Passenger Trains > Question on New Unit Teething Problems

A lot of Siemens apologists talk about how many of the other passenger unit models had "teething problems" when new.

Any old heads on here aware of problems when GP40P's (SP, CNJ or GO versions) or SDP40 / SDP45s (SP, GN, etc.) were new?

The above were modifications of then existing models and not attempted re-inventions of the wheel.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/23 11:14 by Englewood.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of Siemens apologists talk about how many of
> the other passenger unit models had "teething
> problems" when new.
>
> Any old heads on here aware of problems when
> GP40P's (SP, CNJ or GO versions) or SDP40 / SDP45s
> (SP, GN, etc.) were new?
>
> The above were modifications of then existing
> models and not attempted re-inventions of the
> wheel.

well, with locomotives I think certain teething problems are inevitable...but the kind of issues that the Siemens road engines have faced are the kind that would have caused class one railroads to demand wholesale refitting with a better design. Look at the GE CW60AC (CSX nomenclature) the GE built but German designed engine was indeed powerful but had bad design problems that caused most of not all examples of the locomotive to be refitted with the well vetted 7FDL engine...or were derated to 4400hp...Anyway GE had to foot the bill for this and they IIRC ended up suing the original designer of the bad engine since it wasn'ts robust enough for the power it produced. 

Amtrak for it's part sort of has it's arse over a barrel....there aren't any other passenger engines available to meet Amtrak LD specs...yes there are designs that could have worked but none are in production, and even a firm order would not yield product for some time. The Siemens units for all their issues are a bird in the hand at least...they must be fixed of course...but Amtrak is in the unenviable position of being in want of a unique specification...the local use verison of this locomotive would probably have similar problems if pressed into LD service. I don't want to guess what Siemens was thinking when they designed these....but I believe they were so focused on TIer 4 emission control and it's need for tight cooling capability that they left the locomotive quite vulnerable the very environment it operates in. All locomotives not just Long distance, but local pax, road switchers and so on, should be hardened against weather! Aside from other design concerns, that has to be close to job one. It has to work flawlessly in the places and occurences where it will be used. They did not do this well. But I am sure they will rectify the problems. If they can't close up those yawning vents...then they need to waterproof anything and everything that might get soaked from snow and water ingress...and program the fault detection algoriths to ignore mild problems likely due to moisture...I can tell you for all the gew gaws in freight locomotives they don't disable themseleves until they are thoroughly broken...and you can often reset everything and keep limping along....because job one is to pull the freight....or passengers as it may be!

If I remember correctly, the vaunted (hallowed?) GG-1s had more than their share of teething pains come winter. 

RevRandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I remember correctly, the vaunted (hallowed?)
> GG-1s had more than their share of teething pains
> come winter. 

It wasn't noticed until one particular snow storm, and then they dropped like flies, unique blend of a very fine snow. That was child's play compared to Siemens Chargers. Sprinters did OK, not great.Budd Metroliners and MTA M-1 MU's were also useless once 5" of snow fell. 
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/23 05:42 by joemvcnj.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of Siemens apologists talk about how many of
> the other passenger unit models had "teething
> problems" when new.
>
> Any old heads on here aware of problems when
> GP40P's (SP, CNJ or GO versions) or SDP40 / SDP45s
> (SP, GN, etc.) were new?

Well the SDP40F didn't like to stay upright on anyone besides the Santa Fe's track.  The E60 and the P30CH had truck issues.  The Acela was removed from service in the 1st year of operation due to truck problems as well.

>
> The above were modifications of then existing
> models and not attempted re-inventions of the
> wheel.

Is there a four axle in production that Amtrak could have looked at so they didn't have to "reinvent the wheel"?  Oops, looks like I am going to be labeled an apologist now.

The ALCO PA's were so good that both SP and Santa Fe felt a need to totally rebuild them before their tenth birthdays...  

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ALCO PA's were so good that both SP and Santa
> Fe felt a need to totally rebuild them before
> their tenth birthdays...  

And Rio Grande to replace them with more reliable EMDs.

The thing is the Chargers had issues for a number of years in the Midwest, and then the issues with them on the Builder really hit the fan and subsided after last year around this time until November hit last year, then the issues occured again, and you wonder why Amtrak didn't go to Simens in the 1ST place when the Midwest Engines had problems to fix the issues before the ALC42s showed up and everyone knew the problem with No. 7 on their 1ST run, the issues with Simens was dealt with, I bet they wouldn't of had to add a P42!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/23 18:16 by ProAmtrak.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Englewood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A lot of Siemens apologists talk about how many
> of
> > the other passenger unit models had "teething
> > problems" when new.
> >
> > Any old heads on here aware of problems when
> > GP40P's (SP, CNJ or GO versions) or SDP40 /
> SDP45s
> > (SP, GN, etc.) were new?
>
> Well the SDP40F didn't like to stay upright on
> anyone besides the Santa Fe's track.  The E60 and
> the P30CH had truck issues.  The Acela was
> removed from service in the 1st year of operation
> due to truck problems as well.
>
> >
> > The above were modifications of then existing
> > models and not attempted re-inventions of the
> > wheel.
>
> Is there a four axle in production that Amtrak
> could have looked at so they didn't have to
> "reinvent the wheel"?  Oops, looks like I am
> going to be labeled an apologist now.
That took to Dec 1976. Before then, they we pretty good

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well the SDP40F didn't like to stay upright on
> anyone besides the Santa Fe's track.

U30CG didn't even want to do that. They tried to go streight on a curve on Edelstein Hill with 123 and the train went off on a tangent with them. During figuring out what it was, they ran a test train, which went off the railroad in the same place.

I knew 2d trick Chief in Shopton when the U30s were running. He was asked by upper management why he wasn't putting the shiny new power on the Super Chief. He told them that 17 was the LAST train they wanted them on. Leave the engine failure delays to the Grand Canyon and Kansas Cityan.


>The E60 and
> the P30CH had truck issues.  The Acela was
> removed from service in the 1st year of operation
> due to truck problems as well.


FM Erie Builts were a dismal falure as were the Baldwin Centipedes.

TAW

I notice the EMD F125 has yawning vents on the side too...I wonder if they have ever been operated in that special weather that tortures the Siemens engines?

engineerinvirginia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I notice the EMD F125 has yawning vents on the
> side too...I wonder if they have ever been
> operated in that special weather that tortures the
> Siemens engines?

Nope, just (mostly) sunny Southern California.

Well, if we're talking about locomotives that had difficulties at first, don't overlook the SD35/GP35 electricals. Or the crankshaft in the SD45. Or the disastrous 265H prime mover. The GP50 had problems, too. 

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if we're talking about locomotives that had
> difficulties at first, don't overlook the
> SD35/GP35 electricals. Or the crankshaft in the
> SD45. Or the disastrous 265H prime mover. The GP50
> had problems, too. 

I didn't even think of freight engines.

The BN30-7ABs BN had were known as slugs, no not as in a loco body getting power from another unit, slug as in a phoney coin. They were junk.

SD60s were ok as long as they were on flat ground or maybe uphill on dry rail.

GP50s - yeah, don't lead in the snow or on open deck bridges.

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Well the SDP40F didn't like to stay upright on
> > anyone besides the Santa Fe's track.
>
> U30CG didn't even want to do that. They tried to
> go streight on a curve on Edelstein Hill with 123
> and the train went off on a tangent with them.
> During figuring out what it was, they ran a test
> train, which went off the railroad in the same
> place.
>
> I knew 2d trick Chief in Shopton when the U30s
> were running. He was asked by upper management why
> he wasn't putting the shiny new power on the Super
> Chief. He told them that 17 was the LAST train
> they wanted them on. Leave the engine failure
> delays to the Grand Canyon and Kansas Cityan.
>
>
> >The E60 and
> > the P30CH had truck issues.  The Acela was
> > removed from service in the 1st year of
> operation
> > due to truck problems as well.
>
>
> FM Erie Builts were a dismal falure as were the
> Baldwin Centipedes.
>
> TAW

That Chief was smart, if they put them on 17 and he went on the ground all Hell would've broke loose like there's no tomorrow!

TAW Wrote:

> U30CG didn't even want to do that. They tried to go streight on a curve on Edelstein Hill with 123 and the train went off on a tangent with them.

The No.23 that derailed on February 9, 1969 and led to a temporary reassignment of Santa Fe's passenger GE's to freight duties had a pair of U28CG's for power, not U30CG's.  The U30's were included in the reassignment out of an abundance of caution since they were similar "below the belt."

> During figuring out what it was, they ran a test train, which went off the railroad in the same place.

None of the Santa Fe books I have that address this issue mention anything about a test train derailing.  Santa Fe did a test run on March 3, 1969 with FP45's 104 and 106 pulling a trainset similar to the one that derailed, and on March 4 with U28CG's 359 and 354. The U30CG's were not tested.  A caption on page 121 of Steve Allen Goen's Santa Fe in the Lone Star State sums up the outcome:

"As previously mentioned, all 350-class U28CG's and all 400-class U30CG's were withdrawn from passenger service following a preliminary conclusion that the GE's experienced "suspicious tracking problems at high speeds around curves." However, after additional road testing failed to indicate any problems...the railroad concluded that no problems had been incurred by the GE's and that all experiments had failed to show any conclusive evidence that the units were to blame. With their reputation now cleared, the passenger U-boats quickly returned to trains such as the TEXAS CHIEF, THE TULSAN, and even the run that almost ended their career, Trains #23 and 24, the GRAND CANYON."

Photos of the U-boats pulling passenger trains between late 1969 and May 1971 aren't common, but they do show up in print and online periodically.  See for example:

- U28CG 7905 on the westbound and U30CG 8005 on the eastbound Super Chief/El Cap at Newton, KS, 12/25/70:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3154332

- ATSF U30CG 8004 on the westbound Tulsan at Kansas City, 6/5/70:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3100655

That's not to say the U-boats were great locomotives - they weren't.  They had some fundamental design flaws over and above any "teething pains," and it took the subsequent Dash 7 and Dash 8 lines to address those.

From personal experience running all types of passenger engines from the F7 E9, SDP45, GP40P, Amtrak SDP 40, F40s. The only issue ever encountered was the Amtrak 500s with their derailment issues. Every other EMD engine was almost flawless. I have never run a Siemens. I have found over the years that simple was better such as the SD 45s. When the SP went to computers in the SD45T2s. Plus the GEs that when road failures were more common.

Posted from Android

SanJoaquinEngr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From personal experience running all types of
> passenger engines from the F7 E9, SDP45, GP40P,
> Amtrak SDP 40, F40s. The only issue ever
> encountered was the Amtrak 500s with their
> derailment issues. Every other EMD engine was
> almost flawless. I have never run a Siemens. I
> have found over the years that simple was better
> such as the SD 45s. When the SP went to computers
> in the SD45T2s. Plus the GEs that when road
> failures were more common.
>
> Posted from Android


Computers on a SD45T-2?

SanJoaquinEngr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From personal experience running all types of
> passenger engines from the F7 E9, SDP45, GP40P,
> Amtrak SDP 40, F40s. The only issue ever
> encountered was the Amtrak 500s with their
> derailment issues. Every other EMD engine was
> almost flawless. I have never run a Siemens. I
> have found over the years that simple was better
> such as the SD 45s. When the SP went to computers
> in the SD45T2s. Plus the GEs that when road
> failures were more common.
>
> Posted from Android

Thank you. My question was about GP40P's and SDP40/45's.
After all the posts discussing various other models that I did not
ask about you provided the info I was looking for.

Adding a "passenger package" to a proven design seems to be the way to go.
 

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adding a "passenger package" to a proven design
> seems to be the way to go.

This would seem the wisest thing to do considering the market involved.