Well, another loco reengined with the 710ECO has been sighted. This time it’s a GP7 or GP9. I’m amazed that EMDs using such a vintage loco for this rebuild. I guess the first generation geeps still have some more life left! I hope this pans out better than EMD’s BL20.
Why? There’s still plenty of GP7/9s and their derivitives out there on regionals and shortlines. They’ll need to have their locos pass the Tier II emissions standards eventually. A rebuild to a GP7/9ECO (or whatever they designate it) should be more affordable than a new loco.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see early Geeps still working on revenue service 100 years from when they were first built; they just keep going and going.
[EDIT] I looked at the Locophoto page for this rebuild. EMD designates it as the GP22.
this upgrade , do they replace a 16-645 with an 8-710 and if so do you have to change any of the other equipment?
On this one, it looks like they changed a whole lot of stuff. The 16-567 is replaced by a 8-710. The raditators were moved back; on a GP7-9 half are in the front, half in the back. A centralized air filter system added. Nose chopped, and A/C for the cab. And probably a complete rewiring.
To my untrained eye, doesn’t look very cost effective. Whole lot of work for an older engine. A GP30 or newer would cut the work down a bit, as the central air filter system and rear radiators are already in place.
This series of loco’s the Gp7/9 are still tough birds CN and CP still roster hundreds of them over 200 at alst count on CN alone all are assigned yard/ hump and transfer duties we even see them on roads freights as extra power when needed. Anything to continually upgrade should be cheaper over the long haul. In CN’s case they regularly rebuild them so a conversion like this would be old hat for them, I imagine they would rebuild in their own shops to shave some of the costs.The loco’s have long been paid for , and I would imagine that the big roads anyway could get financial backing or at least,a new 15 year depreciation for capitol rebuilds of their original locomotives.
One of CN’s many times rebuilt GP9’s I caught switching Brantford On. yard just last week.
Rob
The question is, what’s the price versus a multiple truck engine unit. Have they sold or demo’d any of these yet?
I wonder what it would take to make the 645 T2? I know UP was looking at ways to make the SD60s closer to T2 with an add-on to the exhaust, but I never heard how that turned out.
If the price were right, I could see a lot of units going through this process. I think my fictional model railroad will be interested.
From what EMD say,I think the first cost might be higher than the generator set switchers, but EMD claim that the overhaul and maintenance costs will be significantly lower.
But if a railroad already has a GP40 or even a GP9, the cost of modifying it to take the 8-710G3 might be less than cost of buying a generator set switcher or even rebuilding the existing frame as a generator set switcher.
The EMD engine will use more fuel when idling than one of the generator set units, and in many of the loading conditions will use some additional fuel.
EMD claim that the longer time between overhauls and the use of standard parts will make the total operating costs of an 8-710G3 engine equipped switcher less than that of a generator set switcher.
M636C
The GP60 and SD60 locomotives use a 16-710G3 engine, not the 645.
The GP22 is probably EMD’s response to gensets. There isn’t a whole lot of operational data available on gensets so it will be a little while before any valid comparisons can be made. It looks like this may come down to a diesel version of the fuel/maintenance cost trade-off.
I am aware of this, I was just rambling. more specifically its a 16-710G3A.
I wonder if the GP40 conversion is cheaper? What about a -2 which is already set up with an alternator and such?
Did you see the prices of used units in the January Trains issue? If you can pick up a GP-7 or 9 on a deadline, drop in an engine which will make it cheaper to operate (relative to the dollar in 1951 and 2008) and put in new electronics and a few other things, it beats buying a new engine. Just as GE keeps tabs on what equipment every single class 1, regional and shortline operates, so, probably does EMD. EMD can probably make as much money doing several refits as it can manufacturing a new engine. A Porsche dealer once told me he made more money on second hand cars. In the early 1970s, a man took ancient DC-3s, lost the radial engines and replaced them with turboprops which upped the speed considerably and lengthened the fuselage to allow additional cargo carrying capability. With a 40 year old airplane he could carry as much cargo as a new airplane costing nearly twice as much. There’s something to be said about recycling.
GP40s already have alternators, even if they aren’t -2 versions. Any rebuild to Tier 2 is going to have to replace the radiator system anyway since you will need aftercooling for the intake air, and split cooling for the main engine since you have to maintain tighter controls on engine operating temperatures. I would think that the EMD type conversions would be more popular for Roadswitcher type applications, rather than as a pure yard switcher.
A couple of other points, first GE reportedly has a lcomotive being readied for this market which should debut soon. Second does anybody think that the modifications being made to the SD60MAC Demo at CEECO in Tacoma may presage a modification program to make SD60 series locomotives Tier 2/3 compliant? Pictures of the long hood show a large flared radiator something like late SD70M or SD70ACe locomotives have.
My third point is reading the regulations on EPA Tier 3 indicate that it isn’t much tougher than Tier 2, but the kicker is that it will require all older locomotives to be upgraded when they are overhauled after it becomes effective. No previous regulation except Tier 0 was retroactive. I haven’t seen the complete rules so I don’t know how this will affect the smaller railroads, but on the large roads it will sweep away much of the older power. I would expect it to eliminate the remaining 40 and 50 series EMDs, possibly the 60 series, and most likely the Dash-8 series GEs. Even the Dash-9 GEs, and 70 series EMD wouldn’t be immune.
From what I’m reading on other sites, there’s less interest in the GEs cause they’re slower loading which is a big issue in this market.
Also, based on what I’ve read and seen, there can’t be a complete radiator replacement, because they said one of the limitations on HP for the GP7/9 rebuild was the radiator core.
I wonder if GE’s upgrade is going to be a Gevo for older GE’s. If’s it’s a gevo, it’ll probably be attractive for older 6 axle dash 8s or 9s or maybe 4 axle Dash 8s, since most older 4 axle GE’s are Dash 7 series locos, or even a handful of U-boats still on shortlines. It’s kind of hard to image a Dash 7 or even a U-boat reengined with a Gevo. They’ll probably have to install much larger Gevo-style radiators:)
I don’t think they have much of a market unless this takes off as an upgrade for road locomotives. EMD and EMD rebuilds pretty much have the mid-HP switcher/road switcher market locked up.
I wonder how much these are going to cost. I suppose it depends on what is used as the core unit. I’d think anything more then a million or just more then a Genset would make this a flop, but who knows. It is something that that I think EMD should of released years ago, but with the sale, I’m sure their minds were occupied elsewhere. I found it interesting that the EMD press release was dated for early 2007, and it took this long to either get a demonstrator out, or maybe just a typo. Does anyone know where further information and specs can be found on these? I really hope these take off and start selling, and does not become the modern day version of the GP15-1, or worse the BL20-2.
EMD DID try to do this years ago, back in I think the late 80s early 90s they had the GP2000 program. Old GP cores with 8-710 (not T2) engines. They were in talks with Norfolk southern which also involved some SD60 purchases. Ultimately, NS didn’t want enough to justify the design, so they when with the GP59s.
Also, this isn’t the first we’ve heard about it. The GP40 demonstrator has been out a while.
Tier 3 will sweep away everything built prior to the SD70/ Dash-9 era and possibly some of that generation as well, for the Class I railroads.
This is really unlikely. Tier 2 had some of the same provisions and it hasn’t swept anything away.
What will happen is either they’ll find a way to make the 645 Tier 2 compatible or they’ll use this 710ECO product.
Tier 2 didn’t retroactively apply to locomotives built before the effective date of the regulation. Tier 3 is only slightly more strict than Tier 2, but every locomotive built after the effective date of the regulation is required to meet these standards, and every Class I locomotive built prior to the effective date will have to meet Tier 3 standards when it is overhauled or rebuilt. Previously only Tier 0 had a retroactive requirement and it exempted locomotives rated at less than 2300hp or those built before 1973. This Tier 3 covers every locomotive on a Class I railroad period.