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.
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
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
Peter
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.