Talk:EMD SD90MAC

message: Just as an aside for this to be edited: The INRD SD90MACs have been sold to Norfolk Southern to be rebuilt in their SD70ACu program. Looking up a link to the article I read a while ago and will edit post accordingly. 173.67.166.188 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Indiana Railroad SD90MACs

message: I deleted the statement ..."although many railfans have complained about the look of the sharp edges on it" in reference to the Phase II cab. I think what railfans think of an engine's looks is superfluous and of no value to the discussion here. Ken (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: minor text deletion

message: Ok, I have some problems with the last edit, other than the obvious typographical ones.  Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure where to double-check the information given.
:The SD90MAC was a failiure with only 2(technically 3) railroads purchasing it: Canadian Pacific(CP/CP Rail) and Union Pacific(UP). The Southern Pacific(SP/ESPEE) had an order for 3 but with the advent of the UP merger before completion they were delivered in UP colors with the short lived "We Will Deliver" paint scheme.
I'd rather not characterize a locmotive as a success or failure based only on the number of roads that bought them, especially given the number of class 1s left and that the AC6000W, its main competitor, only got 3 roads to my knolwdge.  
:The Chicago and NorthWestern Railway(CNW) would have purchased some SD80MAC that would have been upgraded to SD90MAC but they were cancelled by UP.A few were temporaraly upgraded to 6000 HP but problems made EMD Shun the 6000 HP program.In the end allof the units should technically be called SD75MAC's.
I have to admit I'm a little confused here.  I suspect the editor is confusing the SD80MAC and the SD90/43MAC, but I can't be sure.  Problems with the upgrade program should go in the article, but under the SD90/43MAC paragraph, rather than the SD90MAC-H paragraph.  As far as calling them SD75MACs, that ignores the tractive effort, fuel capacity, length, and weight, and that statement only refers to the SD90/43MAC locomotives.  I guess my first impulse is to just revert the edit, but I'd like to avoid removing some of that information if it's accurate. -- ckape (talk) 03:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: failure or not?, et al

message: Beg to differ, but as the axles are individually powered, shouldn't this be a Co-Co rather than a C-C?
Tabletop 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-Co or C-C 

message: The first AC6000CW was but almost a year (12/1995) before the first SD90MAC-H (8/1996)was built. SD9043MAC's first started showing up in 1994 but, CSX had there first AC6000CW's on order with the inital AC4400CW order in 1993.
Both were a EMD and GE products were a reaction to the Morrison Knudsen MK5000C program.
In order to get a 6000HP prime mover fielded quickly, EMD droped development of there 854H 4 stroke diesel, already almost a decade in development in order to develop the 265H.
This leads me to conclude that the SD90MAC came after the AC6000CW. Chesapeake 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SD90MAC before AC6000CW 

message: Why would anyone click on the AC6000CW 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) 12:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section needs a SERIOUS trimming 

message: What is width and height of this locomotive?    Tabletop (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width and Height 

message: SD9043MAC was an informal designation some railroads applied for clarity's sake to identify SD90MAC's fitted with a 4300HP 710 engine. Someone incorrectly changed all references to SD90MAC's to SD9043MAC a few days ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.6.240 (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed it back to SD90MAC