From reading the description, it looks like GE intends for this engine to be used on medium-hp locos, either rebuilt or new build? This is similar to EMD’s 710ECO offering, enabling older switcher/road switchers to be rebuilt with lower emissions and fuel savings. The only problem for GE is they’re fewer 4 axle GE’s out there than EMDs. There’s still dozens of B23/30-7s out there, and a handful of U-boats still on a couple of shortlines or so. CSX still has some B30-7s, while BNSF retired there 4200-series B23-7s last year. I suppose a rebuilder could even build a GEVO-powered switcher on a frame of an EMD, though I’ve never heard of any EMD rebuilt with a GE prime mover.
I’ve never heard of a GE engine being put into an EMD frame, either, but generally speaking putting one company’s prime mover into another company’s locomotive doesn’t work out well. The resulting Frankenstein loco is often too problematic, complicated, or expensive to carry over to the entire fleet. The Santa Fe “Beep” is a good example: it worked (and still does), but it would have cost ATSF a lot of time and money to carry over the concept to the remaining Baldwin switchers.
There are also some 6-axle Dash 7s still around, and if the railroad doesn’t mind the horespower hit, the GEVO could probably be put into Dash 8s. If I remember correctly, every railroad must eventually meet EPA regulations, so GE may be doing this out of nessecity as well as for profit.
I’d love to hear what this one sounds like. GEVOs already have kind of a grumble to them, and I’ve noticed that locos with fewer cylinders can sometimes have more character to their exhaust. Ever listen to a 6 cyl ALCo 251? It’s a lot of fun!
Repowering…sucessful depending on what you are using.
Many industrial locomotives are repowered with cummings or CAT engines, as have been a few full sized diesels over the years (SOO and TCW come to mind)
GE has done some rebuilding and replacing of prime movers over the years…the two MRS-1s at the Cass Scenic Railroad were rebuilt by GE with new prime movers and electrical equipment.
Many Alcos and Baldwins have been remototed with EMD engines (MKT, C&NW, many different RS-3s)
If you really think about it, as long as your prime mover is reliable, and can turn a generator, there is no reason why it should act different than what was previously there. Problems arise when the shop does a bad job, or they have a defective prime mover.
While repowering as you describe it does have a long history of being problematic If the “core locomotive” is completely stripped down and rebuilt from the frame up then it is entirely possible to build what is essentially a new unit. Many of the Genset locomotives built recently reuse old EMD and GE Frames and trucks. This is also true of many of the recent Wabtec/MPI rebuilds which use Cat,Cummins or MTU primemover/alternator packages(see the Pacific Harbor Lines article in the TRAINS "“LOCOMOTIVES” special edition for a good example. The key is to use an all new electrical system and auxiliaries rather than trying to “bang a round peg into a square hole”. Obviously this is far more expensive than rebuilding a locomotive “in kind”.
What you post is 100% correct but the current trend seems to be to replace everything with an new integrated package of components and essentially remanufacture rather than repower a locomotive.
A historical example would be Zieglar in Mn. who completely rebuilt some older geeps for BN and SOO with CAT engines and electrical systems. These were considered fairly successful as compared to contempory efforts to rebuild SD40/45/45-2 units with Cat 3600 Prime movers mated to EMD main alternators (the ATSF/BN/C&NW SDCAT experiments).
It does seem to me that the EMD offered 710 rebuild project will allow much more component reuse than some of the competition (GE in particular)…
Interesting that it is a six cylinder engine - sounds like the engine group decided it was more economical to go with fewer cylinders using the same components as the 12 and 16 cylinder engines. The in-line configuration is almost a given, but it makes me wonder if there are plans for an in-line 8 cylinder engine as Cat did with their 3600 series.
Just as the eight cylinder 710ECO is matched to the alternator and cooling system of a GP40, the six cylinder GEVO matches any number of B23-7, B30-7, B40-8 and similar.
The 6L250 (extrapolating from the name used in non railroad applications of 12V250 for the GEVO) has 250mm bore, 320mm stroke and a maximum speed of 1050 rpm which matches the old FDL.
Rebuilding of old GEs was unpopular because the FDL engine would generally need replacement. Since a new engine would be needed for emissions reasons, the rebuilt B23-7 might become a branch line unit or switcher of choice.
The unfortunate part of the Zeigler/Generation 2000 repowering of the BN/SOO engines was the problems with the KATO alterntor/electrical system. It took several tries to ‘get it right’, and BN/SOO eventualy tired of the project. However the engines have been performing fine on their new regional homes. The overall cost of the project just got too high for BN. It did not compare well with other repowering projects that BN was experimenting with(GP39/GP28). The SOO engines were not well liked by crews and since they were ‘odd’, left the CP/SOO system.
The new V8 710ECO offering should be a good match for potential repowering jobs. The GEVO ‘Straight 6’ offering may depend on the pool of older GE engines. Previous ‘remanufacturer’ programs by GE(Super 7 Series) did not get a lot of response from domestic customers.
Thanks for the link - 'course I could have gone to the GE website and tried looking up the info myself.
An inline 8 cylinder engine makes more sense than a V-8 for lcomotive use, a 90 degree Vee would be too wide for locomotive use (unless using a large truck engine). Alco did have a V-8 in the C-415, but the 45 degree Vee configuration necessitated the use of balance shafts. The disadvantage of the inline 8 is that it wieghs only 2,000 pounds less than the 12V250 (42,000lb vs 44,000lb).
Part of the interest in the inline 8 (AKA straight 8) is nostalgia about the prevalance of straight 8’s in American luxury cars from the 1920’s to the early 1950’s - though these were typically flatheads (with the excption of the DOHC Duesenberg and OHV Buick).
Actually by going with the INLINE GE had a stroke of Genuis when you think about it. Why you are asking. ONE YOU DO NOT NEED TO ADD BALLAST to get the unit back up to weight. Second with it being an INline the other side can be used to run the emissons and other stuff on the unit.
Who says the main market for this engine (6 or 8 cylinders) will be North America?
Horsepower is about right for many European applications if not worldwide.
And another thought: how long and how often can you remanufacture old locomotive platforms like GP7’s or GP9’s or even GP38’s?
It seems from past experience that GE is in it for the long haul, who knows, maybe they come up with a smaller locomotive too if they can get the price right. Not all regional railroads can make the leap from GP38’s or GP40’s x many times remanufactured to 4400 hp locomotives.
