Talk:GE AC6000CW: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:19, 26 October 2011

Trains: Locomotives C‑class Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	March 2, 2009

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Is the 76' length over pilots or pulling faces? SpaceCaptain 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSX derated some of the CW60AC units, that information should be added. n2xjk 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 4400 hp? I've heard that. On a related note, I thought the AC6000s were delivered with 6000 (tractive?) hp as the name suggests. Somewhere, I read that (some of?) CSX's units were uprated to 6250 hp. SpaceCaptain (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some were downgraded to 4400 to meet EPA's environmental standards. But yes, the original specs were for 6000hp.

--DP67 ^(talk/_contribs) 03:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image added

I felt the original image in the info box showing the unique and oversized radiator section was adequate for that use, however a side view of the unit is also valuable imho, so I added one as a thumbnail w/ caption. Ken (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration

i would like a technical explanation or suitable reference as to how "thin engine (cylinder) walls" cause vibration. Ken (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original engine driving a waterbrake dyno at MWM plant worked fine. When coupled with the its locomotive alternator in Erie the mass-elastic system was altered allowing a resonance of the structure at the engine firing rpm. This caused severe vibration of many components, especially the turbos. The resolution involved stiffening the engine block by increasing wall thickness, and stiffening the turbo support shelf. This de-tuned the mass-elastic system by increasing the engine structural frequency above the firing rpm. All the production locomotives had this stiffer engine block. Only the pre-production units had the vibration problem. Teuchtar (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also section needs a SERIOUS trimming

Why would anyone click on the SD90MAC link in the "see also" section, when a MAJOR portion of that article can be read right there? It needs to be trimmed to one brief sentence. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also of concern is that the article is completely lacking any references, and appears to be made up entirely of original research — though I use the term "research" loosely. No offense to the person(s) who wrote it, but most of the article is not written in a very encyclopedic way and appears to be based mostly on hearsay and trackside observations from railfans.

Fixing the see also section should be easy. Personally I'm not even sure why that section needs a link to the SD90.

—BMRR (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 i would like a technical explanation or suitable reference as to how "thin engine (cylinder) walls" cause vibration. [[User:KLWhitehead|Ken]] ([[User talk:KLWhitehead|talk]]) 01:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 The original engine driving a waterbrake dyno at MWM plant worked fine. When coupled with the its locomotive alternator in Erie the mass-elastic system was altered allowing a resonance of the structure at the engine firing rpm. This caused severe vibration of many components, especially the turbos. The resolution involved stiffening the engine block by increasing wall thickness, and stiffening the turbo support shelf. This de-tuned the mass-elastic system by increasing the engine structural frequency above the firing rpm. All the production locomotives had this stiffer engine block. Only the pre-production units had the vibration problem.
+[[User:Teuchtar|Teuchtar]] ([[User talk:Teuchtar|talk]]) 01:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 == See also section needs a SERIOUS trimming ==