Thanks

I was going to suggest the same thing

Or derailed, these SDP40Fs were known for that too!

@@randallellison6421 Lol yup

Should be fine out on the main seeing as it was just an Amtrak painted FP45

@@garysprandel1817 yeah, I jumped the gun a little bit, forgot the locomotive is actually an F45.

Oh man...

With the bit of maintenance and care these things seem to last practically forever.

The SDP40F was a superbly reliable runner, being an SD40-2 with a cowl over it and steam generators added. Its main problem was that it tended to derail at high speed on less-than-stellar track. The problem was hypothesized to occur due to water sloshing around in the steam generators, with some blame assigned to the HT-C truck, but the FRA later concluded that the issue was in fact the lightweight baggage cars that were being used at the time experiencing harmonic vibrations when coupled to this much heavier locomotive. It's worth noting that the SDP40F had no problems at high speed on ATSF track, just on the myriad of crappy eastern roads' equally crappy tracks. Ultimately, Amtrak decided that the GP40 was a much better platform, cut its losses on the SDP40F, and ordered the F40PH instead. ATSF took a bunch of the SDP40Fs and used them liberally for many years, where they proved to be every bit the equal of the SD40-2. Trivia: the SDP40Fs teething troubles were why Conrail ordered SD40-2s with SD trucks instead of HT-C trucks, which were a suspected possible culprit at the time, later disproven. Ultimately, all this did for them was give them a fleet of units with inferior adhesion to a standard SD40-2.

@@ErickC exactly! Once Santa Fe got ahold of these units and rebuilt them for freight service, they were superb units, many lasting well into the BNSF era! Another fun fact about these units they also had issues dealing with crew visibility so to rectify the problem, Santa Fe cut "notches" in each side of the nose which improved visibility out of the windshield. Made them really stand out from the crowd as well!

Also two others in storage at a testing track

The notch was for a walkway on the front of the unit. Amtrak didn't see the need for a walkway on the front as they only used the SDP-40F's on trains where no switching theoretically was not needed.

Technically, the One Surviving SDP40F may not be the Only One. There were two that became EMD Test Units, and their whereabouts are Unknown.

Lionel is always a pain to repair do to the parts costing a ton of money

Glad to hear that. I personally find the older Lionels tricky to work on since some of them have rivets instead of bolts.

@@SMTMainline yeah Lionel is big on rivets for some reason

It's mint!

@@SMTMainline Haha 👌

I keep seeing you everywhere

The SDP40F had steam generators - two of them. It was Amtrak's last locomotive so equipped, and one of the main hypotheses for its derailment problems was water sloshing around inside of the steam generators. The easiest way that you can tell this is an FP45 is the trucks (this model has the SD type, not the correct HT-C), the end platforms (SDP40F should not have a platform at the front - which is why ATSF had to cut notches in the nose when they added them), and the presence of a third set of carbody doors near the rear (SDP40F lacks these).

@@ErickC The trucks before the DASH 2 line was introduced in 1972, January was called Flexicoil. The HT-C trucks are 1foot 6 inches longer which accounts for the SD40-2 series having the famous porches.

@@crsrdash-840b5 : Marketing terms aside, EMD's master parts catalog makes it plain that, as of 1961, it was internally referred to as simply the "SDxx" truck: www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/emd-mpc-toc.pdf When the HT-C was introduced, they started referring to it as the "conventional three-axle truck" in publications, like this one that was published through ASME: utahrails.net/loconotes/EMD_HTC-Truck_ASME_72-RT-3_March-1972.pdf Before later MPCs started using the term "Flexicoil": www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/emd-mpc-1528.pdf From where I stand, it's a retcon. The SD7 operator manual does refer to the trucks as "fully flexible," however. Take this in the context of the so called "Flexicoil B" truck, which EMD called a "Flexible Truck Assembly" in 1961. Nowhere will you find the term "Flexicoil" used in an EMD publication before the 1970s. My best guess? The evidence points to the term "Flexicoil" having been created when the HT-C was introduced as an extension of the "Flexible Truck" language and as a way to distinguish the new truck from the old.

That's a great improvement for Athearn models before the Genesis Line. I know a lot of modelers that replace that power strip on top for better contract performance.

@@crsrdash-840b5 I have it on all my Athearn blue box locos, except the dummies.

It's interesting they would decide to do that instead of just called them FP45s.

Roof fan arrangement says which body you have as they are quite similar but not identical. I have the same #503 as a dummy and my box says FP45 for a measly $13.75 (long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away) when I bought it at that price. Wheel base and axle spacing about identical to E6 or E7 bodies which means almost any drive from one of those (Hobbytown is a good one) could easily be installed in the Athearn body.

Glad to hear that

I wouldn't do that, the scratching it does on the wheels leave a place to collect carbon and the wheels never get really clean. Plus removes the plating. For an old Blue box you may not care; but as an FYi

@@jcure on the older blue box engines there is no plating. I do agree with you on the newer Athearn engine wheels that you should not use a wire wheel on plated wheels.

Thanks

Hahahaha, that's my sentiment on DCC sound exactly. Especially because not a single DCC sound unit sounds good because of the speaker size. It's just white noise with vague locomotive sounds buried under it.

There is a small risk of grit getting into the gears but since it's mostly enclosed the majority of it will just fall to the sides.

Thanks

Very interesting

​@@SMTMainlinethe yellow mount for the motor on my sd f45 just broke what should I do

E

Oh hello there

A

There is some piece of railroad history here which I know nothing about.

@@SMTMainline hey SMT how do you find your lots of locomotives

Thanks

I can find you some good eBay engine deals

It's rare to get one for this cheap, usually they go for around $30.

Thanks.

The FRA later concluded that a combination of the baggage cars and poor track was the sole culprit (the locomotive never had a problem on ATSF rails - just on crappy eastern rails).

@@ErickC Thanks for the info! It was always puzzling to me. I know C&O and Burlington Northern banned them for a while, at least. Burlington Northern personnel called the locomotives, "track breakers," lol.

That's very interesting, thanks for sharing :)

@@tommythomason6187 : yep - the lateral oscillation tended to bend rails out of gauge.

Thanks

They also have the older style of truck design where the bearing are located in the side frames instead of beside the gears. All the ones I've worked on have brass worm gears.

71 sounds about right to me. This would have been a pretty fancy model in it's time.

I do believe so.

Totally

He made a video on it last week lol it’s called buying shady model trains on ebay

As Nathan said, my video of buying "Shady" model trains on eBay pretty much reveals how I go about buying this stuff.

@@SMTMainline Thanks!

The SDP40F was long out of production in the late 1970s, superseded by the F40PH in 1976. It was made from 1973 to 1974.

Others have said Athearn used their FP45s to mimic SDP40s

WD-40 is a poor lubricant but I don't see anything wrong with using a bit to clean up rust or to get stuff unseized.

Yeah, happy to see that.

Athearn blue box and Proto engines have a practically identical drive system.

I agree

No he doesn't, the metal strip works just fine if its aligned properly.

It would work slightly better but the parts seem to be in decent shape and soldering makes the engine harder to take apart in the future.

Interesting to hear that. I wonder why Athearn decided to make them.

@@SMTMainline Athearn introduced these in 1973 along with the freight only F45. Neither one was owned by a lot of railroads (only Santa Fe and Milwaukee Road bought FP45s), so they invented a few fantasy paint schemes to sell more of them. Amtrak was one choice because of the similar looking SDP40F that was first built in 1973. But they also offered Baltimore & Ohio, which never existed in any form. Athearn was based in California so they tended to lean towards making things the western railroads owned.

I see

It's clearly had a rough go.

@@SMTMainline Indeed.

Missed that detail but it's not hard to correct.

Apparently Athearn used their FP45s to mimic SDP40s

@@SMTMainline When Athearn produced these over 40 years ago they weren't going to bother making a "one-off" model of the SDP40F. Instead they just painted and lettered their FP45 in Amtrak phase 1 colors. They also sold these in Santa Fe "warbonnet" red and silver, Milwaukee Road, Baltimore & Ohio, Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, Pennsylvania, and Southern Pacific. Only the first two are correct, and the Milwaukee version is incorrect in that the real ones did not have dynamic brakes.

That's nice

Apparently Athearn used their FP45s to mimic SDP40s

The devil is in the detail, haha

Apparently Athearn used their FP45s to mimic SDP40s

@@SMTMainline no. They look very differnt. Perhaps it was a mismatched box. Idk. But they r completly differnt looking locos.

Yeah