With the news that UP is scrapping 21 8900 series 265H engined SD90MAC's.

Questions:

1.) Is the 265H now officially a failure or at least a technological dead end for the North American market, though still on EMD's website?

2.) What kind of service record did they have or is it the common story with railroads that a key attribute of economic feasibility is commonality with predominant platforms?

3.) Are there still any on the roster? Any chance they'd preserve one?

4.) Has any museum tried to get one of these locomotives?

Wow! Aren't these 'Brand New'? OK-- I know they're not, but it sure seems like they are. Couldn't they rebuild them to SD9043's?

Trains Magazine's "New Wire" on its internet site carried an item last Friday about this. If you are a subscriber to Trains Magazine you can access the daily news posting.

It says that the 21 units are to be dismantled for parts. The 265H engine will either be exported or cut up. The only item that does not get saved is the frame.

Wow- this seems like the diesel equivalent of the scrapping of the Pennsy T-1's or Q-2's. This must be a pretty big financial hit for the UP.

1) The 16-265H engine is to be applied to 300 6000 hp locomotives for China. GE also has an order for 300 6000 hp units.

2) By many accounts, these locomotives were extremely unreliable in service. Many of the issues had nothing to do with the diesel engine.

Then again, the locomotives may be due for a mandated overhaul in order to preserve/upgrade emissions performance. Given that there is no NA version of the engine that meets Tier II standards, the only option may have been to retire the locomotive.

3) ?

4) ?

It is also possible that the current incarnation of EMD (Electro Motive Diesel) will no longer support certain models produced under GM ownership. I am told that this is the case for the Long Island EMD passenger units. The 90MAC's were also constructed under GM ownership.



DPK

At the risk of kicking over a big bucket of you-know-what here, I have to ask, does a 265H engined locomotive warrant preservation? Yes, it looks cool. (most trains do, that's why we log onto this site and pour time, talents, and treasures into railroad preservation.) But it seems that the issue of museums having more than they can maintain is becoming an increasingly frequent topic. Does it make sense then, to advocate preservation for a big idea that wasn't? I'm not saying that I couldn't support such a preservation effort, but in light of all other preservation opportunities, would it be wise? Or, could the same resources be spent maintaining/preserving a more successful example of 21st century railroading?

Though one should never underestimate the magnetic appeal of superlative "gee-gosh-wow" attractions like the UP Big Boys and Centennials, the C&O Allegheny, and/or the DM&IR 2-8-8-4's, the hard-nosed reality is that we have precious little room and resources to be "mucking about" with something big and noisy that was ultimately unsuccessful. An EMD SD50 belongs on the preservation list way ahead of an SD90MAC, and even then one could make the case that the SD50 was not a success for EMD, as many of them only survived via rebuilding or down-rating.

And yes, much as the PRRT&HS will break down my door and melt my PRR belt buckles for saying it, for the same reasoning it's no loss that a PRR T1 wasn't saved.......

Successful designs fare best at being preserved. Why else would there be so many PCC cars, GP9s, and F7's in museums? Less successful designs tend to have short lives and it's human nature for their creators or caretakers to be unenthused about saving and exhibiting what may be perceived as a disaster. For that reason I wouldn't expect to see any SD90MAC end up in a museum. I'm not saying the EMD four stroke engine program was a complete disaster, but it is certainly perceived as such by lots of observers.

For the same reason the PRR's own historical collection concentrated on locos they felt were successes. Oh sure, the J1 was a success by any measure, but it wasn't THEIR success, and as a result didn't rate preservation equal to the lowly B6sb of the PRR's own design. Don't get me wrong here, I admire and respect the PRR (My amateur radio callsign is K3PRR), but let's be honest, they were not working in the most logical direction when they created the latter day T and Q class locos. Proven diesels were already on the market when those duplex drive monsters were conceived but the PRR chose to ignore the obvious and go off on their own. They thought they were doing the right thing, but 20/20 hindsight says otherwise.

So don't bet on being able to show your grandson a preserved SD90MAC.

The SD/GP-50 prime mover lives on as a "revamped" 645 F3B in the MPI product line at 3600 hp.

Just the same that everyone drools over long, forgotten Pennsy power, the 90 MACs will have their cult following in the same fashion...

[/i]At the risk of kicking over a big bucket of you-know-what here, I have to ask, does a 265H engined locomotive warrant preservation? Yes, it looks cool. (most trains do, that's why we log onto this site and pour time, talents, and treasures into railroad preservation.) But it seems that the issue of museums having more than they can maintain is becoming an increasingly frequent topic. Does it make sense then, to advocate preservation for a big idea that wasn't?

Though one should never underestimate the magnetic appeal of superlative "gee-gosh-wow" attractions like the UP Big Boys and Centennials, the C&O Allegheny, and/or the DM&IR 2-8-8-4's, the hard-nosed reality is that we have precious little room and resources to be "mucking about" with something big and noisy that was ultimately unsuccessful.[/i]

I think this discussion brings up the broader questions of why, what and how preservation should operate. What is your objective criteria that creates “preservationworthiness”?

Isn’t the purpose of industrial preservation to prevent the destruction of something that was “ultimately unsuccessful”? There’s no need to preserve something that earns its keep, it’ll find a home somewhere.

Using “ultimate success” as the yardstick, every steam locomotive that remains is merely another example of something that was “ultimately unsuccessful”. Sure, it was diffuse and durable technology and it ruled the rails for 125 years, but visionaries like the SP’s Julius Kruittschmidt (spelling?) knew that the horsepower curve, dynamic augment, labor intensity and capital requirements for supportive infrastructure made the “iron horse” a problem in both the Superintendent of Motive Power and Comptroller’s offices and actively advocated the development of something better. The only question really was would the diesel be developed sufficiently and quickly enough to save the railroads from choosing between the excessive maintenance of steam and the astronomical cost of extending electrification, when money was getting tight, due to invasive regulation and new competition.

As far as the comparisons with the big steamers, in terms of market positioning, the SD90MAC IS an Allegheny. It was developed & marketed with a primary, if not singular consideration of imbuing a single locomotive (unit) with most possible horsepower. I would suggest, if you don’t think an SD-90MAC should be preserved, break out the torches on the remaining 1600’s.

Yes, unlike the SD-90MAC, which inevitably, as a new technology would suffer from “teething pains”, there was nothing radical about the Allegheny other than its six wheel trailing truck and concealed axle load. If it had a failure, it was the C&O’s apparent misunderstanding about its “operating envelope”. Had the NKP had the turntables and roundhouses to support the Allegheny, they might have hung on to steam until 1960 or later, rather than 1958 or so (IMNSHO) as they already knew how to use a superpower engine-in fast freight, where the big boiler could make the horsepower it was designed to produce.

For all of its mystique, it remained a coal burning, simple articulated, superheated, reciprocating steam locomotive. Yet the essential similarity between the Allegheny & SD-90MAC was the same design flaw-the excessive focus on the readily measureable attribute: horsepower. Some of those not-so-apparent other valuable attributes, serviceability, familiarity, availability & adaptability (to types of service not originally intended from new operating/economic conditions) are rarely measureable in advance, and often only inferred after “real world” service.

Not so with Yellowstones or Big Boys. In fact, although they had short service lives, they were displaced by a new technology, not one of their own kind. Their success is attested to by the very fact that 8 of 25 Big Boys made it to the promised land which could only have happened because were still around until vanquished by diesels. Same thing with the Yellowstones, they survive because they were around to be saved, no other reason.

I would think that in terms of industrial archeology, the failures SD-90MAC’s Duplexes,’s Jawn Henry’s, etc) would be as important as the successes. Why do so many GP-9’s soldier on? It surely isn’t 1750 HP, right? Its only after you work with one that you discover its hidden virtues-adaptability, durability, availability, economy, etc, etc.

Even the concept of “successful” is relative. In the hands of any other railroad, a Baldwin diesel is worth whatever the scrapper will pay or the tax deduction that can be gained by giving it away. Yet SMS has found a way to run freight with them. Ditto for GVT and its Alco’s.

In the last round of preservation, lets be honest, there was no concerted plan. What’s left from the steam era are “targets of opportunity”.

Ultimately, who owned it, where it was, who liked it, where it was in the service cycle upon retirement were far more important than any curatorial judgment in determining what was saved. As such there’s NO steam from some railroads and many of the “most successful” designs –Y6b’s, NYC Hudsons & Niagaras, etc are all gone. Some others, such as the N&W J’s have but one example left, even though they were state of the art and survived (really) late into the steam era. With enthusiasts still focused on steam by the time the “first generation” diesels were being put to pasture, the record there is worse.

Yes, it might be inordinately expensive and time consuming to preserve an SD-90MAC, but it might be very valuable in training future business historians about the recurrent tendency of companies to (over) emphasize the conspicuous and easily quantified features of a product. Can you imagine in 50 years, somebody saying “why would anybody develop a 6000 HP prime mover instead of creating the gen-set concept that eventually became the standard? Couldn’t they see petroleum products escalating?

At this point, I wish I could embed Tim Allen’s voice saying “that thing just needs more power..” but substitute “money” for “power”.

Pretty much agree. It is necessary, from a preservationists viewpoint,
to show the whole picture. Just as not every car is a success and
we see Edsels preserved. Same thing.

I don't think anyone in this forum would be against the preservation of an SD90MAC. But reality as of today says that the high value of scrap, the pressing financial needs of most museums, the perception that this model was not a success, and its relatively young age will all work against the probability of preservation. If someone would like to take a shot at saving one, great. But it's not going to be easy. Anyone want to get at the head of the line now?

Actually... I would be.

Given that the preservation movement has limited space and funds, preserving this sort of thing simply because of novelty would be a poor choice.

Someone earlier made the point that preserving failures is important too, considering that the successes will be preserved anyway by being in service. This is only true if those successful models are adequately preserved before their very success runs them into the ground and makes them little more than useless, lifeless hulks with too little integrity to be salvaged. Or worse yet, rebuild candidates into something unrecognizable.

If we had wanted to preserve failures such as, say, the Alco C-636, it wouldn't make much sense unless we also preserved the models that won the diesel development race of the '60s, specifically a couple SD40-2s. Otherwise, the movement is telling a skewed story and letting key pieces fall through their fingers. Any effort spent on preserving an SD90MAC would be better spent trying to get UP to assign a couple of current GE or EMD road power to long-term preservation upon their retirement.

Well, since I kicked the bucket over, I see it has really started to flow. Thank you, superheater, for taking my comments out of context and ommitting the rest of my post in your crimson recount of what I posted. The ommitted quote stated that I wasn't saying that I couldn't support preservation of one of these locomotives, I was just asking if it was wise... So I suppose a lengthy dissertation comparing a '90MAC to the steam locomotives of yesteryear is not necessary. Rather look at it in terms present day preservation cost-benefit analysis. Given the pre-existing stated goals of any given museum, available space, available maintenance resources, including personnel and technology, and ability to actually use the asset (to see some benefit from the costs) is it wise? I'd think that for many museums, the answer is no. Sure, one might pull it off, and props to them if they do. But most the museums I'm familiar with have had to narrow the scope of their collection and become more specific with what they put before the public. Generally, this ends up being successful examples of railroading.

In the credit-where-credit-is-due category, I do agree with the observation that the preservation from the steam era was not entered into with forethought- but I suppose that's fodder for another discussion.

Thank you, superheater, for taking my comments out of context and ommitting the rest of my post in your crimson recount of what I posted.

I quoted you directly.

I stand by the analogy, your assertions of non necessity aside.

On the other hand, this is a tempest in a teapot. Its not like either one of us is calling UP tomorrow pleading with them to accept our cashier's check.