Pennsy SD45

[Bob Bufkin]

All PRR SD45s made it to Conrail.  They had the same numbers from PRR to Conrail.  First ones were retired in 1979 Seven units served until Jan 81 and remainder returned to lessor in Jan 83.  Surprisingly this wasn't the end of them.  The last units retired went to C&NW for service.  Most were sold to loco rebuilders and a common rebuilt made them into what was called an SD40M-2.  Engines replaced, new electronics, etc.  Some of them units wound up on CSX and SP.  Not bad for units built 66.

Don't have any Bman units.  I've heard both god and bad on them.

[mmyers]

From the book "Pennsy Diesels"
Pennsy had SD45's  #6105 thru #6234. Acquired between Oct 1966 and Jan 1968. All of them went to Penn Central.

I bought a couple KATO undec's from Klien's years ago. Painted and decal'd them. Not hard at all.

Martin Myers

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The CR ones were mostly gone in the early 1980s.

The SD45 was, well, how to put this gently, a piece of crap.

EMD really stretched the limits of what the 645 and their engineering could do, and as a result, these suffered from terrible reliability. 20cyl was just too much. I know they had lots of problems with crankshafts breaking, and I think a lot more too.

[Bob Bufkin]

They were also fuel hogs.  Wasn't worth the extra 600 horses.  The SD40 was a much better choice.

[oakcreekco]

I've heard that too over the years. Not a showcase EMD!

DRGW bought their's in 67ish, and most lasted in some sort of service through the mid 90's. Not really sure of their track record with the DRGW.

With the "SP" thing that went on, loco's kinda got spread out and parked alot over the years.

The new Kato is welcomed by me, and I'm sure that others will like it too. It's sounding like it my be like an Atlas "Classic", with minimum upgrades on the body, but the DCC/SD40 mechanism.

It's priced right IMO, and I'm betting on several more releases on a regular basis, based on how Kato has been doing things this last year or so.

OK......................."batters up"

[One of One-Sixty]

The CR ones were mostly gone in the early 1980s.

The SD45 was, well, how to put this gently, a piece of crap.

EMD really stretched the limits of what the 645 and their engineering could do, and as a result, these suffered from terrible reliability. 20cyl was just too much. I know they had lots of problems with crankshafts breaking, and I think a lot more too.

I knew about the crankshaft problems due to there was too much power and it would snap like a twig, and that is the reason for the SD45-2

They were also fuel hogs.  Wasn't worth the extra 600 horses.  The SD40 was a much better choice.

I thought fuel wise it was the other way around and that the SD45 was more fuel efficient fuel to power ratio wise.

Thanks all for the help and advice, I am trying to find any engine that would have made it to the early to mid 90s that either PRR or PC ordered.  I think I may pick up 1 0r 2 anyways and just use it as MOW equipment.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Also, just because they were gone by my year, doesn't mean I don't have one:

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I thought fuel wise it was the other way around and that the SD45 was more fuel efficient fuel to power ratio wise.

It might be, but you don't actually use that last 600hp that often. Remember, HP really only starts to matter at speed. It's the reason you can switch a train out with a GP38, but need a GEVO to move it at 55mph.

[Bob Bufkin]

Fuel Consumption

SD40 used 5.5 gallons at idle and 167.7 at full load.
SD45 used 6.0 gallons at idle and 194.0 at full load.

[Leggy]

SD40 0.34gal per cylinder at idle and 10.48gal at full load for 3000hp
SD45 0.3gal per cylinder at idle and 9.7gal at full load for 3600hp
Oh yeah, way less fuel efficient when u consider the hp difference.....

[Robbman]

The CR ones were mostly gone in the early 1980s.

The SD45 was, well, how to put this gently, a piece of crap.

EMD really stretched the limits of what the 645 and their engineering could do, and as a result, these suffered from terrible reliability. 20cyl was just too much. I know they had lots of problems with crankshafts breaking, and I think a lot more too.

No... the SD50 was a piece of crap... SD45s were nowhere near as bad... especially after EMD remedied the crankshafts, which was done quite early.  Their biggest downfall was that four more cylinders simply wasn't worth the extra fuel and maintenance costs in the long run.

The D77 traction motors couldn't handle full power at low speeds, so a reduction circuit was used (GP40s have it too)... so at low speeds (under 12mph) you effectively had an SD40 anyways, so in the end, they won out.

Even if EMD had the D87 traction motor a decade earlier (they had D87Xs in the late 70s (GP40X), but they weren't perfected yet) and had upped the hp rating more substantially (at least 3800)... the SD45/45-2 might have been a better contender... but it's easy to say that after 30 years.

[Leggy]

Sure would have been interesting if EMD had put the SD45X into production with the -2 electronics, would've been a royal 2 finger salute to GE.

[Robbman]

Sure would have been interesting if EMD had put the SD45X into production with the -2 electronics, would've been a royal 2 finger salute to GE.

SD45Xs were testbeds for the -2 modules... and yes, I had a brain-fart listing them alongside GP40Xs as D87x testbeds.  Even if they were produced... they'd still have fallen out of favor due to the fuel crisis of the time, and while nowhere near pushed to the limits as the 645 in the SD50 (210 vs 237.5 hp/cyl for the SD50), they would have had more power assembly change-outs vs a SD40-2... and that D77 traction motor would still have been an issue. 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Thanks Robb.