Great to see this beautiful beast rescued from scrap! Also was 7009 in working order from being rescued from NRE? If so impressive considering it’s sat there for god knows how long.
I’m not sure it was in 100% working order. I think it was stored for a while, but when locomotives are stored, they do it in a way that makes them easy to return to service when needed. That’s why it could be shipped via rail without a waiver, and that’s why the diesel team got her running only a few months after delivery. Additionally, from November-December, the focus was mainly on Happy Holiday Railway, so they only really looked at it from January onwards. This unit looks to be taken care of (mechanically) reasonably well, so that helped a lot.
it's unlikely that those 2 will be targeted for preservation now that they've been repainted. They'll likely get rebuilt into AC44C6Ms. A better Dash 9 to focus on would be 9696, which is still just a patch. Restoring that one back to CNW 8632 would be much easier.
The 50s had 16-645F3s, not 20-645E3s :D But the 20-cylinder 645s on the 45s sound sweet. And we can’t forget the 20-710G3Cs on Conrail’s SD80MACs either
Well the SD45 and SD50 were very different cases. Although both were of the 645-series blocks, that’s about where it ends in terms of similarities. Let’s compare the two. The 20-645 had a reputation as a gas guzzler, but this was relatively untrue. At notch 8, the 16-645F3B drank 188 gallons of diesel an hour, while the 20-645E3 consumed 194 gallons an hour. (Source: Mid-1970s BN Maintenance dept publications for locomotive mechanics). It is true that during early production runs, 20-645E3s had crankshaft issues, but these were quickly remedied and did not appear in the SD45-2s. Both the 16-645F3B and the 20-645E3 produced 3,600 horsepower (SD50s were uprated from 3,500 to 3,600 hp during the later half of their production run). The issue is that the 20-645E3 was just a 16-645E3 with more cylinders, and the engine was adequately designed for this amount of horsepower. The 16-645F3B was a 16-645E3 with a bigger turbocharger AND the redline increased from 904 rpm to 950 rpm. From my knowledge, they made these changes on the existing 16-645E3 platform without properly reinforcing engine block components. This led to serious engine reliability issues which tarnished EMD’s reputation. Of course, the SD50s were also plagued with electrical issues but those were separate from the issues with the engine block. Hope this gave you a better understanding. Edit: Additionally, SD50s were being produced at a time when not many railroads were placing orders for locomotives due to the changing economy. The SD60 more or less fixed every issue of the SD50.
Im glad one of these poor old dudes survived. I grew up feet away from the c&nw and remember being excited to see these when they were new. ❤
Another awesome locomotive saved!
A very handsome locomotive.
Hoping I can make it out to the IRM sometime this year or next year to see her!
Great to see this beautiful beast rescued from scrap! Also was 7009 in working order from being rescued from NRE? If so impressive considering it’s sat there for god knows how long.
I’m not sure it was in 100% working order. I think it was stored for a while, but when locomotives are stored, they do it in a way that makes them easy to return to service when needed. That’s why it could be shipped via rail without a waiver, and that’s why the diesel team got her running only a few months after delivery. Additionally, from November-December, the focus was mainly on Happy Holiday Railway, so they only really looked at it from January onwards. This unit looks to be taken care of (mechanically) reasonably well, so that helped a lot.
Praying the IRM can save the former Dash 9 dynamic duo or one of the three patched Dash 9s left on UP's roster!
Yes, indeed we need to save a Former CNW DASH 9 locomotive to be preserved
it's unlikely that those 2 will be targeted for preservation now that they've been repainted. They'll likely get rebuilt into AC44C6Ms. A better Dash 9 to focus on would be 9696, which is still just a patch. Restoring that one back to CNW 8632 would be much easier.
My favorite emd although a commercial failure the 20 cyl sounds like nothing else.
The 50s had 16-645F3s, not 20-645E3s :D
But the 20-cylinder 645s on the 45s sound sweet. And we can’t forget the 20-710G3Cs on Conrail’s SD80MACs either
Both the SD45/50 doomed from it's engines
Well the SD45 and SD50 were very different cases. Although both were of the 645-series blocks, that’s about where it ends in terms of similarities. Let’s compare the two. The 20-645 had a reputation as a gas guzzler, but this was relatively untrue. At notch 8, the 16-645F3B drank 188 gallons of diesel an hour, while the 20-645E3 consumed 194 gallons an hour. (Source: Mid-1970s BN Maintenance dept publications for locomotive mechanics). It is true that during early production runs, 20-645E3s had crankshaft issues, but these were quickly remedied and did not appear in the SD45-2s. Both the 16-645F3B and the 20-645E3 produced 3,600 horsepower (SD50s were uprated from 3,500 to 3,600 hp during the later half of their production run). The issue is that the 20-645E3 was just a 16-645E3 with more cylinders, and the engine was adequately designed for this amount of horsepower. The 16-645F3B was a 16-645E3 with a bigger turbocharger AND the redline increased from 904 rpm to 950 rpm. From my knowledge, they made these changes on the existing 16-645E3 platform without properly reinforcing engine block components. This led to serious engine reliability issues which tarnished EMD’s reputation. Of course, the SD50s were also plagued with electrical issues but those were separate from the issues with the engine block. Hope this gave you a better understanding.
Edit: Additionally, SD50s were being produced at a time when not many railroads were placing orders for locomotives due to the changing economy. The SD60 more or less fixed every issue of the SD50.