Can you tell some more information about the train? It looks just like the trains that we already have in the game.
The GE AC6000CW was a more powerful model of the AC4400CW that currently in game, which originally produced 6000hp (As their name states) CSX ordered theirs between 1998 and 2000. Though CSX has since replaced the original motors in all their AC6000s. 600-602 with 4400hp motors, and the rest with 4600hp motors. Also CSX sold most of their AC6000s in 2018 aside from the 3 4400 conversions. The only major visual difference between this and the AC4400CW is the rear radiator, which is noticeably larger than the Ac4400s.
We could also get UP and GE Demo versions. The UP version could be added to Cane Creek or another UP route. The GE Demo looks great in its dark green paint scheme.
Hello You already have the new C40-8W locomotive to drive if you want , which is not that bad , as those locomotives looks very similar..
They don't perform the same though, or they "shouldn't". The C40-8W only puts out 4000hp, while the AC6000CW with its original prime movers put out 6000hp. The C40-8w has DC traction motors, while the AC6000CW has AC. Also CSX had theirs delivered with a slightly different YN2 paint scheme (Yellow lettering with blue outlines vs Solid Blue) C40-8W (CSX version) AC4400CW AC6000CW
I feel the ES44AC and ET44AH from CSX are often forgotten, but to me they seem more prominent than anything else on the CSX roster. That and the new Tier 4 ST70AH is a beauty. I know the new Tier 4s are mostly in Florida along the Bone Valley, so maybe we could request the Bone Valley as a potential route add-on and get the ST70AH? Would be heck of a dream for that to become real lol. Regardless, the AC6000CW, can't go wrong with that beast of a loco.
I’m all for Sand Patch DLC, but surely something like the SD70MAC would be better considering it actually looks different?
Member since November 2007 2,989 posts Posted by Railway Man on Sunday, December 16, 2007 5:49 PM A.C. vs. D.C. refers to the electrical transmission: D.C.: The engine drives an A.C. main generator, which generates A.C. current rectified to D.C. by diodes that powers D.C. traction motors. The advantage is significantly lower initial cost. Disadvantages are higher maintenance costs for the traction motors, less tractive effort at low speeds (less than ~ 11 mph). A.C.: The engine drives the same A.C. main generator, which generates A.C. current rectified to D.C. by diodes. From that point it differs: the D.C. current is converted to A.C. which powers A.C. traction motors. The advantages and disadvantages are opposite a D.C. locomotive. (You might be wondering why the A.C. locomotive goes from A.C. to D.C. and back to A.C.; the answer is that the D.C. rectification provides "clean" current that the invertors can use to create the proper frequency needed by the traction motors. The reason the main generator is A.C. and not D.C. is that D.C. generators are too large, too expensive, and too complex once horsepower climbs past 2,000 or so.) North American railroads such as BNSF, UP, and KCS have determined that A.C. is more cost-effective for heavy-haul trains such as coal, and D.C. more cost-effective for all other trains. NS has favored D.C. for everything and CSX A.C. for everything. The decision is based on the physical characteristics of the railroad, the operating plan, and the traffic mix. The only difference in the way A.C. and D.C. run is that a train powered with A.C. locomotives can have a very low horsepower-per-ton ratio and still move without exceeding the heating limits on the traction motors. A.C. motors in fact can run to a stall at full current without damaging the motors, whereas D.C. motors will quickly overheat at low speeds and full current and experience fatal damage. The "e" in SD70ACe stands for "enhanced'; it is a major redesign of the previous SD70MAC but shares the same basic specifications, horsepower, and prime mover.