SD.70 MACe

[kenneo]

Talking about the interchangeability of power assemblies, I asked the Master Mechanic on the short line about putting 645's in an SD9, and I got this funny look with the words "We won't go there. No we won't." So, I would guess, you can if you want, but after you do, you won't want to any more.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I wouldn't venture a guess about the cost of getting the sulfur out of diesel fuel but a lot of it is going to depend on the source of the feedstock. Crude oil is like coal, sulfur content can vary pretty widely depending on the source.

[M636C]

Mark,

The other thing that I should have said was that the hood on the SD70ACe has the tapered or chamfered top like previous H engine locomotives, rather than the flat top on SD80MACs and other 710 Engine units. This increased the similarity with the SD90MAC and raised the possibility of re-used components.

In Australia, the then Victorian Railways purchased some G16Cs (a sort of lightweight SD28) with 567E engines, because they wanted to minimise their spares holdings. That idea lasted for one order of 6 units, and then they bought 645s like everybody else.

If you are regularly working until 00:54, don't worry about my comments too much, I understand about priorities.

I'm going back to work next week, having used the Christmas break for heavy railfan photography (it is summer here). You know you're really back at work when you know what you're doing, but you find the administration cell aren't expecting you!

But this has been a really interesting thread, and I'm glad I found it. We've only just seen the December issue here - I'll have to think about a subscription! I've got a long wait for the article that started the thread. But well done all contributors!

Peter

[Anonymous]

John: You're right. This is what happens when I do things from memory! I was thinking about the dimensions of the hole in the crankcase rather than the dimension inside the cylinder liner.

I didn't know that about SW1200s, but it doesn't surprise me at all. It helps explain the parts catalog to me a little better.

Peter: the cab is all new. If it resembles something earlier, that's probably because the same ideas are simply being expressed again. And I haven't done anything with what you sent yet, because I have 600 manuscripts on the desk, and advance work on them has to stop during the deadline weeks.

[M636C]

Mark,

You can't have read those notes I sent you on the EMD Engines! But the correction has already been posted. That's what comes of living on the other side of the world.

The cab on the prototype SD70ACe looks like the early modified cabs on the Phase II SD90MACs, rather than the better looking cabs on late production UP SD-70M units. Could this be a rebuild of another prototype, or using up a cab held in stock?

I haven't heard anything from you since Christmas. Do you want anything written?

Peter

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Eric: EMD engines use a simple designation system:



So: A, B, C, D series crankcases -- all 567 cu in displacement per cylinder, though you can stick a 645 assembly into a B, C, and D block. Dunno if you can do that with the A -- never have seen one! A BC block is a B block partially modified to C standards to get rid of some of the internal water leak problems with the C. BCs were VERY common; most railroads modified their B blocks during overhauls. 16-645Cs and BCs aren't uncommon either, but you can't get 2000 horse out of them unless you're willing to install bigger radiators and accept the fact that they will fly apart more often.
E, F series crankcases: all 645 cu in displacement -- same bore as 567, but longer stroke.
G series crankcase: 710 cu in displacement. Same bore as a 567, stroked out even farther.
H series crankcase: the 265 indicates its bore in mm; it displaces 1010 cu in. This is EMD's only 4-stroke.

Mark,
I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, but I have a correction to make. The 567 and 645 series power assemblies did not have the same bore, nor did the 645 have a longer stroke. A 567's bore is 8.5 inches, and a 645's bore is increased to 9 1/16 inches, stroke remaining the same at 10 inches. This is why 567 and 645 power assemblies are inter-changeable in the same block, thus you can upgrade a 567C or D (567's, 567A's, and 567B's have smaller top-deck area and heads) into a 645C or 645D. Also, the last SW1200's were built with 567E's (567assemblies in a 645 block) because EMD wanted to simplify production, and produce only one engine block (the 645). The 710 however is stroked out further than the 645, about 1 inch more, but still has the same bore; 9 1/16 inches. The cylinder liners and the entire 710 block itself is taller than both 567 and 645 blocks. This makes 710 power assemblies almost non inter-changeable with 645 assemblies (that is unless you want to do some serious work on the block first [:D]). Just trying to clear things up[%-)].

[kenneo]

Mark

Thanks, again, for the efforts that you and all of your staff put forth to bring us all of the information TRAINS provides each month, along with the books Kalmbach publishes. Three of my favorite are "Giants Ladder", "Diesels From Eddystone" and "The Interurban Era". If I had the $$ to purchase them all, I would do so, but I don't so I can't. [sigh] In fact, Middletons and Boners books have lost their dust jackets are are close to becoming "unbound" from use!

Again, Mark, [2c] and THANKS.

[Anonymous]

as far as 567 engines are concerned, I work on a short line that has five of them in just about all configurations. We have two F-7A's one with a B one with a BC, a GP-7 with a BC, an SD-9 with a C, and an old NW-2 with an A. The NW-2 will probably never run, but the other four are all operational, and as long as one of them doesn't throw a rod through the block, they will run forever. These engines are fairly easy to maintain, two men being able to rebuild a power assembly without a crane in one day. That includes removal and installation.

[Anonymous]

Dear McDeo:

There is indeed a lot of information in this thread. But none of it directly pertains to the SD70ACe, or it merely reiterates the article. Moreover, all of the technical info I've put in this thread has been previously published at least a dozen times in Trains, the Diesel Spotters Guides, or other sources. (I didn't have to go far to look it up.) So none of this info made it into the article because it (1) isn't about the SD70ACe at all, and (2) it would have been a disservice to the thousands of readers who have already paid for it.

I would have loved to have had more technical information about the SD70ACe in the article. It was not possible as EMD refused for competitive reasons to go on the record with any more than what is there--as I said in the article. Just to get as close to the locomotive as I got, I had to agree to not disclose technical details I saw in passing, take no close-up photos, or copy their technical sales information. They also did not directly answer many of my questions.

Our other choice would have been to have no article at all. And, literally hundreds of readers have written us asking about the specific questions the article sought to answer (the market share questions), and, as you surmise, some readers don't want all the technical info. But I would have still put it in had it been available. I think the technical information is important and meaningful. I expect that once the locomotive is in production (it's still prototype), that the technical info you seek will become available. I don't think we can fault EMD for not making this public at this time.

EMD is not unique in this. GE has been less forthcoming lately. The two builders are locked into a bitter struggle, and neither see competitive advantage in telling the other about what they do.

I was very pleased and surprised to get as much as we did from EMD, because for over 20 years now, the two builders (and now most of the railroads, and most of the suppliers) have determined they will no longer talk to the media about anything substantive. This is a huge problem for those of us in the technical and business media. We ascribe it to the fundamental shift in America from "business to advance the public good" to "business to advance the bottom line." If you are in business to make America a better place, you absolutely want to give people like me complete access to your operations, because my article will help prove your point. If you are in business to make money, you do not want to give people like me access to your operations, because my article might give your secrets away to your competitor.

Regardless, I would always rather hear from a reader who says he wants more info than a reader who says we gave them too much, because it gives us the opportunity to do something new in the next issue.

With very rare exception (we do overlook some things), the reason something important is not in an article is (1) whoever possesses that information has decided not to make it available to us (2) we've already published that information many times (3) we don't have the financial resources to go get it (4) most readers don't want it. We do nothing haphazard, and articles of this nature are thought out among the entire staff, along with the experts who advise us, long before we begin typing.

[Anonymous]

All I say is that it's better than anything that ever left the old, broken-down Erie plant of GE's. The Evolution Series of GE is the world's ugliest engine series, thanks to the EPA. I wish Alco still made engines[sigh].

[Anonymous]

All I say is that it's better than anything that ever left the old, borken-down Erie plant of GE's. The Evalution Series of GE is the world's ugliest engine series, thanks to the EPA.

[Anonymous]

I agree about the text thing. Just picked up the article today and read it. I have to be honest, I found out more information on this thread than in the article. Most of what the article had was already available via the web. Which isn't bad, but I guess I was just looking for a bit more after reading how good the article was. Don't get me wrong, I'll be reviewing the article for some time and it is a good article.

I just wonder if in today's world, every once in a while an article could go 'techie' or extreme detail. Maybe too much of a narrow minded view and not for the general public. Also, I'm sure it depends on the type of article and amount of focus. (No, I'm not a publisher and do not have much of an idea what a target audience would be allowed to accept.)

Anyway, keep the info coming...
[:)]

[daveklepper]

Second time I'm downloading this stuff as text because it is so interesting. I really appreciate the info on EMD engines and hope to find the same details on GE some day. Thanks a million.

[Anonymous]

No, YOU -- all of you -- deserve the credit. You could have made this into a forum of cheap shots, one-upmanship, and mean criticism, the sort of mischief that has ruined many a forum. This has remained a good group of people -- people who are polite, helpful, practical, have a sense of humor, and don't take themselves too seriously. I've noticed when someone goes off the edge, the rest of you gently take that person to task, not by belittling them, but by kidding them a little, or sympathizing with them. Now that's class.

All I do is remember a few conversations I've had, check my declining memory by looking into the files, and answer some very good questions. I've learned more than anything else how much I do NOT know. It's fun, and it's fun talking to all of you and reading your messages.

mwh

[Anonymous]

Thanks, guys! Especially thanks, Mark, for your time and patience!

Best regards from frosty Croatia,
Oliver

[Anonymous]

Good stuff to read. Thanks for the info. [:)]

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Mark, and Eric...

I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than....well I don't know. Please continue[:)]

Amen, brother Amen. [;)]

[bow] [wow] Gentlemen, I have, well, thank you. I don't know how to say this without looking like a sop and a jerk, so --thanks.

Mark deserves the most credit - he has the answers and the connections that collect those answers. Which is just one reason why he is the Editor.

Inserting sock.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Mark, and Eric...

I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than....well I don't know. Please continue[:)]

Amen, brother Amen. [;)]

[dharmon]

Mark, and Eric...

I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than....well I don't know. Please continue[:)]

[Anonymous]

Eric: HP is a function of RPM, which, yes, is a governor setting:

B series 800 rpm maximum governed speed
C series 835 rpm maximum governed speed

6-567B 600 hp SW1
8-567B 800 hp SW8
12-567B 1000 hp NW2, SW7, E7
16-567B 1350 hp F2
16-567B 1500 hp F3, F7, GP7, SD7

6-567C 600 hp never offered in a locomotive that I know of, only stationary apps.
8-567C 900 hp SW900
12-567C 1200 hp: SW9, SW1200, E8, E9
16-567C 1750 hp: F9, GP9, SD9

A BC engine is identical in performance to a B engine but has the C liners. There's also an AC engine, which is the A crankcase with C liners. I never saw one, but the EMD unit exchange catalog lists them. And lastly a 645C or a 645BC, which is the 645 liners in a C or BC block, at the old horsepower rating. You could also put a D liner in the C block; the Rio Grande liked that because it had bigger ports and ran better in the thin air of high altitudes.

Some railroads knocked back the C engines to 800 rpm to increase longevity -- a machinist told me that at 800 rpm the C engine ran forever, but at 835 rpm they tended to come apart too often.

Beyond this starts myriad variations. My 1982 unit exchange catalog lists, for instance, 59 different models of governors: that's why more than one person in the shops will tell you that EMD stands for "Every Model Different."

As for what's rebuilt and what's remanufactured, it's basically whether you're recapitalizing the unit or not. As far as I understand the regulations, you can fix a 567 forever and never have to upgrade. But it won't matter because the 567 is vanishing very quickly because it's so much cheaper to buy a used 645-engined locomotive than to fix the 567. You can go buy a good running SD40-2 for less money than it will cost you to rebuild a GP9 -- I've seen the former offered with good wheels under it for $60,000! Ten years ago the same SD40-2 was $350,000. That's what happens when railroads buy a zillion SD70Ms and C44-9Ws. So now you throw out the GP9 as soon as the wheels get thin. Forget a heavy repair to the engine.

You got me if 0% sulfur fuel is economically viable.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Mark -------- WOW. That's a whole magazine article [wow]

Do I make a correct assumption that the 12-567's used in the E's (7-8-9) and SW's 1,000 to 1,200 HP is the "B" crank case? HP being a function of governor settings?

Now, all of these short lines that have 567's, what is considered to be remanufacturing and what is considered as rebuild, or backshopped, heavy maint.? Repair and replace of wornout parts in kind should be normal maintenance. How much work can be done on all of those 567's before a new locomotive is required? In short, what is the economic viability of these engines so beloved by our short (line) brothers.

Is 0% sulfur fuel economically viable?

I guess that will be the big question...what is the legalese that constitutes a reman? x% of original parts replaced or replacement of any components from list A (chinese menu)[:)]

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

The Mookie's eyes are glazed over again!

My dear, retract head into (auto)mobile or home, thaw gently, and it will all be OK. [:D][:D][:D][}:)]

[kenneo]

Mark -------- WOW. That's a whole magazine article [wow]

Do I make a correct assumption that the 12-567's used in the E's (7-8-9) and SW's 1,000 to 1,200 HP is the "B" crank case? HP being a function of governor settings?

Now, all of these short lines that have 567's, what is considered to be remanufacturing and what is considered as rebuild, or backshopped, heavy maint.? Repair and replace of wornout parts in kind should be normal maintenance. How much work can be done on all of those 567's before a new locomotive is required? In short, what is the economic viability of these engines so beloved by our short (line) brothers.

Is 0% sulfur fuel economically viable?

[Mookie]

The Mookie's eyes are glazed over again!

[Anonymous]

Mark [:)]

Thanks for the standards. [;)]

So older locos are exempt from the standards until overhauled, correct?

Any ideas on how to make an older loco meet the newer standards, anyone?

[Anonymous]

Eric: EMD engines use a simple designation system:

1. the first two one or two digits are the number of cylinders: 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20. All are V type. This is followed by a dash
2. the three-digit number after the dash is the displacement of each cylinder in cubic inches: 567, 645, 710; or the bore in mm, 265 (this is a 1010 cu in cylinder)
3. the first letter after those numbers is the crankcase (A, B, C, D, E, F, or G) design or block (H) design; the higher the letter, the more recent the design
3. the next number is the basic turbocharger design: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, increasing over time
4. a letter after the turbocharger indicates a modification: for instance, early SD40-2s came with a 16-645E3, later models came with a 16-645E3B

So: A, B, C, D series crankcases -- all 567 cu in displacement per cylinder, though you can stick a 645 assembly into a B, C, and D block. Dunno if you can do that with the A -- never have seen one! A BC block is a B block partially modified to C standards to get rid of some of the internal water leak problems with the C. BCs were VERY common; most railroads modified their B blocks during overhauls. 16-645Cs and BCs aren't uncommon either, but you can't get 2000 horse out of them unless you're willing to install bigger radiators and accept the fact that they will fly apart more often.
E, F series crankcases: all 645 cu in displacement -- same bore as 567, but longer stroke.
G series crankcase: 710 cu in displacement. Same bore as a 567, stroked out even farther.
H series crankcase: the 265 indicates its bore in mm; it displaces 1010 cu in. This is EMD's only 4-stroke.

B series crankcases: GP7, F7, F3, SD7
C series crankcases: GP9, F9, SD9
D series crankcases: GP18, GP20, GP30, GP35, SD18, SD24, SD35
E series crankcases: GP38, GP39, GP40, SD38, SD39, SD40, SD45, dash-2 versions
F series crankcases: GP49, GP50, SD50
G series crankcases: GP60, SD60, SD70, SD70MAC, SD80, SD70ACe
H series blocks: SD90MAC

A crankcase is welded together from steel shapes with some castings and forgings; a block is cast iron. Oddly, the block is much cheaper. They're hard to fix when a rod comes through the side, but they're cheap enough you just throw them out. Someone with a lot more expertise than I could describe the pros and cons of each.

So, the 20 cylinder engine in a SD80MAC is a 20-710G7B. Yes, you could make a 20-710 meet Tier 2. If you wanted. I don't know if any of the 710 blocks already existing can economically be made compatible with Tier 2.

Now, on to Tier 2:
Tier 0 applies to new or remanufactured locomotives from 1973-December 31, 2000
Tier 1 applies to the same, January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004
Tier 2 applies to the same, January 1, 2005 to ?
There's a Tier 3 coming at some future date, but we'll probably have to have zero-sulfur diesel fuel to make that feasible. The regulation is not yet fully written and is in discussion between EPA and the manufacturers.

Each tier reduces emissions more than the last.

The major pollutant this is intended to address is NOx emissions -- railroad locomotives emit 5% of them nationwide. Tier 2 is expected to eliminate 60% of locomotive NOx and 50% of locomotive particulate emissions compared to the 1995 baseline level, by 2040. EPA estimates lifetime costs per unit (initial cost, maintenance, fuel economy loss, etc.) of $252,000, or 0.2% of total freight revenue for 1995.

Don't ask me how you actually go about making an engine do this -- there are lots of ways to do it, and it's beyond my expertise to describe it.

If you have lots of spare time on your hands, you can read all the pertinent regulations at

http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/locomotv.htm

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Eric: I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify from my end:

1. the 710G absolutely meets Tier 2, and with very minor changes, too.
2. the 265H can meet Tier 2, too.
3. EMD chose the 710G for the SD70ACe because that's what customers wanted
4. the H is not out of production, or a dead end, either. If you want one, you can buy one.

1. OK! I didn't know that. I'm sure GM's stockholders were glad to hear that! Saves a big chunk of bucks. I haven't kept up on the 710s and Hs.

2. I figured the H engine would. I am not up to speed on model designations for some of these engines --- H-engine; I understand there are 2 models (?), a 12 cyl and 16 cyl? What would be each's designation. ---the 710G would be the 4300 HP 16cyl ---What is the 20-710 SD80 engine designation? Does it meet Tier 2? I presume not?

3. I thought the EMD e-engine was an H- model.

4. I didn't mean to imply either. Just that EMD was having a bit of trouble with it and that I couldn't feature them going ahead with development and/or production if it couldn't meet the standard.

[Anonymous]

Would someone refresh us on the new Tier 2 standards please? It is not necessary to give every jot and tittle but just the major things would be nice.

The new standard applies only to new locos, correct?

[Anonymous]

Eric: I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify from my end:

1. the 710G absolutely meets Tier 2, and with very minor changes, too.
2. the 265H can meet Tier 2, too.
3. EMD chose the 710G for the SD70ACe because that's what customers wanted
4. the H is not out of production, or a dead end, either. If you want one, you can buy one.