High-tech locomotives: did builders gone so far?

[AC6000CW]

The high-tech locomotive tipical of today is so expensive and complex that only the biggest railroads can afford it, and their maintainance costs and high horsepower make them not suitable for nothing than mainline, long-distance, heavy trains. Did builders go so far? Must their offer less complex locomotives of lower horsepower?

[Anonymous]

No, since most of the short lines use old stuff that the class-1s are getting rid of cheap. The lcomotive builders also realize that the real money to be made is in selling lots of locmoitves to the big railroads not a couple to some short line. I can't understand that last setence; I think you got a word wrong.

[trainboyH16-44]

I think that eventually, when the shortlines' SD40-2s wear out, shortlines will face a problem of motive power, and EMD could offer the BL30, or BL90, or BL40-2 or something like that, and find sme success indeed. For the moment, however, they are in a good place.
Matthew

[GP40-2]

BL30? BL90? BL40-2??

What are you talking about??????????????

[Anonymous]

A new Branch line version, I suppose. Might work, question is, will they just buy some old Dash-9's at an auction, or will they order new locmotives, if the old EMDs run as long as the Alcos it will take a long long time to find out.

[Anonymous]

So many think of this from the wrong prospective.. The builders want to make money.. Who do they sell their locomotives too? Large Railroads! Large railroads are the ones that will be here for the long haul.. they make what they want them to make. The locomotives that they are producing now are the most cost effective as ever... every one wants a lower fuel cost. The builders are not concerned with the needs of small railroads... they have enough locomotives to get the job done, and most can not afford new locomotives.

[trainboyH16-44]

But if the small railroads are really running low on power that works on their roads, they could make a lot of money by selling maybe a thousand branchline locos to all the sortlines. In theory.
Matthew

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Theory may be great but the reality is different. EPA emissions standards are one issue, price is another. Few shortlines or regionals can afford the $1,000,000+ per unit cost of a new locomotive as opposed to the appreciably lower cost of a rebuilt used locomotive.

There have been attempts at marketing locomotives from both EMD and GE for the shortline/regional railroads. The lack of sales of the BL20-2 and the Super 7 series shows how far they got.

[trainboyH16-44]

But those were just rebuilds, and once the prime movers die, then what?
Maybe they'll offer a branchline loco, with 4 or 6 axles, a 12 cylinder engine, and 2000-3000HP, and maybe they won't. Who knows....
Matthew

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44

But those were just rebuilds, and once the prime movers die, then what?
Maybe they'll offer a branchline loco, with 4 or 6 axles, a 12 cylinder engine, and 2000-3000HP, and maybe they won't. Who knows....
Matthew

Locomotive engines are not like the engine in your car. They never "die", they just get rebuilt over and over. It's far cheaper for a shortline to rebuild an old EMD or GE engine then spend 2-3 million for a new locomotive.

[Anonymous]

I rather have a new powerplant that is good for 20 years instead of trying to keep a aging 20 year old re-multi-build running.

[trainboyH16-44]

Good point, but wouldn't they just rust away to nothing in the main castings, and then basically be a new engine?
Matthew

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

I rather have a new powerplant that is good for 20 years instead of trying to keep a aging 20 year old re-multi-build running.

No trying needed. EMD and GE locomotives and parts are designed and engineered to be rebuilt/remanufactured many times over. Once rebuilt, they are as good as new. Cars/light trucks are not engineered with rebuilding in mind, and have a limited life cycle (they are designed to be disposable).

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44

Good point, but wouldn't they just rust away to nothing in the main castings, and then basically be a new engine?
Matthew

I don't get you point. Why would the "rust" away???

[Anonymous]

I'm supposing that the locomotive engines are built similar to our power plant engines.

There's no wear and tear on the block. All cylinders have liners, and the main bearings are quite thick. Even though the bearings are thick, all tolerances are held to the same limits you have in your truck engine. Things would have to get REALLY bad to take out a block. For instance, when we lost a crankshaft 2 years ago (15,000 lbs) there was no damage to the block, and in fact minimal damage to the main bearings - even though we replaced them anyway.

Cylinder heads are modular, one head per cylinder. All wear surfaces are replaceable.

Injectors are repairable, cleanable, and replaceable.

Individual heat sensors are often installed on each main bearing and rod bearing.

Individual heat sensors are often installed on each cylinder head for chamber temperatures for emissions monitoring as well as engine health monitoring.

The basic jist is that more is known about the health and operating condition of these bad boys than your mechanic will ever see on your truck engine, even when it's running in his shop. Anything that can wear is replaceable. Until the parts are no longer available you can always rebuild the engine and bring it back up to factory specs or better as a new engine.

Mark in Utah