Why did BNSF number SD75s in the 8200 series?

Lyon_Wonder Oct 30, 2006

  1. Lyon_Wonder

    Lyon_Wonder TrainBoard Member

    27
    0
    13
    Back in 1995 just prior to the merger, Santa Fe purchased silverbonnet SD75Ms numbered 200-250. A year later in 1996 BNSF ordered 50 additional SD75M/75Is that were numbered 8251-8301. Sometime in the late 90s BNSF patched the former ATSF 75Ms into the lower 8200s. Why did BNSF decide to place the SD75s in the 8200s, which I think was not necessary since as far as I know BNSF doesn’t have any engines in that 200 series to date, the closet being 100 series GP60Ms and 300 series GP60Bs. BN did have older SW switchers in the 200s, but those were either renumbered or retired at the time of the merger. The patching on the Santa Fe silverbonnet 75Ms is sort of ugly and the road numbers look oversized compared to the ATSF original. The patch job on the 600 series C44-9Ws looks much better, and they left their road numbers unchanged to boot! BNSF should have left the 75s in the 200 series and had the newer engies ordered after the merger as 251-301.
     
  2. Kevin M

    Kevin M TrainBoard Member

    1,227
    0
    32
    My guess is that thry wanted them to be close to the SD70MAC's but that is a guess.
    Kevin
     
  3. wig-wag-trains.com

    wig-wag-trains.com Advertiser

    2,461
    7
    38
    BNSF inherited the BN numbering scheme. Much of it doesn't make sense to me still.
     
  4. Doug A.

    Doug A. TrainBoard Supporter

    3,509
    161
    59
    I think the key to the question is the fact that BNSF doesn't give a rat's rear-end about how "ugly" the renumbers look. I don't know the specifics, but I bet BNSF took stock of their locomotives and attempted to open the largest gaps of numbers to enable continuous numbering of new orders.

    So I bet it went something like:
    1. Figure out which locomotives will be retired at merger or shorty thereafter.
    2. Of the number series released in (1) above, identify locomotives in the same adjacent 100/250/500/1000-number-series, and tag them for renumber to clear up larger blocks for new locos.
    3. Figure out the best place to put all the renumbered locos. Likely this would be adjacent to newer locos that will be around but no other numbers will be purchased, like the aforementioned 70MAC's. Any locos tagged for retirement within 2-3 years are left alone, and no renumbers placed near them.

    There may be considerations about matching numbers to certain loco models, manufactures, or horsepower ratings. So, the SD75's probably just got shoved into the 70MAC pile with the second order and it made sense to move the others to keep things nice and tidy. I bet the goal is to build an idiot-proof system so that crews, hostlers, yardmasters, et al can efficiently identify and manage power.

    I haven't looked at the BNSF numbering system enough to identify these trends, but I bet they are there if you stare long enough. Of course, I could be way off base here, also. I'm just speculating.

    But I still stand by "ugly numbers" being a low, low priority on any railroad's list of concerns. CHEAP numbers, yes. UGLY? Not when the competition is a tagger's un-handywork.
     
  5. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    That would be a logical conclusion, but as the OP notes, the 200s were never used again, in fact, it looks like the 200s are open right now.

    The GP60s are still in the 100s, the 60Bs in the 300s.

    There just doesn't seem to be a logical reason to have moved the 75s. In fact, They have dash-9s all over the place.
    599-799, 960-1123, 4300-4605, 4700-4999, 5000-5499 etc etc etc.

    I think BNSF just didn't have anything better to do and so moved them.

    The ONLY logic I can come up with is that there are no other EMD 6 Axle units in the 3 digit range, so they moved them to be with the rest, but if that's the logic, then those are the only subset of units to be treated so, because there are 6 axle GEs down there and the GP units aren't all grouped.
     
  6. BNSF FAN

    BNSF FAN TrainBoard Supporter

    9,891
    29,162
    148
    Another thing that may make sense is that there are 101 SD75I's. If they had stayed in the 200's, the last engine would have been 300 which overlaped with the GP60B's. Therefore, they moved the SD75I's to the 8200 series so all 101 locos could be numbered together instead of having one orphan numbered loco out there on the rails.
     
  7. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    22,014
    27,407
    253
    You might have hit the nail on the head....
    Are the 75M's similar in tractive effort, weight, etc?
    I have seen them in MU with MACs several times, so it leads me to believe they are comparable, and desirable in consist on a heavy train. I generally had seen them on heavy trains, like coal. There's even two in Crawford Hill helper service:
    Alaska GP49 shot:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. MRL

    MRL TrainBoard Member

    1,406
    14
    25
    Four digit numbers will create less confusion over the radio. If everyone is calling out a four digit number, there will be more uniformity. If for instance, someone was to call out "245" over the radio, there could also be a 7245, 5245, 8245, 9245, 6245 operating in the field. Theoretically, the work could all stop because someone could interpret that as a misunderstood communication. All misunderstood communications are to be treated as if not heard. Unless there was sense of imminent danger, then the locomotive should stop immediately.
     
  9. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    But BNSF hasn't gotten rid of the 3 digit numbers at all. In fact, most of them are in use.

    The fact that there are 101 units makes the most sense.
     
  10. MRL

    MRL TrainBoard Member

    1,406
    14
    25
    But they are probably in an area where three digit numbers are common. They are probably all assigned for certain service in a given area.
     
  11. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    Nope, they're system wide.
     
  12. doofus

    doofus TrainBoard Supporter

    867
    107
    21
    Not around here........
     
  13. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    I saw a Dash-9 in the triple digit range earlier this week in Denver, and I saw them all the time in Portland, for that matter, I've seen the 60Ms and 60Bs from South Bend Indiana to Portland to Seattle to Barstow to San Diego. BNSF doesn't limit where the lownumbered units go.
     
  14. doofus

    doofus TrainBoard Supporter

    867
    107
    21
    I've seen Mexican units too, but it doesn't mean they are assigned here. I've seen three digit units pass through here too. Doesn't mean they are assigned here. Heck, I have seen double digit units pass through. Even saw a five digit unit pass through. Wasn't assigned here. Just because they pass through here doesn't mean they are assigned here.

    Most all units can go anywhere the rr wants them to go. But they are usually assigned to a certain facility for maintenance so a specific inventory of parts can be kept on hand in just one servicing facility. This helps cut down on unnecessary delays due to waiting for spare parts to be delivered from halfway across the country. And most units don't stray too far from their assigned territory. Exceptions could be units in dedicated service, such as the coal fleet. They go from mine to power plant and back. The Trans-Con units would be another example. Some units end up quite a distance from home. Also, with the improved reliability of newer units, they can stray further away from their assigned facility with less chance of a failure enroute as compared to older units.

    What this has to do with three digit numbers? I don't know. The BN's loco fleet was much larger than the SF fleet. Once combined, it naturally was too large to be accomodated by a the three digit system. Hence the four digit system.

    Look what UP has gone through with its' numbering system. All the old nearly retired equipment was set back to three digit numbers to make room for the newer four digit numbered units..........
     
  15. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    But that doesn't make any sort of sense either, because the ATSF fleet used both 3 and 4 digit numbers. Superfleet was all 3 digit.
    If you think the ATSF fleet was so small that it could be accomidated by 1000 numbers, then you don't know much about it. The Dash-9s are scattered all through the 3 digit and 4 digit ranges and They roam system wide as was said. It's not clear to me how these guys are home-based anymore, but the Dash-9 fleet would probably be serviceable at just about any location.

    The point of all of this is to point out that BNSF is not trying to get rid of 3 digit unit numbers

    Here's a roster to illustrate
    http://www.trainpix.com/bnsf/ROSTER.HTM

    I suppose it's possible that the 75s were being moved to some sort of captive service and being renumbered accordingly, but that doesn't fit in with observations which again have them systemwide. The only logic seems to be that they couldn't fit 101 units at that location.

    UP plans for over 10,000 units, hence the Y designation. Moving older locos around makes a lot more sense in this case, but BNSF didn't move any of the Dash-9s or the 60Ms both of which lead trains all the time.
     
  16. doofus

    doofus TrainBoard Supporter

    867
    107
    21
    Dash 9s are not serviceable system wide. If you think so, then you don't know much about it.

    Notice which units are in the three digit system. The ones that are on their last legs. That leads one to believe that there will soon be no more three digit units in the fleet unless they decide to relegate the next obsolete units to a three digit series.
     
  17. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    22,014
    27,407
    253
    Is this a service facility issue? I would guess a SoCal maintenance shop woul likely be at a disadvantage with an SD70MAC, versus a Dash9-44CW; same goes for Alliance, NE. SD70MACs would be right at home with those mechanics, however, a GP60M would be quite foreign. Hence the home shop assignment system.
    Doofus, do you consider the ex-ATSF 600-series Dash-9's as obsolete? I would think they are still principal power on most SW US trains on BNSF.
     
  18. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    Those triple digit dash-9s have not been renumbered though. And they're just as old as the 75s. As a matter of fact, the 75s appear to be the only triple digit engines moved at all.

    At the time of the merger, BNSF left the Santa Fe superfleet numbered the same as it always was except for the 75s which were renumbered very very quickly.

    Are you trying to say that BNSF left Dash-9s that were less then 6 years old in their 3 digit spot because they were on their last legs?

    It just doesn't make any sense at all in the context of what actually happened. And it doesn't account for the thousands of even older engines still populating the 4 digit range.


    I'm not trying to be mean here, but look at the big picture. There just isn't the evidence to support that logic.
     
  19. doofus

    doofus TrainBoard Supporter

    867
    107
    21
    Yup! Those units had to be retro-fitted with a fair amount of equipment just to bring them up to BN standards. They were originally built as SF "economy models" and they show it.
     
  20. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    What differences were there?

    I know on Tales from the Krug he really hated the layout of the 60M, but that wasn't so much due to cheapness as it was specific vendor choices and some remodeling done by BNSF.
     

Share This Page