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.
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?
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.
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Since the current administration is rolling back onerous regulations maybe they will consider stopping at Tier 3. One can always hope.
kgbw49 Since the current administration is rolling back onerous regulations maybe they will consider stopping at Tier 3. One can always hope.
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.
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 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.
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.
Were the SD3OC-ECOs built on new frames also?
A build of 50 is a substantial number.
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.
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.
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.
kgbw49 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.
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.
Bryan Jones
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.
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.
Peter
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.
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?
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?
With mechanical injectors highest can do is Tier 0+ .
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.)
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
YoHo1975To the best of my knowledge, the ECO is the first 8 cylinder version of the 710 in a railroad application.
I believe Romania was first.
http://emdexport.railfan.net/europe/Romania.html
Leo_Ames I believe Romania was first. http://emdexport.railfan.net/europe/Romania.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.