The evolution of the 710 and retrofits

|
Want to post a reply to this topic?
Login or register for an acount to join our online community today!

The evolution of the 710 and retrofits

  • This is a grab bag of sorts,

    On the Loconotes yahoo group, there is currently a bit of a discussion about what the differences are between the 16-710G3A in UP's SD60Ms and the 12-710G3B-T2. The suggestion was that beyond # of Cylinders, and turbo, there was no difference. 

    This is wrong as has been pointed out by many. If nothing else, the new engines have EFI and changes in the cooling, but there are a host of smaller changes as well. 

     

    But this got me thinking. The changes in the 710 have been evolutionary, not revolutionary and that got me to head to my thoughtful spot.

     

    In the past, Railroads have done things like replace the cylinder liners in 567s with 645 cylinder liners to create what amounts to a 645D block or 567E I guess. 

    My question then is, could you do the same with a 710 engine block? Could you take a 16-710G3A and upgrade it by replacing some parts? Could you retrofit in EFI? Etc etc. And would there be an advantage to do so from a fuel usage and EPA perspective? Obviously without cooling changes you couldn't reach T2 or even likely T1, but byond the CFR 1033 parts, could you improve the performance.

    And then of course the next question is would it be financially viable to do so? It hasn't happened yet, so it seems the answer is no, but I'm curious if someone has a sense of the ballpark costs.

     

    Then, my thinker started thinking, well, if you COULD retrofit an older 710G block with EFI, could you retrofit a 645E or F block in the same way? Could EMD (Or GE) create EFI assemblies for the 645? And if you could do that, then could you also add beefier cooling and create a far more EPA friendly engine?

    Now that really is a fantasy idea, because I can't imagine that there's a good market case for someone to design the EFI assemblies for 645s and then price those competitively when all EMD did was take their already amortized T2 designs and shrink them to V8 and V12. The costing just doesn't make sense, but could it be done at something like a reasonable price tag? ie, not reasonable compared to ECO, but in the ball park?

     

     

    And my final only slightly related question.

    I understood KCS using GP40 and SD40 cores to build SD22ECOs. They needed mid horsepower units for locals and yard use and 3000 horsepower 645s were not efficient enough and over powered, but the UP SD59MX and the NS GP22ECOs make less sense to me.

    The UP units make less sense from an EPA and CARB standpoint. the 16-710G3A with the 1033 part is hardly their worse EPA offender. Wouldn't it have made more sense to retro some of the SD40s instead of making them SD40Ns? From a CARB perspective isn't an SD40N worse than an SD22ECO or SD32ECO? Are more parts kept with the SD60 refit making it a cheaper proposition? And why didn't UP send their oldest SD60s and SD60Ms (3 windows) through first? 

    As for NS, why GP38 cores? Do they not have GP40s? Or is there another reason? 

    Replies to this thread are ordered from "oldest to newest".   To reverse this order, click here.
    To learn about more about sorting options, visit our FAQ page.
  • I can answer some of your questions: first for marine engines there is a tier 2 conversion kit available for marine units through EMD distributors Stewart & Stevenson in Houston, TX, and Valley Diesel in the Los Angeles area. Both these areas have their own air pollution problems and operators can probably get a grant to pay for the up grade. Since both 645's and 710's use the same cylinder head all the equipment developed for T2 710's can be put into 645's and that includes fuel injectors and after cooler cores. They might have to make up the piping but that's no problem for either company.

    The development of the 710 over the years to get more power with meeting emission requirements is more convoluted. The pistons went from 16:1 compression ration to 18:1 this improved thermodynamic efficiency which resulted in lower exhaust temperature which required changes to the turbo to get the boost back up. Going to a split system of separate cooling system for the aftercoolers allowed the airbox temperature to be lowered. this drastically reduces NOx while allowing higher power for the same amount of fuel. There are 2 20 cylinder generators on 1960's vintage on Nantucket Island where they rigged up a separate radiator and using a motor driven pump and a temperature control system they try to keep the air box temperature temperature to about 120 degrees which is about 40 degrees less than the minimum you can get with 160 degree cooling water as it returns from the main radiator. The electronic unit fuel injector does a stutter step injection of fuel to spread out the burn time to also control NOx formation and it also reduces peak firing pressure and stress levels in the engine. I not sure it does anything for cycle efficiency though. 

    The notice about T2 kits for 645's mentions that the engine must have a EB turbo which in the utex marine turbo pool has been standard since 1982. Since there are a lot more 645 locomotive engines almost all with the older E type turbo they would probably have to buy a new EB turbo.

    Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Interesting.

     

    So now that really begs the question why ECO and not upgrade?

    I presume some of it is simply that fitting the bigger radiator is problematic on anything shorter than a 70ACe/M-2? I mean the 60M is just over 71' and the 70ACe is just over 74, so I assume that 3' makes the radiator cramped, but couldn't you at least fit the T1 radiator? On an SD40-2 couldn't you make use of the "porch?"

     

    I suppose there might also be concerns that the older crankcases wouldn't be able to handle the higher compression. 

  • With the ECCO system you only have to follow directions its all engineered. On locomotives do-it-your selfers will have a challenge with the radiators. The delayed injection type of fuel delivery for ignition delay reduces the peak firing pressure so applying that to the earlier flimsier engine blocks might be a problem. If you are going to try this you probably will have to load the engine up with instrumentation such as the Florida Power & Light engines of 1989. Even EMD engineer learned a lot from that. Don't do this at home. 

    Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • With that extensive a rebuild you would want to recapitalize the cost rather than expense them. Once you do that you have to meet current emission regulations (Tier 2).

    To some of you earlier questions;

    All of the subvariants of the 12-cylinder 710G3B and 710G3C engines have been used on EMD's JT42CWR(Class 66) locomotives sold in Europe, which has similarly strict emissions standards. Also there was a batch of a GP15 lookalike locomotive but with Flexicoil trucks with the 8-cylinder 710G3B engine. IIRC they went to Gabon.

    The GP38 cores were used for the NS program as they were available. They were not Dash-2 locomotives and had been retired by NS and were awaiting sale or scrapping. The Juniata Shops of NS are probably the most capable of all the Class I companies.

    As for the UP in California, the SD40Ns will probably leave California once the SD59MX locomotives have their teething problems cured and their numbers increase. The SD40N locomotives are a "Stopgap" solution that slows the consumption of advance credits earned. The UP will have to pay penalties for any locomotive used in California that doesn't meet Tier 2 or better. The UP (and BNSF) were allowed to build up "Credits" by using Tier 2 locomotives in California before the effective date of the agreement. The effective date has now passed, and any locomotive not meeting Tier 2 burns up the credits, the lower the emission standards that it meets the faster it burns up the credits. The SD40N, meeting Tier 0+ is better than a Tier 0 SD60 for example. This is why the UP had been using Tier 2 SD70ACe and Tier 1 SD70M locomotives on Local freights in California. With business improving the UP needed to get the SD70ACes back on mainline freights. They are watching their credits dwindle quickly.

  • One last few points, railroad diesel engines are a bit different than smaller truck engines. On a truck engine you have a block and cylinder heads, on a locomotive engine the dividing point is lower, you have a crankcase and power assemblies (complete individual cylinders with pistons, liners, heads, and connecting rods).

    A 645D engine is a 567D crankcase with 645 power assemblies, while the 567E engines were the reverse 567 power assemblies mounted on a 645E crankcase. You cannot bore out an EMD 567 power assembly and install a 645 liner there isn't enough metal, it won't stand the increased stress.

    To upgrade older engines to newer (higher) emissions standards takes money and Engineering talent. MPI made the investment for EMD 645F engines to Tier 3 standards because they could see the market for their MPI Express commuter locomotives, and the Commuter Agencies were willing to pay the price. Except for the California market demand for upgrade kits is very iffy beyond Tier 0+. Notice how few ECO upgrades there have been. Nobody knows yet whether it is better to go with Gensets or ECO type upgrades for local train power.

    As to why UP chose those particular SD60Ms for upgrade, better condition due to younger age, plus they are due for an overhaul which means either a CFR 1033 or the ECO program. The older SD60s had their overhaul before the newer requirements went into effect. We will see what happens to any of the newer SD60Ms that aren't chosen for the ECO program, at least not initially.

  • BNSF on the other hand seems content to move their GP60(M)s into California and pull out all the 645 and 567 power. I'm guessing their spending less on the refit, but burning more credits.

    Presumably at some point they will need to address this. I don't think the GPs have even had the 1033 part applied. 

     

    Also I think you are wrong on the 645D/567E or rather perhaps not clear. A little research on my parts confirmed that they were called 645D3(A for turbo) There is nothing called a 567E I couldn't remember for sure which was which.

    As I understand it, A 16-645D3A is a 567D3 engine block with 645 power assemblies. It retains the 567D3A turbo. Because of the Turbo and the weaker engine block it only makes 2300HP versus the 3000 of a 16-645E3.

    A 567C-D engine block is the same physical size and shape as a 645 engine block. the Displacement difference is made up in the thickness of the liner and specifics of the power assemblies. 567B block is something like 80%-90% the same and only takes minimal work to fit the power assemblies. A 567A block cannot be upgraded.

    My understanding is this is why/how old 1st gen EMDs have lasted so long, they can use the same parts supply as the 645 engines. Supposedly, there are very few 1st gen EMDs in revenue service that aren't running 645 assemblies. Though I don't know that for sure.

    BN and ATSF both did this to their GP30s and 35s. BN renamed them GP39E/V/M The original engine blocks and turbos with 645 power assemblies and dash-2 electricals. 

  • YoHo1975

     

    Also I think you are wrong on the 645D/567E or rather perhaps not clear. A little research on my parts confirmed that they were called 645D3(A for turbo) There is nothing called a 567E I couldn't remember for sure which was which. 

    567E engines did exist, they were found in SW1200s built for Mopac, T&P, SP, and Cotton Belt. These were the last 567 powered locomotives built, as EMD had already started production of 645 powered locomotives. They were completed in January and February of 1966.

    As I understand it, A 16-645D3A is a 567D3 engine block with 645 power assemblies. It retains the 567D3A turbo. Because of the Turbo and the weaker engine block it only makes 2300HP versus the 3000 of a 16-645E3.

    In EMD engine designations the suffix number "3" indicates a turbocharged railroad diesel engine. EMD used an engine designated 567D3 in GP20, GP30, and SD24 locomotives. Various improvements were made to that engine for the introduction of the "35" line of locomotives to gain the extra horsepower with better reliability hence the additional "A" suffix.

    A 567C-D engine block is the same physical size and shape as a 645 engine block. the Displacement difference is made up in the thickness of the liner and specifics of the power assemblies. 567B block is something like 80%-90% the same and only takes minimal work to fit the power assemblies. A 567A block cannot be upgraded.

    The 567B crankcase is less like the later C and D versions than you think. You cannot upgrade a 567B to full 567C standards. rather there was an intermediate standard called a 567BC which was a 567B crankcase fitted with 567C power assemblies. This required special water piping to act as jumpers due to different cooling passage configuration in "C" power assemblies and blocks. Also the "C" crankcases were beefed up to handle increased stresses.

    My understanding is this is why/how old 1st gen EMDs have lasted so long, they can use the same parts supply as the 645 engines. Supposedly, there are very few 1st gen EMDs in revenue service that aren't running 645 assemblies. Though I don't know that for sure.

    That is mostly true although you can buy used 567C power assemblies that are serviceable. It has not been that many years since you were able to buy fully remanufactured 567 power assemblies with a warranty. The reason that 1st Generation EMDs lasted so long was a sound basic design, that was improved over time, and build in vast numbers. This ensured a thriving aftermarket supply of parts at competitive prices.

    BN and ATSF both did this to their GP30s and 35s. BN renamed them GP39E/V/M The original engine blocks and turbos with 645 power assemblies and dash-2 electricals.

    The BN and ATSF rebuilds are very different The ATSF locomotives have 645 power assemblies, but didn't receive main Alternators or Dash-2 electrical cabinets.

  • This thread

    http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/144884.aspx?PageIndex=3

     

    suggests that the ATSF units did not have 645 crankcases.

  • YoHo1975

    This thread

    http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/144884.aspx?PageIndex=3

     

    suggests that the ATSF units did not have 645 crankcases.

    Correct neither ATSF nor BN GP30/35 rebuilds received 645 crankcases.

  • I missread your previous post, sorry.

  • beaulieu

     

     

    In EMD engine designations the suffix number "3" indicates a turbocharged railroad diesel engine. EMD used an engine designated 567D3 in GP20, GP30, and SD24 locomotives. Various improvements were made to that engine for the introduction of the "35" line of locomotives to gain the extra horsepower with better reliability hence the additional "A" suffix.

    I was under the impression that the GP20 had a 567D2 engine which was turbocharged but not intercooled, while the contemporary SD24 had the 567D3 which was intercooled (and 400HP more powerful).

    Since then EMD have not built further turbocharged engines without intercoolers.

    M636C

     

  • Well here is a history of CATS best engine they ever had on the OTR side the 3406 series.  First came out as the 3406A model think of this as like a 567 series had Weak and I mean Weak Cranks in them loved to break them.  Then they came out with the B series and Fixed the crank issue would be a Late 567 Series.  The C series 3406 would be a 645 that was in like the SD45 had a few issues like Weak Main Bearing Journals and other issues.  Then CAT came out with the SD40-2 of the OTR engine the 3406E model that SOB would and Could take a beating would run low on Oil holes in Pistons saw that myself holes in blocks even had one at a company I drove for come into the shop with a Broke Crankshat but IT DROVE INTO THE SHOP.  Then the EPA got involved and we had the C-15 and C-16 Series which were the 50 and 60 series.

     

    Then came teh ACERTS and look out we went Backwards forced to do stuff that the EPA mandated CAT tried to avoid using EGR tech and ruined the Motor think the H series Motor.  Yet CAT now Owns EMD.  They have not produced a Great engine since the late 90's almost 20 years now.  Their designs are Tired and worn out.  Yet people say they are the Best. 

    Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Ed who is "they" as in "They have not produced a great engine since the late 90's almost 20 years". I still see no benefit in CAT / Progress Rail purchase of EMD it would have been better to have sold EMD to Warsila or Rolls Royce( RR bought Allision aircraft division from GM) both of which have 2 stroke experience. EMD's engineer staff is too small to help CAT with anything even if they would listen. Progress Rail could go on designing all the CAT locomotives that they wanted and buy the components they needed from EMD like everybody else. 

    Now to get back on subject. The 567D2 engine developed for the GP 20 was the initial application of the clutch-gear driven turbo primarily for testing on the UP on Sherman Hill (8000 ft altitude) to prevent power loss with altitute. The output was about the same as the blower engine at sea level at 4psi airbox pressure. the extra 150 hp represents the parasitic loss needed to drive the blowers. The turbo is of course driven by the waste heat in the exhaust. Mechanic Darwinism produced the 567D3 engine in response to the horsepower race. The 567D2 and the 567D3 were rated at 800 rpm and the 567D3A was rated at 835 rpm. The 567D4 engine rated at 900 rpm to reach synchronus speed for 60 generators was rated at 2850 hp or 2000 KW. The problem with that engine was with the liners (port streaking and port framing) that is cured by converting to 645 power packs with laser hardened liners making them at last bullet proof.

    As far as early 20 E blocks is concerned they were failure prone at the welds between the "A" frames and the bottom plate of the block. The fix was to install about 1 inch thick stiffening bars in the bottom of the airbox. Even so I saw a the Brayton Pt. Generating Station come apart and the whole engine was replaced by a Utex unit. The is an advertiser on a another form that claims they can fix that too! Crankshafts of that era were a problem too. A unit on Martha's Vineyard broke after 25 years but only 14,000 hrs due to a large flaw in the shaft. In the last 40 years I hope they have improve inspection techniques.

    Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • creepycrank

    Ed who is "they" as in "They have not produced a great engine since the late 90's almost 20 years". I still see no benefit in CAT / Progress Rail purchase of EMD it would have been better to have sold EMD to Warsila or Rolls Royce( RR bought Allision aircraft division from GM) both of which have 2 stroke experience. EMD's engineer staff is too small to help CAT with anything even if they would listen. Progress Rail could go on designing all the CAT locomotives that they wanted and buy the components they needed from EMD like everybody else. 

    Now to get back on subject. The 567D2 engine developed for the GP 20 was the initial application of the clutch-gear driven turbo primarily for testing on the UP on Sherman Hill (8000 ft altitude) to prevent power loss with altitute. The output was about the same as the blower engine at sea level at 4psi airbox pressure. the extra 150 hp represents the parasitic loss needed to drive the blowers. The turbo is of course driven by the waste heat in the exhaust. Mechanic Darwinism produced the 567D3 engine in response to the horsepower race. The 567D2 and the 567D3 were rated at 800 rpm and the 567D3A was rated at 835 rpm. The 567D4 engine rated at 900 rpm to reach synchronus speed for 60 generators was rated at 2850 hp or 2000 KW. The problem with that engine was with the liners (port streaking and port framing) that is cured by converting to 645 power packs with laser hardened liners making them at last bullet proof.

    As far as early 20 E blocks is concerned they were failure prone at the welds between the "A" frames and the bottom plate of the block. The fix was to install about 1 inch thick stiffening bars in the bottom of the airbox. Even so I saw a the Brayton Pt. Generating Station come apart and the whole engine was replaced by a Utex unit. The is an advertiser on a another form that claims they can fix that too! Crankshafts of that era were a problem too. A unit on Martha's Vineyard broke after 25 years but only 14,000 hrs due to a large flaw in the shaft. In the last 40 years I hope they have improve inspection techniques.

    I'm happy that EMD remained an American company.... don't know about Warsilla but Rolls Royce's business model is to be exclusively an engine/propulsion system manufacturer (their automobile business was sold off long ago) and they have shown no interest in building railroad equipment...

     Cat bought EMD largely to have the 2 cycle 710 line in their catalog..why  "buy the components from EMD like everyone else" when they can own the company?

      The inference that Cat is somehow wrecking EMD seems absurd given that EMD was nearly wrecked by General Motors (towards the end of their ownership)..

    "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock