Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?

The last time I saw a CEFX SD90/43mac is in mid-August. I was just wondering if they still lease them or if somebody else has them now.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, CPR_9102, Dec-18-04, 04:46 PM, (1) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, Russian, Dec-19-04, 03:44 PM, (2) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, JonN, Dec-19-04, 05:26 PM, (4) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, NewEnglandRailFan, Dec-19-04, 09:29 PM, (5) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, plainsman, Dec-19-04, 10:14 PM, (6) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, smallspy, Dec-30-04, 10:53 PM, (10) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, plainsman, Jan-02-05, 05:29 AM, (12) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, smallspy, Jan-02-05, 02:51 PM, (13) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, plainsman, Jan-02-05, 07:04 PM, (14) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, smallspy, Jan-03-05, 01:30 AM, (15) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, century242, Dec-19-04, 04:41 PM, (3) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, Russian, Dec-30-04, 03:21 PM, (7) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, UP6767, Dec-30-04, 05:36 PM, (8) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, CP_5731, Dec-30-04, 09:41 PM, (9) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, heavyd, Jan-02-05, 00:56 AM, (11) RE: Does CP still lease the SD90/43macs?, CPR_9102, Jan-03-05, 10:45 AM, (16)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Yes,There is a joint agreement with CP & UP. They spend most of their time down in Southern AB, BC, and in the US.We get 60 GEAC4400CW's thoughChris Wilson / CP 9102
Marathon, ON
www.trainweb.org/cprnosa
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4201

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>They spend most of
>their time down in Southern AB, BC, and in the US. That sucks, no wonder I haven't seen them. I bet you have most of them. Wonder why they're in the mountains, as they're 100h.p. weaker then the AC4400CW's... And are they assigned to Winnipeg for maintenence?

http://www.ussr.to/Russia/trainsim/
Visit my webpage - Updated weekly
- Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-04 AT 05:30 PM (EST)

>Wonder why they're in the mountains, as
>they're 100h.p. weaker then the AC4400CW's... And are they
>assigned to Winnipeg for maintenence? Their engines do have slightly less grunt to them, but they can generate more tractive effort than the AC4400s due to their greater weight, as well as their beefier alternators and traction motors: remember, these babies were designed to be fully capable of supporting 6,000hp prime movers (though it's a pretty safe bet that none of the SD90/43s will ever recieve such an upgrade)Jonathan Nikiforovs.
Milepost 180, CP Belleville Sub.

Repainter for Yonder Locomotive Works.

"A crictic is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased - he hates all creative people equally." - Lazarus Long

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Also, I heard that CP was experiancing some problems with their AC44's stalling on The Big Hill over Kicking Horse Pass, so the're probally trying somthing new. I say go back to the Dash-2's
-Dave

You can e-mail me at davej8010@aol.com -or- hrrc_7324@yahoo.com -or- feel free to aim me.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Dave,
I don't think the AC44s are likely the problem, as a AC44 that weighs 189 metric tons or more ought to be able to get 180,000 pounds of TE on excellent rail conditions, and for most roads, that is a computer limited max TE. CP has often been a little more conservative than some roads on the computer settings, and I don't know how much their units weigh? Even though very heavy units may be useful in starting a very heavy train, they also pay a penalty in adding to total train weight which may degrade performance over a steep grade, and they will add to fuel cost per ton of freight.
BTW, remember, HP has nothing to do with absolute pulling ability, only with pull at speed. Thus a SD90Mac with 4,300 HP is not necessarily "weaker" than a 4,400 HP AC44, or a AC60 with 6,000 HP for that matter. It just won't pull that heavy train as fast as the AC60 (now some AC60s weigh a lot more, and those would start a heavier train in most conditions). For a 194.9 metric ton AC60, the best I am aware of in real world pulling performance (not counting "lab" groomed rail factory tests), is about 188,100 pounds of starting tractive effort. A 192.8 metric ton SD90Mac would do about 185,000 pounds of STE under the same conditions, if neither is computer limited. I suspect a lot of the SD90/43 units are also computer limited to 180,000 pounds of max TE, and I think most SD70Macs are computer limited to 175-176,000 pounds of max TE.
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Bob, as listed in the Canadian rail bible...CP 9100's - Weight: 420,000lbs, CTE: 147,000lbs
CP 9300's - Weight: 426,000lbs, CTE: 170,000lbs
CP 8500/8600/9583>/9700/9800 - Weight: 420,000lbs, CTE: 145,000lbs
CP 9500's - Weight: 412,000lbs, CTE(claimed): 145,000lbsIIRC, CP's AC44's are computer limited to 4000hp under something like 18 or 22mph.DanEveryone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong it is.

www.greatlakesrail.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Dan,
We are talking about two different things here.
The CTE or continuous tractive effort, is the TE at minimal continuous speed. In AC that is usually not a function of traction motors overheating, but mechanical and electrical properties relatng to rotational speed.
I was refering to the starting tractive effort. This is a pulling force which a locomotive can breifly generate to get a train moving. In general, this is a function of the weight and adhesion, and has almost nothing to do with power. It is analogous to a farm tractor. Even a 30HP model which weighs 9,000 pounds could easily drag a 450HP, 2,500 pound car around. The tractor just will never get over about 12 mph. The car will be spinning its wheels, but will be moving backward in the opposite direction of their spin.
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I'm aware of the differences Bob. I'm just giving you the numbers that I have.From what I've observed with different freight engines, CTE seems to average something around 83.5% of the STE, which will at the very least give you a starting point from which to work from, although it won't be the precise/correct number.DanEveryone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong it is.

www.greatlakesrail.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Dan,
The two are really unrelated, although it may be by design that some locomotives fit your number (some would not, an SD9 would be a good example, with a lot more STE than CTE, due to heavy weight, but relatively weak traction motors). I calculate the STE from known weight and adhesion. This will be very close on all locomotives for which this data is available (it is available for most actually).
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

You are right, the two are unrelated. I was just pointing out what is likely just a fluke with modern freight locomotives.DanEveryone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong it is.

www.greatlakesrail.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

There is usually one or two hanging around the Roseville, Ca areaRegards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Thanks for all the helpfull info. I really like the SD90MAC's, even if they're not CEFX... It strikes me odd when many people think that only UP uses them.Here's a nice CP SD90MAC caught just two days ago, up here.

http://www.ussr.to/Russia/trainsim/
Visit my webpage - Updated weekly
- Roman

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/41d4631121d6180f.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/41d4631c21fb9a09.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/41d4632c2245945d.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

what about EMD's? there still good in the mountains arnt they?

Shawn.
Guilford Rail System
www.gvrs.tk
SD70ACe_GM73@yahoo.com
Korn's # 1 FAN!!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yes the EMD are still good, but the AC4400 are much better in the mountains for pulling power. We find that the SD90's tend to bounce or hop when starting a heavy train on a grade, not to good for the knuckles.
Ryan
Revelstoke, Bc
(Mile 125.7 CPR Mountain Subdivision)
CP Rail Conductor

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I saw two AC4400 CEFX's 10?? and 1013 both west bound and leading two different trains at Windsor the other day.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

One lead through here the other day on train #105...It passsed through @ 0830 so there was no sunlight... However, my friend caught it on the Nipigon subhttp://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=89205Chris Wilson / CP 9102
Marathon, ON
www.trainweb.org/cprnosa
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4201

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.