Point by point:

1) Many of the patents related to 251 plus,e.g.-application of the GE twin outlet turbo and intercooler arrangment-are owned by GE. Look it up !!!

2)The FDL and 710 have been in continuous development since conception. The only place on earth where the 251 has been in continuous development is INDIA. The Indian version shares very few part numbers with the NA version.

3) A conversation with a now retired FM Engineering VP indicated that FM had found little interest in 251 rail applications in North America. Ergo, a possible certification program for locomotive use was cancelled.

4) The entire LOCOMOTIVE must conform to EPA 1033-not just the engine. There is no Alco locomotive on earth that conforms to 1033, as they don't have to.

5) The last new Alco engines built for locomotive use (32 ) were sold to Pakistan back in 1992.

6) The emissions standards for engines used in locomotive, marine, and locomotive service are all DIFFERENT. Locomotive engines face a particular challenge due to the clearance diagram and weight restrictions-which limit the application of exhaust aftertreatment equipment.

DPK

As I said before since we were discussing the "plus" package, Bombardier did development with GE continuing AFTER BBD sold them the rights. GE turned around and sold everything to FM who offers the 251 "plus" engine as standard equipment.

I don't dispute GE twin turbo patent nor do I dispute anything else you said, however, most locomotive operators of 251engines get them rebuilt or rebuild them themselves. Its alot cheaper than buying a new engine.
The market for rebuilt 251 engines is pretty good regardless of what kind of service it sees. Waymore Power has a good portion of the marine market as well as the locomotive market in his hand.

Sooner or later all the older engines will succumb to EPA rules unless someone finds a better way to make them complaint. I am sure FM is doing R&D on ALL its offering for that purpose.
No one builder can build an engine of any size and expect it to be EPA complaint unless its designed that way.
Needless to say, even these so called "Green Goats" are not ready unless R&D is done before hand.

Lets take your "Point by point"

1. GE may hold the patents, but John had made a note that the 251 plus package was developed by Bombardier, not GE. I do believe that he is right on this, GE may have acquired this patent.

As for the twin turbo, that was GE and the Lake State Railway going to have one of their Alco C425m units converted by GE for an in-service test unit. I know this for a fact as one of my best friends was the CMO at Lake State Railway at the time this was proposed.

2. The Alco 251 engine has been in continous development in this country since it was first designed. The first 251 engines were 6 cylinder units to test the design of the engine in service, before going wholehog like they did with the 244 engine which was installed into customers' locomotives before the development/testing process was done.

If you think there has been no on going development of the 251 engine, then you know NOTHING! There have been many upgrades to this engine over the years. While it started as a 6 cylinder, it quickly went to a 12 and 16 cylinder. Then a V8 and V18 were developed. There have been many block changes. I have a 12V251 "B" in my locomotive, it should have a "C" block, but a crankshaft failure resulted in a complete engine changeout by a former owner. The current block being built is an "F" series.

There have been crankshaft, camshaft, piston, rod, bearings, head, water pump, injector, injector pump, exhaust manifold, turbo changes. Do I need to go on?

Get you a parts manual and look at all the updates.

As for parts. Where do you think most of the current cylinder liners come from? I will give you a hint, INDIA. The EPA has all but killed the foundry industry in this country. Just because the India version shares few part numbers with the American version, means nothing.

3. There has been NO rail market for the 251 engine from FM for sometime. This is no ones fault other then FM's. They purchased the rights to the Alco 251 engine, but not the turbo { which is owned by a company called Globe } or the upgrades from GE. GE does not want Alco as a competitor.

FM has also priced theirselves out of the Alco market other then the U S government, which does not care what they pay for anything, as it is taxpayer's money.

4. Locomotive built before 1972 do not have to comply to the new EPA rules, they are "Grandfathered". They can be rebuilt "in kind", which means no upgrading from as built. EMD's built before 1972 are also under this same rule. Infact, EMD 567C engines are not allowed under the rules to have 645E packs installed in them, as this is considered an upgrade.

According to the head of a company I work with that has done repowers for close to 40 years, the EPA has decided if you want to run an antique, then you run it as an antique with no upgrades.

5. Does not men a thing.

6. "Locomotive engines face a particular challenge due to the clearance diagram and weight restrictions-which limit the application of exhaust aftertreatment equipment."

All locomotive builders/rebuilders are facing this challenge and are getting the job done. This challenge would be no different for an Alco, then it is for a GE or an EMD. The space under the hood is limited on all locomotives.

There is no reason to be concerned with this challenge in an Alco, as there is no market for Alco locomotives any more.


An engine is an engine. Caterpillar's engines are 4 cycles as are GE's. If their was a market for FM to get a return on their investment, then I am sure that an Alco 251 could be made to meet EPA standards. The one main challenge to getting the 251 to meet the current rules, lies in it's head design. The 251 does not have a crossflow head. To install a crossflow head, would require some type of new exhaust system. The head could still get it's air from the air passage down the center of the block, or you could stick to the same exhaust piping design and reroute the air to the cylinder heads.

As for replacing the engine in the C420 at the Cuyahoa Valley Scenic Railroad, I believe that time will show this as a folly. While it will cut down on smoke, I have said it before and I will say it again, I do not believe that the fuel saving that are being claimed will pan-out in the long run. If an Alco had to be used for this repowering, then the C425 would have been a better candidate. The 12 cylinder 251 engine is hard to beat and the 16 cylinder is never used to it's full power.

In the end, if it was their money and not that of the taxpayers', this would not even being done.

Setting aside that I had no idea how sacred that Alcos had become and going back to the original subject. Emission reduction and fuel savings sounds to me like something that is just good for us all. Most tourist operations don't run passenger trains at 79 mph, many of them run in scenic locations at slow speeds. I would also guess that 95% of the passengers could care less what is under the hood. I would also think that it is not a good image to be smoking up the sky.

I find it very exciting that there are new options on the market thanks to new 21st technology, that could bring previously dead locomotives back to life again. How many such locomotives are there around the country that might benefit from this new American made re-powering? Think about this the hopeless locomotive sitting in the back lot rusting gets sent to an American locomotive rebuilding company, to get an American made power plant, that was built by American workers to run on an American tourist line. I am sure that there are many who will disagree with the need for tourist lines to reduce emissions or save fuel. But think about how many tourist lines there are around the country and add up all the emissions, I bet it adds up to equal to one of the major roads fleets. I think it is time we do our part.

Look, I like the sights and sounds of the classics the same as the next guy. This concept of a re-power sounds like something that could be good for the industry. I would like to know how many dead hulks there are out there that the people here know of.

Way too many dead hulks are going to scrap because of the current high scrap prices.

I do agree with the last post about doing our part to save fuel, etc. But for the type of useage that most tourist railroads use their locomotives, there is NO WAY that they will pay for a million dollar locomotive with fuel savings alone. Way too many of these enviro locomotives are only being built because that government has made taxpayer dollars available to purchase them. Most of the grants pay for about 80% of the purchase. How many tourist railroads do you know that have $200,000 sitting around to purchase one of these locomotives? Most can barely pay their bills, much less care for the equipment they have on site.

The unit we are talking about is only being purchased because of their connection to the National Park System. Most other tourist operations will not qualify.