Heavy Metal
- Thread starter amazinblue82
- Start date
Last edited:
3175375
Senior Member
One of the remaining is at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio.
The biggest diesel electric ever built. Electromotive did it exclusively for Union Pacific in 1969. The DD40X
source: Diesel-Electric Locomotives
Centennial DD40X
Union Pacific has retained only one of its 47 Centennial diesel-electric locomotives, No. 6936. The Centennials were the largest diesel-electric locomotives ever built. Actually comprising two engines on one frame, they delivered 6,600 horsepower.
Designed and built exclusively for Union Pacific Railroad, the units were named in honor of the railroad's centennial anniversary celebration in 1969. Accordingly, they were numbered in the 6900 series, from 6900 to 6946.
The first Centennial was delivered in 1969, in time to participate in the Golden Spike celebration in Utah. The remaining units were delivered during the next two years. They operated in fast freight service over most of the UP system until their retirement in 1984.
Thirteen of the locomotives were donated for public display in various parks and museums.
source: EMD DDA40X - Wikipedia
EMD-645E3 Prime Mover
Nerd Alert Tangent - Why no bigger diesel electrics since 1971?
The DX40X had TWO prime movers on a single frame. Why after only 13 years did UP retire all of them?
Railroads have largely moved to this concept called "distributed power " - smaller locomotives at various "intervals" along the length of a train, rather than some big honkin' set of locomotives up at the beginning/end of the train.
Why did it take 100 years for that concept to distribute power to arrive?
The race was bigger, stronger, faster in locomotives for those 100 years .. and then something changed. Business & technology nerd in me want to know why ... these things do NOT happen for NO reason.
Rant over ...
source: Diesel-Electric Locomotives
Centennial DD40X
Union Pacific has retained only one of its 47 Centennial diesel-electric locomotives, No. 6936. The Centennials were the largest diesel-electric locomotives ever built. Actually comprising two engines on one frame, they delivered 6,600 horsepower.
Designed and built exclusively for Union Pacific Railroad, the units were named in honor of the railroad's centennial anniversary celebration in 1969. Accordingly, they were numbered in the 6900 series, from 6900 to 6946.
The first Centennial was delivered in 1969, in time to participate in the Golden Spike celebration in Utah. The remaining units were delivered during the next two years. They operated in fast freight service over most of the UP system until their retirement in 1984.
Thirteen of the locomotives were donated for public display in various parks and museums.
source: EMD DDA40X - Wikipedia
EMD-645E3 Prime Mover
Nerd Alert Tangent - Why no bigger diesel electrics since 1971?
The DX40X had TWO prime movers on a single frame. Why after only 13 years did UP retire all of them?
Railroads have largely moved to this concept called "distributed power " - smaller locomotives at various "intervals" along the length of a train, rather than some big honkin' set of locomotives up at the beginning/end of the train.
Why did it take 100 years for that concept to distribute power to arrive?
The race was bigger, stronger, faster in locomotives for those 100 years .. and then something changed. Business & technology nerd in me want to know why ... these things do NOT happen for NO reason.
Rant over ...
LocuMob
Fluid Technician with a hat
I thought the operation costs were too high, and those smaller units were more efficient and more available. Couldn't find anything when I looked for answers.
The XB-70, the plane and company, North American, that were both killed by the shooting down of Francis Gary Powers.
I should read the sh*t I post ...
you are exactly right about the cost differences favoring smaller units. the thing I missed is "what" changed the economics in locomotion?
something was making "distributed power" .. something they could have been doing for years before 1970 .. a more economical proposition for a railroad.
sources: Locotrol - Wikipedia, Distributed power - Wikipedia
Locotrol is a product of GE Transportation that permits railway locomotives to be distributed throughout the length of a train (distributed power). It allows sending signals from the lead locomotive and via radio to the remote control locomotives.
Locotrol was developed in the 1960s by an Ohio telephone and electronics manufacturer, North Electric Company(subsequentlly acquired by GE) .
The system permits the doubling in the size of trains without exceeding "draw-gear" strength [the mechanical devices that physically linked locomotives to each other when pulling large/long loads] through the use of mid-train locomotives.
Distributed power itself was not a new concept, but [before Locotrol] it required an extra train crew(s) to be located in the middle of the train. Most systems use lead and middle of train locomotives, but now up to four locomotives can be controlled from the lead unit.
LSS - the oldest story of transformation known to humankind .. a cheaper way to do something will almost always win out.
After 1970 (right after UP bought 47 Centennials, technology advancements (Locotrol, RF technology, computers, etc.,) now let ONE locomotive operate multiple locomotives more easily and effectively than ever before.
You could then reduce locomotive size and number (and their operating crews) AND make the trains heavier/longer yielding more revenue at the same time.
Plus the "draw gear' mechanisms could be made less costly because they didn't need to be as strong (mechanically robust) to accommodate the heavier/longer trains AND
. that, in turn, allowed less draft forces along the length of the train, which THEN
. allowed less physical forces on the wheels to the rails making the heavier/longer train easier to pull, saving costs
Last edited:
LocuMob
Fluid Technician with a hat
My dad's a huge train buff, I have so much info buried in my brain, I don't even remember it all. I remember looking at his Model Railroader magazines as a kid and always wanting one of the DD40X models for his layout he was planning on building, it would have looked so out of place.
Was on Lake Hartwell last week but didn't see it/dont even know if owner is still around.
Repeat of part of Post #193 in this trhead. Only kind of boat I think I would want ... ain't in the cards for me but dang....
Play it loud .. but probably not a work (max RPM in his run [probably NOT for the boat] seems around 2 minute mark in vid).
Repeat of part of Post #193 in this trhead. Only kind of boat I think I would want ... ain't in the cards for me but dang....
Play it loud .. but probably not a work (max RPM in his run [probably NOT for the boat] seems around 2 minute mark in vid).
I'm on page 11. This thread is awesome. It's gonna take some time to get through it though.
Most powerful jet engine ever made?
The GE9X. Here is a little (3 minutes) GE "propaganda" -- all factual though - to go through the engine.
The latest iteration of this engine has the Guiness record for the most thrust of any jet engine in the world. 135,000 lbs.
That's Enough thrust to fly a 747 by itself (that plane needs 4 of the predecessor engines to fly), that can deliver 2/3 of the thrust of a Space-X Falcon rocket, and has a diameter of the fuselage of a 737 (almost 13 feet).
This next five minute video - this smart young feller explains prettywell 9X successor in th GE90 series that Boeing wants to use on the new 777X (due out in 2025 - a heavy metal candidate for a later set of posts).
If you don't come away from this last vid (unless you already knew this stuff) shaking your head in engineering/design/manufaxturing wonder, maybe go back one more time through it.
The 9X is astonishing. Btw, don't think its physically BIG, couple still pics below for perspective (wonder which is the 90 series on the 747
)
The GE9X. Here is a little (3 minutes) GE "propaganda" -- all factual though - to go through the engine.
The latest iteration of this engine has the Guiness record for the most thrust of any jet engine in the world. 135,000 lbs.
That's Enough thrust to fly a 747 by itself (that plane needs 4 of the predecessor engines to fly), that can deliver 2/3 of the thrust of a Space-X Falcon rocket, and has a diameter of the fuselage of a 737 (almost 13 feet).
This next five minute video - this smart young feller explains prettywell 9X successor in th GE90 series that Boeing wants to use on the new 777X (due out in 2025 - a heavy metal candidate for a later set of posts).
If you don't come away from this last vid (unless you already knew this stuff) shaking your head in engineering/design/manufaxturing wonder, maybe go back one more time through it
.The 9X is astonishing. Btw, don't think its physically BIG, couple still pics below for perspective (wonder which is the 90 series on the 747
)
67newport
Old Man with a Hat
67newport
Old Man with a Hat
67newport
Old Man with a Hat
Slap Stick
Active Member
The ONLY remaining one. Two were built. One crashed with a T-38/F-5.
Stand underneath it. Hard to believe it can fly.
67newport
Old Man with a Hat
I understand the obsolescence of steam trains in 1957 or later, but that seems like such a waste!
67newport
Old Man with a Hat
67newport
Old Man with a Hat
Launching of Graf Zeppelin, Kiel, Germany, 8 Dec 1938
USS Cyclops, laid 1910. lost mysteriously in 1918 in the "Bermuda Triangle". It was a bulk cargo carrier, 542 feet long, 20K tons., 309 souls went down with her. NO traces of it ever found (not a scrap of it ..nothing).
Why is this here? Apparently still a mystery why this ship was lost without the proverbial trace. Claimed by the Triangle?
I am just catchup up one of my favorite National Geographic series: Drain the Oceans. They use modern underwater mapping and CGI to show what the ocean floors look like WITHOUT the water. Quite fascinating.
My point
They are still looking for the Cyclops. Like ill-fated Fight 19 Lost Squadron and tons of other stuff lost in the triangle. But, look at the Triangle without the water, especially around Puerto Rico where Cyclops was lost?
Imagine 10x Grand Canyon depth. 5X its length -- five miles underwater and you have the Puerto Rico Trench (source: Puerto Rico Trench - Wikipedia). We aint ever gonna find the Cyclops in that terrain so deep underwater.
As for alien abductions/sea monsters making off with men and materiel in the Triangle? That's another thread but I gotta call BS on that -- perfectly explainable to me as natural workings of land & water on this rock we live on.
