New 4 axle power from EMD?

MEC 407, you have used the term "straight six" twice in your last post. Are you referring to a non-turbocharged, normally aspirated, Roots-blown engine? Or is this a reference to a particular cylinder arrangement, i.e. "inline" vs. "Vee"? To the best of my knowledge, EMD never made an inline engine, although predecessor Winton did.

With respect to the GEVO engine, again, are you talking NA or inline? I believe all the larger GE prime movers have been in a turbocharged Vee configuration, once past the C-Bs used in the 70-tonners and similar units.

I used the qualifier larger to get us away from all the engines used in the industrial line. Weren't these the original "truck engine switchers"? Aside from the advanced adhesion controls, and controls for sensing how many power plants to put online, the TES idea isn't all that new.

An inline 6 from either company sounds like it would be a very large engine compared to just using a "V" formation.

Either way, just one cylinder from the engine has 3 time more CI then my entire ford V8.

Since I'm the guilty party who introduced six-cylinder engines to this discussion...

(1) The six-cylinder EMD 567 and 645 engines were of V-6 configuration. (The ancestor of the 567, the Winton 201-A, was, if I remember correctly, built in V-16, V-12 and "straight" (= inline) 8 cylinder configurations.)

(2) Inline 6 is going to be longer than a V-6, but may have a number of things going for it. It wouldn't be too long to use in a carbody designed to accommodate a V-16: retired GP40/GP38 types for EMD, retired B36/B39/B40 types for GE. I would think it would be easier to balance. It would probably give easier maintenance accessibility. And it might have some parts commonality with the V-12. Weren't both the Alco 251 and the Cooper-Bessemer ancestor of GE's FDL first introduced as inline 6 cylinder engines, with the later V-12 versions using essentially the same engine frame (crankcase)? So it might make sense for EMD and GE, if they want to adapt their current big-locomotive designs for switcher-roadswicher applications, to reverse the process and put a single bank of six cylinders on top of their existing 12-cylinder frames, producing a 710 engined "GP17ECO" or a GEVO engined "ES23".... (But this is PURE speculation by a NONprofessional!)

(3) The designation for the existing V-8 powered locomotive as a "GP22ECO" suggests it is rated at 2200 (or maybe a bit less) hp: reasonable, given that locomotives with the V-16 are rated at 4300. (And-- grin! -- it's about time EMD got around to marketing a GP22! Maybe they could follow up with a 12-cylinder version, re-engining an obsolete SD40-2, and call it... an SD-30?)

"Straight six" = inline six cylinder, regardless of aspiration.

Allen Hazen wrote:Maybe they could follow up with a 12-cylinder version, re-engining an obsolete SD40-2, and call it... an SD-30?)

Great idea, especially if it looks like this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/m ... d30t-2.gif

Its funny, I bought this up in a thread in I think the NJT forum about the possibility of putting a 710 in a GP40, and the basic consensus was NO. I don't think any of us knew about these new repower motors from EMD.

I thought the reason for the "failure" of the Metrolink SD60/F40 hybrid program was they found that the 710 from the SD60s wouldn't fit in the F40s?

Is there something different with these repower motors? are they slightly smaller or something that they woudln't have a problem fitting in the older, 645 powered locos?

The primary difference here is the number of cylinders. I've heard a few different stories in regards to the Metrolink project... perhaps it is true that a 16-710 won't fit in the space previously occupied by a 16-645. However, maybe a 8-710 or 12-710 would fit... which is what EMD is marketing with these repower kits.

MEC 407--
Oh, I like that "SD30-T2"! "Railroad Model Craftsman" many years ago published HO drawings of an "SD-30," but it showed the frame length as identical to that of the GP-30, which I thought implausible.

(In case there are newcomers here: EMD originally called their 1961 GP30 a "GP22", changing the designation probably because it felt uncomfortable to ADMIT that contemporary Alco and GE models were more powerful. As for the "SD30"... most EMD hood unit models have come in pairs, a four-axle GP-X and a six-axle SD-X with the same engine, but there was no six-axle analogue of the uniquely styled GP-30: the "SD-30" is a fantasy locomotive.)

In EMD'S press release it looks like EMD is trying to recapture some of the
market they once held on four axle loco's and in the mean time going green on the projects that they're working on! I just hope that someone has the presence of mind to get the history,specifications and drawings on these EMD GP 710ECO 's in the near future ?

Tom

Seems to me that a 2000 hp unit based upon :

* a plentiful supply of EMD core units, i.e., 38,39,40 series
* utilizing mature EMD technology,i.e, 8-710, EMDEC 2000,D78
* the fact that railroads prefer quick loading EMD's in switching applications

will beat the hell out of a competitors' product that doesn't even exist yet (GE in-line 6 cylinder engine).

H.S>

Herr Spreng wrote:Seems to me that a 2000 hp unit based upon :

* a plentiful supply of EMD core units, i.e., 38,39,40 series
* utilizing mature EMD technology,i.e, 8-710, EMDEC 2000,D78
* the fact that railroads prefer quick loading EMD's in switching applications

will beat the hell out of a competitors' product that doesn't even exist yet (GE in-line 6 cylinder engine).

H.S>

Aint that the truth!!!!!

Wow! Finally some "new" 4 axle power! I thought railroads had enough GP38's, '39's, and '40's to handle it. But I suppose new emissions standards are why these upgrades will be coming out. I wouldn't be shocked if CN is the first to go for these. CN has lots of AGING(well, they're aging faster because of lack of maintenence)4 and 6 axle power, why not upgrade them?

As a former engineer in the EMD engine developement group, I can say with confidence that there is no and never will be a 6-710. There is no crankcase design that would work (you can't cut a 12-710 longitudinally down the middle to build it) and the cost for such a low horsepower engine isn't competitive. That is why Caterpiller engines were used in the GP-22's. Those are not 710 engines.

Eric Aucoin has posted some photos of the new GP9-based 710ECO repower locomotive:

http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails. ... toID=86432

http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails. ... toID=86433

Very interesting...

QuietGuy wrote:That is why Caterpiller engines were used in the GP-22's. Those are not 710 engines.

I believe you are referring to the GP15D and GP20D. Those were the units that used Cat engines.

These new "GP22" rebuilds have "710 ECO" painted on their flanks, and they even have a huge picture of the 8-710. Here's another shot:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=232882