pictures of the parts

Of course, these are not my pics, but I forgot where I got them from. So, I would be happy to give credit to the rightful owner.

failure?

But they might make an

But they might make an RTR unit with that shell.

The real question is why would Athearn Make either when Kato already makes an SD80/90?

Or are you wondering if they are going to make an H-MAC? The prototypes on that are super low. And to be clear, the H-Mac phase 1 and phase 2 look different from the SD80/9043. I thought Rail power did both. Kato only makes the 80 and the 9043 (a Fan term)

The Norfolk Southern units that got turned into SD70AUs are all SD9043s. the H-macs have been scrapped for quite some time.

A Failure?

Hi Kirkifer, Not sure were you are getting your information, but I would not call the SD80Mac and SD90Mac's a failure. NS now has the entire SD80Mac fleet that was purchased by Conrail and to the best of my knowledge they are all still earning their keep. The NS SD80Mac's have the 20 Cylinder 710 diesel engine and at 5,000 HP are still the highest horsepower locomotive on the NS roster. The majority of the former UP SD90Mac's have now been though the conversion program and are now classified as SD70ACU. The SD70ACU's keep their original AC traction motors, 16 cylinder 710 diesel engine and TA22 main alternator. The Cab is replaced with the new SD70Ace cab and electrical locker. The Siemens electronics are replaced by the Mitsubishi electronics found in the SD70Ace's. The SD70ACU's are rated at 4,500 HP.

So far the only locomotives from EMD that could be classified as a failure would be the GP50 and SD50. At 3,500 HP, EMD was trying to get just a little too much out of the 16 cylinder 645 diesel engine, But now that NS has rebuilt the SD50's using new EM2000 computer control and EMDEC engine control equipment, and reduced the horsepower to 3,000 HP, the SD40E's are reliably earning their keep. Most of the GP50's have become GP38-3's. rated at 2,000 HP.

(No subject)

I forgot to add a

I forgot to add a description. Rail power shell, Cannon parts, 40' roof walk for rear grills, SV stanchions, OMI drive and fans. The exhaust for the DBs is a Athearn part.

Ooops, sorry...

I guess I hadn't looked into it enough. I knew there were some changes, but it seemed like UP gave up on their units and fairly quickly.

You gotta love Norfolk Southern. They are making things work with all the rebuilds and green initiatives. It seems like their culture has always been about that sort of stuff as evidenced by the Top Gon program and who knows what else.

Bobby, you probably know who those pics belong to, I just can't recall. Now, I remember you using roofwalk material and such for your engine.

What the heck is an H-MAC ? I am in way over my head on some of these things...

I don't know who made the

I don't know who made the parts. The H Mac had the 6000 HP engine. You can tell that it's a H because of the slanting top on the engine section. RPP made that version too.

The SD90 was absolutely a

The SD90 was absolutely a Failure.

SD80 was less so.

Yes, UP had something like 200 of the 9043s...they never got upgraded to H-Engine which was the whole point. And compared to the 900+ SD70Ms and untold SD70ACes...yeah, failure. 

There were electrical problems. As it's not the sam electrics as the SD70MAC. Then more recently, the frame crack issues.

No, these were a failure just as the GE AC6000CW was a failure.

Really A Failure

I guess you better tell NS the SD80Mac's and SD90Mac's that are now SD70ACU's are a failure. I can't speak for the motive power on the Union Pacific, but the NS SD80Mac's and now SD70ACU's are out pulling trains everyday. Just like our SD70's, SD70M's, SD70M-2's and SD70Ace's. This is not a railfan or modeler opinion, this is an opinion from a railroader who actually works on these things.

SD50s were a failure and yet

SD50s were a failure and yet they were out pulling trains all the time.

They were all failures, because they didn't sell in high numbers, because they didn't do what they were supposed to do. 

The fact that the Railroads managed to make the best of their investment in no way changes that. 

What?

That is probably the strangest thing I've ever heard. They were failures because they didn't sell in high numbers? Or maybe most railroads in the Mid 1990's were not interested in a High Horsepower locomotive? Instead choosing the 3,800 to 4,000 HP range. 

Even today railroads are buying 4,400 and 4,500 horsepower locomotives that are more fuel efficient than earlier locomotives. Today we see 12 cylinder diesel locomotives producing horsepower that once was only available from a 16 cylinder diesel engine.

YoHo I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but an example of a true locomotive failure was the EMD SD45. The EMD 20-645 suffered from crankshaft failures causing most railroads to replace the 20 cylinder 645 diesel engine with a 16 cylinder 645 diesel engine. The SD45's and SD45-2's that still have their 20-645 diesel engines have had the horsepower downgraded to 3,000 HP to help eliminate the crankshaft failures. Yes they were out pulling freight until they suffered a main shaft failure, then they sat in a dead line until they were rebuilt or scrapped.

There are a lot of factual

There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in that post. I don't know why you think SD45s were in dead lines early. Most of them lived their full locomotive lives. The 20 cylinder engines weren't replaced until the engines were DECADES OLD. Your statement here is just false. 

First of all, They built almost 1300 straight SD45s compared to 486 SD90s most of which were the 4300HP version all of which were supposed to be upgraded to 6000HP and never were.

Second of all, the Crankshaft issues were solved early on and the SD45 went on to a good long career.

In fact most of them served out their lives. But since the SD40-2 was more popular, when it came time to rebuild the 45s, it was usually easier to standardize. It had nothing to do with design failures. The 1980s was a bad time for the used Loco market across the board as well, so the 45s often just didn't get purchased...at least until Wisconsin Central and MRL bought a whol bunch. And all of WC and MRL' units were v-20s.

And you're wrong about customers not wanting 6000HP. They sure as heck did. They were the ones that asked EMD and GE to build them. The fact that both the SD90 and the AC6000 had issues both in the prime mover and elsewhere basically ended the experiment. The SD80 was a specific request of Conrail, because they wanted a 710 engine, not a 265H. EMD pitched them the SD90 and they said no. There were big industry plans for 6000HP and they all fell apart.

Another thing to think about, if the SD90 were successful, why did none of the convertibles get upgraded? Why did ALL of the 6000HP units end their service lives early and ride the dead lines? Everything you claim about the SD45 that wasn't true is actually true about the SD90. 

If the SD90 was a success, why didn't the SD89 get sold? it was 4300HP before the SD70 finally got there and more fuel efficient. 

No, the SD90 is widely seen as a failure. The H engine equipped units were never more than  handful and the convertibles never got converted. UP just managed to get the most out of their investment and NS bought them, because it meant they didn't need to buy T4 engines. 

The SD45 had early problems that were fixed and suffered due to the Oil Embargo, but it soldered on with original engines into the 1990s. And only got rebuilt recently when it was more important to standardize than it was to get 600 extra HP. It also had successful second life on 2 of the biggest regionals of the 90s in MRL and Wisconsin Central. In both cases, as V-20 units. 

As an addendum, EMD did finally get the bugs worked out of the 265H engine and sold hundreds of them in china. And of course, 265H became the EMD1010 in the current SD70AC-T4. So all was not wasted.

But the idea that the SD90 wasn't a failure just flies in the face of the facts. 

failure of concept

Honestly, I've seen a lot of

Honestly, I've seen a lot of references amongst fans that risk of failure was primary problem with the concept, but I'm not actually sure that ended up being true in practice. OR rather, there were never enough units to put the problem to the test, because the SD90s (H-mac) and the AC6000CW never existed in enough numbers and were more failure prone. 

I mean think about it, 6000 over 6 will get that train running on flat grade and in mountainous territory, they were going to need helpers anyway. I think the best place for 6000HP is likely on helper districts. UP cuts in 3 4400 HP units on trains going over Donner. Would save gas to cut in only 2 6000HP units. 

It ended up that the railroads didn't want to wait out the bugs when there was perfectly reliable 4400HP options already out there. Conrail and now NS have been satisfied with the SD80.  

Interesting to note that BNSF ended up getting their units they wanted. They are back to running 4 powered axle units as they get A1A units from GE and (In theory) B1-1B units from EMD...that's also about cost and moving away from DC though. They'd buy for Axle if the loading made sense.

There are not many helper

There are not many helper districts anymore. Most are run with DPU now.

If EMD would have been given time to eliminate the design flaws the SD90MAC would not be seen as failure. EMD did it anyway for the Chinese locomotives.

The railroads realized that 6,000 hp in one locomotive wasn't the solution to their problems as they had hoped. Otherwise they would have given EMD the time to work out the flaws as they did with the SD45.

IIRC the ES44C4 was offered by GE to eliminate DC locomotives from the production line, not requested by BNSF. BNSF found the concept interesting and tested the ES44C4. Only after the tests they decided that ES44C4 fit as replacement for DC units:
Regards, Volker

This thread sorta changed

This thread sorta changed subjects from models to prototype.

Another thing to think about,

The upgraded diesel engine was a failure, not the locomotive. Using your logic, the DDA40X was a complete failure? The Union Pacific was the only railroad to purchase the DDA40X and then they only purchased 47 units. 

Again I cannot comment on the Union Pacific, I don't work for that railroad, but the SD80Mac is not a failure just because only one railroad purchased the product. The only time the SD80Mac's were placed in storage was during the economic slow down of 2008 and 2009, but a lot of other locomotives were also placed in storage and a lot of folks were laid off.

I guess your idea of a failure and my idea of a failure are two different things. And as I mentioned earlier, the SD9043Mac's which are now SD70ACU's on NS continue on with their original 4,300 710 diesel engine, TA22 Alternator and Siemens AC traction motors. The original Siemens electronics are being replaced with the new Mitsubishi electronics found in the SD70Ace along with the new 70 cab and electrical locker, but this is more for standardization. 

Yes I know, but an SD90 with

Yes I know, but an SD90 with a 710 in it is not an SD90. The whole point was those were supposed to be temporary. So if they never got replaced then something went wrong and it is a failure. Also, Failure is relative to EMD and it's goals. UP never got what it wanted out of the SD90s. The just became longer non-standard SD70MACs. It is a failure.

The SD80 was a one off built for Conrail. Not a general design built for everyone. EMD never intended to make that their main engine going forward. So the status of it as a failure or success is a little different.

Volker, I suspect that's a chicken and egg question with BNSF. I think they were interested in parts standardization going forward as well.

Anyway, this thread did move from model to prototype and I apologize to the OP for that, but it is interesting stuff.  MRH is not usually a site I go to for Prototype info like this (meaning railroading. Obviously, for prototype modeling.) It's just not a focus of this site, but it's good to bring this in from time to time.

@YoHo: I found my information

@YoHo: I found my information about the ES44C4 in Brian Solomon's GE and EMD Locomotives:
https://books.google.de/books?id=JubUBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=ge+es44c4&source=bl&ots=OrIvffzpNw&sig=K3wtQ4dULHx4eZA56wcCIhRh_kM&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUzNSVx_PYAhVFNbwKHblFDDIQ6AEImgEwEQ#v=onepage&q=ge%20es44c4&f=false

and in Greg McDonnell's Locomotives, The Modern Diesel & Electric Reference

There might be differing information, that I don't know of.

YoHo said: So if they never got replaced then something went wrong and it is a failure.

The SD90MAC was more of an misjudgment by the railroads than a failure of the locomotive or its engine. Ordering more locomotives and thus giving more time like with the SD45 to work out flaws, the SD90MAC could have been a success. But the railroads didn't need 6,000 hp anymore.
Regards, Volker

Come on guys, let's talk

Come on guys, let's talk plastic. But, if you don't want to, I'll live through it.

I am enjoying it...

Seriously, though...

I want these parts and a company called KV Models states he can make the parts. He asked that I send him one of my shells for proper fit and measuring, but I am a little apprehensive that I might never get my parts or my shell back. Really, I am not sure what the risk is. I have picked these shells up cheap at hobby shows and if I never got the shell back, I would probably just buy the Kato to replace it.

Bobby has shown how this can be done with other parts and perhaps, we could get him to put some of his under construction pics up here?

Can't have plastic if we

Can't have plastic if we didn't have it 1:1 first.

Volker, I think we're splitting hairs here on the SD90. 

This topic has come up on that other site where we discuss 1:1.  

In either case, I think it's fair to say that EMD would see it as a failure. A lot of R&D effort without the return on investment within the expected window. Yes, China helped recoup the costs later, The new Tier 4 locomotive is a DIRECT descendant of the SD90 and there were other business problems at GM that made things worse. At least the work on the 710 to get it to 4300HP was valuable. So, the 265H was ulitmately not a failure in the end, but at the end of the 90s, when there were a couple hundred SD9043s that were never getting an H-engine...that was a failure.

It's also worth noting the frame cracking issue that sidelined all the UP units and was the ultimate reason the were willing to sell them anyway. 

Anyway, I'm the same way, I'd rather get the proto shell cheap and piece it together. I'd be leery of sending the shell out myself. 

Etched Parts

Kirkifer,

If you go ahead with this, I would be interested in a set of the etched parts similar to the ones shown in the photos for my RPP SD90 that I've been tinkering with over the years. 

 - Thomas