Passenger Trains > F40 vs SDP45

Just wondering
Havn't hear much about the SP SDP45's
I guessin the F40's are the best
Steve

wintonplace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wondering
> Havn't hear much about the SP SDP45's
> I guessin the F40's are the best
> Steve

These locos are so different, they defy comparison.

45's had very few flaws from a hogger's perspective. They could accelerate just about any passenger train on a grade. F40's did not have nearly the tractive effort "punch" of an SD/FP-45 and they had that ridiculous "noisy" HEP design of drawing power off the prime mover. This reduced horsepower to the wheels even further.

An SP 3200 on the point, with the Gyralite decimating the fog ahead of the train, is motive power imagery at its finest. Bob

bnsfbob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wintonplace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just wondering
> They could accelerate just about any
> passenger train on a grade. F40's did not have
> nearly the tractive effort "punch" of an SD/FP-45

Could that be due to the extra axles on the SD? I'm under the impression six-motor units are good luggers. Wouldn't that trait well serve a passenger engine asked to accelerate passenger trains in a timely manner? Which had higher axle loading?

What was the 'weak link' on the F40? Did parasitic loads rob too many hp, or were they slippery when accelerating?

On a parallel note, nice to see one of the 'red breasted rail breakers' is preserved at the Brooklyn Roundhouse. Always liked the SDP40F/F(P)-45's. Got two F45's on my HO pike (oops ... wrong Discussion group ... lol).

* JB *

wintonplace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wondering
> Havn't hear much about the SP SDP45's
> I guessin the F40's are the best
> Steve


SDP45s use more fuel (20 cyl vs. 16) and are heavier, therefore rougher on track. Amtrak found from their SDP40F experience that four axle power was able to go anywhere on the system, while heavy six axle units weren't, offering greater operational flexibility. Also, unlike the SDP45, F40PHs were built to EMD dash 2 standards meaning easier maintenance from modular electronic assemblies.

Dave

I was with the AAR during the controversy over the SDP40s in the late 1970s.

The SDP40, with its steam boiler mounted above the frame, was rough-riding and displayed an unfortunate tendency to turn rails over on curves (probably due to large transient lateral forces against the high rail, although the AAR was never able to prove this). Several railroads, including BN, imposed 40 MPH speed restrictions on ALL curves, slowing Amtrak trains down.

Finally, the best solution seemed to be to trade the SDPs in against an order of F40s (as a friend of mine says, "they jacked up the bell and ran a new locomotive underneath"). Amtrak was moving to HEP in any case, which would have meant installing auxiliary HEP engines in the SDPs.

As a point of information, SD45s with the high-adhesion truck used by the SDP were also notoriously rough-riding. I never heard of them being accused of turning over high rails, though.

Don't forget that the main problem with the SDP-40F was (and is still denied by EMD) the water tanks were ABOVE the frame inside the carbody (yikes!!). This was due in no small part to the locomotive being a bastard design, driven by the notion that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) thought Amtrak was going to last another 5 years, max. So these beasts were designed and built as "temporary" passenger power. When Amtrak dried up and blew away, removing the water tanks and steam heat would be a quickee shop-job and Hey Presto! you gots an el-cheapo cowled SD(?)-40-2.

The water tanks (full, empty, somewhere in the middle) caused all sorts of CofG balance and weight problems that scared the hell out of LaGrange because the knew (in their legal hearts) that they'ed screwed the pooch on this one. The cover-up (or "torch-off") was to get these wrecks-in-the-making off the rail and out of sight ASAP - hence the F40PH and if you wanted an-exAmtrak SDP "please let our shop guys have it for a few minutes and ignore the smell of cut steel and torch holes, willya?". Somebody could write a good novel about this.

Oh yeah, GE is no exception to the "we can be stupid too" rule. The U-33 with aluminum wiring was a classic example of how NOT to build an engine. Many books (yea verily, VOLUMES) have been written about ALCo, Baldwin, Lima, and a host of other (not-so) dearly departed companies who wanted to play with trains. Ya gotta wonder just how steam ever got killed, given the track records some of these losers rang up.

rresor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was with the AAR during the controversy over the
> SDP40s in the late 1970s.
>
> The SDP40, with its steam boiler mounted above the
> frame, was rough-riding and displayed an
> unfortunate tendency to turn rails over on curves
> (probably due to large transient lateral forces
> against the high rail, although the AAR was never
> able to prove this). Several railroads, including
> BN, imposed 40 MPH speed restrictions on ALL
> curves, slowing Amtrak trains down.
>
> Finally, the best solution seemed to be to trade
> the SDPs in against an order of F40s (as a friend
> of mine says, "they jacked up the bell and ran a
> new locomotive underneath"). Amtrak was moving to
> HEP in any case, which would have meant installing
> auxiliary HEP engines in the SDPs.
>
> As a point of information, SD45s with the
> high-adhesion truck used by the SDP were also
> notoriously rough-riding. I never heard of them
> being accused of turning over high rails, though.

The F-40s were originally intended to haul single-unit, short-distance Amfleet trains. Likewise, Amtrak's plan circa 1975 was to convert the SDP-40F fleet from steam to HEP for use on the new Superliner-equipped long-hauls (the first Superliner deliveries were later delayed by 2+ years). A small, initial batch of GE P30CH's was also acquired for this type of service. When the SDP-40F fiasco broke loose, and further orders of GE's were deemed to be a bad idea, the F-40 became the unit of choice for all types of service. Although the long-distance class of F-40 had some unfortunate design compromises, some were actually bad decisions on the part of Amtrak vs. ones required by engineering necessity. Overall, the F-40s performed well in LD service and continue to do so for Canada's VIA.

By the way, the SDP-40F could have been fixed by Amtrak for use in the HEP era but the F-40 trade-in deal that you mentioned was more appealing to Amtrak. Bob

bnsfbob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rresor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I was with the AAR during the controversy
> over the
> > SDP40s in the late 1970s.
> >
> > The SDP40, with its steam boiler mounted
> above the
> > frame, was rough-riding and displayed an
> > unfortunate tendency to turn rails over on
> curves
> > (probably due to large transient lateral
> forces
> > against the high rail, although the AAR was
> never
> > able to prove this). Several railroads,
> including
> > BN, imposed 40 MPH speed restrictions on ALL
> > curves, slowing Amtrak trains down.
> >
> > Finally, the best solution seemed to be to
> trade
> > the SDPs in against an order of F40s (as a
> friend
> > of mine says, "they jacked up the bell and
> ran a
> > new locomotive underneath"). Amtrak was
> moving to
> > HEP in any case, which would have meant
> installing
> > auxiliary HEP engines in the SDPs.
> >
> > As a point of information, SD45s with the
> > high-adhesion truck used by the SDP were
> also
> > notoriously rough-riding. I never heard of
> them
> > being accused of turning over high rails,
> though.
>
> The F-40s were originally intended to haul
> single-unit, short-distance Amfleet trains.
> Likewise, Amtrak's plan circa 1975 was to convert
> the SDP-40F fleet from steam to HEP for use on the
> new Superliner-equipped long-hauls (the first
> Superliner deliveries were later delayed by 2+
> years). A small, initial batch of GE P30CH's was
> also acquired for this type of service. When the
> SDP-40F fiasco broke loose, and further orders of
> GE's were deemed to be a bad idea, the F-40 became
> the unit of choice for all types of service.
> Although the long-distance class of F-40 had some
> unfortunate design compromises, some were actually
> bad decisions on the part of Amtrak vs. ones
> required by engineering necessity. Overall, the
> F-40s performed well in LD service and continue to
> do so for Canada's VIA.
>
> By the way, the SDP-40F could have been fixed by
> Amtrak for use in the HEP era but the F-40
> trade-in deal that you mentioned was more
> appealing to Amtrak. Bob
>
>
>

Others have given a good explanation of the SDP40F derailment problem, and EMD's hurry to bury the issue with rapid conversion into "F40PHR's" (and the F40PH/F40PHR WAS a darned fine locomotive).

The truly ironic thing, though, is that had the SDP40F's been converted to HEP, with skid-mounted modular gen-sets put in as originally intended to replace the skid-mounted steam generators, the high center of gravity sloshing water tank above the frame would have been eliminated...and the derailment problem would have ended. New unit construction would have undoubtedly been F40PH's, but, Amtrak would have had 150 very good long distance C-C units with much better long-range fuel capacity.

An Amtrak General Road Foreman of Engines I once rode the cab of an F40PH with (he did concede the F40 was a darned fine unit), lamented the fact that the SDP's never were converted to HEP. He stated that this would have ended the problem (he was very involved in the EMD/AMTK/FRA tests himself), and that the HEP-equipped SDP40F, with all horsepower devoted to traction, would have ended up being the "Cadillacs of the Amtrak fleet"...his exact words. He also said that the F40 was indeed a "hotrod" unit, but that the SDP40F's were not too far behind when it came to acceleration, and, that the availability of full HP for traction may in fact have compensated for the extra pair of traction motors to feed when it came to acceleration, and, that operationally, the SDP's with their enormous fuel tanks would have made fueling logistics far cheaper and cost effective.

But what happened, happened...and it's all water under the bridge.

The part about the two-year delay in conversion to HEP...had that delay NOT occurred...that's an interesting "what might have been". The derailments would have been fewer in number, and the amount of press coverage would have not gathered the momentum it did...and the SDP40F's might well have lasted right up to the P32BWH-8/Genesis era, alongside a smaller number of B-B F40PH's.

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bnsfbob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rresor Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I was with the AAR during the
> controversy
> > over the
> > > SDP40s in the late 1970s.
> > >
> > > The SDP40, with its steam boiler
> mounted
> > above the
> > > frame, was rough-riding and displayed
> an
> > > unfortunate tendency to turn rails over
> on
> > curves
> > > (probably due to large transient
> lateral
> > forces
> > > against the high rail, although the AAR
> was
> > never
> > > able to prove this). Several
> railroads,
> > including
> > > BN, imposed 40 MPH speed restrictions on
> ALL
> > > curves, slowing Amtrak trains down.
> > >
> > > Finally, the best solution seemed to be
> to
> > trade
> > > the SDPs in against an order of F40s (as
> a
> > friend
> > > of mine says, "they jacked up the bell
> and
> > ran a
> > > new locomotive underneath"). Amtrak
> was
> > moving to
> > > HEP in any case, which would have meant
> > installing
> > > auxiliary HEP engines in the SDPs.
> > >
> > > As a point of information, SD45s with
> the
> > > high-adhesion truck used by the SDP
> were
> > also
> > > notoriously rough-riding. I never heard
> of
> > them
> > > being accused of turning over high
> rails,
> > though.
> >
> > The F-40s were originally intended to haul
> > single-unit, short-distance Amfleet trains.
> > Likewise, Amtrak's plan circa 1975 was to
> convert
> > the SDP-40F fleet from steam to HEP for use
> on the
> > new Superliner-equipped long-hauls (the
> first
> > Superliner deliveries were later delayed by
> 2+
> > years). A small, initial batch of GE P30CH's
> was
> > also acquired for this type of service. When
> the
> > SDP-40F fiasco broke loose, and further
> orders of
> > GE's were deemed to be a bad idea, the F-40
> became
> > the unit of choice for all types of service.
> > Although the long-distance class of F-40 had
> some
> > unfortunate design compromises, some were
> actually
> > bad decisions on the part of Amtrak vs. ones
> > required by engineering necessity. Overall,
> the
> > F-40s performed well in LD service and
> continue to
> > do so for Canada's VIA.
> >
> > By the way, the SDP-40F could have been fixed
> by
> > Amtrak for use in the HEP era but the F-40
> > trade-in deal that you mentioned was more
> > appealing to Amtrak. Bob
> >
> >
> >
>
> Others have given a good explanation of the SDP40F
> derailment problem, and EMD's hurry to bury the
> issue with rapid conversion into "F40PHR's" (and
> the F40PH/F40PHR WAS a darned fine locomotive).
>
> The truly ironic thing, though, is that had the
> SDP40F's been converted to HEP, with skid-mounted
> modular gen-sets put in as originally intended to
> replace the skid-mounted steam generators, the
> high center of gravity sloshing water tank above
> the frame would have been eliminated...and the
> derailment problem would have ended. New unit
> construction would have undoubtedly been F40PH's,
> but, Amtrak would have had 150 very good long
> distance C-C units with much better long-range
> fuel capacity.
>
> An Amtrak General Road Foreman of Engines I once
> rode the cab of an F40PH with (he did concede the
> F40 was a darned fine unit), lamented the fact
> that the SDP's never were converted to HEP. He
> stated that this would have ended the problem (he
> was very involved in the EMD/AMTK/FRA tests
> himself), and that the HEP-equipped SDP40F, with
> all horsepower devoted to traction, would have
> ended up being the "Cadillacs of the Amtrak
> fleet"...his exact words. He also said that the
> F40 was indeed a "hotrod" unit, but that the
> SDP40F's were not too far behind when it came to
> acceleration, and, that the availability of full
> HP for traction may in fact have compensated for
> the extra pair of traction motors to feed when it
> came to acceleration, and, that operationally, the
> SDP's with their enormous fuel tanks would have
> made fueling logistics far cheaper and cost
> effective.
>
> But what happened, happened...and it's all water
> under the bridge.
>
> The part about the two-year delay in conversion to
> HEP...had that delay NOT occurred...that's an
> interesting "what might have been". The
> derailments would have been fewer in number, and
> the amount of press coverage would have not
> gathered the momentum it did...and the SDP40F's
> might well have lasted right up to the
> P32BWH-8/Genesis era, alongside a smaller number
> of B-B F40PH's.
>

Excellent analysis. Was the RFoE Mr Henderson of the AT&SF?

Bob

prr4828 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bnsfbob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > wintonplace Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just wondering
> > They could accelerate just about any
> > passenger train on a grade. F40's did not
> have
> > nearly the tractive effort "punch" of an
> SD/FP-45
>
> Could that be due to the extra axles on the SD?
> I'm under the impression six-motor units are good
> luggers.

Yes X 2. Part of the comparison results from pairs of units used in actual operation. Two 45s = 7200 HP thru twelve axles, no HEP. Two F40s = 6000 HP (minus 700 for HEP) thru eight axles.

Wouldn't that trait well serve a
> passenger engine asked to accelerate passenger
> trains in a timely manner?

Yes.

Which had higher axle
> loading?

The F40.

> What was the 'weak link' on the F40? Did parasitic
> loads rob too many hp, or were they slippery when
> accelerating?

F40s weren't slippery.

>
> On a parallel note, nice to see one of the 'red
> breasted rail breakers' is preserved at the
> Brooklyn Roundhouse. Always liked the
> SDP40F/F(P)-45's. Got two F45's on my HO pike
> (oops ... wrong Discussion group ... lol).
>
> * JB *

Bob

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The part about the two-year delay in conversion to
> HEP...had that delay NOT occurred...that's an
> interesting "what might have been". The
> derailments would have been fewer in number, and
> the amount of press coverage would have not
> gathered the momentum it did...and the SDP40F's
> might well have lasted right up to the
> P32BWH-8/Genesis era, alongside a smaller number
> of B-B F40PH's.

Fascinating. Had they surved, I'm betting several would've collected around the AutoTrain assignment. If they had indeed redeemed themselves as HEP units, I wonder if that would've shortened the service life of the P30CH's (1975~1991)?

The AutoTrain schedule was protected with Heritage equipment until 1994 or so (forget the exact date ... away from my AT uber spreadsheet at the moment). Phase III livery was introduced in 1979. I've seen one pic in print of an SDP in Phase III. Hmm ... That would've been a sight: a 30+ car AT with SDP's on the point, all in matching Phase III.

I'll have to do some pointed surfing on the character flaws on the SDP40Fs.

* J *

Intresting
how this turned into a SDP40F discusion.

A veteran of thousand of miles on both the SP 3200's and Amtrak 200's.. I like the SDP's because they were heavy in case you had a crossing collison. Also before the engines were retrofitted with the commute switch these engines would still make tranisition about 32 to 35 mph. As a passenger one could feel tranisition in the cars.. The ride on engines was totally different. The 200's rode pretty well..they would float more than do the side to side latteral movement.. My favorite engine was the 221.. would load an accelerate like no other unit.. The downside was the HEP in run8.. thus the name a blast box... the 3200's with a nice horn and mars light was the ultimate!

> > -----
> The part about the two-year delay in conversion to
> HEP...had that delay NOT occurred...that's an
> interesting "what might have been".

Would this have been SDP40F's with the new Amtrak Superliners? Or was there another heritage iteration in there that I missed.

I don't think HEP conversion was necessarily a sure thing for curing the SDP40F's. Are the twin gensets similar in weight to twin SG's? Yeah you get rid of the in-carbody tank but I think they experimented with not filling it anyway. I think it boiled (no pun) down to a super massive locomotive on freight trucks running at passenger speeds on so-so quality track. That and whatever weirdness stems from the HT-C truck--and an unusual hollow bolster version of it. It's not the same as a Flexicoil C so passenger experience of the SDP45 or FP45 may or may not be applicable. The conversion might have helped but maybe not enough. My opinion is shaped largely by the excellent Preston Cook series in R&R some years back.

Don't get me wrong; I liked them too and wish more had been saved. I look forward to the one extent getting the stepwell cuts plated and Bondo'd over and returned to Amtrak colors.

bnsfbob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Red Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bnsfbob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > rresor Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I was with the AAR during the
> > controversy
> > > over the
> > > > SDP40s in the late 1970s.
> > > >
> > > > The SDP40, with its steam boiler
> > mounted
> > > above the
> > > > frame, was rough-riding and
> displayed
> > an
> > > > unfortunate tendency to turn rails
> over
> > on
> > > curves
> > > > (probably due to large transient
> > lateral
> > > forces
> > > > against the high rail, although the
> AAR
> > was
> > > never
> > > > able to prove this). Several
> > railroads,
> > > including
> > > > BN, imposed 40 MPH speed
> restrictions on
> > ALL
> > > > curves, slowing Amtrak trains
> down.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, the best solution seemed
> to be
> > to
> > > trade
> > > > the SDPs in against an order of
> F40s (as
> > a
> > > friend
> > > > of mine says, "they jacked up the
> bell
> > and
> > > ran a
> > > > new locomotive underneath").
> Amtrak
> > was
> > > moving to
> > > > HEP in any case, which would have
> meant
> > > installing
> > > > auxiliary HEP engines in the SDPs.
> > > >
> > > > As a point of information, SD45s
> with
> > the
> > > > high-adhesion truck used by the
> SDP
> > were
> > > also
> > > > notoriously rough-riding. I never
> heard
> > of
> > > them
> > > > being accused of turning over high
> > rails,
> > > though.
> > >
> > > The F-40s were originally intended to
> haul
> > > single-unit, short-distance Amfleet
> trains.
> > > Likewise, Amtrak's plan circa 1975 was
> to
> > convert
> > > the SDP-40F fleet from steam to HEP for
> use
> > on the
> > > new Superliner-equipped long-hauls (the
> > first
> > > Superliner deliveries were later delayed
> by
> > 2+
> > > years). A small, initial batch of GE
> P30CH's
> > was
> > > also acquired for this type of service.
> When
> > the
> > > SDP-40F fiasco broke loose, and further
> > orders of
> > > GE's were deemed to be a bad idea, the
> F-40
> > became
> > > the unit of choice for all types of
> service.
> > > Although the long-distance class of F-40
> had
> > some
> > > unfortunate design compromises, some
> were
> > actually
> > > bad decisions on the part of Amtrak vs.
> ones
> > > required by engineering necessity.
> Overall,
> > the
> > > F-40s performed well in LD service and
> > continue to
> > > do so for Canada's VIA.
> > >
> > > By the way, the SDP-40F could have been
> fixed
> > by
> > > Amtrak for use in the HEP era but the
> F-40
> > > trade-in deal that you mentioned was
> more
> > > appealing to Amtrak. Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Others have given a good explanation of the
> SDP40F
> > derailment problem, and EMD's hurry to bury
> the
> > issue with rapid conversion into "F40PHR's"
> (and
> > the F40PH/F40PHR WAS a darned fine
> locomotive).
> >
> > The truly ironic thing, though, is that had
> the
> > SDP40F's been converted to HEP, with
> skid-mounted
> > modular gen-sets put in as originally
> intended to
> > replace the skid-mounted steam generators,
> the
> > high center of gravity sloshing water tank
> above
> > the frame would have been eliminated...and
> the
> > derailment problem would have ended. New
> unit
> > construction would have undoubtedly been
> F40PH's,
> > but, Amtrak would have had 150 very good
> long
> > distance C-C units with much better
> long-range
> > fuel capacity.
> >
> > An Amtrak General Road Foreman of Engines I
> once
> > rode the cab of an F40PH with (he did concede
> the
> > F40 was a darned fine unit), lamented the
> fact
> > that the SDP's never were converted to HEP.
> He
> > stated that this would have ended the problem
> (he
> > was very involved in the EMD/AMTK/FRA tests
> > himself), and that the HEP-equipped SDP40F,
> with
> > all horsepower devoted to traction, would
> have
> > ended up being the "Cadillacs of the Amtrak
> > fleet"...his exact words. He also said that
> the
> > F40 was indeed a "hotrod" unit, but that the
> > SDP40F's were not too far behind when it came
> to
> > acceleration, and, that the availability of
> full
> > HP for traction may in fact have compensated
> for
> > the extra pair of traction motors to feed
> when it
> > came to acceleration, and, that
> operationally, the
> > SDP's with their enormous fuel tanks would
> have
> > made fueling logistics far cheaper and cost
> > effective.
> >
> > But what happened, happened...and it's all
> water
> > under the bridge.
> >
> > The part about the two-year delay in
> conversion to
> > HEP...had that delay NOT occurred...that's
> an
> > interesting "what might have been". The
> > derailments would have been fewer in number,
> and
> > the amount of press coverage would have not
> > gathered the momentum it did...and the
> SDP40F's
> > might well have lasted right up to the
> > P32BWH-8/Genesis era, alongside a smaller
> number
> > of B-B F40PH's.
> >
>
> Excellent analysis. Was the RFoE Mr Henderson of
> the AT&SF?
>
> Bob
>
>
He was an Amtrak Road Foreman of Engines, and said he basically wrote the Amtrak publication known as the "Combined F40PH/P30CH Operator's Manual", which was a blend of the two operator's manuals put out by the manufacturers, plus his own additional comments and editing.

He gave me his card...and I've tried and tried to find it. So I can't remember his name (this was a LONG time ago). Henderson DOES sound somewhat familiar. Did Henderson transfer off the ATSF to Amtrak employment? If so...this might just be the man. He was along basically to attend to Amtrak F40PH #307 which was MU'd with two KCS SD40-2's which ran over the MidSouth RR (later bought by the KCS...this is now the "Meridian Speedway") on a Louisiana gubernatorial campaign train. The guy that the train was pulling did not win the election. :-( The candidate as Billy Tauzin, who started out as a Democrat, converted to the Republican Party, and recently retired (and his son won his House seat)...but WOW!!! I've digressed WAY off the subject!!!

I've ridden SDP40F's when I was younger on the Lone Star,then run them on the Santa Fe when they were bumped from passenger service. I liked them,and the Santa Fe nor the Union Pacific issued any speed restrictions on these engines while they were in Amtrak service,if memory serves me correctly.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think HEP conversion was necessarily a
> sure thing for curing the SDP40F's. Are the twin
> gensets similar in weight to twin SG's? Yeah you
> get rid of the in-carbody tank but I think they
> experimented with not filling it anyway. I think
> it boiled (no pun) down to a super massive
> locomotive on freight trucks running at passenger
> speeds on so-so quality track. That and whatever
> weirdness stems from the HT-C truck--and an
> unusual hollow bolster version of it. It's not
> the same as a Flexicoil C so passenger experience
> of the SDP45 or FP45 may or may not be applicable.
> The conversion might have helped but maybe not
> enough. My opinion is shaped largely by the
> excellent Preston Cook series in R&R some
> years back.
>
> Don't get me wrong; I liked them too and wish more
> had been saved. I look forward to the one extent
> getting the stepwell cuts plated and Bondo'd over
> and returned to Amtrak colors.

You made some good points. One option with the SDPs would have been not to install HEP gens at all but just trainline them with one or two F40s in the same engine consist. Indeed, Amtrak did this with a few of the remaining SDPs in the early 1980s. This worked well with trains 3&4 because two F40s was just not enough power to get over the Raton/Glorieta grades and scoot at 90mph on the flatlands west of La Junta. Alas, Amtrak dropped this (good) idea after a short time.

I've said this before on T.O. and I'll state it again - RRs with good track did not have problems with SDPs. Good track was a limited concept in the dark years of the late 1970s. The good track roads: At&SF, SP and UP had no systemic problems with the SDP40Fs. The "deferred maintenance" roads had the famous derailments on curves. One of the NTSB reports in have in my library paints a very sorry picture of BN track maintenance in a fatal derailment in 1976 involving SDPs on SFZ.

One factor in favor of retaining the SDPs is that track maintenance and renewal projects took off dramatically nationwide in the 1980's after Staggers was enacted, Conrail was revitalized and the intermodal/coal boom started. Indeed, the quality of most mainline track in the U.S. today is impressive compared to what is was in the late 60s and 1970s. Bob

Txhighballer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've ridden SDP40F's when I was younger on the
> Lone Star,then run them on the Santa Fe when they
> were bumped from passenger service. I liked
> them,and the Santa Fe nor the Union Pacific issued
> any speed restrictions on these engines while they
> were in Amtrak service,if memory serves me
> correctly.

Santa Fe had only a few restrictions. 500-700 class units (including the P30CHs) were restricted on one or two curves between Isleta and Dalies, NM. This was in the early 1980's after the SDP era on trains 3&4 was over and I don't know the reason for this selective restriction on a 2200 mile route with 100s of restrictive curves. Also, the max psgr speed between Williams Jct and Crookton, AZ was reduced from 90 to 79 mph about this same time period. It is only assumed that this is also because of the Amtrak six-axles but there is no record to support that. Just about any passenger engineer will tell you that 80 mph westward is the practical limit on ths stretch anyway. And yes, the speed is back to 90 mph on present day BNSF.

UP only had to contend with the SDPs on the Denver-Cheyenne-Ogden route. In the late 1970's they reduced the max TT speed from 90 in the ACS zones to 79mph. I can only assume that this was because of the SDPs. I don't know if they slapped restrictions on curves. When the F40s came into being on 5&6 and/or one of the UP high-speed units was leading, the 79mph limit across Wyoming was left in a cloud of dust (or snow as was the case on my trip in 1983 on No. 6 with F40s).

Please tell me about your runs with Nos 15/16. Bob

The SP had restrctions on the ATK 500's any curve over 1 degree the speed was limited to 50 mph. until the engine was through the curve on tangnet track. Running these units from Santa Barbara to LA was a real challenge because the majority of the track is plagued with curves.. One time i had Tommy McDonald (Master Mechanic) riding with me from Santa Barbara to LA.. none of the engineers worried about the 50 mph restriction.. I had to that particular day.. the Coast Dispatcher wanted to know how did i lose 13 minutes of running time from SB to Oxnard...