EMD has released a new Demonstrator for low-powered Tier 2 roadswitcher. Demo EMDX 7101 converted from former KCS GP40 2836 nee-PC 3171. The locomotive now has a 8 cylinder turbocharged 710G3C engine rated at 2000hp. It retains all three cooling fan shrouds. Photo is here
EMDX 7101 Demo
Reportedly there is a converted GP9 Demo somewhere out there at a slightly lower power rating due to smaller radiators.
Is that the real size of the engine (image on long hood)?
Not exactly, but looks pretty close. Looks like there is a lot of extra room side, with the prime mover being half the size of the original. I have seen ads for these retrofits, nice to see one actually in service.
Now I won't feel bad using my HO scale KCS 4789 for something else.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
mudchicken wrote:Somebody has figured out how to convert EMD 567's to Tier 2 compliance. I saw two GP-9s in Houston switching port elevators, rebuilt with TxDOT grant monies. I am also aware of a CF7 and an SD-9m with similar upgrades. I wonder how far gone the 567 and 645 prime movers have to be before it's new engine time?
This is interesting, sinceI don't believe a 567 or a 645 could economically be converted to meet Tier 2 in the same way that the 710 meets the restrictions. The 710 has to use electronic injection and very careful control of combustion temperature to meet the emission limits.
There is no way that that degree of control could apply to a 1940s or even a 1960s engine.
There is a means by which combustion can be improved, by the injection of LP Gas in a controlled manner into the combustion air after pressure charging. The gas increases the qualirty of combustion and increases the amount of liquid fuel being burnt. This increases the power output and cleans up the emissions at the same time.
It requires careful control of gas injection using a microprocessor to match the gas supply to the engine power setting and of course, an adequate supply of bottled gas to match the range of the locomotive.
This is the only means I can imagine that would allow this degree of improvement.
On the other hand, I like the GP68 and hope to see more. It must cost less in the long run to have one engine rather than three.
M636C
M636C wrote: mudchicken wrote:Somebody has figured out how to convert EMD 567's to Tier 2 compliance. I saw two GP-9s in Houston switching port elevators, rebuilt with TxDOT grant monies. I am also aware of a CF7 and an SD-9m with similar upgrades. I wonder how far gone the 567 and 645 prime movers have to be before it's new engine time?This is interesting, sinceI don't believe a 567 or a 645 could economically be converted to meet Tier 2 in the same way that the 710 meets the restrictions. The 710 has to use electronic injection and very careful control of combustion temperature to meet the emission limits.There is no way that that degree of control could apply to a 1940s or even a 1960s engine.There is a means by which combustion can be improved, by the injection of LP Gas in a controlled manner into the combustion air after pressure charging. The gas increases the qualirty of combustion and increases the amount of liquid fuel being burnt. This increases the power output and cleans up the emissions at the same time.It requires careful control of gas injection using a microprocessor to match the gas supply to the engine power setting and of course, an adequate supply of bottled gas to match the range of the locomotive.This is the only means I can imagine that would allow this degree of improvement.On the other hand, I like the GP68 and hope to see more. It must cost less in the long run to have one engine rather than three.M636C
Union Pacific is experimenting with an MP15 using a catalytic converter and some other technology to try to meet the new standards. They also have an modified SD60 that's supposed to meet Tier II standards/...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
What about the 645s in MPI's MP36 series of commuter locos? Are they Tier 2, or just Tier 1?
Lyon_Wonder wrote: mudchicken wrote:Somebody has figured out how to convert EMD 567's to Tier 2 compliance. I saw two GP-9s in Houston switching port elevators, rebuilt with TxDOT grant monies. I am also aware of a CF7 and an SD-9m with similar upgrades. I wonder how far gone the 567 and 645 prime movers have to be before it's new engine time? What about the 645s in MPI's MP36 series of commuter locos? Are they Tier 2, or just Tier 1?
They are Tier 2 645F series engines (like the EMD 50-series).
edbenton wrote:Gonna be INTERESTING to see how the RR's love to see how they like the LOW lubrication properties of ULSD starting next year. Since Sulphar swells the orings used to seal the fuel lines in the Diesel engines and they are losing that and the lubrication of the fuel. The OTR trucking industry has been having FITS with plugged filters and injectors plus blown lines should be fun. Those 567 and 645's will be leaking like sieves for weeks and then the filters will be plugged up tighter than an IRS agents tax return. Also there is NO WAY a 567 or early645 will ever meet the new standards so get your pics of the remaining GP-7-38's Say Bye bye to the Alco's and early GE's also.
Can't think of any O-rings on diesel locomotive fuel systems. All the connections I can remember are strictly mechanical - swaged or spherical. Spin on fuel filters will by-pass if plugged. Primary fuel filters are pretty porous affairs - I can't imagine lack of sulfur causing any trouble there. Those EMD diesel engines will run on just about anything - even cetane down to 20 or so.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
M636c,
Hmmmm, a man who obviously knows about NOx production.
If I didn't know better, I would say you might be one of our (Cummins, Inc) engineers talking about our QSK Tier II engines.
Cummins expermented with a gas/diesel injection system for our high horsepower (above 15 liter) engines a while back, but since I don't delve into the high horsepower world, I'm not sure if anything ever came out of those experiments, but in the automotive world that I work in, we do much the same thing (controlling combustion temp to control NOx) with electronics, but in order to meet today's stringent EPA regulations, we also add EGR to the mix. The emission regulations for the automotive diesel engines are much stricter than tier II or even tier III industrial. When tier IV comes along next year, your also going to see exhaust aftertreatment.
But you are absolutely correct that this could NOT be 1940's or even 1960's engine technology.
I ran into a buddy of mine testing a next Gen EPA spec motor for the OTR trucking industry. He is trying the next level of emmsions in real world testing. HE HATES IT more than he hated the 2007 and 2010 combined. He calls it the biggest gutless wonder since the 238 Detroit and his is rated at 500HP. He got passed uphill by a freaking UPS truck pulling a set a trailers. He also complains that the 2010's with SCR will be the biggest mistake the EPA and CARB forced up the industry. Why is he saying that he had his UREA tanks freeze on him multiple times last winter and also run out because they meter more than the EPA says it does.
trainfan1221Ain't that 8 cylinder engine just the cutest thing? EMD is always experimenting but there is a need for a medium horsepower engine in the market I'm sure. Not everyone needs the massive new units that seem to be the only things offered anymore. The engines back then GP40, 38, etc. were also much easier on the eyes. Although I'm sure the modern power does have a certain appeal.
Most of the EMD 8 cylinder repowers so far are rebuilt Dashn 2 Geeps and SD's so i don't really get the aesthetic argument, A KCS GP40-2 rebuilt with the 710 ECO package still looks like a GP40-2..
Lets not forget about the 7102, an ex-CP GP9 that has been rebuilt to a GP22ECO.
dieseldoc M636c, Hmmmm, a man who obviously knows about NOx production. If I didn't know better, I would say you might be one of our (Cummins, Inc) engineers talking about our QSK Tier II engines.
I can only take that as a compliment...
I am quite impressed by the QSK 19 engine in particular, it and its predecessors having shown themselves to be the engine of choice for application in self propelled railcars, usually in combination with a Voith hydraulic transmission. This has become the accepted standard in Western Europe and in Australia, due to the continued reliability demonstrated even in "all stations" commuter service. I, for one, would look to a QSK19 to power a multi engine switcher on that basis and I'm surprised that other options have been used to such an extent.
dieseldocCummins expermented with a gas/diesel injection system for our high horsepower (above 15 liter) engines a while back, but since I don't delve into the high horsepower world, I'm not sure if anything ever came out of those experiments, but in the automotive world that I work in, we do much the same thing (controlling combustion temp to control NOx) with electronics, but in order to meet today's stringent EPA regulations, we also add EGR to the mix. The emission regulations for the automotive diesel engines are much stricter than tier II or even tier III industrial. When tier IV comes along next year, your also going to see exhaust aftertreatment. But you are absolutely correct that this could NOT be 1940's or even 1960's engine technology.
Some engineering consultants designed a computer controlled LP gas injection system which was applied to an Alco 251B engine in a freight locomotive with the intention of improving both exhaust emissions and smoke production (particulate matter). By chance I saw it in one of its early trials and can confirm that smoke production was reduced. The system was not used elsewhere to my knowledge but no emission standards have yet been applied to such old (1960s) locomotives (in Australia) which still provide relatively acceptable fuel consumption (compared to old EMD units) and which are used by smaller marginal operators not that interested in their public image.
I did find it interesting that the problem of unburnt fuel and incomplete combustion could be overcome by the addition of more fuel, if of a different type. It just shows how important knowledge of combustion conditions and temperatures is in the control of exhaust emissions. There are examples in the USA of gas injection and combined gas and diesel fuel in EMD 645 blower engines that could meet future emission standards but they are costly to install and can't improve the poor specific fuel consumption.
The EMD 8-710ECO is a good solution for a GP40 which already has the required cooling capacity. The modified GP9 7102 looks quite a bit more expensive to convert. I'd expect that a GP40-2 already fitted with modular controls would be the lowest cost rebuild.
Lyon_WonderSeveral UP SD60Ms are also getting rebuilt with a 3,200hp 710ECO, which is interesting since the 60-series already have a 16-710G. From what I've heard the 12-710ECO was selected because upgrading a 60-series loco to tier-2+ with a 16-710 was going to be problematic, which I take as the required changes with a 16-710 would be more extensive and expensive than going with a 12-710.
The problem would have been with the cooling system. The cooling requirements for the 12-710ECO are apparently within the capabilities of the stock SD60 cooling system; the 4300 hp 16-710 would definitely not have been.
Mike
MJChittickLyon_WonderSeveral UP SD60Ms are also getting rebuilt with a 3,200hp 710ECO, which is interesting since the 60-series already have a 16-710G. From what I've heard the 12-710ECO was selected because upgrading a 60-series loco to tier-2+ with a 16-710 was going to be problematic, which I take as the required changes with a 16-710 would be more extensive and expensive than going with a 12-710. The problem would have been with the cooling system. The cooling requirements for the 12-710ECO are apparently within the capabilities of the stock SD60 cooling system; the 4300 hp 16-710 would definitely not have been.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.