EMD has released a new Demonstrator for low-powered Tier 2 roadswitcher. Demo EMDX 7101 converted from former KCS GP40 2836 nee-PC 3171. The locomotive now has a 8 cylinder turbocharged 710G3C engine rated at 2000hp. It retains all three cooling fan shrouds. Photo is here
Reportedly there is a converted GP9 Demo somewhere out there at a slightly lower power rating due to smaller radiators.
Is that the real size of the engine (image on long hood)?
Not exactly, but looks pretty close. Looks like there is a lot of extra room side, with the prime mover being half the size of the original. I have seen ads for these retrofits, nice to see one actually in service.
Now I won’t feel bad using my HO scale KCS 4789 for something else.
I think this might be a very good idea for recycling older non-compliant locomotives. Any idea what the guarantee is like? How modern and new are the electronics and electricals? (OK, I suppose I should visit the EMD website to find out.)
Somebody has figured out how to convert EMD 567’s to Tier 2 compliance. I saw two GP-9s in Houston switching port elevators, rebuilt with TxDOT grant monies. I am also aware of a CF7 and an SD-9m with similar upgrades. I wonder how far gone the 567 and 645 prime movers have to be before it’s new engine time?
This is interesting, sinceI don’t believe a 567 or a 645 could economically be converted to meet Tier 2 in the same way that the 710 meets the restrictions. The 710 has to use electronic injection and very careful control of combustion temperature to meet the emission limits.
There is no way that that degree of control could apply to a 1940s or even a 1960s engine.
There is a means by which combustion can be improved, by the injection of LP Gas in a controlled manner into the combustion air after pressure charging. The gas increases the qualirty of combustion and increases the amount of liquid fuel being burnt. This increases the power output and cleans up the emissions at the same time.
It requires careful control of gas injection using a microprocessor to match the gas supply to the engine power setting and of course, an adequate supply of bottled gas to match the range of the locomotive.
This is the only means I can imagine that would allow this degree of improvement.
On the other hand, I like the GP68 and hope to see more. It must cost less in the long run to have one engine rather than three.
M636C
The EPA released details of the impending Tier 3 and Tier 4 emissions standards on Friday, Tier 3 seems to be an interim standard bringing older locomotives close to Tier 2, plus it requires Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel fuel. Tier 4 will require Selective Catalytic Reduction (Catalytic Converters) on locomotives and will go into effect in 2015.
Union Pacific is experimenting with an MP15 using a catalytic converter and some other technology to try to meet the new standards. They also have an modified SD60 that’s supposed to meet Tier II standards/…
What about the 645s in MPI’s MP36 series of commuter locos? Are they Tier 2, or just Tier 1?
They are Tier 2 645F series engines (like the EMD 50-series).
Noone’s mention, this could put EMD back into the medium HP market. It’s obviously slated for a rebuilding type program, like the GP15, mostly for regionals and shortlines. I could see them coming out with it’s own body and frame if they get enough responses by Class 1’s, and at a time when GP’s and SW’s, and similar type locos from other builders are really starting to show their age. I’d like to see what the fuel comparisons might be with a GP38.
Gonna be INTERESTING to see how the RR’s love to see how they like the LOW lubrication properties of ULSD starting next year. Since Sulphar swells the orings used to seal the fuel lines in the Diesel engines and they are losing that and the lubrication of the fuel. The OTR trucking industry has been having FITS with plugged filters and injectors plus blown lines should be fun. Those 567 and 645’s will be leaking like sieves for weeks and then the filters will be plugged up tighter than an IRS agents tax return. Also there is NO WAY a 567 or early645 will ever meet the new standards so get your pics of the remaining GP-7-38’s Say Bye bye to the Alco’s and early GE’s also.
Ain’t that 8 cylinder engine just the cutest thing? EMD is always experimenting but there is a need for a medium horsepower engine in the market I’m sure. Not everyone needs the massive new units that seem to be the only things offered anymore. The engines back then GP40, 38, etc. were also much easier on the eyes. Although I’m sure the modern power does have a certain appeal.
Can’t think of any O-rings on diesel locomotive fuel systems. All the connections I can remember are strictly mechanical - swaged or spherical. Spin on fuel filters will by-pass if plugged. Primary fuel filters are pretty porous affairs - I can’t imagine lack of sulfur causing any trouble there. Those EMD diesel engines will run on just about anything - even cetane down to 20 or so.
Truck Fuel systems are the same way and they are having FITS with this new ULSD. Turns out it cleans the tanks cleaner than solvent ever thought of. Also there are O-rings in the Injectors of an EMD diesel also when the fuel filter plugs and bypasses then a piece of crud hits the injector blows the tip off say BYE to that clyinder and then to the engine. It will burn thru in a hurry. Also when the new regensystems hit man MTBF will drop right now EVERY trucking company running the new engines right now are PULLING what little hair they have OUT. I know of multiple times were drivers are down for a week or more waitning for parts and the ureaic acid they use to regenarate. BTW trucks use 1 once to do that Locomotives will use cups of it and a supply will last maybe a week in a truck before requiring a refill. The media for the regen can not be dropped take a hard hit or take flames so fires in the stack bad deal.
M636c,
Hmmmm, a man who obviously knows about NOx production.
If I didn’t know better, I would say you might be one of our (Cummins, Inc) engineers talking about our QSK Tier II engines.
Cummins expermented with a gas/diesel injection system for our high horsepower (above 15 liter) engines a while back, but since I don’t delve into the high horsepower world, I’m not sure if anything ever came out of those experiments, but in the automotive world that I work in, we do much the same thing (controlling combustion temp to control NOx) with electronics, but in order to meet today’s stringent EPA regulations, we also add EGR to the mix. The emission regulations for the automotive diesel engines are much stricter than tier II or even tier III industrial. When tier IV comes along next year, your also going to see exhaust aftertreatment.
But you are absolutely correct that this could NOT be 1940’s or even 1960’s engine technology.
I ran into a buddy of mine testing a next Gen EPA spec motor for the OTR trucking industry. He is trying the next level of emmsions in real world testing. HE HATES IT more than he hated the 2007 and 2010 combined. He calls it the biggest gutless wonder since the 238 Detroit and his is rated at 500HP. He got passed uphill by a freaking UPS truck pulling a set a trailers. He also complains that the 2010’s with SCR will be the biggest mistake the EPA and CARB forced up the industry. Why is he saying that he had his UREA tanks freeze on him multiple times last winter and also run out because they meter more than the EPA says it does.
Most of the EMD 8 cylinder repowers so far are rebuilt Dashn 2 Geeps and SD’s so i don’t really get the aesthetic argument, A KCS GP40-2 rebuilt with the 710 ECO package still looks like a GP40-2…
Lets not forget about the 7102, an ex-CP GP9 that has been rebuilt to a GP22ECO.
I can only take that as a compliment…
I am quite impressed by the QSK 19 engine in particular, it and its predecessors having shown themselves to be the engine of choice for application in self propelled railcars, usually in combination with a Voith hydraulic transmission. This has become the accepted standard in Western Europe and in Australia, due to the continued reliability demonstrated even in “all stations” commuter service. I, for one, would look to a QSK19 to power a multi engine switcher on that basis and I’m surprised that other options have been used to such an extent.
Some engineering consultants designed a computer controlled LP gas injection system which was applied to an Alco 251B engine in a freight locomotive with the intention of improving both exhaust emissions and smoke production (particulate matter). By chance I saw it in one of its early trials and can confirm