A friend of mine told me his friend bought a "new" semi truck with an "old" engine. He said the truck was all brand new, except that the engine was used, but had been rebuilt with all new parts. The idea being that since it was a rebuild, it didn't have to meet new exhaust emission standards. Is that legit? Is that being done with locomotives?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The truck sans motor is referred to as a "Glider kit"
If I understood correctly there are more used parts from a donor truck in a glider truck: engine, transmission, and drive axle.
There are rules for rebuilt locomotives too. But the engines are to be rebuilt to higher emission standards than before but not to the new engine standards in the year of rebuild.
The rules differentiate between Remanufactured (<25% worth of new parts), Freshly Manufactured (>75% worth of new parts), Refurbished (in-between with new engine).
For each group the are different emission requirements.
A Freshly Manufactured locomotive is handled like a new locomotive, a Refurbished locomotive must be rebuilt to Tier 4 standards since 2015, and a Remanufactured locomotive is rebuilt to standards depending on year of original manufacture and year of rebuild.
I hope I got eveything right. If not correct me please.Regards, Volker
Murphy glider kits in the OTR industry fall into a weird loophole in the emissions regulations. For us it is not what year the chassis was built but when the engine was built for emissions and then for gliders IIRC the regualtions were just changed up to 5% of all makes and models are allowed to be built without an engine to allow wrecked trucks engines to be installed into them without emissions penelty. Yet even though they are legal according to the Federal Government if the engine is not CARB legal the owners still can not run them in CA. That is why they are so popular with Owner Operators. They buy them for the modern areo but then put in a fully remanufactured pre 2000 emissions engine and are hammering it with fuel economy. We have 1 owner operator with a glider in the fleet he is getting almost 9 MPG compared to the fleet average of 6 so who is spending less on fuel.
This racing season, Fitzgerald Gliders was the title sponsor for a NASCAR race. My own first thought was how can there be that much money in glider aircraft to warrant sponsoring a NASCAR race. Had never heard of the term being applied to the trucking industry until I looked at Fitzgerald's web site. My own navietie.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDHad never heard of the term being applied to the trucking industry...
The term has been used in the fire truck business for years - keep the frame, engine, pump, etc, and add a new cab and body.
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...
Fitzgerald's plant in TN is actually pretty cool. They've got acres of new trucks awaiting rebuilt engines. As long as the block is good everything else can be replaced and still considered rebuilt. Last I knew Cummins charged in the neighborhood of $12-$15k for an in-frame kit. These glider companies are really good at marrying the "old" ECUs with the new truck electronics. You pay a premium up front for the luxury of not having EGR, filters and DEF though.
From a railroading perspective, would that explain why Norfolk Southern is investing so heavily in the SD70ACu program and the AC44c6m?
I think NS was reluctant to buy the new, unproven Tier 4 locomotives. The use of EGR had led to large problems with particulate matter clogging valves in ruck engines. When you need more locomotive but don't want to buy new ones you have to rebuild old units.
Rebuilding extends the usefull life of a locomotive and costs much less than a new one.
Both programs seem to fall into the Remanufactured category with less than 25% worth of new parts. Otherwise they should have been rebuilt to Tier 4 standard in 2015 but they are Tier 0+ and Tier 1+.Regards, Volker
[quote user="kgbw49"]
I would say yes.
NS seems like a very well managed company. PanAm (Guilford) is lucky to partner with them for Northern New England business. I hope that partnership works out well for the northern NE states.
NS has been exposed to the newer engines via their maintenance trucks. Their larger equipment has been egr equipped for 10 years So they know what would happen. I can imagine the conversation going like this the new tier 4 locomotives are getting egr on them. The head of maintenance going can we rebuild the old stuff instead please.
Perhaps NS can just buy some of the 800 or so locomotives that CSX doesn't need any more?
Murphy Siding Perhaps NS can just buy some of the 800 or so locomotives that CSX doesn't need any more?
Johnny
Rebuilding the old stuff would please a lot of us who think steam is still king. The locomotives of the steam era are still something to behold. Think of SP 4449 hauling the Daylight north on the west coast, UP 844 doing excursions, and UP 4014 hauling a heavy drag freight.
Norm
Norm48327Rebuilding the old stuff would please a lot of us who think steam is still king. The locomotives of the steam era are still something to behold. Think of SP 4449 hauling the Daylight north on the west coast, UP 844 doing excursions, and UP 4014 hauling a heavy drag freight.
Imagine 4449 or 4014 operating with Exhaust Gas Recirculation!
BaltACDImagine 4449 or 4014 operating with Exhaust Gas Recirculation!
On steam, it's called Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR), as on powerplants. And it makes pretty good sense where it can be employed practically (for example in common with something like Franco-Crosti feedwater preheating that directs combustion gas close to where primary air enters the firebox).
There is little practical concern with either the particulate content or soot/sticky unburned residue here -- there is no precision machinery to be gummed up or corroded -- there is a fairly dramatic gain in recirculated heat to add to the heat inputs in the Rankine cycle, and there is the nominal NOx reduction that goes with excluding some percentage of the atmospheric nitrogen from passing through the peak temperature in the firebed.
Difficult to implement on 4449 or 4014 as there is no organized heat recovery from the exhaust. Either locomotive would look decidedly strange if given the necessary ducting and exhaust steam redirection required. Reasonable alloys, surface passivation, restriction on sulfur content in the fuel, probably better atomization and pattern in the burner operation where oil is used. But certainly not a ridiculous idea to apply to modern steam.
Shadow the Cats ownerI can imagine the conversation going like this the new tier 4 locomotives are getting egr on them. The head of maintenance going can we rebuild the old stuff instead please.
But it where the class 1 railroads requiring not to use SCR. And so they got EGR.
I haven't read anything how well or not the GE ET44AC fared regarding the EGR.Regards, Volker
kgbw49 From a railroading perspective, would that explain why Norfolk Southern is investing so heavily in the SD70ACu program and the AC44c6m?
I think the motive power people realize they really screwed up not buying AC engines. There aren't that many SD90 rebuilds compared to the large Dash 9 fleet. They'll buy anything they can get for cheap regardless of how worn out it is.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.