CP GP20ECO 2207 was rolled out into public view at EMD Muncie, IN today and photographed by Brian Marsh. This is the first of a 30 unit confirmed order, with options on 160 more.
CP GP20ECO 2207
It's actually a GP22ECO, as far as I know.
What's more amazing than the first true new Geep in twenty years is that people are considering this a rebuild in the railfan community even though it's using about as much as things like all those GP30's and GP35's did back in the 60's that were built with some traded in FT parts.
Outside of the trucks and traction motors, very little from the Geep trade-ins are used here (Not even the frames are recycled). They're brand new locomotives but you're about the first person I've seen that has acknowledged that fact.
Yet these are widely viewed as rebuilds, where as nobody these days considers the average EMD GP30 as a rebuilt FT, F3, etc.
CP chose to have them rated at only 2000hp.
Leo_Ames It's actually a GP22ECO, as far as I know. What's more amazing than the first true new Geep in twenty years is that people are considering this a rebuild in the railfan community even though it's using about as much as things like all those GP30's and GP35's did back in the 60's that were built with some traded in FT parts. Outside of the trucks and traction motors, very little from the Geep trade-ins are used here (Not even the frames are recycled). They're brand new locomotives but you're about the first person I've seen that has acknowledged that fact.
Somewhere I read that the "2" in GP22 and SD32 stood for tier 2 compliance.
Since these locomotives are for use in Canada where the Tier emissions restrictions don't apply, they are effectively Tier 0 and the correct model code is GP20 ECO.
I'm willing to be corrected on this iif someone has better data.
M636C
M636C Somewhere I read that the "2" in GP22 and SD32 stood for tier 2 compliance. Since these locomotives are for use in Canada where the Tier emissions restrictions don't apply, they are effectively Tier 0 and the correct model code is GP20 ECO.
IIRC, the '22' is for 2200 hp from the V8 710ECO power plant. The 710ECO is Tier 2 compliant(and maybe Tier 3 as well).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
M636C Somewhere I read that the "2" in GP22 and SD32 stood for tier 2 compliance. Since these locomotives are for use in Canada where the Tier emissions restrictions don't apply, they are effectively Tier 0 and the correct model code is GP20 ECO. I'm willing to be corrected on this if someone has better data. M636C
I'm willing to be corrected on this if someone has better data.
CP and CN have signed a binding agreement with Environment Canada that any brand new locomotives that they buy will meet the current standards that apply in the USA. Smaller Canadian railway companies have not signed the agreement, and are free to buy locomotives that meet lesser standards. QNS&L has 4 AC4400CWs that meet Tier 0 but did not meet Tier 2, the then current USA standard when built.
Neat looking loco, but that paint job is hideous. Don't know what's worse - the numbers slammed up against the window, the odd placement of the road name, or the broken reflective stripe. I know the last one is probably a cost-saving measure, but still.
Truth be told, I think the road name would look better on the cab sides with the number on the long hood, like the BN.
(Yes - I'm talking paint. Still a little foamer left in me after all....)
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
jrbernier M636C Somewhere I read that the "2" in GP22 and SD32 stood for tier 2 compliance. Since these locomotives are for use in Canada where the Tier emissions restrictions don't apply, they are effectively Tier 0 and the correct model code is GP20 ECO. IIRC, the '22' is for 2200 hp from the V8 710ECO power plant. The 710ECO is Tier 2 compliant(and maybe Tier 3 as well). Jim
If the data on the EMS website is correct, the 8-710ECO is only 2150 BRAKE horsepower, which is equivalent to 1950 to 2000 HP into the alternator, equivalent to the 16-645E in a GP38-2. The 12-710ECO is 3150 BRAKE HP less than the 3300 BHP of a 16-645E3 and unlikely to provide 3200 HP into an alternator. So whatever the 22 in GP22 and 32 in SD32 stand for, it is definitely NOT 2200 or 3200 HP into the alternator, the usual measure for US locomotives.
beaulieu M636C Somewhere I read that the "2" in GP22 and SD32 stood for tier 2 compliance. Since these locomotives are for use in Canada where the Tier emissions restrictions don't apply, they are effectively Tier 0 and the correct model code is GP20 ECO. I'm willing to be corrected on this if someone has better data. M636C CP and CN have signed a binding agreement with Environment Canada that any brand new locomotives that they buy will meet the current standards that apply in the USA. Smaller Canadian railway companies have not signed the agreement, and are free to buy locomotives that meet lesser standards. QNS&L has 4 AC4400CWs that meet Tier 0 but did not meet Tier 2, the then current USA standard when built.
But as rebuilds, rather than new locomotives, the GP20ECO would be allowed to meet Tier 0 in the United States and thus also in Canada....
Since these engines are a complete 're-power' - current US EPA standards must be met for use in the US. And you are correct that EMD rates it at 2150 hp - this is standard 'rounding'' as done by marketing. IIRC, the 4300 ho SD75ACe is actually something like 4320 ho, and the 4400 hp GE ES44AC is really about 4380 hp. The actual hp is dependent fuel rack' settings, main alternator capacity. and cooling capacity. For years NS specified that new EMD and GE locomotive be delivered at a 4000 hp rating.
The actual diesel power plant in North American locomotive actually puts out about 10% more hp that the rating. This allows 'parasitic' losses by the aux alternator and air compressor to be subtracted form what is available for traction. The rest of the world does not seem to worry about this and just rates them at the higher number. This also applies to many marine and stationary power plant applications as well.`
zugmann ... or the broken reflective stripe.
... or the broken reflective stripe.
Actually, that's probably a safety feature. By breaking the stripe up (much like the conspicuity markings on semi-trailers) there is a definite sense of movement as the locomotive passes by. A solid stripe would not necessarily convey that, especially at a dark crossing where all that shows up in the headlights is the reflective material.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 zugmann ... or the broken reflective stripe. Actually, that's probably a safety feature. By breaking the stripe up (much like the conspicuity markings on semi-trailers) there is a definite sense of movement as the locomotive passes by. A solid stripe would not necessarily convey that, especially at a dark crossing where all that shows up in the headlights is the reflective material.
Meh. I still like a solid stripe.
Nice, when do I get one?
jrbernier Since these engines are a complete 're-power' - current US EPA standards must be met for use in the US. And you are correct that EMD rates it at 2150 hp - this is standard 'rounding'' as done by marketing. IIRC, the 4300 ho SD75ACe is actually something like 4320 ho, and the 4400 hp GE ES44AC is really about 4380 hp. The actual hp is dependent fuel rack' settings, main alternator capacity. and cooling capacity. For years NS specified that new EMD and GE locomotive be delivered at a 4000 hp rating. The actual diesel power plant in North American locomotive actually puts out about 10% more hp that the rating. This allows 'parasitic' losses by the aux alternator and air compressor to be subtracted form what is available for traction. The rest of the world does not seem to worry about this and just rates them at the higher number. This also applies to many marine and stationary power plant applications as well.` Jim
Although most of what you say is correct, you appear not to understand the meaning of "brake horsepower" as I've used in my post above. When an engine is on test, the power is dissipated in a brake or a dynamometer, and the power measured at the brake is the brake horsepower. On test the engine does not drive any auxiliaries, often not even a fuel pump or cooling water pump, let alone a radiator fan or an air compressor.
EMD, in their engine manuals define very carefully what auxiliaries are running or not at the standard rated power of the engine at the input to the alternator, and often give the gross or brake power as well as the input to the alternator the former often being around ten percent higher.
However, the EMD brochure clearly describes the power of the 8-710 ECO as Brake Horsepower, not power into the alternator, which is the standard engine rating in a locomotive. This could be because as an engine intended for retrofit, the auxiliary or parasitic loads could vary depending upon the type of locomotive, domestic or export, into which the engine will be fitted.
The Brake horsepower of a 16-645E as fitted into a GP38-2 is usually quoted as 2200 HP. So if the 8-710 ECO were to be fitted to that GP38-2, the power into the alternator would drop by 50 HP to 1950 HP if nothing else changed. In fact, an 8-710 ECO appears to require at least the cooling capacity of a GP40, which would need one more fan and larger radiator cores than a GP38-2, so the losses might be bigger.
But unless EMD have quoted the power incorrectly in their brochure, the 8-710 ECO is slightly less powerful than a 16 645E blower engine. More economical and more environmently friendly, but not as powerful.
I believe this has been discussed in Trains itself and it's a cost saving measure. Apparently that reflective tape doesn't come cheap and reducing it from a solid strip is a significant material cost savings during the painting process.
http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200370565_200370565
$160 for a 150' x 2" roll.
$200 for the 4".
don't worry, soon it will be so dirty, you won't notice
Wow, finally a new 4 axle. How long can we get by just rebuilding inefficient junk from the 70's? But in all honesty this is the butt ugliest 4-axle in history. It looks like something from a cartoon. No balance, no style. Where is the next Otto Kuhler?
Design work costs money and since most designers have a good handle on industrial practices and costs, you're not going to see something as cost-intensive as the bulldog nose again.
Getting back to the subject at hand, it looks like the GP20 ECO has a lower profile than the GP22 ECO to meet the requirements of CP. My Guess is that the GP7's/GP9's as built are lower than the later GP 40's. and they may be taking advantage of the shorter 8 cylinder engine to make the whole thing shorter as well.
The NS GP22ECO's were built from GP38AC cores and retained the same basic dimensions. The 710-8 ECO is no taller/shorter than any other turbocharged 645 or 710.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
I will do some looking to see, but somewhere I read that these units will be based out of Minneapolis.....Don't if this is true or false or something has changed.....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.