ex-BN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What hair I have left after over 40 years of
> railroading stands ready to be curled.
>
> Also if ATSF wanted a "40" instead of a "45" does
> the indicate they had issues with the FP45's?

No, not at all. Amtrak simply did NOT want to spend that much money, as they needed 40 units.

> They did of course come back for SD45-2s while
> other roads were switching to SD40-2s so I assume
> the engine troubles of the early SD45s had been
> solved to their satisfaction.


Absolutely yes.


Did the SDP40F use
> the extra room for more water storage and more
> steam generator capacity?

Yes. there was an additional boiler water tank inside the carbody, with valves to eliminate filling that internal tank for those other railroads than the Santa Fe, that could not not handle the additional weight. over the years, gradually those valves were inadvertently left open, and as units got resigned from one railroad to another, the excess weight began to rear its ugly head. Plus, the very poorly maintained light weight Amtrak baggage car/cars that were coupled directly behind the SDP40F consist was eventually proven to be the culprit in pulling the rear end of the SDP40F off the track on very slight (1 or 2 degree curves).

All the discussion, above, about the truck and that center axle hydraulic damper, had nothing to do with the real/root cause of the derailment "problem" associated with Amtrak SDP40F units. The combinations of poorly maintained track, over weight units from filling the internal water tank, and that light weight Amtrak baggage car, culminated in SDP40F units being pulled off the track. Remember that the Santa Fe NEVER experienced any problems with the units, never had a derailment, and had no "rough riding" complaints, and the Santa Fe operated them faster than any other railroad!