QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel I have trouble thinking of the great goats as alternative because they are so goofy looking, so maybe I'm a little prejudiced. An RS-3 or AS616 looks classy, where as I feel that the goat looks like Goofy and Doopy Dog had a love child.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton The 567 and 645 share the same block all you have to do is put 645 power assemblies in and there goes the part issue.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel I had long wondered what it was that made EMD's better or more popular (can take both to survive selling a product) then Baldwin, Alco or Faribanks-Morris. For example I have read that the H24-66 Trainmaster was an awesome locomotive, by all accounts it should have been the SD40-2 of the 1950's, but it barely sold 200 units......
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Parts availability isn't the deal breaker. It's more the economics of what you need the locomotive for, how often and how hard are you going to use it and what kind of budget you have. The W&W makes out just fine running a nice fleet of GP9s while RJ Corman has a fleet of used GP38s in more heavy duty service unit train service. A GP9 will run forever in shortline service. But you'll have to rewire it every 20 years or so and throw in a new set of 645 power assemblies every 10 or 20 years. But, if you need alignment control couplers and ever demand more than 15% adhesion, you might find a GP38 more economical.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44 I thought that at least the MLW improved ALCos would be able to last a long time. CP ran theirs into 1998, and that was without proper maintenance for a long time. How well would hey be running if they were still around, would it cost a lot more than a GP9u to maintain?
JOdom wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel I had long wondered what it was that made EMD's better or more popular (can take both to survive selling a product) then Baldwin, Alco or Faribanks-Morris. For example I have read that the H24-66 Trainmaster was an awesome locomotive, by all accounts it should have been the SD40-2 of the 1950's, but it barely sold 200 units...... Not to nitpick, but it's Fairbanks-MORSE (shortened to FM below). Years ago TRAINS had an article with extensive quotes from someone intimately familiar with the relative amounts of maintenance that various brands of locomotives required. He said something like, if the amount of maintenance a GM locomotive took was 1, an Alco took 1.5 (one and a half times as much as a GM) and a Baldwin took 3 or 4 (three or four times as much as a GM). Over the years I've read that if Alcos received the maintenance they needed they were good engines, but that often RR's tried to apply the same amount of maintenance they put into GM's. Alcos wouldn't tolerate that and broke down much more frequently. I don't remember what the guy said about the FM locos, but with 2 sets of pistons and 2 crankshafts atop one another, any time the engine needed work on the pistons, connecting rods, or crankshaft on the bottom of the engine, the engine had to come out of the locomotive and basically be completely disassembled. Even if that work wasn't required often, when it was required it had to cause much downtime. The name of the game for any railroad is to have its locomotives in the shop the minimum amount of time possible, to minimize the number of locos required and therefore the purchase/lease costs. Also, having locos that required a lot of maintenance required more shops, more mechanics, more helpers, etc., etc., etc. Only my opinion, but Baldwins weren't on the market long because they were maintenance hogs from when they were new. FM's lasted longer, because they didn't need bottom-end work for years after they were bought, but when they did it was VERY expensive, and after a few experiences like that the RR's sold them off or scrapped them. FM's also tended to blow pistons in the hot thin air in the mountains out west, even when relatively new. Alco lasted until their units got to be maintenance hogs in the 1960's with the quality-challenged Century line. Randy Stahl or anyone with actual knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now hold on there!!! Where the heck did you get the idea that Baldwins need more maintanence than a Ford truck? The Baldwins require much less repair time than most engines, and still edge out the maintanence hours on an EMD (especially the modern ones!!), given that all parts needed are in ready supply. Baldwins are specifically designed to provide many hours of long hard service. Their engines are built like a battleship, and they can endure the worst conditions of the road. Do you know what the average overhaul interval of a Baldwin 600 series diesel engine is? Most Baldwins that survive today have been rebuilt on a time period of every 15-30 years. There are even a special few that have been so well maintained, that they still have all of the original parts that they were delivered with, save for the replacible crankshaft bearings, oil and fuel filters, timing chains, and water pump packings.
The maintanence procedures are actually quite simple and easy to accomplish, as long as you know what your doing. Take for instance what would seem to be the hardest job mentioned above, replacing the crankshaft bearings. What would you think if I told you that you could replace every bearing on the crankshaft without even taking a cylinder head off? How about if you could do it without even disconnecting a single fuel or control line? What if all you had to do was open the inspection plate? Well, that's all you have to do to get at the bearings. Changing them is increadibly easy too. 1 Unbolt the 4 crankpin bolts on the conecting rod, lift connecting rod and piston above crankshaft by rating crankshaft from top dead center to bottem dead center. Remove old upper bearing shell. With the bearing removal tool, twist the old lower bearing out, and the new bearing in its place. rotate crankshaft to top dead center, tighten the crankpin bolts, and close the inspection hatch. It can be done in 30 minutes, and last 3-5 years before replacement.
The problem that Baldwins had, was that because they were so well built they needed good mechanics to repair them. You can't take shortcuts with these engines, but unfortunatly most railroads did, especially the PRR. If they are fixed right, and operated as they are designed to be, they can (and have) give up to 5-10 years of service before they go into the shop again, and operate for 30+ years before being overhauled.
The reason Baldwin went out of business so early is not because of it's products, but because of it's management. Even from WWII, Baldwin was having trouble with leadership. Top company officials were fighting for control of the company, and corperate disputes crippled the company. The same thing is what killed FM in 1960.
Matthew Imbrogno
A GP9 will run forever in shortline service. But you'll have to rewire it every 20 years or so and throw in a new set of 645 power assemblies every 10 or 20 years
Amen to that.
So.....NOBODY makes new or remanufactured 567 parts?
ericmanke wrote:Westernrailinc sells parts for the 567 and I'm sure you can can get them from NRE. I also read on a preservation site that a company in Houma, LA , Rail Systems Inc, is the designated distributor for EMD parts to shotlines and museums. Progressive Rail magazine probably lists some vendors as well, but I don't have any copies handy.
No one makes 567 B or BC heads and havn't for many years. I'm sure a batch of used heads hit the streets in the past couple years but good luck finding anything good . Most of the heads are pitted beyond repair.
Another reason that the Trainmaster didn't reach its market potential is that FM was going through a very nasty management fight at the time. Several potential buyer were scared off since continued production was not assured. IC was set to buy 100+ units and decided on GP9s instead.
JonathanS wrote: Another reason that the Trainmaster didn't reach its market potential is that FM was going through a very nasty management fight at the time. Several potential buyer were scared off since continued production was not assured. IC was set to buy 100+ units and decided on GP9s instead.
Amazing good fortune for the I.C.
The main reason that the 567 engine was so successful was because it was the first Diesel engine to be designed specifically for locomotive use as opposed to adapted marine and stationary engines. Marine and stationary engines are designed for more or less constant load and speed conditions for hours or even days on end whereas a locomotive engine is either idling or at full speed, consequently the engine temperature is never constant and the adapted marine and stationary duty engines could not stand up to this treatment as well as the 567.
Malc.
Malcolm's point is well made. Marine and stationary diesels have a much different duty cycle than a railroad diesel. Baldwin and FM engines were modified from marine designs and the results are well known. FM engines worked well in submarines and peaking plants but less well as locomotives. On the other hand, since railroad diesels are built for a more severe duty cycle, they work quite well in marine and stationary applications. 567's, 645's and even 251's are not uncommon in marine use.
Similarly, the difference in duty cycles also explains why engine designers have not been able to successfully modify an automotive engine for general aviation use.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Malcolm's point is well made. Marine and stationary diesels have a much different duty cycle than a railroad diesel. Baldwin and FM engines were modified from marine designs and the results are well known. FM engines worked well in submarines and peaking plants but less well as locomotives. On the other hand, since railroad diesels are built for a more severe duty cycle, they work quite well in marine and stationary applications. 567's, 645's and even 251's are not uncommon in marine use.
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Randy has made the important point, but possibly not clearly enough for all the readers. There isn't a "567 Engine" as such, there was a series of different engines sharing the bore and stroke and vee-angle. The number 567 is the capacity of each cylinder, 8.5" x 10", and that was one of the few constants. The original 567 from say 1939-40 had very few components the same as the 567C of 1963. They even built a 567E which was a 645E with 567 power assemblies.
The big changes occurred in the 567B which introduced modified camshaft drive gears and exhaust arrangements and the 567C introduced the cylinder liners with integral water jackets which largely overcame a big problem of water leakage into the inlet ports, which could damage pistons and heads on start-up from cold.
The 645 and 710 have a number of improvements over the 567C, but the big ones are an increased bore 9-1/16" (both engines) and an increased stroke of 11" (710 only).
One problem is the high fuel consumption of the older 567BC engines (a 567B modified with 567C liners with integral water jackets). Even at full power, it uses 50% more fuel than say a standard industrial four stroke such as a Cummins. This is one reason for UPY 2005 with its two 700 HP "truck engines" (and it doesn't look too bad - I liked the look of the Alco C415). So if the choice is giving an old twelve cylinder EMD switcher an overhaul or getting a unit rebuilt with low-emission truck engines, you must take a substantial fuel consumption difference into account, particularly if the unit will be idling a lot of the time. The truck diesels aren't as robust, but they don't cost much and are readily available with good spares support.
A 567C can always be converted to a 645CE with standard original parts, but still has a high specific fuel consumption.
While GP40s are often converted to GP38 -2 configuration for secondary use, this increases the specific fuel consumption but reduces the maintenance costs because the roots blowers are cheaper and more reliable than the turbochargers (partly because of the "overrunning clutch" that allows the turbo to cut in and out).
Many export EMD locomotives are being modified the opposite way, 12-645Es being converted to 12-645E3 turbo engines to increase power and reduce sfc as traffic builds up. Some 16-645E units are being modified to take new 12-645E3 engines to reduce fuel consumption and provide a small power increase.
Interestingly, there are still a few units in Australia with 6-567C and 6-645E engines which are still popular as switchers and for work trains.(80 units were built in the 1960s).
M636C
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.