567's rebuilt with 645 power assemblies?

[mrconductor55]

So the other day I ent down to shoot my favorite little shortline. They switch a bunch of industrial trackage with 3 SW9's of the same pedigree. All Built in 1951 for the BRC. One engine, 1208, is retired, the other painted in CB&Q colors awaiting repairs, and their newest addition, 1209 has a nice graffiti covered blue and red scheme going.

Anyway the CB&Q unit was recently taken out of service due to a failed bearing in the rear traction motor. So the 1209 was pressed into service, so I came down to shoot the new engine.

When the crew fired her up, she sounded wierd, not like a normal 567. The engineer explained to me that the he looked under the hood one day and noticed that at some point this engine had been rebuil with a 645 power assembly which explained to him why it sounded so wierd and had alot more power than the CB&Q and derelict units of the same pedigree.

I think I remember reading about this being done to older switchers going through major rebuild programs. Which versions of the 567 cant be updated? Is this why you rarely see switchers like the SW7 that are in essence the same as an SW9 or 1200? I just found this intriging.

[DutchRailnut]

putting 645 power assemblies in a 567 block will not get you much more power, only a about 5% more.
reason the 645 has same bore as a 567 but the new power assemblies in a 567 block will not do a full stroke.
also unless all electricals are rebuilt there is no imrovement on the electrical system, so no higher horsepower output.

[RickRackstop]

The 567 power assemblies have a 8 1/2 in. bore and a 10 in. stroke. The 645 power assemblies have a 9-1/16 in. bore and a 10 in. stroke. The outer shape of the liner is the same, hence the interchangeability. The cylinder heads design externally, at least, hasn't changed since the introduction of the "C" crankcase in 1954. The complete conversion requires that the counterweights on the camshafts must be replaced with heavier 645 types due to heavier pistons. The piston cooling pipes must also be replaced with the correct 645 type so that it will line up properly with the oil hole in the piston carrier. Fuel injectors seem to be optional. EMD recommended keeping the 567 type for the same power. the 567 engines were rated for 800 and sometimes 835 rpm and they have smaller heat exchangers and radiators etc. for rejecting waste heat at the lower power. One exception is the 567D4 engine that has to run at 900 rpm for synchronous speed and benefits greatly from being able to use the laser hardened liners as well as other 645 parts upgraded for longevity.

There are a lot of "marine" conversions with 645C or maybe 645CE that are converted from junked locomotive crankcases and since they are "handed", that is left hand and right hand rotation they have to have marine type accessory drice cases on the front and different cam drive bracket and cover on the rear. With all that they may have 645 size pumps so that they operate at the 645 power rating.

[Allen Hazen]

Mrconductor55 asks:
"Which versions of the 567 cant be updated? Is this why you rarely see switchers like the SW7 that are in essence the same as an SW9 or 1200?"
One of the points in Rick Rackstop's (very informative!) reply is:
"The cylinder heads design externally, at least, hasn't changed since the introduction of the "C" crankcase in 1954"
--------I think these may be relevant to each other. The 567C engine was standard on models introduced in 1954 (E-9, F-9,
GP-9, SD-9, SW1200, SW900...), but I think was in production some time before that.(Question 1, below) So that a number of late "7 series" locomotives, including the SW-9, were built with the 567C engine.(Question 2, below) On the other hand, the earlier SW-7 was built with the 567B (I think). I take it that fitting 645 power assemblies to a 567B engine would involve rather more work on the crankcase than fitting them on a 567C.(Question 3, below)

Rick also said:
"EMD recommended keeping the 567 type for the same power."
My sense is that railroads fitting 645 power assemblies to old 567 engines had trouble resisting the temptation to go for more power. My recollection is that, early in the Amtrak era, someone (not, I think, Amtrak themselves) rebuilt some E-8/E-9 locomotives with, among other things, 645 power assemblies on the engines: the rebuilt units were supposedly 2600 hp (as opposed to 2400 hp for a "stock" E-9 with 567 engines and the 3000 hp you'd expect from two new, factory-built, 12-645 engines.(Questions 4 & 5)
--
>>Question 1: I'm hazy about the details here: partly my elderly memory, partly some vagueness in my original sources (things I read a LONG time ago). Anyone have actual dates?

>>Question 2: As I say, I'm a bit hazy here. Anyone with details (or correction if I'm just wrong!)?

>>Question 3: Is this right? And does it involve more work than would be involved in upgrading the engine to 567BC standard?

>>Question 4: Does anyone remember details on this? (It may have been described in a "Trains" magazine annual "Motive Power Update" article at the time.)

>>Question 5: (This one is more general.) What is the margin of error in setting power ratings of locomotive-style diesel engines? As in, when the shop people say "Here's your rebuilt engine; your overhauled/rebuilt locomotive is ready to go at a horsepower of X," how close to X should we expect it in the real world? (I've been told that when some reconditioned ex-ATSF CF-7 locomotives were load-box tested, power outputs varied through something like 300 hp... with the LEAST powerful locomotive close to the nominal 1500.)

[RickRackstop]

Horsepower ratings- EMD is not in the business of re-engineering old engines with eclectic assortment of parts for free. They did all that engineering in this case over 60 years ago. Most people working at EMD weren't even born then, or for that matter during the 567 era. They have had to re-engineer some Tier 0 parts for the later 645's. My favorite example of fudge-the-horsepower ratings is my dealing with a tug boat operator in Providence Rhode Island. He bought a old WW 2 army tug with a 12-567-ATL engine rated at 900 hp. @ 750 rpm. The name of the game is that the tug charter price is based on total horsepower and he wanted EMD to confirm that with 645 injectors his engine could make 1500 hp if he speeded it up. Well, maybe, but that engine could still have the old fork blade rod design that was barely adequate at 750 rpm and the cooling system was sized for 900 hp and so on. He threatened a lawsuit. EMD's answer to the problem ofthese old engines was what they recommended to the Navy in which they rebuild the old LST ATL engines with brand new "E "crankcases and put all the old external fittings back on.

The actual engine output in limited by the governor in 2 ways: the speed setting, and the rack stop setting to limit the fuel. The published ratings are at standard conditions of air inlet temperature and the fuel temperature and actual output varies considerably with the variance of those temperatures . EMD's peaking generator governors have a "winter" and a "summer" rack setting. The winter setting requires less fuel to make the required 2750 KW output on the meter. These old locomotives owe their longevity to not being used too hard. According to the EPA switching load cycle, switchers only spend less than 1% at run 8, not enough time to overheat anything no matter how souped up. One solution to these old locomotives is to shop around the old engine market for a complete used 645 engine or better yet a complete locomotive with a 645 in it. Should be some MP15AC on the market.

[Allen Hazen]

Rick said:
"The published ratings are at standard conditions of air inlet temperature and the fuel temperature and actual output varies considerably with the variance of those temperatures"
------> So, if you are testing a (newly overhauled, for example) locomotive with a load box, you ought to take this into account? And people like (just to name a big, professionally run, locomotive shop) Juniata Shops have tables posted near the load box showing what corrections to make for nonstandard temperatures? Or have I misunderstood the implications here?

...Ummm. Seems to me I read somewhere that the F-M/GE "Erie built" locomotive had more performance variation with weather than competing brands of locomotive: that the Eries were built with a constant engine setting, whereas other diesel locomotives of the period had some sort of way of compensating. Don't remember where I read this, and I don't think my source went into any more detail. (I think the way it went was that the locomotive was more powerful in the winter: with cold - hence denser - air you got more "bang" in the cylinder.)

And:
"EMD's peaking generator governors have a "winter" and a "summer" rack setting. The winter setting requires less fuel to make the required 2750 KW output on the meter."
Maybe such things are available (as an option) on some locomotives as well? On page 98 (last page) of the "Trains" special "Locomotive 2009" (magazine format thing published by publishers of "Trains" but not a regular issue of that magazine) there is a photo of a switch "on the electrical panel of Canadian Pacific SD40-2 5656" (it's a closeup: the only clue to location of switch is that it is beside one labeled "Dyn Brake Cutout") with a label reading:

Summer Winter Switch
Winter Operation
Oct 15 [to] Apr 15
((toggle switch))
Summer Operation
Apr 16 to Oct 14

----in the photo the switch is wired in the up position (loop of wire to screw above label), suggesting that it's one that isn't supposed to be moved very often-- I'm assuming the third line of the label has a "to" in it, but it is hidden by the switch in the photo.

[Super Seis]

More than likely, the switch in question sets up the cooling fans for winter or summer operation.

SS

[Engineer Spike]

Preston Cook, formerly of EMD wrote an article on the Railway Preservation Network site. Much of your questions are answered there.
http://www.rypn.org/RyPN/articles/viewa ... 215551.txt