Probably not, but maybe

Bear in mind the DD40X was a 6,000 HP locomotive - basically a pair of GP40s on a single frame.  With modern traction control systems, AC traction motors, and larger prime movers, 6,000 HP and comparable tractive effort can be had in a much smaller, easier to handle package - the AC6000.  Notice, also, that relatively few of those high-powered locomotives are in service.  There just isn't the need for a single super-high powered locomotive, when two smaller locomotives are easier to maintain and much more flexible.

It's the same thing that killed off the DD40X many years ago.  It worked in a specific service, but it didn't have the general appeal to make it really useful system wide, or nation wide.

With that said, I suppose you could make a 9,000 HP locomotive, but I would guess that GE would build something more along the lines of the U50, using four 2-axle trucks.  Look at modernizing the U50:

6600 hp

The DDA40X was a 6,600hp locomotive.

The AD8800X would be an 8,800hp beast. If it followed the standard EMD plan it would have double radiator wings at the center, might have all the AC rectifiers behind the cab - and if it followed the U50 plan it would have the radiators at both ends.

Realistically.... you've got too much horsepower for the number of axles. There simply isn't any way that the traction motors are going to be able to handle it. It might make for an interesting slug mother though....

Wow!

Any technical issues aside, remember rule #1:  It's your railroad!  I think you did a great job of bashing two GEs and a giant EMD together into a beast that looks like it could haul 144 cars over the Rockies all by itself!  So, if you build the model, straighten out the confusion with the logos, okay?

Hey Rog,   Thank you Jeff

Hey Rog,

Thank you Jeff and Ken for your comments.  

I do understand the logistics of this engine are not realistic, it's more of a "moneys no object/slight bending of physics" type of thing.  I had also considered the engines overpowering the 8 axles, but 10 or even 12 axles would have made the engine way to long (less axles-lesser of two evils).

Rog, you nailed my actual purpose for this; rule #1.  That is why my railroad is based on a modern version of the old (no longer in existance) Great Northern Railway.

Second, hauling over the Canadian Rockies is exactly my reasons for the beast.  That's awesome how you recognized that.

You don't like the new style logos? lol.  I'm still working on a modern take on the old Great Northern's colors and logo.  I'm open to suggestions.

I'm glad you all like the idea.  I'll make sure to take progress photos once the build starts.

Please keep the comments coming.

Jeff M

Waittaminute....

Is that plastic or photoshop? It looks like you're calling it a rendering. 

If you haven't started cutting plastic yet, you might want to rethink the arrangements a bit - simply from a "how would the prototype be plumbed" standpoint. It's your model... 

It's going to have two prime movers, two generators, two dyamic brake sets, and two radiators. 

So you'll need to increase (double?) the size of the hump for the air intakes and the dynamics. Since each prime mover set will have it's own radiator, you'll want to move one of them up front so that it'll be a shorter plumbing reach - I don't want to think of the maintenance headaches that would result from having the radiator plumbing from one prime mover having to route around the other. 

Still, a fun looking project. 

Great Northern? I vote Big Sky Blue!

I think that giant would look great in the GN freight blue, gray and white - what a masterpiece that would be!  Rockies?  Cascades?  No problem!  And plumbing challenges aside, I do like the current arrangement!

Yup, it's just a rendering,

Yup, it's just a rendering, not built yet.

I agree with the plumbing issues, and did do a rendering with the rads in the middle, but it looked weird.  I agree, logically that's where they would put them, and I'm considering going with the original DD's rad setup.

And I also agree with the hump needing to be bigger (intakes/dynamics), and in the final model, I think it will be, but I want to balance size with visual and I want to do that with the actual model.

I like the current layout alot too.

Oh the decisions!!!

As for the colors, I'm still torn between the blue and the original green/orange.

Keep the comments coming! 

Oh ya, it's not photoshop

Oh ya, it's not photoshop either.

I used Microsoft Visio.  I know Visio well, but really haven't spent much time with photoshop.  The rendering is multiple cut and pastes of the two engines.  The part I like most about visio is it's a drafting program, so I can make the photos the correct size/scale before I manipulate them.

Jeff

Original DD's rad no good

I just did a mock-up with the original DD's rads and they are way undersized.

Maybe tomorrow I'll do a mock-up with the AC's rads in the middle with dual humps, front and rear.

I do admit, I really like the current layout, technical issues aside...

Jeff M

...

I don't see any issue why your railroad should not desire to pursue a 8,000 Hp locomotive, and DD trucks [or BB] would both allow such tractive effort.  You're adding two more axles; on the largest 6000 HP engines now, there 6 axles each delivering 1000 Hp to the rails.  Add two more axles, you get your additional 2000 HP, and your engineer can go ahead and use two smaller prime movers that are easier to maintain and/or swap out versus one much larger [higher compression, more cylinders, etc] prime mover.  Further, it may be possible for them to cut out one prime mover when they don't need it, thus running "light," of if one develops issues while in transit.  Granted, then your 8000HP locomotive is only running at 4,000hp, but it's carrying less overall weight than a dead locomotive behind a live locomotive.

Now as for the location of the radiators; there is this concern about piping coolant from the front of the locomotive to the back.  This may seem peculiar, but there are a number of high performance cars that do indeed pipe the coolant under the floorboards to a large radiator system under the hood.  If the radiators only fit in one place, so be it.  If anything, having them all at the back could imply that there is one larger, more efficient cooling plant under the hood, versus two smaller plants,but with a similar expanse of radiators on top.

I dare say it looks like fun!  and before anyone shoots down D trucks, keep in mind they're still in use in South America on the metric gauges, under Expatriated locomotives, nonetheless, DDM45s I believe they are.

I wonder....

...what an 8800hp GenSet would look like?

Just to go with the U50 theme again..

EMD placed two locomotives more or less back to back with the radiators in the middle.  It looks to me as though GE put two locomotives nose to nose, and slapped a cab on one end.  Since you're going with the GE theme, I'd try something similar - radiator right behind the cab, and also at the end.  From personal experience, I can tell you that it would be better than the typical GE arrangement of whining dynamic brake right behind the radiator.

I would also suggest that you consider dual cabs.  A locomotive that powerful could easily handle a train on its own, and the ability to turn such a monster might be a severe limiting factor.  Dual cabs would go a long way toward making the unit much more acceptable generally.  It would look cool, too!

Hmmm...dual cabs...

Hey Ken

I may have to hunt you down now!

That dual cab theme is really making me think.  I still want to pursue this one, and I agree with Benny regarding the rads.  Sounds like a fellow after my own heart...cars would fall as an extremely close second as my favorite hobby.

It's not an A-typical arrangement, but surely doable.  And if you want to see unnecessarily difficult engines to work on, just look under the hood of any car with a transverse mounted engine!  My buddy had an Olds, and we had to pull the wheel, rotor and caliper, just to change the alternator!!!!!  I don't see it as much of a stretch for train engine designers to ignore the mechanic in the design of the system (LOL).

And seeing as we have the cross-over hallway, the added plumbing should make for some nice super detailing.

I'm going to see if a U50 rad arrangement would work, but I think it may infringe on the placement of the dynamics hump and the engine exhaust.  Time for more mock-ups. 

But that dual cab idea does sound cool too.  I think I'm going to have to invest in more parts now...thank a lot Ken!!! .  I'm going to do a quick mock-up on this right now.

And Jeff, I think an 8800 GenSet would look big...REAL BIG.

Thanks everyone for all the comments so far.  I'm really happy to see nobody tell me to not do it outright.

Jeff M.

Quick dual cab mock-up

Here's a real quick mock-up of the dual cab idea.

In this rough rendering, the unit ends up 10.5 feet longer then the DDA40X, so 108.5 (+/-).  Too long in my opinion, but this is just rough.

I'll still be going forward with the original concept, so keep the comments coming.

Jeff M

(No subject)

How about this?

This is hardly perfect, but it's about the best I can do without working too hard on my vacation

Hmm; with the U-50 truck arrangement; interesting . . .

When the dual cab discussion started, I was wondering about two 4400s back to back on a DD-40 frame - you beat me to it!  (Now, about the flags flying in both directions . . .) As convenient as the dual cab configuration would be for the yard crews, I still like the single-ended version better (seems like double-endeds never caught on here).  Each yard is just going to need a REALLY big Y.  (And of course, you could build two of them and run them back to back. You could run 300 car trains over the mountains once a week!)

I'm with you on this Rog I

I'm with you on this Rog

I do like the looks of the double cab, and it's going into my "ToDo" list, but I will be moving forward with the single cab version first.  This entire project is mostly about the looks of the unit, and I too really like the looks of the single cab.  I think it looks more stout, more muscular...meaner.  To me it says, "Ya I'm pulling 150 cars...deal with it!".

I think a cool looking consist would be with this engine in the lead, followed by an AC4400, with the old DDA40X running third (but I digress, not that logical).  They used to do something similar with 2 DD's and a 40 in between.

I'm getting really excited for all my parts to arrive so that I can start building.

...

Two units together solves the facing direction; one unit in reverse, all turning issues solved...

time to shake the tree

dual cabs + full cowl

Ok, thats enough out of me

dual cabs + full cowl??

Two f-45s back to back - a DD-90!

Big Stuff

Personally I like the looks of the ACDD4400X with the 8 wheel trucks.The only flaw I can see is that walkover is not very person friendly.To my eyes the body lines just seem to flow smoothly from nose to tail.

Where did that spell checker come from,I hope it was a freebie.

                                         Johnathan (Catt)

ACBB+BB 8800

Jeff,  this is really cool I played with your photo in MS Paint and came up with this. How about 2 back - to - back engines with the rads on the outer ends, crossover in the middle so the crew can use the door on the engineers side. Flip the inverters to the opposite sides of each main body, with climb overs on both ends . Shorten the fuel tank (maybe halve it with a gap in between). Put the steps in the center of the fuel tank (where the gap would be). How about a BN style fuel tender (tank car) to pull behind with 20,000 gals. of diesel and Big Sky Blue paint. Joe Hueber.

Jeff, I couldn't resist using Josh Moldauer's (spelled correctly?) Paint shop to see what it would look like from the side. I think the D/B could be shorter, thus shortening the whole body (bodies?). The converter cab is a convenient place for the "GOAT" or HUSTLE MUSCLE 2.   

Centipede

How about something along the lines of the Baldwin Centipede.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_DR-12-8-1500/2

You would have cabs at either end, and also enough axles on the rail to transmit tractive effort effectively.  At 8800 HP and 270000 lb. T.E. you need 12 axles, at least.