Ok, so. I’ve read alot about how reliable the GP7’s and 9’s are. Them great effecient relable 567 engine locos are great, very versitile. But they are also ooooold. Now, I’m not one to support getting rid of something just because its old (I would like to see RS-3s and they’re breathren doing revenue work) but I’ve also read its getting more expensive and harder to find the parts you need to keep them running. If so, what are the alternative options? GP15-1’s? I have trouble thinking of the great goats as alternative because they are so goofy looking, so maybe I’m a little prejudiced. An RS-3 or AS616 looks classy, where as I feel that the goat looks like Goofy and Doopy Dog had a love child.
There are several reasons why the 567 engine is disappearing. Nearly all have to do with wear. There are no NEW parts being made, so the only replacements for faulty wear parts are used parts - reconditioned or not they are worn - and eventually can not be refurbished for use. As this happens, the number of parts available dwindles and those remaining parts become more expensive.
One of the reasons that is not wear related (usually) is fuel economy. By any quantitative measure, a 567 engine is less fuel effecient then a 645, which in turn, is less fuel effecient than a 710. A lot of this is due to such things as “fuel rack”, turbo and other control issues which can not be retrofitted to older engines. With the price of fuel as it is, every little bit helps bunches.
I like the old Baldwins, too. When the highest HP per cyclinder for either an EMD or ALCO was barely 100, Baldwin’s motors were putting out 200. And they could pull your mother’s (or any other relative) grave out of the ground without hardly feeling the strain. Where two EMD’s were used, only one Baldwin. The first engine I ever ran was a DRS 6-6-15 - the immediate sibling to the AS-616.
Well, loco design ain’t a beauty contest. Think about how much it adds to the cost of the loco to have all of those fancy curved hoods and the like manufactured. Far cheaper and easier to have them manufacured with simple, and more functional, hoods where all you need to make them is a brake press and a welder.
It isn’t necessesarily the 567 parts that are all that expensive, while they are getting up there, it is the other parts major parts of the locomotive are expensive and less reliable, if these parts are even found. Air brake systems, electrical components are key components to the overall system, and the older they are, the less relaible, and more expensive to replace. The beautiful thing about the 567 is the component interchangability. Relaiability aside,It has helped keep these around longer than anything with a ALCO 539, 244, or 251.
The 567 and 645 share the same block all you have to do is put 645 power assemblies in and there goes the part issue.
All those engines were made for interchanging parts, and GM made a product that was built to last. As these locomotives get older, they will disappear in general, not necessarily because of the engines. Even a GP38 is old now, and subject to scrapping, and they replaced a lot of the original GP7s and GP9s. I have heard that the new 6000hp engine isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, so the original engine design will prove its durability once again.
So National Rail Equipment is licensed to make brand new 251 engines but no one makes 567’s?
And I thought part of the Paducah rebuilds was rewiring the old geeps with more modern wireing? not to mention other tweaking that upped the horsepower alittle.
I had long wondered what it was that made EMD’s better or more popular (can take both to survive selling a product) then Baldwin, Alco or Faribanks-Morris. For example I have read that the H24-66 Trainmaster was an awesome locomotive, by all accounts it should have been the SD40-2 of the 1950’s, but it barely sold 200 units…
Yes I do agree locomotive design isn’t a beauty contest. But I do think it matters. If presented with 2 choices in something humans are going to pick the one they find more appealing (as long as they are comperable).
One of these responses begs another question. I recall Milwaukee rebuilt a bunch of 7/9’s as GP20’s with 645 power assemblys but I don’t hear as much about them surviving in severice as much as IC GP8/10’s. Did they not go over well?
No. The 567 B And BC will not accept ANY 645 parts what so ever. The 567C , D etc. will accept 645 power assemblys ,how ever the engine will run out of balance. You cannot just drop in a few 645 power packs and away you go , you need to change ALL of them AND change camshaft counterwieghts in an effort to got the thing in balence. As for the 567 B, BC… Try finding some heads !
Randy
Not to nitpick, but it’s Fairbanks-MORSE (shortened to FM below).
Years ago TRAINS had an article with extensive quotes from someone intimately familiar with the relative amounts of maintenance that various brands of locomotives required. He said something like, if the amount of maintenance a GM locomotive took was 1, an Alco took 1.5 (one and a half times as much as a GM) and a Baldwin took 3 or 4 (three or four times as much as a GM). Over the years I’ve read that if Alcos received the maintenance they needed they were good engines, but that often RR’s tried to apply the same amount of maintenance they put into GM’s. Alcos wouldn’t tolerate that and broke down much more frequently.
I don’t remember what the guy said about the FM locos, but with 2 sets of pistons and 2 crankshafts atop one another, any time the engine needed work on the pistons, connecting rods, or crankshaft on the bottom of the engine, the engine had to come out of the locomotive and basically be completely disassembled. Even if that work wasn’t required often, when it was required it had to cause much downtime.
The name of the game for any railroad is to have its locomotives in the shop the minimum amount of time possible, to minimize the number of locos required and therefore the purchase/lease costs. Also, having locos that required a lot of maintenance required more shops, more mechanics, more helpers, etc., etc., etc.
Only my opinion, but Baldwins weren’t on the market long because they were maintenance hogs from when they were new. FM’s lasted longer, b
My appologise for mispelling. =) But thank you, very insightfull information.
On another note I thought the Century line was supposed to be better and easier to maintain then alco’s older products, that was the whole point?
Parts availability isn’t the deal breaker. It’s more the economics of what you need the locomotive for, how often and how hard are you going to use it and what kind of budget you have. The W&W makes out just fine running a nice fleet of GP9s while RJ Corman has a fleet of used GP38s in more heavy duty service unit train service.
A GP9 will run forever in shortline service. But you’ll have to rewire it every 20 years or so and throw in a new set of 645 power assemblies every 10 or 20 years. But, if you need alignment control couplers and ever demand more than 15% adhesion, you might find a GP38 more economical.
I thought that at least the MLW improved ALCos would be able to last a long time. CP ran theirs into 1998, and that was without proper maintenance for a long time. How well would hey be running if they were still around, would it cost a lot more than a GP9u to maintain?
Yeah I had wondered about that. Watching Chicago Central & Pacific Drag unit coal trains with 8-10 GP10’s was cool to watch but just didn’t seem practical. So I’m assuming as a general Rule C-C units have more adhesion (since there are more wheels on the rail). But for example, Port of Tillamuck Bay says they prefer they’re SD9’s for the good adhesion they get on they’re mostly 10mph railway. So I would extrapolate that it depends on what speed you can achieve. As a wiseman once said, speed is life.
If you think about it from a historical perspective, it was the introduction of the 567 engine that put steam out to pasture.
Well close to 30ish years in service on a class 1 is a good stretch for any model of locomotive. And I agree with you I would like to see some of them survive. There is a chance for the M420’s and M425’s, but I don’t think there is alot of demand on class 2’s or 3’s for M630’s or M636’s. Doesn’t seem to be a great demand for C-C power, and with SD45’s and SD40-2’s available out there, just don’t look too hopefull.
[quote user=“JOdom”]
Not to nitpick, but it’s Fairbanks-MORSE (shortened to FM below).
Years ago TRAINS had an article with extensive quotes from someone intimately familiar with the relative amounts of maintenance that various brands of locomotives required. He said something like, if the amount of maintenance a GM locomotive took was 1, an Alco took 1.5 (one and a half times as much as a GM) and a Baldwin took 3 or 4 (three or four times as much as a GM). Over the years I’ve read that if Alcos received the maintenance they needed they were good engines, but that often RR’s tried to apply the same amount of maintenance they put into GM’s. Alcos wouldn’t tolerate that and broke down much more frequently.
I don’t remember what the guy said about the FM locos, but with 2 sets of pistons and 2 crankshafts atop one another, any time the engine needed work on the pistons, connecting rods, or crankshaft on the bottom of the engine, the engine had to come out of the locomotive and basically be completely disassembled. Even if that work wasn’t required often, when it was required it had to cause much downtime.
The name of the game for any railroad is to have its locomotives in the shop the minimum amount of time possible, to minimize the number of locos required and therefore the purchase/lease costs. Also, having locos that required a lot of maintenance required more shops, more mechanics, more helpers, etc., etc., etc.
Only my opinion, but Baldwins weren’t on the market long because they were maintenance hogs from when they were new. FM’s lasted longer, because they didn’t need
Nope, any Baldwin over 1000 hp always had head leaks ( water), under 1000 hp , no problem.
The railroads are bringing in second generation EMDs as yard switchers now. I’ve seen the CP pretty extensively using GP38-2s, GP35s and GP40s here in Milwaukee. There were also dedicated switchers built in the second generation such as the MP15, and there were light road switchers such as the GP15T as well. I don’t know personally if the goats are going to be popular or not, because of the number of second and third generation 8 axel units currently out there. Cheers! ~METRO
Amen to that.
So…NOBODY makes new or remanufactured 567 parts?[:O]
Westernrailinc sells parts for the 567 and I’m sure you can can get them from NRE. I also read on a preservation site that a company in Houma, LA , Rail Systems Inc, is the designated distributor for EMD parts to shotlines and museums. Progressive Rail magazine probably lists some vendors as well, but I don’t have any copies handy.