 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Reasons over a GP38-2
Article misses a big one, especially for the Santa Fe.
An early 1971 AAR test showed that a turbocharged locomotive put out less emissions, including carbon monoxide, than a comparable naturally aspirated unit. Santa Fe helped fund this study and lent a less than year old GP38 to be pitted against a Southern Pacific SD45 with a just overhauled prime mover, a sister SD45 from the same order that was due for an engine overhaul, and a SP U33C.
The winners by a large margin were the SD45's. Grams per horsepower hour of carbon monoxide for the overhauled SD45 were 1.2, the soon to be shopped SD45 put out 2.5, the GP38 released 4.5, and the U33C also 4.5. For "unburned hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen", the SD45 due for an engine rebuild interestingly had a slim lead over the overhauled SD45 of 13.4 grams to 13.5, the GP38 put out 15, and the U33C was the loser at 18.4.
That's a significant difference not only for the outside environment, but for the air quality in the cab of a locomotive (Santa Fe for one was known to regularly monitor cab air quality). Especially those with a crew member deadheading in a trailing unit, which would become a significant issue a few years later with the disappearance of cabooses.
Soon after this study, at a time when the environmental movement was in its infancy but quickly growing, Santa Fe started ordering GP39-2's and never ordered a GP38-2 despite being a GP38 customer And unlike many roads that would deturbo a downgraded EMD during rebuilding, Santa Fe's fleet of GP20/GP30/GP35 models all kept their turbocharger during rebuilding a few years later at a time when oil prices were again trending downward.
"Several given high cabs for high clearance"
Removing this gibberish. They didn't have a customized cab with a higher point of view because the road had "high clearance". Not a lick of sense in that quote. As is plainly obvious it was done to improve visibility for the crew, in this case when operating in the Bingham open pit copper mine. Sure, generous clearance limits made it possible. But the quote is portraying it as the reason behind the customized cabs which not only is incorrect, but devoid of any logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:C02:5700:64E1:EEAD:934B:A1F4 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- In general, I dislike "notes" sections, as they tend to accumulate cruft and nonsense, such as what you just removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Kennecott
The total for Kennecott was 31 locomotives. 28 with the unique high-cab and three standard-cab locomotives.
Kennecott 705-711 (7 units) delivered in 1980 Kennecott 779-789 (11 units) delivered in 1977 Kennecott 790-799 (10 units) delivered in 1978 Kennecott 905 (1 unit) delivered in 1976 (standard cab) Kennecott SM-1 and SM-2 (2 units) delivered in 1981 (standard cab; later Kennecott 101 and 102)
There was no GP39-2 numbered #3 for Kennecott, as the page claims.
https://utahrails.net/bingham/kcc-utah-locos-index.php 2603:7081:C02:5700:E195:778D:35A1:CD8D (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Edit: I made a mistake up above. GP39-2 #3 isn't shown at that link since it was built for a different Kennecott operation, the Ray Mines division. Will correct my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:C02:5700:E195:778D:35A1:CD8D (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)