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.
I thought CP had already purged all the SD90s.
They’re rusting in Winnipeg.
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.
Are you sure about that?
GP20C-ECO’s are new locomotives, keep that in mind.
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?
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!
The designation of EMD ECO rebuild units uses the second digit to indicate the Tier level of the locomotive.
The CN units are GP20, so meet Tier 0 or 0+
The EMD demonstrator unit was a GP22, so met Tier 2 regulation.
I think some units met Tier 3, but no higher of course.
Peter
The info that the GP20ECO are T0+ at CP’s request is new to me. I remember when the order was first announced, it was thought the name was just a CP designation and that they were really GP22ECOs. I guess not. They have all new Radiators and I assume use the same 8-710G3A-T2 engine skid. What could EMD do to these to make them not T2 and save money? I must be missing something. plus, there’s more new components in the CP units than any other GP22ECO EMD has made. I really don’t get this.
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 sai
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.