad, which were special-ordered to be the heaviest locomotives on the CSX system, and I believe, on any other railroad. These units were equipped to have additional weight for enhanced adhesion characteristics. This is actually not unusual. Standard SD40-2's, for example, weigh 395,000 lbs., amounting to a 197.5 ton locomotive. Some railroads special ordered their SD40-2's to weight quite a bit more than this. The MKT and the MP for example, both had SD40-2's that weighed 420,000 lbs., or 210 tons per unit...quite heavy, and these were undoubtedly good pullers with a higher tonnage rating than Dash Two's of stock, off-the-shelf weight. Other units that were ballasted from the factory with additional weight were the SP/SSW's EMD GP60's and GE B40-8's, which put more much-needed weight on the drivers of 4-motor power which had 1000 horsepower per axle...and inherently "slippery" proposition.

THE QUESTION HERE IS: How much, exactly, do these newest "Super Heavy" C44AC's actually weight??? I'd have to assume that these units are at least somewhere over 420,000 lbs., as these weights were not too uncommon (although I believe that in the Dash Two era, 420,000 lbs. seemed to be stretching the axle loading to the end zone. These units must be heavy, heavy indeed, and this issue has aroused my curiosity, but I've never seen more than a generic reference to their extra unit, and I've yet to uncover the actual weight of these behemoths.

Such a 4400 horsepower GE 6-motor with gobs of extra weight on drivers must be one pulling machine.

So...who has the correct weight, please??? Also, are there any CSXT hogheads out there who have run these units, who could perhaps answer if this extra weight made a noticeable improvement in adhesion and performance.

Regular weight of a GE 4400AC is 415,000 the ballasted units are 432,000. As far as pulling, in my opinion they pull the same, the only reason why they might pull better is because they're newer and have a less likely chance of crapping out on you, but give them a couple years, they'll match the rest of CSX's undermaintained fleet. Q167 out

CSXQ137:

Wow...232,000 lbs. That IS heavy. I reckon that's the heaviest for a 6-motor in the U.S. so far. We will probably see them get even heavier as the major carriers continue to beef up their infrastructure for the new, big rolling stock that runs at the 286,000 lb. standard.

Well, one can hope that they will be well-maintained. One good thing about the UP's C44AC's is that they seem to be able to take a licking and keep on ticking. They're tough machines, and the company runs the heck out of them and they seem to have held up quite well for such sophisticated machines with all the bells and whistles.

As to the "Why" they made these units so heavy...all that weight mashing the wheel tread down upon the rail is to give one more advantage to a tough locomotive that already sports an impressive Sentry wheelslip system.

CSX has also been adding additional weight to its existing SD70AC units. The standard weight on those was originally 415,000 pounds and they have been increasing that to between 427,000-429,000 pounds. The new order of SD70AC's that are now being delivered weigh 432,000 pounds.


Chris Toth

At one point I worked for a company that supplied ballast weight for the GE Erie plant.

There was talk about retrofitting a substantial number of already existing units with extra weight.

I do not know if that project ever got off the ground.

There is no way that they could get heavier with the current axles. The reason for 432K is that if you divide that weight by the six axles you will be very close to the load limit design capacity for an individual axle.

As for pulling better, theoretically, the additional 12K with two units would allow you to pull an extra car or two. I could run the analysis to give you an exact number if you like. The reason you don’t feel they pull any better could be that they have already increased the tonnage being pulled.

I wonder how well CSX track would handle the first group of C&O's Lima H-8's. They were designed to weigh about 80,000 lbs on each of the six driver axles. Evidently, General Steel Castings goofed when making the two cast frame units, which are thought to have been about 50,000 lbs. overweight together, giving a driver axle load of around 88,000 lbs. Lima and C&O faked the scalehouse readings, to hold down crew wages, which were based, at least in part, on axle loadings. C&O could have gotten a lot more pull from these engines by upping the b.p. and/or increasing the cylinder bore, but never did so. If they had made these mods and added the booster called for in the orig. design, the t.e. should have come out around 145,000 lbs without breaking the sacred 4 to 1 factor of adhesion. Interesting to speculate about, anyway.

Sometimes it doesn't seem like it helps but the extra weight does in slow speed applications increase the drawbar pull of a locomotive.

BN's early SD40-2's were in the 389,000 weight range (6325,6800,6900 classes) whereas the later SD40-2's (6700,7000,7800,8000 classes) were all ballested to the max at that time which was 420,000. BN's C30-7 fleet was also scaled at 420,000.

The extra weight came in handy when you were diggin tators with a 10,000 ton coal drag.

Regards
Q-GP30

It is still amazing that even after all these years, that the largest articulated steam locos operating by themselves could outpull and bring a train up to speed faster than even a pair latest heavy AC motored diesels from GE and EMD. I wonder how it would have been if the ACE 3000 and successor modern steam models would have been built? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

I agree...a 432,000 lb. AC locomotive rated at 4400 horsepower is going to have more of an advantage than "being able to pull an additional car or two" than the same model of locomotive that is only ballasted to 390,000 lbs. or so. And as the other fella said, that extra weight will really help on the 10,000 ton train which is in a dead pull on a 1 percent grade "diggin for taters". It's going to help the units from going into the high-speed wheelslip that today's high horsepower units sometimes go into when the wheel-creep traction control system is defeated by elements such as overtonnage, dew, rain, and even excessive leaves in the fall. And this extra boost in adhesion will save wheel wear from spinning, and give just enough of an edge to keep trains from stalling out. Additionally, a consist of 2 or 3 of these "super-heavy" locomotives will magnify the advantage in adhesion.

This seems to be a another sign of the Class 1 railroads' evolution toward the current 286K standard for freight cars. As the rolling stock has gotten much heavier (today's 100-car manifest train weighs a good bit more than a 100-car manifest train from the late 1960's or early 1970's) the Class 1`s have had to make certain infrastructure improvements to accomodate this heavier tonnage, primarily in the area of rail weight and the strength of bridges and trestles to handle higher axle loadings. There have been articles in Railway Age and Progressive Railroading about the challenge presented to shortlines, which are faced with handling this heavier tonnage in interchange (this is a very real financial burden to the shortlines). At any rate, it seems logical that as the both the total consist size and tonnage have increased, and individual car weights and axle loads have increased, the newest locomotives being built would incorporate more ballasting. I just did not know exactly how heavy those CSX C44AC's actually were. Wow! 432,000 pounds. What bruisers! I didn't know that the new NS SD70AC's were this heavy, either.

Interestingly, regarding the new 286K industry standard for car weights...that equals out to a 35.75 ton axle load. A 432,000 lb. diesel locomotive with 6 axles would have a 36 ton individual axle load, so, we're in the same ballpark, here.

I would like to hear the figures from the gentleman who offered them regarding the fact that these "Super Heavy" 432,000 lb. locomotives will only "pull an extra car or two". They'll pull an extra car or two than what particular locomotive? One that weighs 395,000 lbs.? I know that this debate has been going on for years that extra weight on engines does not do that much extra good, and the weight drags the train down, and all that. But...I can assure you that the Class One railroads would not pay for this extra weight if they did not have some hard data from EMD and GE that this would result in a significant, measureable tractive effort increase.

Well, I think can shed an observation with you . I have the opportunity to run a static stone train operation in as much as the CSX 60 car unit train consist is within 50 tons in every train recieved .This type of operation means that the only differance is the THE POWER 2 or 3 units. The Weather and WEATHER I have enough power to shove the train from a stopped condition up one mile of 1% and 35 cars of 2% with one reverse curve and one switch. .NOW,THE STORY>I recieved a train with CSX 595 C44ACH (Heavy) and CSX 8081 SD40 (DOA) which was down as it had Governor Problems.I had the thought as to see just what this engine would do ALONE as it takes two SD40's notch 5 to normally start the move. The train was 8500 gross tons not counting the SD40 and the GP10 that was cutout on the end of train.With dry rails and no sand under the wheels I put the Heavy in the 5th notch and started releaseing the air.(If you release the air before you power up the train will move THE WRONG WAY!)I was impressed!I sat there at the consel and let the COMPUTER do its thing. Neadless to say it started moving the train but also got it up to 2.7 mph after 30 car lengths and after going to 8th notch got it up to 7mph at 3500 ft.It can be said that I cleaned the rails as the wheel creep was very noticeable every 6 inches for 600 feet.I have not been able to repeat this event with any other type of engine. (I isolated a SD70 MAC and it wouldnt even start to move this train.)I havent had C6000AC yet.But Im WAITING. LOVE my JOB. EERIE

As far as I know, the heaviest GE C-Cs right now are the Hammersley Iron/Pilbara Railways DASH 9-44CW's, which weigh in at 436,000 pounds. I believe GE's all time heaviest C-Cs were the U50C's at 446,000 pounds. I believe the U50C was the heaviest C-C of all time. It is a shame one wasn't saved.

To the matter of CSX version CW44's going to pot, it isn't altogether poor maintenance although that can be part of it. What it is is this. That they rate them in excess 20,000 tons draft limit, on level track. If such track is so worn axially so as to be too narrow, or is wet or anything but perfect then the engine stays in eight notch slipping far more than sanding and power reduction can compensate. And starting these trains can redline the loadmeter, and take some mintutes to exceed 15 mph. Terrible vibrations are induced with this type operation which creates eventual electronic failures, and continued loading in this fashion brings on early mechanical failures. And to the matter of weight, they could weight them right to the axle's mechanical limit, and it still would not hold the rail. The motors generate far and away more torque than is needed, in other words the point of diminishing returns is long past in its design. Honestly if they were heavy but less powerful, they would pull their maximum load for years, not months. But that said it amazes me what these things can do sometimes. I just do believe that there is no where else to go without adding more axles. Anyone for a D-D arrangement? Or B-B-B-B?

Brazilian road EFVM, a meter guage ore hauler, uses DASH 8s and DASH 9s with a B+B-B+B wheel arangement instead of C-C. These locos look exactly like the U.S. DASH 8-40C and DASH 9-44CW from their frames up. I don't see why this can't be adapted to U.S. use.

I know the heaviest diesel locos are the 8 axle twin motor locos delivered to UP and SP in the 60's. I cannot confirm but believe that the ALCO C855 was the heaviest diesel of all time. Can anyone confirm? Thanks in advance for any info and a happy and prosperous holiday season and new year to all.

FECSD40-2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe the U50C was
> the heaviest C-C of all time. It is a shame one
> wasn't saved.

The U50C was one of the worst designed diesels to ever hit the rails. They were only in production for a couple of years, and by the time UP acceped the last ones, several were already permanently out of service. The weight was a big part of the problem. The bolsters on the recycled turbine trucks had a nasty habit of cracking. There was also the little problem of frequent electrical fires due to the ingenious use of aluminum wiring. I'm sure that everyone involved wanted to forget these mistakes as soon as possible. The last one was scrapped less than 10 years after the first one was built, and none actually ran for more than 5 years.

It's too bad an original U50 on span bolstered B-B trucks wasn't saved. They were decent locomotives. Every U50C deserved to become razor blades.

-Tim

I defenitely agree with you on the U50. One should hve been spared the torch, particularly one of the SP units with their multiple headlights. The SP U50s weren't scrapped until 1979 I believe. These were built 5 years before the first U50Cs and outlasted them all by 2 years. None of the EMD DD35As or DD35Bs were saved either, nor were the C855s or C643DHs from Alco. Aside from the DDA40Xs that UP saved, the only other big dual engine freight unit saved from this era was a single KM ML4000 diesel hydraulic rebuilt into a camera car. I hope they rebuild the front end of this loco and make it look like it used to. If anyone has more info on this unit it will be appreciated. Thaks in advance for any info and a happy and prosperous holiday season and new year to all.