It hardly seems like this happened 9 years ago, but since FM acquired the rights to produce the 251 engine, have they installed any of these engines in locomotive applications?

If not, are they competing against rebuilt ALCO/MLW 251's?

Can a marine 251 be stuffed into a locomotive?

How would a fresh new 251 compare to a new 567/645/710 in terms of performance and reliability?

Would there be any 2005 EPA compliance issues with a new install? I seem to recall some comments that the EPA was asserting "new prime mover, new loco, must comply"



"FM ALCO NEWS"
Superheater@rrmail.com

Save for an order of 36 engines sold to Pakistan some time ago, I don't believe that that any "new" 251's have been sold into locomotive application by FM-ALCO.

FM's primary customer is the government,i.e., Navy, Coast Guard, etc. Per the "horses mouth", there isn't much interest in penetrating the rail market. In order meet Tier II standards, FM would have to spend a fortune. Hard to justify with the used loco market being absolutely flooded with product.

Furthermore, on the world stage, DLW of India has been developing the 251 engine for over forty years. Thus, they are positioned to supply and have supplied engines and parts to customers all over the world.

BTW, GE still owns the Alco production license for India. So, they knew what they were doing when they dumped the product line here in the US.

It hardly seems like this happened 9 years
> ago, but since FM acquired the rights to
> produce the 251 engine, have they installed
> any of these engines in locomotive
> applications?

> If not, are they competing against rebuilt
> ALCO/MLW 251's?

> Can a marine 251 be stuffed into a
> locomotive?

> How would a fresh new 251 compare to a new
> 567/645/710 in terms of performance and
> reliability?

> Would there be any 2005 EPA compliance
> issues with a new install? I seem to recall
> some comments that the EPA was asserting
> "new prime mover, new loco, must
> comply"


LocoBuilder@yahoo.com