Do you think EMD will ever build a DD90ACe?

[Swafford]

Do you think EMD will ever build a DD90ACe?
Regards,
Swafford

 

[mrmoose]

That'd be a sweet machine to watch in action, but the maintainence on those trucks alone would be insane. They're doin' pretty good with a/c traction right now, and some of the RR's just specify more weight if they need more traction. Maybe one day if they ever decide to go with single unit trains.

 

[Swafford]

Revised the drawing a little!

Revised the drawing a little.

Regards,
Swafford

 

[Stan Lytle]

It would be nice if you credited the original artist and and abided by his terms of use requirements. Removing the original artist's name and copyright is not fair the to artist.

http://trainiax.net/mescaleloco.php

 

[GHLines]

The linked drawing looks more like an elongated/modified DD40, whilst the ones posted here look like an elongated SD 70 ACe Many differences.

 

[Pat]

Doubtful. The only savings would be through unit reduction. This could be attractive in coal service, mountains or if the carriers ever went ahead with the super long stack trains. The draw back is in operating flexibility. One failure of a DD90 type would take a lot of power off line. One SD70/ES44 fails and the remaining units can often keep going. It also eliminates the flexibility to shut a unit down in route to save fuel. I see a lot of 2-3 unit consists go by with one or sometimes two units shutdown or idled to conserve fuel.

 

[SamReeves]

It would be a roadmaster's nightmare. The Centennial can barely get around a few wyes on the UP system.

 

[kenw]

for it ever to be considered it will have to wait until those familiar with the problems with the DD40 are retired and some real noobs get high enough to make such a poor decision. In retrospective, the DD (DDA40X, DD35, et al) were a failure. Mostly for reasons that Pat mentioned: inflexibility, high fixed costs and lack of volume/scale. A totally unique engine with limited flexibility is a dead horse for a modern railroad.

I wouldn't hold my breath....

 

[Stan Lytle]

The linked drawing looks more like an elongated/modified DD40, whilst the ones posted here look like an elongated SD 70 ACe Many differences.

I know it's not the same, or modified drawing. I was referring to the "Terms of Use" at the bottom of the page.

 

[RailfanRails]

It would be nice if you credited the original artist and and abided by his terms of use requirements. Removing the original artist's name and copyright is not fair the to artist.

http://trainiax.net/mescaleloco.php

Instead of pointing fingers you should contact the "owner" of the original you feel was used for this drawing and tell him his intellectual property was stolen. Then you can straighten your Boy Scout hat and call it a day as you did what you should have done.

Of course the original owner will have to prove that posting it on the net in the first place doesn't imply fair use and that he/she did not use someone elses drawing as a basis for their drawing. Seeing as this drawing appears to be unique it will be hard to prove that it is not an entirely new drawing (new original property created) and not a copy of something at the link you posted. As it appears to be a new drawing the creator does not need "permission" to post unless the one who feels wronged can prove that his/her property was explicitly used to create the new drawing.

Screaming foul and not being able to prove it gets everyones nerves in an uproar. Pointing fingers never does any good nor does trying to shame someone in an open forum. If there was any question with the copyright on the drawing the owner or his agents, of this forum should remove the material. A comlaint to his ISP could result in the site being shutdown per the DCMA Act, if they did not remove the material.

 

[Tower 55]

for it ever to be considered it will have to wait until those familiar with the problems with the DD40 are retired and some real noobs get high enough to make such a poor decision. In retrospective, the DD (DDA40X, DD35, et al) were a failure. Mostly for reasons that Pat mentioned: inflexibility, high fixed costs and lack of volume/scale. A totally unique engine with limited flexibility is a dead horse for a modern railroad.

I wouldn't hold my breath....

The DDA40X wasnt a failure. Check out Don Strack's stuff on them. They accomplished a lot in a short time frame. For what UP had in the way of trackage back then, they seemed to have worked fine.

 

[KCSHogger]

Great to talk about, impressive drawings, but I hope not because it would be a piece of S*** for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thankfully the company which I work for does not believe in locomotives any larger than the 4000-4400 hp range.

 

[GHLines]

Only way it would work would be radial 4 axle trucks.

 

[Swafford]

For the record, the drawings that I have presented here were created by modifications from original SD70ACe of drawings from Michael Eby at Trainiax.

Regards,
Frank Swafford

 

[kenw]

They accomplished a lot in a short time frame.

There is a big difference between an Engineering success (it was, altho shortlived) and a Business success (it wasn't ever).

Bottomline is that if they had been a true success, Engr + Business, they would have ordered more of a similar nature, or at least evolved the concept further. They didn't do either and the replacements were no-frills, single PM SD40-2 for tonnage or GP40 for speed. Both of which are still in Class 1 usage 30+ years later and major investments are being made to continue their life even further. That's success. Even when the SD40-2 was being phased out of primary usage, the replacement SD70 was based on the concept of the SD40-2 (no-frills, single PM).

 

[ROCK4329]

Heck with the new SD's, I'm still waiting for EMD to catch up on the GP's!!! Where are the GP70's, 75's, 80's, and 90's?????

 

[kenw]

Heck with the new SD's, I'm still waiting for EMD to catch up on the GP's!!! Where are the GP70's, 75's, 80's, and 90's?????

they're permanently safe in your dreams, Glen.....

seriously, the primary road-use driver for Geeps was the power limits of the engine/generator/alternator. At high speeds virtually all of the engine's power was consumed in powering 4 traction motors, there just wasn't enough juice for 6. That's why high-speed units like the GP40 existed: why have 2 more axles if they can't be used? If it wasn't too heavy and needed speed, Geep was your choice.

The SD of the day used the same basic engine but at slower speeds where the power output was more than ample for 6 motors. Modern electronics, bigger HP engines and newer designs have eliminated the lack of power so now 6 axle and high speed can co-exist peaceably....dooming the 4 axle....

....except in Glen's dreams....

and back OT, the DD was simply 2 GPs on 1 frame and it therefore had more in common functionally with 4 axle units than 6 axle. (the original DD configuration/concept was a GP35-DD35(B)-GP35 in high speed service).

The business issue was even more compounded by the fact that a pair of Geeps could be separated later in life and find usefulness in a yard or shortline, extending their value. A DD had no such longterm value extension potential and once the mainline high speed duties were done, they had no value except as scrap. Most unfortunate for us railfans.

 

[Sean R Das]

It should be noted that the DD35 was originally intended to be a cabless booster, with a short-wheelbase locomotive leading. Adding a cab to the unit was UP's idea.

Seeing as the DD90ACe is completely a "what if" scenario, how would you imagine it? A cables booster or a complete locomotive?

 

[kenw]

It should be noted that the DD35 was originally intended to be a cabless booster, with a short-wheelbase locomotive leading.

...and trailing. a pair fast GP35 to be exact sandwiching a pair of DD35 boosters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD35

 

[CSX 700]

There is a big difference between an Engineering success (it was, altho shortlived) and a Business success (it wasn't ever).

Bottomline is that if they had been a true success, Engr + Business, they would have ordered more of a similar nature, or at least evolved the concept further. They didn't do either and the replacements were no-frills, single PM SD40-2 for tonnage or GP40 for speed. Both of which are still in Class 1 usage 30+ years later and major investments are being made to continue their life even further. That's success. Even when the SD40-2 was being phased out of primary usage, the replacement SD70 was based on the concept of the SD40-2 (no-frills, single PM).

The DDA40X was definitely a success. However they were an unconventional design, designed jointly by EMD and UP. A new CMO came along with a different philosophy which was to acquire standard production model locomotives which led to the demise to future double diesel road units like this. These units racked up several million miles before retirement and maintained high availability ratings up until the end. These units were built for specific purposes and comparing them to a GP40 or SD40-2 is nothing but comparing apples and oranges.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY