Trains.com

Upgrading SD9043MAC to meet Tier 3 emissions

12303 views
56 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,199 posts
Upgrading SD9043MAC to meet Tier 3 emissions
Posted by caldreamer on Monday, May 23, 2016 1:18 PM

With the huge size of the radiators on the SD9043MAC's, would it be possible to create split cooling radiators and upgrade them to meet the tier 3 emissions level?

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Monday, May 23, 2016 1:52 PM

Why?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,199 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Monday, May 23, 2016 2:39 PM

Why, to reduce its emmissions and help the environment?  All I asked is is it possible, yes or no?  NOT why?

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Monday, May 23, 2016 3:20 PM

Sure it's possible but why bother? At the height of the steam era there were 60,000 smoke belching locomotives in America. They were supplanted by 40,000 diesels which in time were succeeded by 20,000. Today that number is just under 30,000. And today's locomotives haul more ton-miles per year than was ever accomplished by steam. We have cleaned up our act. Everyone else needs to follow our lead, not the other way around.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:19 PM

The answer is no. Tier 3 EMD's have common rail fuel injection and other design changes. There are 'emissions kits' for  90MAC convertibles that upgrade the engine to a '+' Tier, maintaining the orginal engine configuration.

CPM500

 

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 148 posts
Posted by Entropy on Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:57 AM

710 Tier 3 is not common rail. 

The short answer to the orignal post, anything is possible.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 18,149 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:12 PM

given enough money.......but is it economically worthwhile?

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, May 26, 2016 3:10 PM

daveklepper

given enough money.......but is it economically worthwhile?

Sure... if you are using OPM.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 21,267 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:30 PM

D.Carleton
daveklepper

given enough money.......but is it economically worthwhile?

Sure... if you are using OPM.

some things still don't make economic sense, even using OPM

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:48 PM

BaltACD
 
D.Carleton
daveklepper

given enough money.......but is it economically worthwhile?

Sure... if you are using OPM. 

some things still don't make economic sense, even using OPM

Hey, if mislain guilt means money for almost new power and frees up money in my budget for maintenance then bring it on.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 148 posts
Posted by Entropy on Thursday, May 26, 2016 6:17 PM

Keep in mind, they put Tier 3 710 engines in GP38's and 40's ; so whats the difference? 

Look at the SD59MX

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, May 26, 2016 6:40 PM

Entropy

Keep in mind, they put Tier 3 710 engines in GP38's and 40's ; so whats the difference?

About $500K.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 148 posts
Posted by Entropy on Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:16 PM

What's the $500k for? 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:20 PM

Entropy

What's the $500k for? 

For the new 12N-710G3B-T3 under the hood. They don’t give them away for free, eh? Then the plumbing and electrical have to be modified to work with the new plant. The mechanics and electricians don’t do that for free either.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 148 posts
Posted by Entropy on Friday, May 27, 2016 8:12 AM

D.Carleton

 

 
Entropy

What's the $500k for? 

 

 

For the new 12N-710G3B-T3 under the hood. They don’t give them away for free, eh? Then the plumbing and electrical have to be modified to work with the new plant. The mechanics and electricians don’t do that for free either.

 

 

 

The way you made it sound was as if it would cost $500k extra to make a SD9043MAC to Tier 3. 

Otherwise... $500k for a 710 repower GP38/40, not even close in price. 

 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, May 27, 2016 8:50 AM

Entropy
 

The way you made it sound was as if it would cost $500k extra to make a SD9043MAC to Tier 3. 

Otherwise... $500k for a 710 repower GP38/40, not even close in price. 

Oh no, that was just a starting point. Nothing cheap about the railroad biz. In other words, one does not rebuild to Tier 3 on a whim.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:28 AM
Wikipedia doesn't list a 12N-710G3B-T3. Does this really exist? Would also be a drop in Horsepower. And I thought thought 38s and 40s only met Tier 2 using either 8-710G3A-T2 or 12-710G3B-T2. Wikipedia also doesn't list a 710 plant that meets T3. I assume the T3 ACes are just 16-710G3C-T2s with minor modifications and tweaks to the cooling and exhaust.
  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:25 PM

YoHo1975
Wikipedia doesn't list a 12N-710G3B-T3. Does this really exist? Would also be a drop in Horsepower. And I thought thought 38s and 40s only met Tier 2 using either 8-710G3A-T2 or 12-710G3B-T2. Wikipedia also doesn't list a 710 plant that meets T3. I assume the T3 ACes are just 16-710G3C-T2s with minor modifications and tweaks to the cooling and exhaust.

Wikipedia? Seriously?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Wednesday, June 1, 2016 6:38 PM

Wikipedia's 710 entry has a concise listing of the 710 models and I've found it reasonably accurate. Wikipedia is more broadly an excellent resource if you understand it's limitations. Finally, 12N-710 is a designation That seems to be used exclusively in export engines and again, rated at 3200HP, so not at all what would be dropped into an SD90 carbody.

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 148 posts
Posted by Entropy on Thursday, June 2, 2016 7:50 AM

Wikipedia is....... missing information. 12N-710G3B-T3 is a current engine model. Same engine NS GP33ECO's use. 

The whole point of bringing that example up is to show what is possible, if you want another example. Look at the NS SD60E, Altoona built them using Tier II 16-710 added EUI and seperate loop aftercooling. 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:36 AM

Well, the point D. Carleton seemed to be making was to discredit the notion that they'd bring up the emissions standards do to cost. And as justification he used the cost of the GP33ECOs. But the entire argument breaks down regardless of my ignorance of the model.

If I recall correctly, (and NSDash9, feel free to correct me) The GP33ECOs were spec rebuilds meaning, I thought EMD/Progress did the first of them and the remaining were built from ECO kits. Hense ECO in the name not just "e"

The ECO Kit is not just the engine, but also the cooling component, so it isn't $500K for just an engine.

But that number is irrelevent anyway. They wouldn't downrate those units to 3300 HP. That would be a waste, they'd want the full 4300+HP and to do that, they'd need a 16-710G3C-T3 which is what is in the SD70ACe T3. EMD doesn't make an ECO kit version. So the cost would be for the engine(or at least whatever is needed to convert the existing block to the new version) and a Radiator section. Likely custom. It more than likely costs more than $500K. It's not a comparable cost at all. Having said that, the cost of a new mainline AC loco is still what? Up in the $2million dollar range? It would be cheaper than buying new. NS doesn't have any states where they've committed to fleet wide emissions the way BNSF and UP have in Ca, so they probably lack the incentive to spend that money. 

 

 

Getting back to engine designations. It's utterly frustrating that the only reference I can find to the notion that a 12N-710G3B-T3 exists is through reporting on the GP33/GP59ECOs. Railway age, Trains, NSDash9 and Altoonaworks all report it. Yet there is no reference on progressrail/emd to such a thing existing (they still only talk about Tier 2 ECO rebuilds with the original ECO engines) Google provides no help. It is very frustrating that one cannot independently find out what that engine is. I mean, NS/EMD could have created a press release saying it included a T3-Bumpuss-biddlywink engine and all those sites would report that athoritatively without us knowing what that engine is.

 

I actually have the same problem with the SD60e. What is a 16-710G3B-IS? what does that mean? That's not what EMD calls their Tier 2 ECO plants. That's not what they called their new construction Tier 2 plants? What is it?

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:22 AM

It's also worth pointing out that NS did the ECO upgrades, because they got a grant to do them. So they weren't even truly incented. 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:52 PM

They're building Eco's now without grants for system-wide use, so they must like them. 

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • 153 posts
Posted by Bryan Jones on Friday, June 3, 2016 5:06 AM

The 12N-710G has a newer, resvised cylinder firing order than the previous 12-710G and different harmonic balancer. NS is performing this engine upgrade on the 12-710's for the GP59ECO's as well as the previous GP59E's. Other roads with 12-710 powered units have done similar upgrades to 12N-710G specs.

Bryan Jones

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,326 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, June 3, 2016 6:15 AM

YoHo1975

Wikipedia's 710 entry has a concise listing of the 710 models and I've found it reasonably accurate. Wikipedia is more broadly an excellent resource if you understand it's limitations. Finally, 12N-710 is a designation That seems to be used exclusively in export engines and again, rated at 3200HP, so not at all what would be dropped into an SD90 carbody.

The "N" in 12N-710G3 stands for "New firing order". Around 1996, concern was being expressed about vibration in the 12-710, particularly torsional vibration. There were some broken crankshafts, which EMD attributed to faulty welding of counterweights on to crankshafts. The Irish Railways, long a good EMD customer didn't believe this and phoned some other operators in Australia to check up. There had been some problems with vibration but no broken crankshafts. Because of the design of the EMD engine, torsional vibration is avoided, and the eight throttle notch speeds were selected to avoid high torsional vibration.

The same problem occurred with the 8-567C around 1955 and this was replaced by the 8-567CR by 1960 or so. ("R" for Revised firing order)

The original GP59s were built with the original 12-710G3, as were I think the GO Transit F59PH units. I think that by the time that most F59 PHI units were built the 12N-710G3B would have been used.

The West Australian JT42C had 12N-710G3B-ES engines and I understood that the "ES" referred to electronic fuel injection. These engines were 3200 BHP, 3030HP input to the alternator.

The second number in the ECO designation refers to the tier category, so a CN GP 20 ECO meets tier 0, an NS GP33 ECO meets tier 3 and so on.

Tier 2 could be met for an 8-710ECO by using the cooling system of a GP40, so a GP22 ECO could be built simply on a GP40 core. A GP 33ECO needs the cooling similar to that of a Tier 1 SD70.

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, June 3, 2016 12:21 PM

Interesting stuff. I asked the question on the 12N designation on loconotes and got the same response. Interesting stuff. Anyone know what changes occurred to go from T2-T3 on the prime mover...not including revised cooling?

 

 

Also, given when the issue was found and given when the 12N engines went into international markets. Did EMD really retain the old firing order on the 12-710G3A-T2? Or did they just revise the firing order, call that normal and not call out the distinction anymore? In other words, do the UP SD59MX or the CP SD30ECOs really retain the old problemative firing order?

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,326 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, June 3, 2016 9:09 PM

YoHo1975

Interesting stuff. I asked the question on the 12N designation on loconotes and got the same response. Interesting stuff. Anyone know what changes occurred to go from T2-T3 on the prime mover...not including revised cooling?

 

Also, given when the issue was found and given when the 12N engines went into international markets. Did EMD really retain the old firing order on the 12-710G3A-T2? Or did they just revise the firing order, call that normal and not call out the distinction anymore? In other words, do the UP SD59MX or the CP SD30ECOs really retain the old problemative firing order?

 

All the 12N-710G3s I've heard of were B crankcase or later.

All 12-710G3A engines would have the old firing order.

It is possible that the 12-710G3A-T2 was an upgraded older engine, or that the designations have changed and started again from A...

It has been suggested that the valve timing would have been changed in order to meet the higher emission standards.

M636C

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, June 4, 2016 8:30 AM

YoHo1975
In other words, do the UP SD59MX or the CP SD30ECOs really retain the old problemative firing order?  

Is that a neologism or a typo for 'problematic'?  It does not appear in dictionaries.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:18 AM

schlimm

 

 
YoHo1975
In other words, do the UP SD59MX or the CP SD30ECOs really retain the old problemative firing order?  

 

Is that a neologism or a typo for 'problematic'?  It does not appear in dictionaries.

 

 

It's a "me not paying attention to what I'm typing as I pop from this forum to working in a terminal window at work error." :)

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:21 AM

M636C

 

 
YoHo1975

Interesting stuff. I asked the question on the 12N designation on loconotes and got the same response. Interesting stuff. Anyone know what changes occurred to go from T2-T3 on the prime mover...not including revised cooling?

 

Also, given when the issue was found and given when the 12N engines went into international markets. Did EMD really retain the old firing order on the 12-710G3A-T2? Or did they just revise the firing order, call that normal and not call out the distinction anymore? In other words, do the UP SD59MX or the CP SD30ECOs really retain the old problemative firing order?

 

 

 

All the 12N-710G3s I've heard of were B crankcase or later.

All 12-710G3A engines would have the old firing order.

It is possible that the 12-710G3A-T2 was an upgraded older engine, or that the designations have changed and started again from A...

It has been suggested that the valve timing would have been changed in order to meet the higher emission standards.

M636C

 

 

OK, I know that a few years ago on this forum, there was a breakdown of most of the parts of an EMD engine designation, so I'm clearly forgetting something, but I THOUGHT that the G in 710G was the crankcase revision and the numeral after was a reference to the Turbo Charger and that the A,B, or C after that were also part of the Turbo Charger. So 3A,3B and 3C all refer to different turbo chargers.

those T2 engines were new units in the late 2000s. Well after the G3C had been introduced.  

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy