Talk:GE AC6000CW

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

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

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)

They were so powerful they would literally RIP TRAINS IN HALF. So, CSX downgraded then to 4400 horsepower. They were never upgraded to 6250 hp on any railroad. 72.158.7.27 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

thank you. so the (root cause) problem wasn't the thin engine walls but the resonant frequency. And the cure for that issue is usually a change in mass to change the frequency, and adding mass to the engine walls would do that. As written it is pretty misleading. Also as written it leaves the impression the problem existed beyond the prototype. Obviously some surgery is needed to improve this; I will see what I can do. Ken (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The AC6000 was the first GE locomotive to mount the engine / alternator assembly on isolation mounts. The pre-production engines had reliability issues with the EFI system, main bearing failures and severe vibration issues. The alternator and engine were tested incorrectly to have resonate frequencies above the operation range, but proved to be wrong and the system resonated at the operating RPM, severely impacting many components, including the turbocharger mounting. The EFI system was modified to fix the reliability issue. The engine cleaning processes were redesigned and the crankshaft modified to fix the bearing issues. The alternator and engine were redesigned to correct (higher) system resonate frequency values and this decreased vibration to minuscule levels. The front end assembly / turbo mount was redesigned to improve it's overall stiffness and reliability. The changes were extensively and successfully tested and this allowed the AC6000 units to move into series production. Other reliability issues impacted the engine in service and required further upgrade and redesign. The most severe issues were with the connecting rods. WPTPM (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC) WPTPM

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)

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)

Do not know how to fix but it needs this

The displacement is shown as 960 cubic inches which is correct for ONE CYLINDER. This value is not correct for the entire engine displacement. Hope someone fixes this.

70.252.138.27 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

diesel locomotive displacement is traditionally based upon single-cylinder displacement. For that reason, the number of cylinders is also included in the engine model name, usually as a -16 or 16- designation. Ken (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

6,000 or 6,250 hp?

Hi everybody,

I've noticed that somebody recently changed some of the article's Quick Facts. When I previously conducted this article, the output of the locomotive used to be 6,250 hp, but now it's been changed to 6,000hp. Well, I've read somewhere that back in 1995, when G.E. started producing this model, they used to equip the locomotives with 6,250 hp engines. However, the Union Pacific Railroad contended that they suffered several problems (due to vibration issues) and were delivered to G.E. in order to be downgraded to 4,400 hp. After that, G.E. began a new production in 2001 and that mechanical failure seemed to be solved. These U.P. 7500 to 7579 units were equipped with newer engines, which produced just 6,000 hp (not 6,250) of tractive effort.

Anyway, this is just what I came across in an article I'm currently unable to find, so the information might be innacurate and unreliable. If anybody could provide better and more detailed information, I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 20150621 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

A good lead does not spend more space on listing similar items that aren't the subject of this article than it does explaining what this subject is. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead starts with "6,000-horsepower (4,500 kW)... This locomotive, along with the EMD SD90MAC, is one of the most powerful single-engined diesel locomotives in the world (the most powerful being the 5,000-horsepower (3,700 kW) EMD SD80MAC)". 4,500 kW is higher than 3,700 kW last time I checked, so unless this statement is referring to the initial 3,300 kW engine, the AC6000CW and SD90MAC would both appear to be more powerful than the SD80MAC. I am not a train expert so would appreciate some clarity on the matter. 196.210.55.219 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are they compared to non-diesel-electric locomotives? And there are also electric locomotives more powerful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore (5,400 kW) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seegras (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)