GP38-2
- Thread starter Kris94
- Start date
SantaFebuff
That's So Trainz Forum
No, the GP38-2 had the very first design of EMD 645E which gave the GP38-2 a total horsepower of 2,000BHP.
Sure, railroads could re-power them, but 2,000 is enough for a road switcher unit and railroads saw no need to replace the prime mover seeing that it was pretty reliable.
Cheers,
Joshua
Sure, railroads could re-power them, but 2,000 is enough for a road switcher unit and railroads saw no need to replace the prime mover seeing that it was pretty reliable.
Cheers,
Joshua
How could they re-power them as in add horsepower? But couldn't railroads just ask EMD to increase the power on the engines themselves but pay extra instead of having to do it one by one and wouldn't that have to modify the entire body because the 16 cylinder created 3,000 HP so I'm confused.
SantaFebuff
That's So Trainz Forum
It's too hard for me to keep discussing this. Please get a Skype. It's free, and I can directly talk to you with no delay.
www.skype.com
Cheers,
Joshua
www.skype.com
Cheers,
Joshua
I suppose EMD could give the GP38-2 more power. But seriously, what would you pick for a 40 mile trip? GP38-2 or ES44AC?
GP38-2s would do better work in railyards, and for shunting. When you get over to the EMD SD70s and GE GEVOs and the Evolution series, you got your long-distance engine right there.
The GP38-2 could also be used for an extra-power lashup locomotive. But, as much as it pains the GP38-2 fans out there, the GP38-2 wouldn't be my choice of a long distance trip. It would probably pull the consist have a mile and then run of fuel! :hehe:
Pass the fuel, please?
LOL,
Carter
SantaFebuff
That's So Trainz Forum
Okay, I guess I'll be the first to mention it...
The EMD GP40.
All the railroads that wanted 3,000 already had GP40s. They were built in 1965. The railroads who couldn't afford the higher horsepower locomotives or didn't need all that power, could buy the GP38s in 1972. The GP38 was like the mid-range model of the 645E... so to speak. As for fuel, the fuel tank was a railroad specified option. So, it would depend on what the railroad wanted.
Also, back in 1972, you didn't have ES44s to chose from. You had mid-series Universal Series GE locomotives, or the EMD40/38 series. The GEs were very well known for having a bad ride, so it was a better choice to ride in a GP38. Most railroads didn't really have GP38s leading all the time... The SD40-2 was around to do that.
Cheers,
Joshua
The EMD GP40.
All the railroads that wanted 3,000 already had GP40s. They were built in 1965. The railroads who couldn't afford the higher horsepower locomotives or didn't need all that power, could buy the GP38s in 1972. The GP38 was like the mid-range model of the 645E... so to speak. As for fuel, the fuel tank was a railroad specified option. So, it would depend on what the railroad wanted.
Also, back in 1972, you didn't have ES44s to chose from. You had mid-series Universal Series GE locomotives, or the EMD40/38 series. The GEs were very well known for having a bad ride, so it was a better choice to ride in a GP38. Most railroads didn't really have GP38s leading all the time... The SD40-2 was around to do that.
Cheers,
Joshua
I'm sure they were used for long distance trains back then but the one thing that puzzles me is where would the bathrooms be because the comfort cab and wide cab engines have them. I certainly would use them for long distance freights especially fast freights.
I was going to say SP did but that was the GP60 they probably were more suited for that but I could see GP38-2s on long distance trains but I would have a more diverse roster and balance it out more just to keep the rail-fans happy but spread the wealth and only use the GEVO's and SD70s when necessary or when it would be an obvious situation that they would be superior. Plus the geeps have decent fuel efficiency from research I've done and what I've heard.
I was going to say SP did but that was the GP60 they probably were more suited for that but I could see GP38-2s on long distance trains but I would have a more diverse roster and balance it out more just to keep the rail-fans happy but spread the wealth and only use the GEVO's and SD70s when necessary or when it would be an obvious situation that they would be superior. Plus the geeps have decent fuel efficiency from research I've done and what I've heard.
SantaFebuff
That's So Trainz Forum
The bathrooms where in the nose. There was a little door that stepped down in the cab that lead directly to the toilet.
Cheers,
Joshua
Cheers,
Joshua
2,600 US gal (9,800 l; 2,200 imp gal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GP38
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
GP38 = 12 cyl, non-turbo = 2,000 hp
GP39 = 12 cyl, turbo = 2,600 hp
GP40 = 16 cyl, turbo = 3,000 hp
So yes, EMD could increase the GP38's horsepower. But then it wouldn't be a GP38.
Josh, you're mixing up the standard 40 series with the dash two series... GP38s were offered in 1965 same as the GP40, GP40-2s were offered in 1972 same as the GP38-2.
GP38s and 38-2s had the same fuel tank options as any other 4-axle member of the series, up to 3,600 gallons. No reason they would run out of fuel any sooner and actually they would use it less quickly due to the four fewer cylinders.
GP39 = 12 cyl, turbo = 2,600 hp
GP40 = 16 cyl, turbo = 3,000 hp
So yes, EMD could increase the GP38's horsepower. But then it wouldn't be a GP38.
Josh, you're mixing up the standard 40 series with the dash two series... GP38s were offered in 1965 same as the GP40, GP40-2s were offered in 1972 same as the GP38-2.
GP38s and 38-2s had the same fuel tank options as any other 4-axle member of the series, up to 3,600 gallons. No reason they would run out of fuel any sooner and actually they would use it less quickly due to the four fewer cylinders.
Last edited:
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
Well, I'd be surprised if the bathroom view was modeled...
If it's an NS loco, you'll be looking for a while as the 'bathroom' in many of their locos is a wire frame with a plastic bag on it...
Both the GP38s and the GP38-2, along with the GP40s are still in use as road units up here in the Northeast. Guilford Transportation (GTI), now Pan Am Railways, uses them on their through freights from North Maine Jct. all the way to Deerfield, at least. I see many of them on the nose many times pulling some fairly long trains.
I have to say though, typical of PAR, the engines are well battered, used, and really well used. Many are blowing smoke at least as good as an Alco could do!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLj0ro5UYXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXKTKFGFKM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqrExWCVCXU&feature=related
John
I have to say though, typical of PAR, the engines are well battered, used, and really well used. Many are blowing smoke at least as good as an Alco could do!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLj0ro5UYXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXKTKFGFKM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqrExWCVCXU&feature=related
John
It also could depend on adhesive mass, lets say you have a loco that has a total mass of 68ton with 16ton axle load and it's fitted with a EMD 8-567C Roots-blower 950hp and the loco slips a little, then they re-power it with a EMD 8-654E Roots-blower with 1100hp and the loco slips too easy, all that extra power would of been a waste.
But also remember that locomotives are not like cars and put all the power on the wheels directly, they turn a generator that powers the motors geared to axles, higher horse power engine can get the Generator to full rpm's in a shorter time and could also power generators with higher amp resistance for more torque on the motors, but if the loco's use the same generator type and motor type then adding more horse power isn't really needed.
Where I live our main motive power is
8-567C Roots-blower 950hp
8-567CR Roots-blower 950hp
8-645E Roots-blower 1100hp
12-645E3B Turbo 2250hp
16-567BC Roots-blower 1500hp
16-567C Roots-blower 1800hp
16-645E Roots-blower 2200hp
16-645E3B Turbo 3300hp
16-645E3C Turbo 3000hp
and a variety of Diesel-hydraulic Rail Cars, it's been like that for almost 30 years.
Cheers.
But also remember that locomotives are not like cars and put all the power on the wheels directly, they turn a generator that powers the motors geared to axles, higher horse power engine can get the Generator to full rpm's in a shorter time and could also power generators with higher amp resistance for more torque on the motors, but if the loco's use the same generator type and motor type then adding more horse power isn't really needed.
Where I live our main motive power is
8-567C Roots-blower 950hp
8-567CR Roots-blower 950hp
8-645E Roots-blower 1100hp
12-645E3B Turbo 2250hp
16-567BC Roots-blower 1500hp
16-567C Roots-blower 1800hp
16-645E Roots-blower 2200hp
16-645E3B Turbo 3300hp
16-645E3C Turbo 3000hp
and a variety of Diesel-hydraulic Rail Cars, it's been like that for almost 30 years.
Cheers.
LOL, okay SanteFebuff!
But I am focusing on 2011. Not 1972! Although that was true, but railroads weren't as sophisticated as todays railroads. SD40-2s are also good for the lead locomotive, but still EMD with their SD series and GE with their new line of locos, railroading changed forever. But GP38-2 do have some signature things. For example, take the EMD bell used on GP38-2s. That bell is one of a kind, and my favorite at that.
Anyways GP38-2s are classics (along with the whole GP series), and I hope they stay around just a little longer, just so I can feel that old fashioned throttle.
Carter
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
there is a little bit - okay a lot of misinformation in this thread.
the GP38-2 and the GP40-2 have the same engine (prime mover) - the 16cylinder 645E block.
the GP38-2 is not turbocharged.
the GP40-2 is turbocharged.
GP38-2 2000hp
GP40-2 3000hp
the same can be said for the SD types of these locomotives. the dash 2 models only differ from the base models by the electronics that control them.
the GP38-2 and the GP40-2 have the same engine (prime mover) - the 16cylinder 645E block.
the GP38-2 is not turbocharged.
the GP40-2 is turbocharged.
GP38-2 2000hp
GP40-2 3000hp
the same can be said for the SD types of these locomotives. the dash 2 models only differ from the base models by the electronics that control them.
Last edited:
So a railroad could ask for EMD to implement a turbocharged engine if it had a non-turbocharged engine and vice versa?
Similar threads
- Locked