There's been debate between several of us on this forum in the past on how much was recycled from 1st generation Geeps for CPR's fleet of GP20C-ECO's.
Greg McDonnell's second edition of 'Locomotives' repeats what's been discussed earlier in this thread about the truck frames and air compressors being reused, but also says that the main generators and traction motors were refurbished and incorporated into the new ECO units.
So Canadian Railway Observations quite possibly wasn't entirely accurate here, with the greater total of recycled components incorporated into them helping explain why these were able to qualify as rebuilt power even though in reality they're brand new locomotives.
Leo_Ames The sole possible exception is the Coast Guard. But I'm not sure if it's setup like it is in the US and I've never heard of the Canadian Coast Guard having been involved with the War in the Atlantic like ours was. So perhaps it doesn't have a significant link to the Canadian military.
The sole possible exception is the Coast Guard. But I'm not sure if it's setup like it is in the US and I've never heard of the Canadian Coast Guard having been involved with the War in the Atlantic like ours was. So perhaps it doesn't have a significant link to the Canadian military.
The modern Canadian Coast Guard was formed in 1962. Before then the duties it currently performs were split among the Navy, RCMP, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the Department of Railways and Canals.
As such our Coast Guard has not been involved in any wars. This is not to diminish the fact that its officers perform dangerous and heroic duties in very hazardous conditions.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
M636CWhile 6644 identifies a day, 1118 only identifies the month and 111118 is probably too hard...
You do the best you can in the confines you have to work in.
And I was envisioning some context on such a locomotive, including having the date of the Armistice prominently displayed. So I suspect many would see the connection. :)
But even without a #1118, I'm still surprised there's not one specifically for Remembrance Day. But perhaps it was viewed as superfluous with all of Canada's military branches being honored already with this set and the date these were unveiled.
Leo_Ames Thanks, that didn't take long to get some explanations. :) I'm surprised there's not an 1118 here, considering what today is an anniversary of.
Thanks, that didn't take long to get some explanations. :)
I'm surprised there's not an 1118 here, considering what today is an anniversary of.
While 6644 identifies a day, 1118 only identifies the month and 111118 is probably too hard...
I could easily identify what 6644 represented and also 7020 and 7021, but 7022 and 7023 seemed to be a complete mystery until I saw the explanation, even though I knew they had to be Air Force and Navy (if you can use those terms in Canada...)
I was even involved in the purchase of the RAAF F-18s (some of which are being sold to Canada now) and spent the last 16 years in the Royal Australian Navy...
Of course the RAAF didn't use the "side numbers" seen on CAF F-18s (only the serial number) and the italic font was unfamiliar (although I'd seen it on USN F-18s).
My excuse about the "Navy" loco was that the CAF light grey is quite unlike either the old RAN "French Grey" or the current "Haze Grey", the same as the USN, and the RAN also uses the shadowed block numbering seen on USN ships.
It seems strange to put the USA flag on 7022 and 7023, since those colours are basically Canadian, while 7020 and 7021 are standard colours familiar in the USA. They could have painted the left side of 7022 Haze Grey with USN numbering, of course...
I would have thought that 7022 might have had a full colour white ensign on it somewhere rather than the black version of the national flag.
Are Navy and Air Force Flags flown at celebrations in Canada, or only the National Flag? At the Australian War Memorial on Remembrance Day, there were four national flags (the fourth for the Army), the White Ensign and the RAAF flag, a light blue flag with the kangaroo roundel.
Peter
I'm sure that this will get its own thread with better quality photos, but in the meantime here are a few shots, and the signs explaining each paint scheme:
The paint schemes for those 5 have been unveiled.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/11/11-canadian-pacific-unveils-five-locomotives-honoring-canadian-armed-forces
Anyone know the significance of some of these? 6644 is obvious, but the others less so. For instance I'm guessing 7022 has some connection with the Royal Canadian Navy judging by the font of the number on the long hood (If so, the gray paint is obvious and the red paint perhaps is taken from the anti-fouling paint below the waterline?).
Miningman, I am glad to do it. It is actually a way to wind down. I too am still working. 60-70 hours per week is the norm.
Plus I like those Dreadnoughts and I hope the whole fleet including the remaining UP locomotives gets rebuilt. Now that the DDA40X units are retired other than 6936, and with the exception of 6396 and 4014, I believe these may be the biggest locomotives on the rails.
Thanks kgbw49 for passing these photos along. Great stuff for those of us still working and time is at a premium.
Solo leader:
https://railpictures.net/photo/714689/
https://railpictures.net/photo/714690/
On the move:
https://railpictures.net/photo/714646/
Here, there, and everywhere:
https://railpictures.net/photo/714677/
Thanks for the tribute and the nod Overmod.. greatly appreciated.
CSSHEGEWISCHI would hope that CP 6644 will carry the name "Juno Beach".
https://www.junobeach.org/infographics/
I would hope that CP 6644 will carry the name "Juno Beach".
What is interesting is that CP must have some confidence that these SD70ACUs will be solid performers as they are putting such hefty publicity eggs in this basket. That would seem to be good news on the surface.
I am thinking with the colors of the running gear there just might be an early Soo Line unit and a MILW unit in there with the first responders and military.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/710989/
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/476662/
Tarped units are 7020-7023 and 6644.
As has been noted on Facebook and other forums 6644 = 6-6-44 = June 6, 1944 = D-Day.
Between that and the olive green paint on 7020 I'm thinking these are military and possibly first responder appeciation units.
To fuel the speculation mill, four of the units were released under tarps, each with different colored truck and fuel tank paint:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60379445@N05/48968824036/in/dateposted/
The paint on the trains rolls mainly on the plains.
Just "loverly"!
Overmod CMStPnP Maybe we can again see a Milwaukee Road Heritage Locomotive properly done in Orange and Black. There's a C630 on DeviantArt done in sample orange and black; a 'heritage' unit like it might be remarkably easy to produce and maintain... and I for one would certainly like to see one of the large EMDs get the treatment! Of course, I think a 'better' case could probably be made to apply a heritage scheme to more 'heritage-accurate' power ... but, still... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaB9yXaqmXQ
CMStPnP Maybe we can again see a Milwaukee Road Heritage Locomotive properly done in Orange and Black.
There's a C630 on DeviantArt done in sample orange and black; a 'heritage' unit like it might be remarkably easy to produce and maintain... and I for one would certainly like to see one of the large EMDs get the treatment!
Of course, I think a 'better' case could probably be made to apply a heritage scheme to more 'heritage-accurate' power ... but, still...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaB9yXaqmXQ
Milwaukee Road would only be one example. Others to be included would be SOO, D&H, DSS&A and possibly others.
Let's just be grateful that Canadian Pacific has a small fleet of Heritage power in the first place.
CMStPnPMaybe we can again see a Milwaukee Road Heritage Locomotive properly done in Orange and Black.
CP has been discussing the Heritage Paint Scheme program internally for several years. I just hope that some day it extends to it's merged railroads such as it did for NS. Maybe we can again see a Milwaukee Road Heritage Locomotive properly done in Orange and Black.
Good to see these large units out on the high iron again:
https://railpictures.net/photo/714436/
https://railpictures.net/photo/714437/
https://railpictures.net/photo/714438/
https://railpictures.net/photo/714439/
https://railpictures.net/photo/714440/
https://railpictures.net/photo/714443/
Back on the high iron earning its keep:
https://railpictures.net/photo/714141/
Two heritage-painted SD70ACUs earning their keep:
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/713528/
...and looking down from the Great Interlocking Tower in the Sky, David P. Morgan smiled, shook his head approvingly, and said, "Well done, Overmod. Well done indeed."
Reminds me of Thoreau, every time I see one of these:
" ... it seems the earth had got a race now worthy to inhabit it"
SD70ACU dwarfing FP7s on an office car special:
https://railpictures.net/photo/713236/
https://railpictures.net/photo/713265/
Dreadnought on the move:
https://railpictures.net/photo/713022/
The first two SD70ACU Heritage locomotives at Bensenville Yard;
https://railpictures.net/photo/712451/
https://railpictures.net/photo/712489/
Yes I understand. I was just referring to the SD9043MACs in the picture since the thread is “CP Rebuilds”. While CP has done a lot of AC4400s into AC44CWM units, I don’t believe they have done any rebuilding of models in the picture other than SD9043MACs. Counting the large “wedge-shaped” radiators in the view there appear to be 9 and maybe 10 SD9043MACs in the line.
kgbw49 Looks like a lot of SD70ACU rebuilds waiting to happen. https://www.railpictures.net/photo/711066/
Looks like a lot of SD70ACU rebuilds waiting to happen.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/711066/
Maybe not quite that many. All of the close-up power is Dash-9's, the SD9043MAC's are almost out of sight at the upper left.
Dreadnought with a heavy cruiser...
https://railpictures.net/photo/710710/
beaulieu kgbw49 Dreadnoughts on the line to Prince Rupert: Hopefully not, CP doesn't serve Prince Rupert.
kgbw49 Dreadnoughts on the line to Prince Rupert:
Dreadnoughts on the line to Prince Rupert:
Hopefully not, CP doesn't serve Prince Rupert.
As stated in the photo captions, this is a run-through train on CN track. These trains (symbols C741 and C740 on CN) run from mines on CP in southeastern BC to the port of Prince Rupert. Interchange takes place in Kamloops, and the CP power normally runs through to minimize switching.
I've seen the NS rebuilds in regular service so I foresee no problems on CP as most of the bugs have already been worked out.
https://railpictures.net/photo/708757/
https://railpictures.net/photo/708766/
https://railpictures.net/photo/708768/
https://railpictures.net/photo/708771/
Hopefully these units are successful and we see more SD9043MAC rebuilds in the future.
Photos are now out of CP 7001 on Trainorders and elsewhere, the first SD70ACU to see sunlight. Looks just like the NS units, except of course for the paint.
i have operated cp's sd90whatevers, only had 1 trip when they didn't crap out, rebuild them all you want, when they finally get scrapped, the trusty and probally rusty sd40-2will still be out working as EMD intended
Let's hope it doesn't end up HMS Vanguard.
Too late to matter in a world that's basically now all General Electric at the head of mainline freight trains. And like HMS Vanguard with her obsolete 15" guns that had been in storage for 20 years after being removed from retired battlecruisers, their 710 engines in these have been idle for years and date to an earlier time.
I think CPR will decide they have a winner with these though. Perhaps not enough to seriously consider ordering Tier 4 successors from EMD, but hopefully enough to ensure decades of successful service for these rebuilds. Maybe they'll end up being happy enough that they even keep an eye open for some used 2nd hand deals to rebuild to similar specifications in the future (They've already bought several retired SD9043MAC's from Union Pacific to enable a full 30 unit follow-up order in 2020).
Good one! Pretty hard to beat that, well, unless you're a stiff breeze!
SD70DudeNow what do we call the SD50...
I'm sorely tempted to call it the "Vasa of the Rails"...
(Other contenders come to mind, but most of them have problems 'by accident' and not due to functional disasters in the design. I thought of Liberty Ships but that was just the welding technology. What am I missing?)
Overmod But if that's controversial ... ignore it.
But if that's controversial ... ignore it.
Not at all, only fools ignore facts and history.
'Conqueror' well suits multiple locomotive models from over the years, I'll throw the EMD FT in there along with Welch's Dash-8.
Now what do we call the SD50...
USN Missouri then, because the design certainly did Show Us.
I wonder if we should reserve 'Conqueror' for something in the GE family, during the period Walsh was cleaning EMD's clock. But if that's controversial ... ignore it.
Iowa/Missouri perfectly suits the 80MAC, the last and largest successful new EMD (if we consider the later 70 series models to be but a outgrowth of the original SD70).
I would argue that 'HMS Conqueror' is a better namesake for the 7000's... ...stealthily hiding for all these years up north, only to make a big splashy appearance when needed most.
And EMD/Progress/CAT really does need these units to be a success.
kgbw49HMS Dreadnought on six axles.
(But what do we call an SD80MAC?
'Iowa' or 'New Jersey' are too bland; "Musashi" has the right connotation but not the right success...)
HMS Dreadnought on six axles.
Dude-- Those 70's are some big. Good looking too.
Yep, FWIW, it's SD-40-2's for my HO Scale layout, just bought three in Milwaukee Road black and orange. Have not decided on what CP Rail Units yet. SD70 might be reliable but the body is too long.
The first two CP SD70ACU's, 7000 and 7001, have been completed:
beaulieuthe 8 not included in that program were rebuilt a bit more extensively but without a model change and are now numbered as 6300 - 6307. I don't know what was changed on the 6300 series.
Happened to come across a 6300 today. It's marked as a SD60-3 under the cab side number.
Leo_Ames In addition to this and the AC4400CW rebuilds, I've heard of a SD40-3 and a SD60-3 program. Anyone have any details on those?
In addition to this and the AC4400CW rebuilds, I've heard of a SD40-3 and a SD60-3 program. Anyone have any details on those?
10 SD40-2s were rebuilt to SD40-3s with microprocessor controls and renumbered as 5100 - 5109, most were rebuilt by RELCO at Albia, IA.
The 42 SD60s SD60/SD60M that remain on the roster have all been overhauled with 34 being renumbered into the 62xx series by adding 200 to the old number, the 8 not included in that program were rebuilt a bit more extensively but without a model change and are now numbered as 6300 - 6307. I don't know what was changed on the 6300 series. CP has also activated all the remaining SD40-2s that didn't need anything more than an annual inspection or very light repairs.
Leo_Ames Has CPR ever tested a SD70ACU from Norfolk Southern? 30 seems like a pretty big order if they're uncertain of the qualities of this package. It seems reasonable to me to assume that the intention if all goes to plan is to rebuild the remaining ~30 the following year (Are all 61 still extant?). If not, I'd expect to see them be parted out/scrapped or sold off for someone else to rebuild. With their success on Norfolk Southern, I imagine NS or EMD/Progress Rail would be willing customers if the price was right. The electrical/computer system of these was never great to start with, and only got worse with reliability plunging after just a few hundred thousand miles. And I doubt a decade or so of storage sitting in the humid climate of Winnipeg during summer has since done them any favors. So they're not coming back as-is at this point or with a minor overhaul. So one way or another, I wouldn't expect to see any unmodified SD9043MAC's sitting around the Weston Shops 30 months from now, now that a decision has been made on what to do with half of them.
Has CPR ever tested a SD70ACU from Norfolk Southern? 30 seems like a pretty big order if they're uncertain of the qualities of this package.
It seems reasonable to me to assume that the intention if all goes to plan is to rebuild the remaining ~30 the following year (Are all 61 still extant?). If not, I'd expect to see them be parted out/scrapped or sold off for someone else to rebuild. With their success on Norfolk Southern, I imagine NS or EMD/Progress Rail would be willing customers if the price was right.
The electrical/computer system of these was never great to start with, and only got worse with reliability plunging after just a few hundred thousand miles. And I doubt a decade or so of storage sitting in the humid climate of Winnipeg during summer has since done them any favors.
So they're not coming back as-is at this point or with a minor overhaul. So one way or another, I wouldn't expect to see any unmodified SD9043MAC's sitting around the Weston Shops 30 months from now, now that a decision has been made on what to do with half of them.
If you look at how CP has been rebuilding the AC4400CWs (in different phases), it is reasonable to assume that the other 28 SD90MACs will also be rebuilt in the future. NS is apperently quite satisfied with theirs, and the CP rebuild should use the same proven equipment also found on the SD70ACe, so I think CP is fairly certain about how these things will turn out.
Besides CP is somewhat power short right now, and they've been reactivating SD40-2s and the stored AC4400CWs. They probably need to bring the MACs back into service soon to meet their power needs, and they apparently don't want anything to do with Tier 4.
Leo_Ames (Are all 61 still extant?)
(Are all 61 still extant?)
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
There were 61 SD90MACs originally, plus 4 SD90MAC-Hs. The 4 SD90MAC-Hs were parted out and scrapped, as were 3 of the SD90MACs, so 58 remain.
So half are getting rebuilt. If this is found to be acceptable, what about the other half?
Odd questions:
How many years were they in the dead line?
How many years of actual use did they have before being placed in the dead line?
Thanks for any info.
Living up in CP(Soo) Land, it will be good to see these dreadnoughts sailing across the prairies again!
Been curious for several years at the fate of these. Glad to see CPR sees some value there and is initiating a rebuild program for them.
As for where the work will be done, does CPR have any choice but to outsource? Alstom entered the picture with the Ogden backshop back around 2001, Angus was shuttered years earlier, and Weston was sold to Progress Rail.
So it was my understanding that CPR no longer had any shops capable of handling heavy locomotive repair work in-house.
CMQ_9017 30 are going to Progress Rail in Kentucky for SD70ACu-like rebuild (exact details yet to be confirmed). 9134 first in transit, 9157 is the second. New numbers going to be 7000 series.
30 are going to Progress Rail in Kentucky for SD70ACu-like rebuild (exact details yet to be confirmed). 9134 first in transit, 9157 is the second. New numbers going to be 7000 series.
Entropy CMQ_9017 I did hear last year that the SD90MACs were slated for a rebuild similar to the SD70ACu from NS, any news on such a development? First locomotive is enroute for rebuild.
CMQ_9017 I did hear last year that the SD90MACs were slated for a rebuild similar to the SD70ACu from NS, any news on such a development?
I did hear last year that the SD90MACs were slated for a rebuild similar to the SD70ACu from NS, any news on such a development?
First locomotive is enroute for rebuild.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Leo_Ames I believe Romania was first. http://emdexport.railfan.net/europe/Romania.html
I believe Romania was first.
http://emdexport.railfan.net/europe/Romania.html
YoHo1975To the best of my knowledge, the ECO is the first 8 cylinder version of the 710 in a railroad application.
Every single piece of EMD literature since they first released the engine says G3A. I've not seen a manual, so I can't say more definitively.
They did update the literature for the V12 to change it from 710G3A to 710G3B. They left the V8 alone, so that makes me think they mean what it says.
Are you knowledgeable about the differences between the A Turbo and the B Turbo? We had a discussion on this over many posts over a year ago and in the end got nothing confirmed.
To the best of my knowledge, the ECO is the first 8 cylinder version of the 710 in a railroad application. Perhaps the engine simply cannot benefit or is incapable of being used with the changes between the A and B revision. The C revision pretty clearly applies to the 950RPM engines and so isn't in the discussion.
Info on the 8-710G7 Marine version is sparse, but the Marine engines have different nomenclature. Like I don't know what a 710 E23 engine is. Anyway, there's nothing I can infer from the 8-710G7 that tells me anything about the 8-710G3A-T2.
I saw on a cut sheet saying "710G3A" but actually I don't think any repower has used a G3A engine, an SD60/SD60M used a "16-710G3A" ; pretty sure every repower has used a G3B engine. It's 1 digit but makes a big difference.
LOL, again, The engine you say the GP20 uses is NOT an ECO engine, so then it would not be an ECO locomotive. How does that work?
I mean, the ECO engine is an 8-710G3A-T2. I'm assuming it is an "ES" just not noted as such.
YoHo1975Well, I'm not trying to figure out if Mechanical injectors can reach Tier 2 or 3 or 4, only whether a typical Mechanical injector system used with the ECO engine would result in a Tier0+ rating and a lower cost to CP? I'm guessing that it wouldn't and that in fact those GP20ECOs and SD30ECOs are actually Tier 2 units...at the pipe.
GP20C-ECO uses 8-710G3B-ES engine, Electronic injectors and seperate loop aftercooled. I think you're on the right track otherwise, no pun intended, ok railroad joke :)
YoHo1975would that save money?
As he noted, there are too many things that need to be done with precise proportional control, both of metering and of firing times, than would be possible with mechanical unit injectors ... unless you applied so many mechanisms to them as to far exceed the cost of an intelligent electronically-controlled injection system.
What might be done to 'save money' might be to adapt the principles of the 'Megasquirt' project for automobile IC engines to develop some open-source system and aftermarket/OTS hardware to modulate EMD or similar injectors 'as required'. God knows how you would certify the result either for railroads or the EPA, but theoretically if you had enough money and technical skillz you could do it.
It would be interesting -- theoretically, you understand -- to see whether one of the higher Tiers could be practically achieved in appropriate duty-cycle testing with mechanical injectors and full SCR/DEF chemical abatement of all NO emissions from the engine. That shifts the computerization burden from injection to aftertreatment, and of course comes with a pricetag railroads and the AAR have repeatedly protested, but it might represent a niche for certain weird down-the-rabbit-hole markets where incentives for nominal pollutant abatement coupled with carbon-emission reductions 'might' justify it. (I can't imagine how to do that practically, but someone cleverer than I might see and organize a way to profit.)
YoHo1975 Is it possible to rebuild using the ECO engine skid, but without the Emdec Unit injection system? And if you do that, are you possibly not able to meet Tier 2?
Is it possible to rebuild using the ECO engine skid, but without the Emdec Unit injection system? And if you do that, are you possibly not able to meet Tier 2?
With mechanical injectors highest can do is Tier 0+ .
YoHo1975What if anything has been done to make them not Tier 2 and thus to save money? Or was that money saving aspect a red herring?
Multiple outlets reported it as such, including Canadian Railway Observations.
I know that doesn't mean it has to be true, but that one in particular seemed well versed in the goings on with this program at the time, including inside information from contacts within the road.
So I'm obviously inclined to take it for face value.
Externally, units built for BNSF (SD32ECO’s rebuilt from SD45-2’s) and KCS (SD22ECO’s rebuilt from SDP40’s) look almost indistinguishable from the original core units.
The only reason for the ECO units to look different externally is the size of the radiator required for the ECO engine.
The GP22s are often rebuilt from GP40s, and presumably that radiator is suitable for an 8 cylinder ECO. Similarly, the big radiator on an SD45-2 must be suitable for a Tier 2 twelve cylinder.
The SD59M-2 on UP had a new flared radiator compartment, so an SD 60 can't have met the needs of the twelve cylinder at Tier 3 as we think the UP units were set.
The SD30 ECO had the same new radiator as the SD59M-2 and this appears on the NS units as well.
Otherwise, new stronger cabs, as on the CP and NS units change the appearance.
Here's the way it works for a repower/refurbished unit I believe, for the builders plate, that emission tier level is the minimum for its locomotive type/build year/horsepower etc. So an SD59MX has a Tier 0+ builders plate but the engine exceeds this standard (ie Tier 2) beyond the minimum requirement of Tier 0+. Hope this helps.
kgbw49 Were the SD3OC-ECOs built on new frames also? A build of 50 is a substantial number.
Were the SD3OC-ECOs built on new frames also?
A build of 50 is a substantial number.
No, the CP SD30C-ECO’s all were not built on new frames. All 50 units were rebuilt from CP SD40-2’s as core units, using the frame, trucks and much of the original longhood (modified as necessary). They did install new cabs and shorthoods on the units.
For what it’s worth, all of the 6 axle ECO units built to date have reused the original frames and most of the existing longhood of the core units involved. This includes the units for BNSF, CP, CSX, KCS, NS, and UP.
Bryan Jones
The SD40, like the GP40, was built with the stronger frame so it could easily be reused for the SD30C-ECOs.
Exporail has both an ex-CN and ex-CP GP9 in its collection. Both had gone through the major rebuilding programs, so are not ideal representatives of the classic high-nosed 1950s GP that were ubiquitous for so many years. But the museum in Toronto has a CN GP7 that is close to original condition. Another GP9 can be found on the Prairie Dog Central near Winnipeg. It was built by GMD for the Midland of Manitoba (a GN/NP subsidiary) and was donated by successor BNSF.
Quite a few of the rebuilt GP9s from both railways have found second careers with short lines and industrial sites, and of course some are still working for CN itself.
Going through old issues of Canadian Railway Observations, I found it interesting that CPR purged house of all the remaining GP7's and GP9's right about when the shift to Tier 3 to Tier 4 was made. Also, I think it's a shame that one of the TH&B units wasn't saved. They were the oldest London built units. One lasted just shy of 65 years on the roster, before going during this transition point to Tier 4.
Come to think of it, is there even a Canadian National and a Canadian Pacific bought Geep in preservation? Going to be a shame if railfans take these rebuilt and long lived units so for granted that they all end up all slipping away over the next few years. Same with Soo's long lived Geep fleet.
kgbw49 Were the SD3OC-ECOs built on new frames also?
No, these CPR units were much more typical ECO rebuilds.
I can't remember for sure if the long hoods are modified or replaced though, but I believe the former was the case.
Some SD40-2F's were slated to be used as the foundation for ECO rebuilds and obviously would've received new long hoods during their rebuilding, but I don't think it ever happened.
M636C YoHo1975 The Confusion I think is that UP's SD59MX is a UP designation. It's just an SD32ECO...except for 9900. Weren't a couple others built with parts of the Tier4 gear as well? In fact the EMD "plate" (decal) describes the model as "SD59M-2" "Engine Family" is AEMDK0710GT2 This might mean that it is a 12N-710G3A-T2 but I'll take advice on that... It is actually certified to Tier 0+ I also was able to shoot the plate of 9911. It is also an SD59M-2 but it has a CEMDK0710GT2 engine and is certified to Tier 0+ Some of these units were equipped with exhaust gas recirculation but only 9900 had the particulate filters. Peter
YoHo1975 The Confusion I think is that UP's SD59MX is a UP designation. It's just an SD32ECO...except for 9900. Weren't a couple others built with parts of the Tier4 gear as well?
Well, if there's one thing we can say about EMD, it's that they don't like Model names/numbers that make sense.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the equipment installed on the SD59MX is exactly what EMD advertised as SD32ECO. Whatever EPA certifcations it may have appear to be unrelated to the physical equipment installed.
Interestingly, the BNSF SD32ECOs are all former SD45-2s and don't have the large flared Radiators. Retaining the form factor of the originals.
I'm actually rather shocked that the SD59MX would be carded as Tier0+ the entire purpose to building them was to raise the fleet emissions standards for California locomotives. So there is specific incentive for these being Tier 2.
There was a news blurb I will have to see if I can find it but the current head of the EPA is wanting to do away with California's ablity to regulate emission standards to a higher level in their state saying it is overburdening to commerce and also goes against the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. If he does look for one hell of a fight in the courts to say who can regulate what and where.
I don't see anything changing EPA wise, I just see Tier 4 staying for alot longer. I'd say make your own thread if you want a political/EPA discussion, the subject has been beaten to death.
CSSHEGEWISCH kgbw49 Since the current administration is rolling back onerous regulations maybe they will consider stopping at Tier 3. One can always hope. I hope not, clean air is not optional.
kgbw49 Since the current administration is rolling back onerous regulations maybe they will consider stopping at Tier 3. One can always hope.
Since the current administration is rolling back onerous regulations maybe they will consider stopping at Tier 3. One can always hope.
You want to know the improvement between Tier 3 and 4 in locomotives in overall emission standards less than 1% overall what went up the stack. NOX went from 5.5 grams to 1.4 grams with CO being kept the same at 1.5grams. The problem is with what they did they decreased fuel economy on average 20% so how is burning more fuel better for the enviroment. Tier 3 was really as far as was needed on both the OTR and Locomotive side trouble was they wanted more and now we have to deal with over zealous regulations.
I second that, most of CN's GP9's now have bent or otherwise fatigued frames.
It is not just due to design or age, with most yard assignments being remote-control (Beltpak) normally no one is onboard the locomotives, so no one cares how hard they run into stuff. An Engineer will try and give himself a smoother ride.
I suspect CP's Geeps endured similar rough treatment over the years.
My understanding is that there was a major change in frame design from the GP35 to the GP40, when I-beams became the main longitudinal members. The older design was not as strong, so fatigue at stress points may indeed be a potential problem.
YoHo1975The Confusion I think is that UP's SD59MX is a UP designation. It's just an SD32ECO...except for 9900. Weren't a couple others built with parts of the Tier4 gear as well?
EntropyAs mentioned in the wikipedia article, the GP20C-ECO meets S580 AAR crashworthiness, by using a new cab, frame and fuel tank.
Thanks, I didn't know that was the reason.
I was speculating to myself that for an essentially new locomotive that at a minimum should still be polishing CPR rails for another 25-30 years, maybe they were just worried about metal fatigue finally catching up in the future with their old GP9 frames that have already seen 50+ years of Class 1 service.
But with how sturdy and long lived this component of a diesel locomotive is, I imagine Wikipedia hit the nail on the head for why CPR went with new frames on the GP20C-ECO fleet.
M636C I checked the NS roster on NSDash9 and that indicates that their GP22s meet tier 2 and their GP33s and SD33s meet tier 3. It doesn't explain if there is any real difference between GP59ECOs and GP33ECOs which both meet tier 3...
I checked the NS roster on NSDash9 and that indicates that their GP22s meet tier 2 and their GP33s and SD33s meet tier 3. It doesn't explain if there is any real difference between GP59ECOs and GP33ECOs which both meet tier 3...
GP33ECO builds are funded in part by state air quality groups, they need to stay within a radius of their indented area to maintain the agreement, my observation Based on these situations.
GP59ECO are entirely NS funded, they can move anywhere in the system. But otherwise same as a NS GP33ECO.
The different name gives the power desk an understanding on which locos can be used on perticular trains or yards.
NS also has GP59 locos, I think the only buyer of them, similar to a GP60 but using a 12-710G3A, at the time for rebuild, NS upgraded them with similar components to the later ECO locomotives and were given the model GP59E.
Leo_Ames But for whatever reason, CPR wanted new frames for their GP20C-ECO's.
But for whatever reason, CPR wanted new frames for their GP20C-ECO's.
As mentioned in the wikipedia article, the GP20C-ECO meets S580 AAR crashworthiness, by using a new cab, frame and fuel tank.
To the best of my knowledge, a grand total of one ECO rebuild has utilized the frame of a 1st generation Geep. EMD did two prototypes when they first started trying to market this program. One was a demonstration unit on a GP40 style frame and the other utilized the GP9 frame.
My impression was that the GP40 conversion retained the radiator and cooling system, suggesting that that was enough for an eight cylinder ECO, although there may havve been changes in the cooling circuits for separate charge aie cooling. The GP9 had to have a GP40 size radiator squeezed in behind the engine which looked odd and would have involved a lot more work than the GP40. I seem to recall a conversion price of $2 million being quoted at the time the demonstrators appeared.
It is very likely that the CP conversions were built with Unit Exchange alternators and traction motors and probably cooling fans. Since these are refurbished and not new, this would count towards the 26% qualification as a rebuild. It would also keep the cost down.
I looked at the builder's decal on UP SD59MX 9900, the locomotive that was said to nearly meet Tier 4 standards, and I think it and the other 9900s all were certified to Tier 0, although 9900 was clearly better than that. These units are kept in California to keep the average emissions down and I think they all meet tier 3.
Except that the only parts saved off each traded-in CPR Geep during the stripping process at the SRY shop in New Westminster BC before being sent to ABC Metals for scrapping were the Blomberg truck frames and the locomotive's air compressor
Some that weren't in good enough condition to make the move on their own wheels were stripped before making the trip and sent via flatcar direct to be cut up by ABC Metals without a stopover at the SRY shop.
They did not reuse any other components. They ride on new frames, they have new fuel tanks, they have new couplers and draft gear, they have brand new control stands, etc.
Well let's see here 2 Blomberg trucks the frame was reused the fuel tank. Then you have smaller parts like couplers and draft gear control stands seats air brake controls and valves plus things like traction motors air compressors. It would not be hard to get up to 26% in a hurry on a locomotive.
We went over those EPA rules a few months ago. I just find it hard to believe that what was retained constitutes 26% of the value. Though, I have no doubt they had some "sharp pencil guys" working those numbers hard.
If they have the Tier 2 compliant engine. Then I'll bet they didn't save a dime on Capital, but they have the computer set to be more fuel efficient and less compliant...so they're saving OpEx.
1. GP20C-ECO are considered a "road switcher" ; line haul and switcher locomotives have different regulations in the 2008 final ruling. Switchers are considered to be locomotives under 2300hp, and when refurbished were to adhear to Tier 0+ at the completion of refurbishing through 2014. The same locomotive today would need to be refurbished/repowered to Tier 3 as a road switcher under 2300hp.
2. The EPA definition of a "new locomotive" is one built with less than 25% of used parts content by value. At 26% of repurposed parts conent or greater classified as refurbished. Refer to page 23 in the link below.
This presentation helps summarize the 2008 final ruling
https://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/NERRClub.pdf
Yes, they have the Tier 2 compliant revision.
The old press release that I had up the other day didn't spell out the full proper engine desigination, omitting the N and the hyphenated -T2 at the end of it. I didn't catch it when I copy/pasted it into what I was typing.
When did Tier 0+ come in effect? I thought it coincided with the shift to Tier 3. Deliveries of the first ECO's to Canadian Pacific began at the same time that Class 1's switched to buying Tier 3 road power and Tier 2 credit units.
The EPA regulations that are current today offer no insight that I can find on what made this allowable. It seems quite clear that at least as of March 2018, CPR's GP20C-ECO's would never qualify as anything but freshly manufactured power if they were built today.
The meaning may also have changed. Once one of the customers developed a logic to it.
All those theories are reasonable.
I was hoping someone knew the answer, not just a list of reasonable theories.
Also, if the engines are running 8-710G3B, then they aren't the ECO skid right? They'd specifically be 8-710G3A-T2...That's what the brochure says 8-710G3A-T3 (T2) and 12-710G3A-T3 (T2) So if it's an 8-710G3B, not T2, then it isn't technically an ECO is it? Where would they get such an engine?
http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-64454-34377
My main confusion is that they were allowed to rebuild an engine to Tier0+ at all. Especially one with so few reused parts. It seems like that should count as new.
Is it possible these were delivered before the cutoff for Tier0+ rebuilds?
Thanks
And while this isn't proof, don't forget YoHo that at least one customer has bought GP23ECO's. These are Tier 3 compliant per the Belt Railway of Chicago's press announcement, lending credence that the last digit indeed represents what M636C said it did.
Well said Leo_Ames on most points, however.
GP20C-ECO uses an 8-710G3B-ES and an AR10-D14 ( i've read atleast once online threads that stated the ECO units reused the early GP9 D12B Generator, False.) ES engine is EUI and SLAC.
SD30C-ECO uses an 12N-710G3B-T2 , N = New Firing Order. Also uses AR10-D14.
Generally the second number in the string means the tier level, not always.
I've never read about any other rebuilt components being incorporated. CPR certainly didn't trade in any other locomotives past the Geeps and SD40-2's that were used on a direct trade-in basis. So I don't know what they'd be, or where they came from. And short of perhaps the AR10 alternator like most ECO's have, I can't think of any other rebuilt component that would make sense to incorporate into their GP20C-ECO's.
And you asked about the engine. I was just confirming that yes, CPR's ECO rebuilds utilize the same EMD 710 revisions as those that meet Tier 2 standards south of the border. And I don't know with certainty, but I suspect the final order for SD30C-ECO's may have gotten the Tier 3 revision of the engine, the 12-710G3A-T3.
To speculate, maybe there's even a reason to artificially claim compliance with a lower EPA standard than the locomotive actually is capable of meeting, making for a cheaper overhaul or perhaps a slightly more fuel efficient machine (The EM2000 control system can be tuned to different tiers). Or maybe CPR felt that a Tier 0+ locomotive won't have to meet as strict a future standard as a Tier 2 compliant locomotive might when rebuilt down the line, if standards are toughened up in the future.
And EMD never clarified what the 22 meant in the GP22ECO desigination. EMD always has stated that the nominal traction power at the rail was 2,000. 2,150 represents horsepower before stuff like transmission loss and so on, rather than the actual power at the wheels.
So to me, it makes more sense that the first number represents 2,000 horsepower and the second digit represents the EPA level that the repower meets. Furthermore, ECO desiginations have so far been consistent with the EPA Tier level it was designed to meet.
So I see no reason to doubt what M636C said.
V8 vs v12 makes them 2000HP (2150) versus 3000HP (3150) but has nothing to do with their emissions. It's also confusing, because in the original ECO press releases, the units were reportedly called GP22ECO, because of the 2150HP, not because they were Tier2, similarly, the SD32ECO was a 3200HP (3150) locomotive. It seems like a retcon to me that it suddenly refers to their emissions standards. Still, nothing is explained, the ability to build these and NOT have Tier 2 apply is based on the percentage of replaced components. Did maybe they use a large percentage of rebuilt parts...just not off the donated locos? And in either case, the Prime movers themselves along with new cooling meet Tier 2. So...what about these units was not put on to make them not compliant?
Worth noting and shouldn't be surprising, the current ECO that EMD sells is rated up to Tier 3
Canadian Pacific's 4 axle ECO's have an 8-710G3A inside while the six axles have a 12-710G3A. So yes, it's the same Tier 2 compliant engines inside.
But all of CPR's ECO rebuilds were designed to meet US Tier 0+ standards and are able to run freely in the US by virtue of their "rebuilt" status allowing the more relaxed emissions standard. By recycling some components from traded in Geeps, they were able to build essentially new units while not having to go to the extra expense to meet the more demanding standards in place at the time for new construction.
What was saved, I'm not entirely sure (I'm curious, too). But that they're Tier 0 + was widely reported. Even was in a CPR press release at the time. It's why this rebuild ruse was in place with these, since the old financial loopholes that saw many corporations acquiring "rebuilt" equipment almost exclusively just for accounting purposes was closed years ago.
And EMD/GMD wasn't worried that 4 axle Geeps well past the half century mark would be rebuilt in-kind or upgraded, threatening to take away new locomotive sales. So the encouragement to provide a perhaps overly generous trade-in allowance like in decades gone by wasn't there.
Was all about the emission standard differences between what's classified as new construction and that which qualifies as rebuilt power.
SD70Dude I am sure that both CP and EMD would say the GP20C-ECO is a rebuild if you asked them. They only meet Tier 0 right?
I am sure that both CP and EMD would say the GP20C-ECO is a rebuild if you asked them.
They only meet Tier 0 right?
Thanks for that great info!
Now it makes sense. It reminds me of the Reading converting I-9 2-8-0 Consolidations into the T-1 4-8-4 Northerns. One would not call the T-1 a rebuild. Thanks for helping my knowledge base!
Tier 0+.
Besides the fact that Blomberg truck frames are seemingly eternal and there were no impediments of significance towards recycling them to save some expense, the limited component recycling that went on with these was primarily done to save money on meeting environmental standards.
They qualify as rebuilt locomotives, just as many an EMD has done for generations. But that doesn't mean that the railfan community should view them as such. Consistency tells us that we should be thinking of them as new, which they essentially were.
Union Pacific's SD45's were built with trade-ins for example. These included EMD E units, six axle Baldwins, F9 rebuilds, RS and RSC Alco models, many Alco switchers, and even a PA and a wrecked GP30. Basically anything in the dead line got sent to La Grange and then to Pielet Brothers. Yet the only components that went into the new SD45's were the journal boxes of these trade-ins, which gradually were eliminated in the 1970's when they came in for shopping.
It saved a bit of money thanks to a generous trade-in allowance from EMD to encourage buying new over rebuilding and the ever silly tax laws that meant something had to be repurposed from the trade-ins into the new SD45's to make the accounting trickery legal, but does that mean that we should consider them as rebuilds?
In practical terms, I personally don't think so. But if we view these ECO units as being rebuilds, we also have to revise a lot of history for consistency's sake, since this practice was so widespread for a good number of years.
The production total of several successful EMD models for one would have to be slashed to almost nothing, if we are to view something like a Santa Fe GP30 built with a FT trade-in as a rebuilt FT rather than as a new factory built GP30.
According to Canadian Railway Observations, Canadian Pacific's GP20C-ECO's only recycled the Blomberg truck frames and air compressors from the 1st generation CPR Geeps traded in towards their purchase.
In other words, they're more of a new locomotive than 95% of EMD's GP20, GP30, and GP35 production was. Almost all of these were built with components from trade-ins of FT's, wrecked EMD's, etc. A GP20 for instance if rebuilt with a F3 traded in towards the purchase, recycled a total of 41 components from the trade-in parts pool (According to David P. Morgan in the March 1961 issue of Trains).
These included the Blomberg truck frames, the traction motors, the traction motor blowers, the speed recorder, the batteries, the air horn, the auxillary generator, the camshaft, the fuel injectors, the air compressor, the water pump, the crankshaft, the fuel pump, the main generator and alternator, and fans. All were all rebuilt and incorporated into the new unit.
But the railfan community doesn't think of an EMD GP20 as being a rebuilt F3 or what have you on a new frame and body. Past debate on some F9 production that recycled the carbody of a F unit trade-in, the railfan community generally agrees that construction during EMD's unit reduction binge after dieselization were brand new locomotives that just happened to incorporate select reconditioned components to reduce the purchase price and to qualify for tax purposes as a rebuilt locomotive.
Yet the average railfan will swear up and down all day that the last new EMD GP rolled out of the erecting hall in 1994, despite these Canadian Pacific GP20C-ECO's using far less components from the units traded-in towards their purchase than most EMD's of the late 1950's through the 1960's did.
Aren’t the GP20C-ECO units new from the frame up? I thought they needed to retain a certain percentage of the original unit, albeit a small percentage, to be able to stay below the latest Tier requirements. But I am always willing to learn more.
YoHo1975I thought CP had already purged all the SD90s.
No.
kgbw49 So Norfolk Southern hasn’t called. Too bad about that. CP looks to be a solid GE customer if they order future new-build units in a few years. I believe CP has not ordered full new-build units since EHH took over in 2012 or so. Lots of ECO repowers and rebuilds, but no units fresh off the factory floor, if my memory serves me correctly.
So Norfolk Southern hasn’t called. Too bad about that.
CP looks to be a solid GE customer if they order future new-build units in a few years. I believe CP has not ordered full new-build units since EHH took over in 2012 or so. Lots of ECO repowers and rebuilds, but no units fresh off the factory floor, if my memory serves me correctly.
GP20C-ECO's are new locomotives, keep that in mind.
CSSHEGEWISCH The number of SD90MAC's on CP's roster is rather small. A rebuilding program for them would appear to be unlikely.
The number of SD90MAC's on CP's roster is rather small. A rebuilding program for them would appear to be unlikely.
Are you sure about that?
They're rusting in Winnipeg.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.