I've noticed that the GP/SD22ECO locomotive line is marketed as a repowering of older locomotives. How do these repowerings compare to the various repowerings of the 1950's and early 1960's?
Back in the 60's and 70's a rebuilt locomotive didn't have to meet the stringent emissions regulations that the industry is held to nowadays...
The EMD "ECO" locomotives are not just receiving a new diesel engine but a new alternator and new, computerized electrical system..it might be more fair to call them remanufactured locomotives rather than rebuilt units..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The rebuilding of Baldwins, FMs, and even early model Alco diesels with EMD prime movers was also sort of popular in the 1960s on some class 1s since they considered first-generation non-EMD diesels oddballs.
As mentioned above, the ECO repowers by EMD include a new engine and main alternator. Does anybody remember what was actually replaced in the various repowerings of the 1950's and early 1960's?
CSSHEGEWISCH As mentioned above, the ECO repowers by EMD include a new engine and main alternator. Does anybody remember what was actually replaced in the various repowerings of the 1950's and early 1960's?
Are you sure the ECO rebuilds are using a different alternator, and not just a rebuilt in-kind? The AR-10 has enough capacity. and is designed to work with EMD diesels. The main change with the ECOs is a new Tier 2 diesel engine, new microprocessor controlled fuel injection system, and new split-cooling system.
Regarding older rebuilds such as various Baldwin switchers and roadswitchers. Normally they received a new diesel engine and DC generator, but frequently retained the old traction motors. The reason to change the generator was the old Westinghouse or General Electric generators were not designed to mate with EMD engines, and had different power curves based on higher engine rpms.
I am sure that each case varied. Most of the earlier repowerings were almost experimental in nature and were likely done to determine if the concept was worth pursuing. The fact that it never became popluar speaks for itself.
I suspect that matching an EMD prime mover to a non-EMD main generator would present problems. The concept was to use as much of the original as possible, but what was saved in material was probably more than spent in labor and fabrication trying to cobble the various components together. Perhaps replacing the Alco 244 with an Alco 251 would require the least additional work. Repowered units were a tiny percentage of the North American locomotive fleet, but did get photographed more since they were oddities.
John
Pre Lyon Wonders comment, it wasn't that non-EMD diesels were oddballs, it's that they called for different maintainance procedures and schedules in addition to stocking parts unique to those locomotives. Also, in the steam era if you could fix one you could fix them all, Baldwin, ALCO, Lima, it didn't matter. Not so with diesels. It was less of a headache to stick with one manufacturer. The fact that EMD turned out a superior product made the choice easy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.