home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!scifi!acheron!philabs!linus!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!elw4
- From: elw4@po.CWRU.Edu (Evan L. Werkema)
- Newsgroups: rec.railroad
- Subject: Re: Genesee & Wyoming Now in Oregon
- Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:43:09 GMT
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- Lines: 59
- Message-ID: <1k95vdINN729@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- References: <PRATTA.93Jan28113223@rebecca.rpi.edu> <1993Jan18.201448.12869@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com> <122200199@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
- Reply-To: elw4@po.CWRU.Edu (Evan L. Werkema)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu
-
-
- In a previous article, pratta@rpi.edu (Anthony Edward Prattico) says:
- >In article <1993Jan28.002233.7516@gw.wmich.edu> 195ochs@gw.wmich.edu writes:
- >
- >>SD's are mostly used for more traction, since they have more traction
- >>motors. GP's are lighter and are also typically used for highspeed trains
- >>(intermodal, etc)
- >>Here's some typical weights of locos from Chessie System and CSX
- >>(sort of an approximate, since different class engines weighed differently)
- >>
- >>GP 7/9 250,000
- >>SD 7/9 370,000 (these were ballasted to make them slightly heavier)
- >>GP35 260,000
- >>SD35 390,000
- >>GP38 270,000
- >>SD38 380,000
- >>GP40 275,000
- >>SD40 390,000
- >>
- >>and also some GE's to compare:
- >>U30B 277,000
- >>U30C 377,000
- >>B30-7 277,000
- >>C30-7 385,000 and 411,500 (they have 2 different weights listed)
- >>B40-8 288,000
- >>C40-8 395,000
- >>
- >>So you can clearly see that there is typically 120,000-140,000
- >>pounds between a B and a C trucked engine. This is very crucial on branch
- >>lines. Most branchlines will be restricted to a GP30, GP35 or GP38 or GP40
- >>or GP7/9 on some RR's (CSX doesn't have any GP7/9's left, they usually use
- >>GP30,GP38.GP39,GP40 GP16 (rebuilt GP7/9's) and U18B,U36B, and B30-7's
- >>on the locals in Michigan. Mostly GP30's and GP40's since they have scads
- >>of GP40's (and GP40-2's)
- >
- >True, but the real limit is the weight PER AXLE. Of all the engines above, the
- >weight per axle of the six axle engines is EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN that of the
- >four axle units. Many of the problems with branchlines stems from the sharper
- >curves that cause problems with the six axle units, which have a much larger
- >minimum radius. I don't know about the particular trackage in question, but I'd
- >assume this is more likely the case, giving the lower axle loads of the six
- >axle units. In your example of locals, I bet that there are many industries
- >sharp curved sidings to be served, which would demand a four axle unit.
-
- I've heard of at least two cases where 4-axle locomotives have been used
- in favor of 6-axle ones because 6-axle engines are "harder on track." One
- case was the early sale of the Monon C630's (or was is C628's?) in favor of
- new, 4-axle locomotives that were easier on the track. The other is the GBW,
- who presently has 6 ex-FRV, ex-LS&I, nee-ATSF RSD15's sitting in Green Bay
- which will probably never see service on the GBW (according to Trains magazine)
- because "the Alcos' 6-axle trucks are too hard on GBW's track."
- I know GBW is a regional, and doesn't maintain its track to the standards
- of Class 1's. Do 6-axle trucks knock the rail out of alignment quicker?
-
- --
- ----__________,,_------- -------_,,___________----
- _IooI == ~~~~~~I I~~~~~~ == IooI_ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
- |_II__I____Santa Fe_______I_| |_I_____Evan Werkema___I__II_| Ielw4@po.cwru.eduI
- `-~O==O~=============~O==O~-`~`-~O==O~==============~O==O~-`~~o==o~~~~~~~~o==o~
-