Sorry I forgot the tier4i mentioned in your post. Those are in the 130K range.
As far as the tax payer end of it, some one is going to get the emission reduction money why not a railroad. I have seen the money awarded to private bulldozer owners. Reducing locomotive emissions is a bigger reduction than a bulldozer, so it is better for the air quality.
CSX made N.R.E. change the gensets so the 3 engines all run at the same time. If you add up the exhaust out put and fuel consumption the single engine option is better.

If you were mu-ed into the Alco and it was leading, how much of the load was your unit really carrying? Or was the Alco trying to drag it along?

I don't know how long ago any of the wheel slip parts were tested, I just wish the video came out better of the stone train. The lean and green was moving the train while bumping the alco as it wheel slipped.I was there and saw it. I don't care the condition of the wheel slip circuit in the alco it will not compare with what is currently in the market for wheel slip. An add on system would be better than stock. A locomotive built to take full advantage of the computer is that much better again.

You need to do some basic tractive effort figures.

The tractive effort requirements for pulling that 30 car stone train and your locomotive was 2 times the rated tractive effort of that Alco. That Alco RS18 should be rated at about 62,000 lbs tractive effort.

I am figuring the 30 car stone train at 263,0000 per car and your locomotive at 130 ton. That comes to a total of 3945 ton for the train and your 130 ton equals 4075 total tonage.

Basic resistance to move a ton on level track is 5 pounds per ton in hot weather and 10 pounds per ton in cold weather. Most people will use 10 pounds when doing the tractive effort requirements of a locomotive, but for this I will use 5 pounds per ton. That comes to 20,375 pounds tractive effort just to start the train on level track. That is one third the Alco's tractive effort.

Grade resistance is 10 pound per each .5% of grade. At 1.5%, that is 3 times 10 for 30 pounds resistance per ton of train. 4075 tons x 30 equals 122,250 pounds of resistance.

Total resistance is 142,625 pounds of tractive effort requirement. Since I do not know of any curvature, I can not figure that resistance.

I do not know what you rate your locomotive's tractive effort at, but if your locomotive weighs in at 130 ton/260,000 pounds and has 60% tractive effort, that is 156,000 starting tractive effort.

Now, the problem is your speed.

You say you were running 25 mph. An EMD GP38-2 { this is straight out of an EMD specification manual } is rated at 82,500 pounds starting tractive effort and will maintain this to 6 mph, at 10 mph this drops to 59,000 pounds, at 15 mph it drops to 40,000 pounds and at 25 mph it drops to 27,500 pounds.

Weight equals tractive effort:
Horsepower equal speed:

You do not have the horsepower to come close to maintaining your starting tractive effort. I do not care how new of a wheels slip control system you have. I am surprised that the train did not stall on the grade.

After talking with another party that builds these repowers this afternoon and doing the tractive effort figures, I am more convinced that the Alco was slipping because it was trying to pull the train and your locomotive up the hill, and under those conditions, you would not be getting an wheel slip, the Alco was.

I talked with CLCX about this. He told me that, yes you will get great fuel saving over the Alco on level track, but not 72%. He said that your fuel saving would be more in the area of 50 to 60 per cent on average over an Alco, more over an EMD. On the 1.5% grade, at 25 mph, he said the Alco was pulling you. He also said that if you ran an equal train with your locomotive alone, then ran the same train with the Alco, your savings would only be 20 to 25 per cent over the Alco on a 1.5% grade and he doubted that you would make 25 mph.

To be fair, you must also start with a train that the Alco can pull and get the job done. Then take you locomotive and run the same train to determine any savings.

Another problem with fuel savings;
Fuel is injected by "CCs" at the injector. What if you were putting out more horsepower? Yes, you would be using more fuel.

There really is no way to fairly compare an Alco RS18 built in 1959 to a new locomotive. The same type of traction control system you are using can be installed on the Alco too.

Clarification time.
My writing skills are not the greatest and it appears I have misled everyone. The Basic facts are as follows.
Comments about 25 miles an hour uphill are on the passenger train, not the stone train.
72% fuel savings was on the passenger train compared to 4121 which is a C-425 (I think) with a 16 cylinder.
Fuel savings compared to the 1822 (RS-18) where more along the lines of 60% Yes the RS-18 has a quick loading rate and due to slow orders on the line they get after it hard to get out of the stations quick to stay on schedule.
The stone train. I never intended to claim the Lean and Green did all the work of getting the train up to and maintain track speed. I know that is not possible. Everyone should keep the science lesson posted by Alco420 handy due to the fact that information is handy to have and not always easy to find.
The point being made was the fact the Lean and Green did allot starting the train and made it allot easier to start the train. The 4121 is known as a slippery locomotive. The video mentioned didn’t come out due the fact it was dark and rainy. Yes the track was very wet. I was just using that as a point of reference to how well the traction control system works.
Carl Majors, The owner of CLCX is a smart man and has a good product. Yes he uses the same engines in his locomotives. That is where the similarities end. He drives all of his accessory loads off from the 12V2000. This takes horsepower away from pulling power. You no longer have 1005 H.P. available for pulling a train. The Lean and Green has nothing driven off the 12V2000 except the alternator used to power the traction motors. This fact allows a further reduction in the amount of time you have to run the big engine.
There are several proprietary patent pending things incorporated into the Lean and Green that farther enhance the fuel efficiency of the lean and green as well as increasing power output while extending engine life. Some of the innovations in the Lean and Green are just go old fashioned “hot rod” engineering. Simple things like getting clean air into the engine more efficiently and exhausting it with less restrictions.
The Lean and Green was designed to be used in an industrial environment or on short lines. Not as a road locomotive. Testing on the CVSR has proven the locomotive more than capable of those goals. It was designed to be a retro-fit to existing locomotives and has proven that the technology can be adapted to older locomotives and used in the recreational/ historical representation railroading area with great success. This was the point of this post. It was not an attempt to mislead anyone or bash Alcos.

Here's a question for you: How long will one these "new" diesel last before replacement and or/overhaul?

An ALCO 251 diesel properly cared for should last 800,000 or more miles before it requires a overhaul.

Most truck diesels (such as used in these "green" locomotives last only 300-350,000 miles before an overhaul is needed.

Tell me; where is the savings?

A test between the "Green" and an ALCO has to be on a level playing field. Put a brand new 251 engine in the RS-18 and retrofit it with a GE wheel slip system.
In fact if you put a good wheel slip system in an ALCO T-6, I bet it would pull 11 cars easily. The T-6 has a 6-251 engine.
BTW, ALL NEW FM/ALCO diesels are up to date as far as emissions go.

From my personal experience, I'd bet that a T-6 would do the job with a working set of sanders.

Unfortunately in the shortline/industrial market a lot of diesel engines will "last" until a mechanical failure takes them out of service and will then be replaced with the cheapest thing that can be found that will run.

PC

In fuel.

Also, ALLEGEDLY, it seems (go back to the start of this whole discussion) that somebody's supposedly making some kind of (Read: somebody else's) money available for the acquisition of "new green" power. Though, as it turns out, you CAN still buy an Alco-design 251F diesel engine from Fairbanks-Morse (http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engine_fm_alco_251.php), I doubt anyone's falling over themselves to give you their own money (or somebody else's) to get one, even if you install some computer-control emissions package or wheel-slip control as well.........

Please note that in the FM-ALCO online information on the 251 engine there are only contact links for International and Latin American sales. There are no sales contacts listed for the 251 engine in new construction in the US.

http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engine_fm_alco_251.php

PC

Some more to consider on repowers;

I really do believe that these can be a good way to go, under the right application. In a slow speed, under 15 mph application a 1005 hp "MTU" 12V2000 engine would work great. But, can they maintain 25 mph or above track speed day in and day out, I doubt it.

As I posted in an earlier post;

Weight equals tractive effort!

Horsepower equals speed!

Another very good example: These specifications are out of an EMD manual.

EMD SW1001 switcher;
8V645E engine, 1,000 Hp., 900 RPMs., 654 C.I./Cylinder for a total of 5160 cubic inches.

Average weight of locomotive: 119 tons/238,000 pounds

Starting tractive effort 95,000 pounds
Continous tractive effort of 42,000 pounds at 6.7 mph.
Tractive effort at 25 mph is 11,500 pounds

This is a loss of 88% of it's tractive effort at 25 mph because it does not have the horsepower to sustain it.

Now an EMD GP40-2 to show what horsepower does.
16V645E3B turbocharged, 3,000 Hp., 654 C.I./Cylinder for 10,320 total cubic inches.

Average weight of the locomotive 135 ton/270,000 pounds

Starting tractive effort of 86,000 pounds
Tractive effort at 25 mph is 40,000 pounds

This is a loss of about 54% of it's tractive effort at 25 mph.

All locomotives have a loss of horsepower to what is called "parasite loss". This is the power it takes to run auxiliaries, such as air compressors, traction motor blowers, fan drives and fans, etc.. This power has to from somewhere. Even running the alternator takes some power. On an Alco, it takes around 60 horsepower to just run the air compressor. Inaddition, all of it's other auxiliaries are mechanically driven. If you convert all of these auxiliaries to an electrically driven system, then the power has to come from somewhere.

There is a lot to consider when doing a repower, there is "NO One Size Fits ALL" model. The 1005 horsepower engine is being used in a number of applications because it falls below the EPA horsepower rules.

I am currently doing some cost figures on rebuilding an Alco with a 12V251C engine. Because this locomotive was rebuilt before 1973 I can rebuild it "in kind". If I chose to repower this locomotive, I would have to meet EPA rules.

For less then $112,000 I can completely rebuild the 12V251C engine { including splitting the engine block to remove the crankshaft }, the turbocharger and the GE 581 main generator. If, I want to upgrade the wheel slip system, then there are systems available. Following a rebuild of this type, I can count on this locomotive for more then 10 years of service, by that time I will be 71 years old, may not be here or care.

The type of service we are looking at, just a few days a week, will not give use the return on a $750,000 to a $1,4000,000 as far as I can see. If you can get the government grants, it will reduce the cost to around $250,000 to $300,000. You must also remember that these grants are not without conditions. One is a locomotive in trade that must be destroyed. Another is a 7 to 10 year agreement to prohibits getting rid of the locomotive if you are not happy with it.

Just carefully look at what you are doing and talk with people that have repowers before you just off the cliff.

I was going to let this thread die due to the fact a few people thought I was bashing Alco’s. The original intent of the conversation had nothing to do with bashing Alco’s but it sure seamed to get high jacked by that mindset. Next thing you know someone will chime in defending Baldwin’s. No one in the E.M.D. camp took offence to these posts. Also there are some misconceptions posted that need to be cleared up.

A test between the "Green" and an ALCO has to be on a level playing field. Put a brand new 251 engine in the RS-18 and retrofit it with a GE wheel slip system.
Not if the customer has no interest in doing anything like that. Their money, their Call. The playing field is what it is, not what you think it should be.
In fact if you put a good wheel slip system in an ALCO T-6, I bet it would pull 11 cars easily. The T-6 has a 6-251 engine.
I’m sure it would. The only problem is when you put a good wheel slip system in an old locomotive you will “weed out” all weak components. We have proven this in other locomotives we have put a good system in.(not just the TMV system) Leave the “if’s” out. If if’s were whiskey we would all be drunk. Again No one here was bashing Alco’s

BTW, ALL NEW FM/ALCO diesels are up to date as far as emissions go.
Show me the C.A.R.B. certificate to back this claim. If they were why doesn’t N.R.E. use them instead of the route they are going? In almost 3 years of research we haven’t been able to find creditable NOx or PM numbers. Up to date able to meet current Specifications for new locomotives?
Some more to consider on repowers;
I really do believe that these can be a good way to go, under the right application. In a slow speed, under 15 mph application a 1005 hp "MTU" 12V2000 engine would work great. But, can they maintain 25 mph or above track speed day in and day out, I doubt it.
Daily tests have proven this doubt wrong. Everyone in the cab was “all smiles” when it hit transition at 21 M.P.H. for the first time and continued to accelerate to 30 M.P.H. (track speed limit) This was with a 14 car test train.
As I posted in an earlier post;
Weight equals tractive effort!
Horsepower equals speed!
Another very good example: These specifications are out of an EMD manual.
EMD SW1001 switcher;
8V645E engine, 1,000 Hp., 900 RPMs., 654 C.I./Cylinder for a total of 5160 cubic inches.
Average weight of locomotive: 119 tons/238,000 pounds
Starting tractive effort 95,000 pounds
Continous tractive effort of 42,000 pounds at 6.7 mph.
Tractive effort at 25 mph is 11,500 pounds
This is a loss of 88% of it's tractive effort at 25 mph because it does not have the horsepower to sustain it.
Now an EMD GP40-2 to show what horsepower does.
16V645E3B turbocharged, 3,000 Hp., 654 C.I./Cylinder for 10,320 total cubic inches.
Average weight of the locomotive 135 ton/270,000 pounds
Starting tractive effort of 86,000 pounds
Tractive effort at 25 mph is 40,000 pounds
This is a loss of about 54% of it's tractive effort at 25 mph.
Nice math lesson and factual but neither locomotive has advanced traction control systems as spec’ed above. Also the SW-1001 is straight DC not AC rectified to DC as all modern locomotives do. Yes this makes a difference. (another disadvantage of all the Alco’s mentioned as well as older E.M.D.’s)

All locomotives have a loss of horsepower to what is called "parasite loss". This is the power it takes to run auxiliaries, such as air compressors, traction motor blowers, fan drives and fans, etc.. This power has to from somewhere. Even running the alternator takes some power. On an Alco, it takes around 60 horsepower to just run the air compressor. In addition, all of it's other auxiliaries are mechanically driven.
Some where I guess the explanation of the fact the Lean and Green 1005 H.P. does not have “Parasite” Loss due to the fact nothing extra is run of from the 1005 H.P. engine doesn’t matter here. That fact makes the above statements a non-issue. THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE 1005 HORSEPOWER. I guess I understand the confusion. This concept has never been done before hence the fact it is patent pending. ALL OF THE “PARASITE” LOADS ARE DRIVEN OFF THE A.P.U.

There is a lot to consider when doing a repower, there is "NO One Size Fits ALL" model. The 1005 horsepower engine is being used in a number of applications because it falls below the EPA horsepower rules.
No, it does not fall below any E.P.A. rules. There are E.P.A. rules for ALL internal combustion engines even lawn mowers. It is an E.P.A. certified engine. (I can post the C.A.R.B. certificate if need be)

The type of service we are looking at, just a few days a week, will not give use the return on a $750,000 to a $1,4000,000 as far as I can see. If you can get the government grants, it will reduce the cost to around $250,000 to $300,000.
You are not factoring the fuel and lube oil savings into this statement. If anyone believes fuel and oil prices are going to go down drastically in the future…. Well okay then, keep dreaming.
Has anyone of the critics here taken into consideration that many people/companies would be more willing to donate money to your cause knowing it is “green”? This is a fact in today’s world. When you go outside of our little world this is a big thing. These potential money sources don’t have brand loyalty.

You must also remember that these grants are not without conditions. One is a locomotive in trade that must be destroyed. Another is a 7 to 10 year agreement to prohibits getting rid of the locomotive if you are not happy with it.
Locomotive trades do NOT have to be destroyed ,only the engine. You are allowed to harvest all reusable parts from the engine and only destroy the block. You then have to show proof that you disposed of it. The receipt from the scrap dealer proves that. Yes you can keep that money as well as any money made on the sale off all parts not required.
You can resell the locomotive to someone else operating in a non-attainment area. Sometimes this is limited to the state that issued the federal money but you can “get rid” of it. There are several other ways to get out of the deal as well.

Just carefully look at what you are doing and talk with people that have repowers before you just jump off the cliff.
I couldn’t agree more. The big thing is you open your mind for a different view. Preconceived thoughts cloud the truth at times, and many times waste money. Education is important in all decisions. Make sure it is factual,and pertains to your situation, not someone else’s opinion.

I suspect that the only reason you see that is the biggest market is elsewhere other than the U.S. However, The U.S Navy and Coast Guard are both big users of the ALCO 251 engine.

"Show me the C.A.R.B. certificate to back this claim. If they were why doesn’t N.R.E. use them instead of the route they are going? In almost 3 years of research we haven’t been able to find creditable NOx or PM numbers. Up to date able to meet current Specifications for new locomotives? "

As I mentioned earlier, both the Marine and Stationary markets are big users of the ALCO 251 engine. Since the EPA requires very low emissions on those engines as well as locomotives, it stands to reason that FM/ALCO is not going to throw away years of work to establish a business using this diesel without making improvements to meet EPA standards.I suspect the figures are out there, but I am not sure where.

You would have ask a FM/ALCO Rep about Certificates. As far as rebuilding current ALCOS, I believe that as long as the old block is used and rebuilt, the requirements are grandfathered. The rules apply only to brand new engines.