Is the 710 engine actually LONGER than a 645 engine (with the same number of cylinders)? The cylinder bore is the same (710 gets its extra displacement by lnegthening stroke), so a priori there's no reason it would have to be any longer. (It may be longer, of course: perhaps spacing between cylinder was increased, to make room for larger bearing surfaces or something: I don't know-- that's why I'm asking.)
--
Which isn't to say that re-engining a locomotive built with a 645 engine with a 710 engine wouldn't necessitate some frame modifications. The 710 is, I'm sure, somewhat heavier, etc etc etc.
Railroad Forums
EMD SD45 series official thread (covers all variations)
- Discussion of Electro-Motive locomotive products and technology, past and present. Official web site can be found here: http://www.emdiesels.com/.
Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM
The mounting pad "footprint" of a 16-645 and a 16-710 are the same, the centerline of the crankshaft is the same distance above the mounting pads, and the piping connections on the front of the engine are in the same position.
The two things which are significantly different are the position of the turbocharger air inlet and exhaust outlet.
The primary obstacle to transplanting 710 engines into older locomotives is that most financial institutions would not lend a railroad the money to put a relatively high value, recent production engine into a 30+ year old locomotive that has a negligible book value. However if the railroad is filthy rich and using its own money, of the money is coming from a government agency, then you can do things which are totally and completely absurd and get away with it relatively easily.
The two things which are significantly different are the position of the turbocharger air inlet and exhaust outlet.
The primary obstacle to transplanting 710 engines into older locomotives is that most financial institutions would not lend a railroad the money to put a relatively high value, recent production engine into a 30+ year old locomotive that has a negligible book value. However if the railroad is filthy rich and using its own money, of the money is coming from a government agency, then you can do things which are totally and completely absurd and get away with it relatively easily.
.....where it would look right at home with the other muddle railroad nonsense!
Years ago I was invited to an NMRA meeting in the midwest. In the middle of the business meeting the lady who was the group's secretary was trying to organize a protest of the local newspaper. Seems they had run an article on a guy's muddle railroad in the area, and he was not an NMRA member!
"Muddle Railroading is Fun (and political)"
Years ago I was invited to an NMRA meeting in the midwest. In the middle of the business meeting the lady who was the group's secretary was trying to organize a protest of the local newspaper. Seems they had run an article on a guy's muddle railroad in the area, and he was not an NMRA member!
"Muddle Railroading is Fun (and political)"
Bein filthy rich or havin gov't money (Transit districts come under 2, though usually not exactly under 1) might not be the ONLY reasons to try to re-engine an old unit with a new(-er: it is from an SD60, so a decade or more old) engine. Metrolink is rebuilding an FP59, a passenger locomotive, no longer in production. And NEW passenger locomotives seem to be even more outrageoulsly expensive than putting new engines in old carbodies!
(Thanks for the authoritative answer on the dimensional issues! We amateurs and railfans enjoy speculating, but even WE find it's more fun when we have some facts to stir into the mix.)
(Thanks for the authoritative answer on the dimensional issues! We amateurs and railfans enjoy speculating, but even WE find it's more fun when we have some facts to stir into the mix.)
missthealcos wrote:I still believe CP will one day regret the switch to GE, There is no way they are going to last 30+ years.Sorry for the late reply but it looks like CP has shown some disatisfaction with the GE products that they have and infact the last order CP has now onto date is being built to CP spec's but being painted into the some what financial name CEFX and being numbered 1026 and up, due to that the AC's are dying in the rockies and in other places, and possibly having the reactivation of some odd 70+ SD40-2's that they have retired and put them back into service? (Which im hoping they will do).
Do you think CP is now regreting in being GE (remember they had an exclusivity contract with GE to only buy their stuff and no one elses) I bet the GM's will take over again.......Exclusivity contract?? why on earth would they be that stupid? CP is supposed to be far more shrude than that(historically speaking anyway)I'm not the least surprised to hear they are having issues with them, the GE's obviously do not last. Look at all the -7's from the mid '80's going for scrap, even early -8's are on their way out. They were wooed by AC traction, and a good sales package...warranties don't mean very much if you have to use them all the time! I didn't know about an exclusivity contract though...that explains alot. I would bet the first batch from 95, which have now been banished to the east(ala the troublesome Big Alcos) are probably falling apart by now. Anyone have any performance/reliability figures? I've spoken to enough BC Rail people whose hatred of the GE products is more than apparent.
Long Live the SD40-2's...just get some overhauls going again, and some paint flowing! I wonder how different things would be had CP not scrubbed their painfully short lived SD40-3 project...only turned out 1 unit, and 1 partially finished unit that never ran again....I bet they'd have gotten alot more for the $$ spent! The side benefit of employment generated at Ogden would have lasted for many years if they had gone ahead with it.
Long Live the SD40-2's...just get some overhauls going again, and some paint flowing! I wonder how different things would be had CP not scrubbed their painfully short lived SD40-3 project...only turned out 1 unit, and 1 partially finished unit that never ran again....I bet they'd have gotten alot more for the $$ spent! The side benefit of employment generated at Ogden would have lasted for many years if they had gone ahead with it.
Old locomotives repowering projects could have economic justification!
As all you guys may know only the money talks!
With respect to different locomotives and their diesel types, the diesel engine worth some 15 to 25 percent of loco value. But the diesel engine expenditures such as fuel oil, lub oil and maintenance costs are about 60 to more than 80% of all locomotive operation costs . (depends on fuel cost , loco type and man power wage)
Repowering an old locomotive (for instance 20 years old) to extend its life span just 10 years within its overhaul, will have economic justification if new engine thermal efficiency is some 10% more.
(A mainline locomotive burns some 2000000 liters fuel per year with a new diesel engine with 10% higher efficiency the lump sum of fuel saving will be two million liters! In 10 years. (I don’t know the fuel price in states but it will be noticable, add to this saving, higher reliability, spare parts availability, lower emission, new engine warranty period, etc, I think it justifies the project. )
I visited DB last year, they obey economical rules very well, I saw three different repowering projects there they retrofitted new MTU diesel engines and Voith transmission systems to V294 shunters, new MTU 4000R41 engines to BR218 main line locomotive (they made prototypes with CAT and MTU engines then decided to use MTU.) and new 5D49 engines to former DR BR232 locomotives.( They made CAT, MaK and 5D49 prototypes.)
Also even Kazakhstan will upgrade its Russian Locomotives with GE engines and Syria going to do so.
New 8v710 engines have been fitted to worn out Romanian LDE2100 locomotives. (Please click on submitted link)
According to GM EMD site: 710G3eb engines are 12% more efficient than 645E3 ones.
A 12 cyl 710G3B engine can be substitute with a 16 cyl 645E3 engine with the same power and also 16 cyl 710G3B with a 20 cyl 645E3 one with more power. (no length problem)
Does it make any sense now?!
http://www.cfr.ro/JF/engleza/2001_1/engine.htm
As all you guys may know only the money talks!
With respect to different locomotives and their diesel types, the diesel engine worth some 15 to 25 percent of loco value. But the diesel engine expenditures such as fuel oil, lub oil and maintenance costs are about 60 to more than 80% of all locomotive operation costs . (depends on fuel cost , loco type and man power wage)
Repowering an old locomotive (for instance 20 years old) to extend its life span just 10 years within its overhaul, will have economic justification if new engine thermal efficiency is some 10% more.
(A mainline locomotive burns some 2000000 liters fuel per year with a new diesel engine with 10% higher efficiency the lump sum of fuel saving will be two million liters! In 10 years. (I don’t know the fuel price in states but it will be noticable, add to this saving, higher reliability, spare parts availability, lower emission, new engine warranty period, etc, I think it justifies the project. )
I visited DB last year, they obey economical rules very well, I saw three different repowering projects there they retrofitted new MTU diesel engines and Voith transmission systems to V294 shunters, new MTU 4000R41 engines to BR218 main line locomotive (they made prototypes with CAT and MTU engines then decided to use MTU.) and new 5D49 engines to former DR BR232 locomotives.( They made CAT, MaK and 5D49 prototypes.)
Also even Kazakhstan will upgrade its Russian Locomotives with GE engines and Syria going to do so.
New 8v710 engines have been fitted to worn out Romanian LDE2100 locomotives. (Please click on submitted link)
According to GM EMD site: 710G3eb engines are 12% more efficient than 645E3 ones.
A 12 cyl 710G3B engine can be substitute with a 16 cyl 645E3 engine with the same power and also 16 cyl 710G3B with a 20 cyl 645E3 one with more power. (no length problem)
Does it make any sense now?!
http://www.cfr.ro/JF/engleza/2001_1/engine.htm
Jamshid wrote: Does it make any sense now?!no, it doesnt...
a shortline or regional would never put enough mileage hours on the prime mover to justify any such investment
you do realize a new prime mover with all the associated electronics and accessories costs on the order of 3/4 to a million dollars...
no one is saying that old prime movers are more efficient, but do the math, you would have to have the engine in service running at HP rating for YEARS to recoup the investment
whereas you can buy a whole new locomotive for not much more, and have a warranty with it
but shortlines do neither
they get by with what they have and buy used locomotives and part them together as need arises
UP recently had a fire sale of SD40's and variants. You could get a fully functioning locomotive for a fraction of the cost of a new prime mover
so to answer you , NO it does not make sense
missthealcos wrote:I would bet the first batch from 95, which have now been banished to the east(ala the troublesome Big Alcos) are probably falling apart by now.The first batch is in the east at the moment and I bet they won't head back west for a very very long time (rarely they go out west now mainly sometimes on 115 (Toronto (Toronto Yard)- Calgary (Alyth Yard), all the early 9500 series are just garbage (and so are the rest of the GE's) and they are smoking alot just like the alco's did, I bet the turbos are the first to go on those units......also did you know the average lifespan of CP's AC4400's is 13 years, CP had it at 16 years but they shortened it.
Funny part is some of the 9500, 8500, 8600 series have fire hood damage on them because of the turbo lag.
missthealcos wrote:Long Live the SD40-2's...just get some overhauls going again, and some paint flowing! I wonder how different things would be had CP not scrubbed their painfully short lived SD40-3 project...only turned out 1 unit, and 1 partially finished unit that never ran again....I bet they'd have gotten alot more for the $$ spent! The side benefit of employment generated at Ogden would have lasted for many years if they had gone ahead with it.I would have loved to see a CP SD40-3 out on the road and that partially finished unit too stupid thing is when CP saw the AC they thought the AC's were more reliable than the DC's so they scrapped both of those units and a couple more and cut off the side benefit at Odgen for employment to grow. I see AC4400's fail on CP from time to time again and I think its getting costly for CP, better yet they should have sticked with SD40-2's and the motive power philosophy too.
I think I read the article in "Trains" that started this. As I recall,
(1) Metrolink IS acting like a typical shortline: they AREN'T buying new stuff (locomotives or engines), but re-engining their existing locomotives with engines from second-hand SD60. O.k., that gives you a 710-powered F40 (better performance and more fuel-economical) and an empty SD60 shell... But they ALSO want some work-train locomotives, and are planning to put the 645 engines from (some of) the re-engined passenger units into (some of) the SD60 hulks. In the end they'll have some homemade "F60" and some work-train locomotives that are in effect the equivalent of ... SD40!
O.k., suppose YOU were running Metrolink. You've got a limited budget: everybody has a limited budget. You want some improved passenger locomotives; the bean-counters on your staff tell you not to even THINK about ordering new. You also want some worktrain power. Between what you already have and what's available secondhand, you have available to you (a) passenger locomtoves with elderly, low power, engines (b) some decent-looking six-axle hood units-- just what you need for the work trains-- with engines too good to waste on that service.
I don't know anything about the situation in Germany that Jamshid told us about, so I won't try to guess whether it makes economic sense. Given the needs of Metrolink and the outrageous expense of new American passenger locomotives, though, I think the re-engining project in Los Angeles might well make sense.
(1) Metrolink IS acting like a typical shortline: they AREN'T buying new stuff (locomotives or engines), but re-engining their existing locomotives with engines from second-hand SD60. O.k., that gives you a 710-powered F40 (better performance and more fuel-economical) and an empty SD60 shell... But they ALSO want some work-train locomotives, and are planning to put the 645 engines from (some of) the re-engined passenger units into (some of) the SD60 hulks. In the end they'll have some homemade "F60" and some work-train locomotives that are in effect the equivalent of ... SD40!
O.k., suppose YOU were running Metrolink. You've got a limited budget: everybody has a limited budget. You want some improved passenger locomotives; the bean-counters on your staff tell you not to even THINK about ordering new. You also want some worktrain power. Between what you already have and what's available secondhand, you have available to you (a) passenger locomtoves with elderly, low power, engines (b) some decent-looking six-axle hood units-- just what you need for the work trains-- with engines too good to waste on that service.
I don't know anything about the situation in Germany that Jamshid told us about, so I won't try to guess whether it makes economic sense. Given the needs of Metrolink and the outrageous expense of new American passenger locomotives, though, I think the re-engining project in Los Angeles might well make sense.
They might be a good choice for the economics of the operation, but they are a poor choice for roasting chickens. The exhaust temperature in the higher throttle notches could exceed the ignition temperture of a chicken. 