EMD also has EMDX 91 used for similar purposes. You’re on the right track, no pun intended 
That’s the ugliest dang thing on rails since those D&H experimental water tube-boiler high-pressure steam locomotives?
I mean, c’mon people, there are certain permutations on the hood unit/road switcher arrangement that make sense.
The hood unit gives the crew a view along either the short hood or the long hood. The walkways along both hoods gave the crews access to the end platforms without needing to climb down from the locomotive, and the side doors on the long hood gave shop crews easier access to changing out “power assemblies” and the like.
Some roads operated them long-hood forward to offer, at least what was believed as, extra protection in a collision, either at a grade crossing or with another train. Other roads operated them short hood forward, with the manufacturers lowering the short hood to give a less restricted view in that direction. The ALCo RS-1 had a lowered short and long hood, giving better views in either direction.
“Cowl” units eliminated the walkways in each direction – a crew member could walk through the engine compartment to go back, through the “nose” to get to the front platform through a nose door. At least the walk to the end platforms was now protected from the elements, but the sight backwards was obstructed. As this was important in the Canadian winter, Canadian roads used the “Draper taper” – a notch in the cowl to provide a limited sightline backwards.
The “safety cab” kept the hood unit walkways back, but widened the “nose” to better protect the crew in a collision, requiring walking out a nose door to get to the front platform.
New Jersey Transit ordered some Franken-locomotives that kept the not-as-safe cab without the full width nose to the front but a full cowl to the back. Don’t know what that was about apart from stitching together parts of different locomotives to meet a budget for a co
So it’s a hood unit with an extra wide hood. I’ve seen worse…(and, most likely, you have too.)
It’s a testbed. It is going to look strange. GE’s Tier IV testbeds looked bad with their camelback too, but the final design cleaned up nicely. I suspect that this allows them to test the prime mover on a locomotive, and then road test units will appear soon. A cowl allows more adjustment without removing the hood over the prime mover, and the rest of the locomotive is what is left of the 265H testbeds/demonstrators.
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
That’s the ugliest dang thing on rails since those D&H experimental water tube-boiler high-pressure steam locomotives?
I mean, c’mon people, there are certain permutations on the hood unit/road switcher arrangement that make sense.
The hood unit gives the crew a view along either the short hood or the long hood. The walkways along both hoods gave the crews access to the end platforms without needing to climb down from the locomotive, and the side doors on the long hood gave shop crews easier access to changing out “power assemblies” and the like.
Some roads operated them long-hood forward to offer, at least what was believed as, extra protection in a collision, either at a grade crossing or with another train. Other roads operated them short hood forward, with the manufacturers lowering the short hood to give a less restricted view in that direction. The ALCo RS-1 had a lowered short and long hood, giving better views in either direction.
“Cowl” units eliminated the walkways in each direction – a crew member could walk through the engine compartment to go back, through the “nose” to get to the front platform through a nose door. At least the walk to the end platforms was now protected from the elements, but the sight backwards was obstructed. As this was important in the Canadian winter, Canadian roads used the “Draper taper” – a notch in the cowl to provide a limited sightline backwards.
The “safety cab” kept the hood unit walkways back, but widened the “nose” to better protect the crew in a collision, requiring walking out a nose door to get to the front platform.
New Jersey Transit ordered some Franken-locomotives that kept the not-as-safe cab without the full width nose to the front but a full cowl to the back. Don’t know what that was about apart from stitching together parts o
It’s a testbed, stop freaking out…
GDRMCo wrote the following post 16 minutes ago:
It’s a testbed, stop freaking out…
And as I said earlier, but nobody seems to have noticed:
It is a testbed for the F125 using the C175 engine, not a testbed for the forthcoming freight unit…
It has a full width cowl body to simulate the full width self supporting body of the F125…
There is no reason to think that the freight test bed will look like that, even less so the production freight locomotives…
It is a test bed for a PASSENGER loco…
M636C
This reminds me, any news from the C175 tests with NS?
I suppose that EMD testbed will be more public, or not?
N.F.
nfotis wrote the following post 5 hours ago:
This reminds me, any news from the C175 tests with NS?
I suppose that EMD testbed will be more public, or not?
N.F.
The NS Dash 9 Website suggests that they have been or will be renumbered into a three digit group of prototypes including other genset locomotives.
This to me suggests that there may well be no more of them and they are freeing up the number group for other units.
M636C
So, I suppose that NS was not real impressed by this motor?
N.F.
They’ve always been shop queens, and are usually one of the first stored and the last reactivated when a traffic downturn hits. Unfortunately, they are rather tight-lipped about what the problems are exactly.
The PR43C is a repower of a older locomotive and not even Tier 4 compliant, the fact they have 2x engines (16cyl C175 @3600hp and 6cyl C18 @ 700hp) doesn’t help matters either. They’re really just a 4300hp mainline ‘genset’ locomotive…not surprised NS hasn’t bothered with getting more.
I thought they were using a 12 cylinder C175? The typical version offered is a 16 cylinder, and the passenger version is expected to use a 20 cylinder. N. F.
Thanks for the correction. This is about the same power per cylinder as the ALCo 251 motor in its latest incarnations, I guess…
N.F.
Not really; the 12 cylinder 251 was rated at about 2400 HP max for locomotive service while the C175-12 is rated at 3600 HP…
The PR43C use 16-cylinder engines, as shown in the PDF link above.
N.F.
What with the extra equipment needed to go Tier IV, the oversized exhaust/muffler, and a need for additional space above the engine, EMD should pioneer the “Plate H” diesel locomotive. Just have to be sure it doesn’t pull a train down a restricted-overhead rail line. The components of the oversized radiator, exhaust manifold, and a lot of other items to be placed “upstairs” won’t be very heavy compared to, say, a large engine block. The components should be arranged to get the heaviest down to the frame deck while the larger, lighter-weight items (such as the muffler system) would be installed toward the top of the long hood. Just an idea…