Byran,
Pre Dash 2 SD45s tended to require more maintenance than later units.
A number experienced crankshaft failures due to failed "A" frame
welds. (The "A" frames are located between each throw and provides
the bearing mounting and support for the crankshaft.) This problem
was finally corrected in the earlier '70s, but by that time, the
SD45's reputation was tarnished.
The maintenance issues were probably one reason that SD45s were
eliminated from the roster somewhat early, but another reason for the
specific timing was more likely the expiration of their leases or
equipment trusts which usually are 15 to 17 years long. Except for
accidents, a financed piece of equipment it general, can't be sold
off or scrapped until it's financial obligation is satisfied. Many
steam locomotives were stored unused by their owners until the leases/
trusts expired.
In the cases of most diesels, they are sold to equipment dealers who
resell or lease them to other RRs. Because of their size, SD45s don't
lend them selves to branchline operation, so their market is somewhat
limited. Wisconsin Central purchased or leased some ex BN Sd and
F45s. MRL in Montana has others.
Of course, by the mid '80s, much newer and more efficient EMD and GE
models were available so technology change was also an incentive.
However, even though the BN disposed of the Q SD45s in 16 years, I am
sure that they had operated millions of miles for Q and BN and had
pulled many ton-miles of freight. Q's early "F" units experienced a
similar fate. Most were purchased during the '40s and were traded in
to EMD and GE in the early to mid '60s, again, primarily due to
technology changes as well as operational changes. The RRs were
moving toward more flexible carbody locomotives by that time.
Bill Barber
Gravois Mills, MO
On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:41 AM, CBQ@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> Re: SD 45
> Posted by: "Bryan Howell" tubaman21@yahoo.com tubaman21
> Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:35 am (PDT)
>
>
>
> The CB&Q SD45's were delivered in the experimental green scheme in
> January 1969 as numbers 516-530. They were then renumbered into
> the BN system as numbers 6457-6471. All 15 units were retired from
> the BN in February of 1984, with the exception of 6468 (CBQ 527)
> which was retired in August 1980. The units only lasted just over
> 16 years, which doesn't seem very long in my mind. This may be
> straying a bit off-topic, but why did BN retire these units? Was
> it because more fuel efficient units came along?
> Bryan J. Howell
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|