CP Rebuilds

5717 views
68 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,447 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
  • 138 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
  • 1,447 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
  • 3,247 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
  • 1,447 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
  • 3,247 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
  • 1,447 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
  • 1,195 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
  • 3,247 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

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