My question wasn't meant to imply "if it doesn't run we don't want it..." As has been mentioned here many many times, not everything has to run. My question was partly because I don't know the condition of the unit and partly because if the CRHS were to make an offer on the unit, knowing it's condition would determine the amount of the offer. That said, any offer made would be made after a physical inspection by our own resident EMD doctor. Any offer made (if there would be one) would factor in cost to move, cost to make ready to move, etc. it would be great if it -would- be able to restore to operating condition and if the crank shaft / engine block is ok it would be possible (although not financially wise, perhaps, to do so.
Russ
CRHS VP

Getting further off-topic here, on any 20-cylinder 645s built in the late 1960s, the condition and modification state of the crankcase is as important as the crankshaft. Between 1970 and 1976 the Erie Lackawanna had quite a few crankshaft failures in the SD45 and SDP45 fleet. One was due to misapplication of a main bearing, one was an unusual "front end" break due to hardening of the viscous damper gel (a reason they switched to gear dampers), and all the rest that I recall were caused by lack of support of the shaft as a result of one or both of the two rear "A" frames going adrift after the original welds cracked. They put some of their crankcases through an EMD upgrading program that strengthened the "A" frame welds, and as far as I know there were no further failures of crankcases from that program. So an equally critical question is what is the modification state of the crankcase. Has it been upgraded, and when, and by who? New construction crankcases after 72J serial numbers had a much heavier "A" frame applied with a larger area where it contacts the base rail.

But with the cost of a "basic" turbocharger overhaul running around $45,000 (not including parts replacement in the event the core had a catastrophic failure), is anybody in locomotive preservation really very enthusiastic about operating a turbocharged 645? How many preservation groups are able to afford to rebuild this kind of turbocharger?

PC

1. The first production SD45, GN #400 (later BN #6430), which is operable, at MTM: http://www.mtmuseum.org/roster.php?page=gn400

2. I don't know about operating, but EL #3607 (later CR #6072) is at MOT: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3190354 (Zach Pumphery photo)

3. WC Operation Lifesaver #7525 (ex-BN #6539), which is operable, at IRM

a. IRM page: http://www.irm.org/cgi-bin/rsearch.cgi?diesel=Wisconsin+Central=7525

b. Out and about as part of Diesel Days in July 2013: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3566944 (Tim Fennell photo)

I suspect both the locomotives cited were conveyed to the new owners as operable.

Fact is-Frequent throttle excursions (which are encountered in 'museum service') with the turbo 'on the clutch' does not favor a long service life for the turbocharger.

Fact is-the recommended maintenance interval (replacement) for the EMD turbo is six years. Sooner or later, the turbo will fail.

Fact is-when the turbo does fail, a proper root cause analysis must be performed, in order to determine the actual mode of failure. Sometimes, the mode of failure is external to the turbo. That said, most museums don't have anyone with enough EMD knowledge to do this-unless they possess substantial EMD experience from the 'outside world.'

As Mr. Cook can certainly be considered to be an EMD expert, I find his comments to be spot on.

Dave

Interesting that no one has questioned why this is being completed and for that matter what will happen to the unit once it is finished...

I believe many will be shocked and pleased to hear the final outcome, and not only why it was done, but where it will go, and what the purpose behind this, and another cosmetic restoration that will be completed. Ultimately, there is a big reason behind this, one that will be a big story in the future.


Dean Levin

Okay Dean. You certainly have my attention!


Les

Dean,

For where I sit, why question good fortune ? Every time, I went out to Shaffers Crossing and returned, I would see the thing sitting in Roanoke yard looking sad and forlorn.

The link that I posted was in a sense, 'hidden', so I kind of figured whoever was behind the effort wanted to maintain a low profile.

Dave

Aha. Spencer. Shoulda guessed.

As for the EL SDP45, am I right that these were ordered without steam generators just for the longer frame and extra fuel capacity, and that therefore we shouldn't fantasize about one pulling the ELDCPS train? <;-)

That is correct, the EL units were built that way for the extra fuel capacity. I believe the plan was to use them in COFC/TOFC service, North Jersey to Chicago, with either no fuel stops or just one stop.

Spencer !!! What a surprise !!!

Dave... First off. I am not questioning good fortune ...and Spencer is not the larger answer on why this unit is being completed ( although to most, that might seem the obvious )... Although its not my position to disclose the ultimate end result, perhaps ask yourself why would NS do a cosmetic restoration on a Wabash unit for VMT ? ( or ask yourself how does a Wabash unit fit in at VMT )...

I am sure at some point the larger plan will be fully disclosed, however I believe those at VMT and elsewhere across the preservation community will be very pleased.


Dean Levin

Dean,

My thought was not made clear. I meant to say that I was not going to question good fortune.

I suspect that there may be a third party involved-but it will be fun to see how this little drama ultimately plays out.

All and all, a significant unit getting some overdue attention is a good thing.

Regret the confusion on my part.

Dave

Perhaps a restored WAB unit fits in better at a Midwestern museum, say St. Louis, and a certain Y would fit in better next to a certain A when a certain J is pulled out of the shed to head to Spencer ;-) ;-) ;-) (joke)

If that is indeed the purpose of this restoration, then it is a real shame. The Museum of Transportation is a national collection and possibly the best collection anywhere of the evolution of steam power in the United States, from 4-4-0s of the 1850s all the way to Super Power, Big Boys and the Y6a. It is the only place where you can see the development of steam and even diesel power in one place.

Especially after all of the difficulty the museum went through to keep the DL&W 4-4-0, this would be a shame if a nicely cared for locomotive, like the Y is traded for an E unit (of which MOT already has one, from the CB&Q). If true, that means the collection can now be gutted to the highest bidder.

I know some would be happy to see the Y back in Roanoke, but at that point, what's the argument for not sending the entire collection back to its "home"? Send the B&W Eddy Clock to the northeast, or the DM&N 2-10-2 back up to Minnesota, or the Big Boy further out west, etc.?

If true, I'm glad I'm not in St. Louis anymore. I'd be sorely disappointed. If true, it would be a giant backhanded slap in the face to the volunteers who have largely kept the place running and who have been responsible for about 90% of the painting and restoration work at the museum the last 20+ years.

I can think of several appropriate places in the Midwest for a Wabash E8 to go, hopefully that will happen. Now if the surviving Bluebird dome cars could follow there as well. Hopefully the RF&P E8 will see some needed attention as well, she is the last RF&P E8 and for that matter, the last RF&P cab unit around.