*

Or, it might extend the service life of "obsolete" power, if it lives up to the hype.

True, but from a preservation viewpoint, it's really a different locomotive once once you gut this much internals.

It probably isn't built to withstand the rigors of railroad service. Time and again companies have come along with highly engineered alternatives to simply built locomotive engines and usually they don't last very long. An EMD prime mover with zero electronics and no computer will work day in and day out in just about every environment largely because they don't have all sorts of sensors, computers and wiring to fail.

The point that seems to be missed is that just like the genset experiment, the vast majority of these type of locomotives don't do enough work to justify such an investment and most aren't used enough to make the theoretical exhaust emissions reduction worth the effort. I imagine this is just another attempt to chase "free" government grant money to buy this junk, the actual real world results be damned. Never let a good sales pitch get in the way of facts or the truth.

You folks might take notice that I said "if it lives up to the hype."

Mr Rowlands is right. It's hard to beat an EMD, and the genius of their engineers was way ahead of it's time. Compare the number of EMDs that have been re engined with Brand X, to the number of Brand X locomotives that were re engined with EMDs...

One needs to look at this from the other side..

The newest EMD 567 engine is pushing 60 years old. EMD's are great, easy to work on, and all that...but the reality is nothing lasts forever. The number of 567's in service is going to keep shrinking every year. Its inevitable. And the fact is, some of the parts for them will get hard to find one day. I recently found out Hatch & Kirk is starting to thin down 567 support.

With more and more relatively newer 645 powered locomotives being sold off, the days of first generation EMD's, Switchers and odd makes being used on shortlines and industrials just gets smaller.

Another thing to add - Railroads are lazy when it comes to maintenance, hence why the EMD became so popular. But, most of the engines through the years that have been claimed as junk for railroads, have been pretty damn successful in other applications. Cat, FM, Cummins, MTU etc. Frankly, for marine use, the EMD is actually starting to become rare for newbuilds. The old adage of railroads being too hard on engines is something I don't buy into. Any sort of marine or stationary service diesel will typically be run much, much harder then a locomotive for longer periods of time.

Another harsh reality is we will likely see stricter and stricter emissions rules down the road for older engines.

It may not be in 5, 10, 15 years...but these things are going to happen at some point, its just a matter of when - not that I think it will be anytime soon, but probably in my lifespan.

Only the future will tell us where we are going to go with running older museum engines.

This is not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that during calendar year 2021:

(1) There were zero brand new freight locomotives built for US railroads - instead Wabtech and Progress Rail are busy remanufacturing older locomotives. A November 29 article bout that: Fort Worth factory successfully reinvented itself after railroads stopped buying new locomotives

(2)Siemens did build new passenger locomotives for Amtrak and VIA and those new passenger locomotives use ...wait for it... Cummins engines.

Your points are well taken, but how many operations that are still using 567 power could afford or could justify taking this type of leap? My guess is they run what they have until it CAN'T be fixed and then scramble around for some like piece of equipment that still has SOME life left in it or move up to some bottom of the barrel 645 powered machines.

The other issue for potential small time buyers is that they aren't going to be able to do much of ANYTHING on these new powerplants except maybe screw on some new filters, which means bringing in high priced techs from who knows where every time it won't start after sitting for three days or a malfunction light comes on.
I deal with this every day in the big truck business. Even if a current owner/driver has the basic knowledge to work on the modern diesel, they can't do it without tens of thousands of dollars worth of diagnostic equipment, tooling and training. When it comes to the current Mack/Volvo powertrains, my employer is only about an eyelash behind the dealers, but it comes at a absurd cost that can ONLY be justified by the fact that we are maintaining more than 300 pieces of equipment, and it's only going to get worse.

Unless somebody else is paying for it, and maybe not even then, there is absolutely ZERO reason for a small operator to go down this road.

And there is a shining example of what is done when people are spending their OWN money, versus someone else's. It doesn't matter whether the passenger locomotives are any good or not, because Mr. Government man will be along in a few years with a wheelbarrow full of John Q Taxpayer's hard earned money to fix them or replace them.

You gentlemen have listed plenty of good reasons for not negating the Cummins retrofit idea. I, at least, plan to wait and see...

They say as much that a selling point is obtaining government "financing". They can call it what they wish, but there's a term for it : "rent seeking". Rents here in the economic terminology, not payments on a lease.

I do remember about a decade back, GE was going to offer an inline 6 version of their GEVO engine for retrofits on older four axles, but nothing seemed to come of it.

What is interesting is that it seems once you rebuild to Tier IV, you can't go back.

https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/l ... uying-new/

I'm guessing all those now discarded gen-sets with their lags and reliability issues are heading to the scrap yard.

If there's a market for this, my guess is that its regionals and short lines, I occasionally tip my elbow at a place called Bonewshire Brewing which allows viewing of Rutherford Yard. NS seems to be using a lot of six-axles for switching there. Enola seems to have a little more variation, with four axle road switchers there.

I'm assuming they'll need to deliver some test units for real world proof of design before getting orders. The big roads tend to by the EMD designed ECO rebuilds. They aren't Tier IV, but they are a known quantity.

As to new orders last year being zip, I'm guessing that's not a surprise, given the PSR culling rosters and the drop in traffic.

I still think that if there's railroad preservation in a few decades; steam will still be around, but older diesels will be rarer and rarer.

I have heard a supposition that may be either wishful or intoxicated thinking, depending on your point of view:

Future government mandates dictating no sales OR RESALES of automobiles, trucks, etc. (which would obviously include locos) that do not comply with stringent emissions controls. Exceptions MIGHT be made for legally restricted use of "historic" vehicles.

The practicality, and even the legality, of such edicts can certainly be questioned. But we are indeed raising/indoctrinating a generation of Greta Thunbergs that will demand the standard of "By any and every means necessary" to address the problems (real or perceived) of "society" and the planet.

Addressing that possible "future" seems to be what this product offering is about. I don't foresee anyone retrofitting an older loco with a newer, low-emissions package like this unless either grant money is offered or they are forced to by legislation, just like we're not seeing anyone electrify any major freight routes, either--no, make that ANY freight routes.

Indeed, the first though that came to my mind reading this piece was "............. is anyone EVER going to have to build a locomotive frame again?"

Genset set locomotives have failed for a number of reasons, but most of these have been locomotives powered with multiple diesel engines, that were originally setup to run on 1 engine, until more power was needed. There were many reasons these failed, starting with being too complex.

Over the years, there have been many older switchers repowered with a single engine, Cummins, Cat and even Detroit. GE did some of these out of Cleveland and they were followed by others who even gutted the radiator compartment on older Alco switchers and installed a single engine for use in industrial settings, like scrap yards, grain elevators and even some shortlines.

While some may think that the EMD 567/645 engine is so great, in reality, it is mothing but a GIANT fuel hog. On a recent trip, I saw fuel prices of over $4.00 per gallon for trucks. While railroad can get the diesel fuel for less, fuel cost is one of the greatest expense of any railroad.

I was involved a few years ago, with a company that was doing repowers with the MTU diesel engine. I told them at the time, that they were making the repowers too complex and adding too many add-ons that were going to price them out of the market.

I would like to know more about the Cummins approach, before blowing it off as never going to happen.

I have had some firsthand experience with some Alco Cummins repowers that have served a shortline extremely well for 20 years. Thay were done originally well in 1988. One of their main features, is their simplicity. But new government regulations have put an end to simple!!!!!!!

I look for, in the not too distance future, the government attaching the requirements of Tier 4 regulations to any government grants for track improvements. I would not be surprised if it is not included in the current infrastructure bill, if not, then in the Build Back Better Bill that is before Congress. While it may be stalled or even dead now, the environmental movement is not going to stop.

Yet another fact-free political rant post -- keep up the great work RYPN mod team!

The privately-financed Brightline in Florida chose Siemens. The locomotives are designed to do 125 mph while meeting FRA's crash worthiness standards - there are no other existing locomotives that can be rebuilt to provide that performance combination.