I read today that 80 more AC4400CWs will be rebuilt by GE this year, a positive sign. I do believe that the CEFX units are coming off lease this year as well, but with growth in volumes I anticipate needing more locos. 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?
The number of SD90MAC's on CP's roster is rather small. A rebuilding program for them would appear to be unlikely.
They're rusting in Winnipeg.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
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.
CSSHEGEWISCH 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?
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.
GP20C-ECO's are new locomotives, keep that in mind.
YoHo1975I thought CP had already purged all the SD90s.
No.
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.
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.
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?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
But for whatever reason, CPR wanted new frames for their GP20C-ECO's.
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 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 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.
Peter
Leo_Ames 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.
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...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.