CP Rebuilds

8711 views
82 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,476 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, April 01, 2018 10:48 AM

But it would not, by definition be an ECO. Since to use that marketing term, you need to use the EMD ECO engine kit.

 

The brochure for the GT38LC-3 simply refers to an 8-710G3 T0+. No A suffix, no mention of Emdec in the engine name or seperately in the brochure. 

The GT38ACe for Indonesia does refer to 8-710G3A in the wikipedia entry for it. 

According to the Wiki Entry, the GT38ACe was first constructed in 2011. The First KCS GP22ECO was outshopped in 2009.

 

Again, Wikipedia may not be reliable here.

  • Member since
    March, 2015
  • 139 posts
Posted by Entropy on Sunday, April 01, 2018 1:23 PM

I'd have to say a G3/G3A engine to me refers to an MUI engine, G3B I believe are also MUI, when you have G3B-EC, or G3B-ES, T1, T2, T3, U2 those are all EUI. 

With having 8-710G3B-ES has EUI and Seperate Loop aftercooled, as is T1, T2, T3, its just the part numbers are different (pistons, camshafts etc) same foundation. 

The marine engines are setup for left and and right hand rotation and different sumps, thats I believe where the nomenclature comes from. 

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,476 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Monday, April 02, 2018 1:20 AM

So, the 645E also had an A, B and C version late in life and the 645F had B and C versions. Or so the internet tells me Unlike the 710, B v. C doesn't seem to correlate to Engine RPM...unless the engine RPM values I'm seeing are wrong.

Also, from 645 onward, 3 refers to railroad application with turbo, 7 refers to marine with turbo. It's hard to tell what the letter after explicitly refers to. It could be EUI, Might be worth noting that the fine print on the ECO brochure specifically states that the V8 meats EPA Tier 3 Line haul standards. Not sure why that is specifically noted versus the v12.

 

The Brochure also specifically mentions Seperate loop aftercooling, but doesn't discuss EUI. If one believes that public sources (and one should not) EFI starts with the EC engines as you note and presumably everything afterward. But EFI then isn't denoted by the Letter suffix after the Turbo numeral. So there's no reason to believe an 8-710G3A couldn't be EUI. No indication that you need an 8-710G3B. 

There's a horsepower jump from the A to the B suffix. Maybe it's a minor revision to the engineblock or assemblies? On that the V8 wouldn't benefit from?

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,314 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, April 02, 2018 8:57 PM

According to the Wiki Entry, the GT38ACe was first constructed in 2011. The First KCS GP22ECO was outshopped in 2009

I take the correction on the model number, I had forgotten that the Indonesian loco had AC traction. However, since no new build GP22-ECO has been built, the Indonesian loco is the first new build locomotive with an 8-710.

There's a horsepower jump from the A to the B suffix. Maybe it's a minor revision to the engineblock or assemblies? One that the V8 wouldn't benefit from?

I think this is a misunderstanding based on locomotive ratings.

The SD60 was limited to 3800 HP not by the engine, which was always capable of 4000 HP but by the use of the AR11 alternator. The AR11 was introduced early in the production of the SD50 replacing the much bigger AR16. The AR10 had copied from GE the concept of two machines in the same case which transitioned from parallel connection at low speed for high current to series connection at high speed for higher voltage. But it had a hard limit at 3830 HP. It did improve the fuel consumption, which was critical at the time to beat the contemporary GE Dash 8 locomotives.

The AR11 was also a lot lighter, and was the heaviest alternator available for the 134t (DC) GT46C units built for Australia. All of these were rated at 3830HP, even those with 710G3B-ES engines.

So there was no power increase between 16-710G3A and 16-710G3B engines except that allowed by the substitution of the TA20 alternator for the AR11 in the SD70.

In theory, the letter suffix indicates a change in the crankcase. Since very few 8-710s were built before the ECO program the 8 cylinder crankcase may not have required any change. But for the engine as a whole, the 8-710G3A and the 8-710G3A-T2 are probably very different in most respects.

Peter

 

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,476 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 AM

I was thinking it might be crankcase revisions, but is merely a fan, I didn't want to assume too much. 

Ok, perhaps dumb question time, as I've never thought about it before. I had always assumed that the name of the engine refered to the engine block, but an engine block generally refers to crankcase+cylinders.in the case of EMD, the name is derived from the power assembly which is removable from the crankcase.  So would that mean that it is more correct to say that the first part of the EMD naming convention is power assemblies+crankcase, Then turbo, then crankcase minor revision, then additional components (Like SLAC and EFI).

So a 567B is a 567 Power assembly in a B series crank case. A 710G is a 710 Power assembly in a G series crankcase a 710G3A is a revision of the G series crank case, railroad turbo and a 710 Power assembly.

This also dovetails nicely with railroads that dubed their 567 rebuilds as 645D engines. as the crankcase is a D revision crankcase with 645 assemblies. 

 

Presumably then, crankcase changes might be done if there's a change in crankshafts or more refined designs to handle more power...or in the case of the 710G3C, to support 950 RPM which I presume involved at minimum some refinements to the crankcase. 

 

And so then the 8-710G3A may simply be sufficient to get the stated 2000HP and the modifications (and engineering work) to do a B or C revision are not warranted. 

I believe I saw that the 8-710G7 got 1800HP, so this seems plausible. 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,314 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:17 PM

So a 567B is a 567 Power assembly in a B series crank case. A 710G is a 710 Power assembly in a G series crankcase a 710G3A is a revision of the G series crank case, railroad turbo and a 710 Power assembly.

Have you read Eugene Kettering"s ASME paper on the development of the 567? It is very technical, but is worth the effort. It is available on line and could be searched for.

There were significant differences in 567 crankcases up to the 567C which went into production around 1954.

The main one of these was the arrangement for cooling. Up to and including the 567B, the crankcase was "wet" in that it had cooling water retained by the crankcase itself and seals at critical points (many on the power assembly).

When the 567C was introduced, the cooling water was retained within the cylinder liner and its jacket, connected by "jumpers" to the supply piping. This removed amajor problem with the 567B and earlier engines, that when it cooled, the liner seals could leak and water could enter the cylinder through the ports. this would drain to the sump in most cases unless a piston was near bottom dead centre, in which case water would pool above the piston. On starting enough might stay above the piston to break the cylinder head away from the liner. Many operators, even in warm climates left 567Bs and earlier running continuously to avoid this (but fuel was relatively cheaper then)

567B engines were generally rebuilt to 567C standards, and were called 567BC. A few locomotives were built new with 567BC engines. A BC crankcase could take a 645 power assembly, although balance in the crankshaft had to be corrected for the bigger pistons.

The E crankcase was basically an improved C. I don't know much about D crankcases since in theory, no export units got them. I assume that they were strengthened for the turbochargers on D2 and D3 engines.

12-645E crankcases were interesting. These were initially designed for 1500HP but with the introduction of the 39 series, a heavier crankcase suitable for 2250HP was introduced. This was applied to blower engines as well. There has been a high demand for the heavier crankcases as 12-645E3 engines have found their way into export locomotives, and withdrawn units are searched for 12-645E crankcases with certain serial numbers...

But to return to the "B". It was the first of the "modern" crankcases with revised gear drive to the blowers which reduced the width of the engine, but the last with water applied to stressed areas.

But engines as old as the 567A were converted to take C power assemblies, but none of the original 567 which had a number of structural problems and variations in construction. So you had 645AC and 645BC engines as well as 645C and 645D.

I think one of the changes between a 645E3B and 645E3C was the introduction of the non circular gudgeon pin, a"knuckle" shape that retained oil on top in the "groove".

Some Santa Fe SD75s were rated at 4500 HP net at 1000 rpm (for a while).

Did they have a different crankcase designation?

Peter

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,476 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:39 AM

I've got no info on the SD75M/I except 16-710G3C and 16-710G3C-EC.both 4300@950RPM.

I have not read the Kettering book, though I was aware of it and aware (broadly) of the difference between the A, B and C revisions of the 567. I had thought you couldn't do an AC crankcase? The D crankcase was to support the turbo. Never heard of what the differences were.

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 1,225 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:01 AM

Preston Cook says it can.

http://utahrails.net/loconotes/pcook-emd-567.php

So it's safe to take it as fact, considering the source. 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,314 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, April 04, 2018 7:29 AM

On the same site as above:

http://utahrails.net/pdf/EMD_567_History_and_Development_1951.pdf

and more generally:

http://utahrails.net/loconotes/diesel-traction-development-in-usa.pdf

Both of these are worth reading, although the British article has some strange errors...

Peter

  • Member since
    March, 2015
  • 139 posts
Posted by Entropy on Monday, June 25, 2018 7:11 PM

CMQ_9017

I did hear last year that the SD90MACs were slated for a rebuild similar to the SD70ACu from NS, any news on such a development?

First locomotive is enroute for rebuild. 

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 872 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Monday, June 25, 2018 8:56 PM

Entropy
CMQ_9017

I did hear last year that the SD90MACs were slated for a rebuild similar to the SD70ACu from NS, any news on such a development?

First locomotive is enroute for rebuild. 

En route to who?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 28 posts
Posted by CMQ_9017 on Monday, June 25, 2018 8:59 PM

30 are going to Progress Rail in Kentucky for SD70ACu-like rebuild (exact details yet to be confirmed). 9134 first in transit, 9157 is the second. New numbers going to be 7000 series. 

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 872 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Monday, June 25, 2018 9:09 PM

CMQ_9017

30 are going to Progress Rail in Kentucky for SD70ACu-like rebuild (exact details yet to be confirmed). 9134 first in transit, 9157 is the second. New numbers going to be 7000 series. 

So ’outsourced’ instead of home shopped with EMD kits (or sent to Altoona).

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 1,225 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:16 AM

Been curious for several years at the fate of these. Glad to see CPR sees some value there and is initiating a rebuild program for them.

As for where the work will be done, does CPR have any choice but to outsource? Alstom entered the picture with the Ogden backshop back around 2001, Angus was shuttered years earlier, and Weston was sold to Progress Rail.

So it was my understanding that CPR no longer had any shops capable of handling heavy locomotive repair work in-house.

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 1,172 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 5:01 PM

Odd questions:

How many years were they in the dead line?

How many years of actual use did they have before being placed in the dead line?

Thanks for any info.

Living up in CP(Soo) Land, it will be good to see these dreadnoughts sailing across the prairies again!

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 872 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:52 PM

So half are getting rebuilt. If this is found to be acceptable, what about the other half?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 1,225 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 4:16 AM

Has CPR ever tested a SD70ACU from Norfolk Southern? 30 seems like a pretty big order if they're uncertain of the qualities of this package.

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the intention if all goes to plan is to rebuild the remaining ~30 the following year (Are all 61 still extant?). If not, I'd expect to see them be parted out/scrapped or sold off for someone else to rebuild. With their success on Norfolk Southern, I imagine NS or EMD/Progress Rail would be willing customers if the price was right. 

The electrical/computer system of these was never great to start with, and only got worse with reliability plunging after just a few hundred thousand miles. And I doubt a decade or so of storage sitting in the humid climate of Winnipeg during summer has since done them any favors. 

So they're not coming back as-is at this point or with a minor overhaul. So one way or another, I wouldn't expect to see any unmodified SD9043MAC's sitting around the Weston Shops 30 months from now, now that a decision has been made on what to do with half of them. 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,646 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 11:09 AM

There were 61 SD90MACs originally, plus 4 SD90MAC-Hs. The 4 SD90MAC-Hs were parted out and scrapped, as were 3 of the SD90MACs, so 58 remain.

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 872 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 11:18 AM

Leo_Ames

(Are all 61 still extant?)

Ostensibly three have been retired aside from the four true SD90s that were scrapped.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    May, 2018
  • 12 posts
Posted by HR616 on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:49 PM

Leo_Ames

Has CPR ever tested a SD70ACU from Norfolk Southern? 30 seems like a pretty big order if they're uncertain of the qualities of this package.

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the intention if all goes to plan is to rebuild the remaining ~30 the following year (Are all 61 still extant?). If not, I'd expect to see them be parted out/scrapped or sold off for someone else to rebuild. With their success on Norfolk Southern, I imagine NS or EMD/Progress Rail would be willing customers if the price was right. 

The electrical/computer system of these was never great to start with, and only got worse with reliability plunging after just a few hundred thousand miles. And I doubt a decade or so of storage sitting in the humid climate of Winnipeg during summer has since done them any favors. 

So they're not coming back as-is at this point or with a minor overhaul. So one way or another, I wouldn't expect to see any unmodified SD9043MAC's sitting around the Weston Shops 30 months from now, now that a decision has been made on what to do with half of them. 

 

If you look at how CP has been rebuilding the AC4400CWs (in different phases), it is reasonable to assume that the other 28 SD90MACs will also be rebuilt in the future. NS is apperently quite satisfied with theirs, and the CP rebuild should use the same proven equipment also found on the SD70ACe, so I think CP is fairly certain about how these things will turn out.

Besides CP is somewhat power short right now, and they've been reactivating SD40-2s and the stored AC4400CWs. They probably need to bring the MACs back into service soon to meet their power needs, and they apparently don't want anything to do with Tier 4.

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 1,225 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:40 PM

In addition to this and the AC4400CW rebuilds, I've heard of a SD40-3 and a SD60-3 program. Anyone have any details on those?

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,646 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, June 28, 2018 10:44 PM

Leo_Ames

In addition to this and the AC4400CW rebuilds, I've heard of a SD40-3 and a SD60-3 program. Anyone have any details on those? 

10 SD40-2s were rebuilt to SD40-3s with microprocessor controls and renumbered as 5100 - 5109, most were rebuilt by RELCO at Albia, IA.

The 42 SD60s SD60/SD60M that remain on the roster have all been overhauled with 34 being renumbered into the 62xx series by adding 200 to the old number, the 8 not included in that program were rebuilt a bit more extensively but without a model change and are now numbered as 6300 - 6307. I don't know what was changed on the 6300 series. CP has also activated all the remaining SD40-2s that didn't need anything more than an annual inspection or very light repairs.

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 1,225 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Saturday, July 07, 2018 6:14 PM

beaulieu
the 8 not included in that program were rebuilt a bit more extensively but without a model change and are now numbered as 6300 - 6307. I don't know what was changed on the 6300 series. 

Happened to come across a 6300 today. It's marked as a SD60-3 under the cab side number. 

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