You know when I first saw this thing operating and read about its efficiency that was the first thing that popped into my head. It seems several museums/tourist operations have gutted hulks of E or F units sitting on the property either as display or a "we'll get to it later project". This might be the smart solution for dependable, cost effective power for the daily out and back trips while the real artifacts are kept for special occasion service. What you end up with certainly isn't a museum piece but provides the eye candy while saving wear and tear on the important pieces for future generations to enjoy.

Just a thought.

Kevin O

Don't laugh but a while ago when all the GG 1 stuff was on here we did the math and you could do one. With the room left over and muffler advancements you would hardly here the Diesel running.

Retrofits with modern smaller engines that meet the current emissions standards may be worth investigating for locomotives that were taken out of service due to major failure of the previous prime mover or have been parts sources while they were sitting in the back lot. Some of these conversions may qualify for special funding and also for tax credits. There is plenty of space available in an F-unit or E-unit body to install this kind of machinery, and the cost may be competitive with rebuilding older prime movers where parts are becoming increasingly scarce. Such a conversion is likely to have a longer service life expectancy than rebuilding the original equipment simply because of the parts issue alone. With every passing year the supply of OEM parts for 50+ year old locomotives diminishes.

But doing this kind of installation requires a business decision on whether a locomotive not suitable or feasible for restoration to its original configuration and a willingness to accept that the deviation from OEM equipment may be a necessary tradeoff to allow its continued operation. Some folks may not like that at all.

It would help preservation if there were fewer instances where millions of dollars were spent trying to restore that which is unrestorable only to end up with very high visibility failures. A certain Winton engine is a prime example. There just aren't enough potential contributors to this hobby and industry coming along that it can afford to pursue projects that crash and burn.

PC

You could start by installing one in a gutted GG1 body.

Ducking for cover...[/quote]
Better idea, take guts from an AEM7 and mate with a GG1. Now taking shelter in the nearest bunker to avoid any further nuclear fallout.

And would putting an AEM-7s frame under a GG-1 solve the metal fatigue issues that took the G-motors out of service in the first place?

May I vote we keep this thread on topic? It was getting interesting!

These kinds of conversions and upgrades would be a good topic for a clinic presentation at an ARM convention sometime with some details of the range of modern prime movers that are most adaptable to older locomotive applications and a look at the replacement locomotive control systems that are available. Now that ARM is allied with TRAIN, it is an opportunity for engine builders or their dealers to show their products to an audience where there might actually be a few potential buyers.

Taking the discussion one step further, for the operations on many tourist railroads there is frequently no need to match the horsepower rating of the original prime mover, their operations simply do not need that kind of capability. This opens the door for some relatively small engine-generator packages that might be accomodated in the space available in the carbody and within the weight restrictions without the need to remove the original prime mover(s).

This is particularly true for EMD E-units.

PC

Preston is correct in his post. Making track speed of 25 M.P.H. up a 1.5% grade with a 11 car train proves 1005 H.P. would be more than enough for most operations. The unit makes transition and just keeps going.
Modern control systems are so far ahead of what's being replaced there really is no comparison. The unit was M.U.ed with an Alco to pull a 30 car stone train. It was bumping the Alco due to the Alco wheel slipping. The Lean and Green pulled the train and was pushing the Alco. All of this with out any sand. (none in the boxes).
Spin off technology is not an after thought in this package. There is enough power (480 volt 3 phase) to run shop equipment.It can be used as stand by power in the event of a power failure. If the user has limited power available this can solve that problem as well. Plus you have a 30 H.P. air compressor to meet all of your air needs.
The rectifier Is fairly small and self contained. They are tested with 480 3 phase and can take 2,500 amps for 15 minutes and not get hot.( we didn't use the cooling fan in the test)The company we designed it with feels it would make a perfect substation for a electric railway operation.( they have allot of experience in the field) Hook it up to commercial power and you are good to go. Very simple. It is affordable as well.
The A.P.U. unit can be installed in a wide range of locomotives and provide enough power with out having to go to the larger prime mover. It would be a great fit for a small G.E. other smaller locomotives. The fuel consumption is very impressive on these units.
There is a gutted E-unit in the market for sale cheap. You could actually put 2 of the 1005 H.P. units in it or just one 1550 H.P. unit and have more than enough locomotive for any ones needs. With good grant writing the users match costs could be paid back in a few years in fuel savings alone. It could be brought back to life for less money than trying to restore it to one of it's former past lives.(567 or 645 powered)
The fact it is all tier 4i makes it eligible for grant money in many areas. The package has been approved for Carl Moyer funds. This can help improve your public image as well.
Just a few more things to think about.

If the purpose of your operation is effectively a "people mover"--a wine dinner train, the Cuyahoga Valley (well, forgive me for remembering the days when it was 4070 and heavyweights!), Grand and Verde Canyons, one of those lines that hauls inner-tubers or bicyclists one-way, the State Fair Train, etc.--then applying for this support and funding, should you be eligible, is almost a no-brainer. We need not re-start the debate over the pros and cons of the conditions attached to government subsidies/grants, or whether it's "pork-barrel politics" that deserves more support or elimination--search this forum for previews before starting that subject, it's probably been said before. The fact remains, it MAY be there, you MAY BE eligible, and there's more than likely an eligible "hulk" for rebuild lying about somewhere easily accessible to you.

If the purpose of your operation is "historical"--Strasburg, EBT, Cumbres & Toltec, etc.--then it's different. We need not revisit the 1960's travesty of a Caterpillar engine dropped in the frame of an 0-6-0 (Heritage Park, Calgary, Alberta, Canmore Mines 4, ex-CPR 6144). But, just to provoke some chin-stroking and neuron-activation, Look at this:
http://www.sterlingrail.com/classifieds/classified.php?id=1994

The White Pass & Yukon just put three of their vintage Alcos up for sale through Sterling Rail. Bring them down, rebuild them, and dole them out one apiece to East Broad Top, C&TS, and Durango & Silverton. (Heck, nominate another three-footer, I don't care.)

Now, a trickier proposition may be the likes of the B&O Museum or the Western Maryland Scenic. The B&O Museum offers a ride out and back on the "first mile," but chooses to use a non-historic SW1200 for the duty (apparently thinking that they don't want to wear out a real artifact in service). They need HEP for the AC in their cars, and they're currently using (or are about to use) a former MARC HEP cab car (built from an F7) for the job. Since the MARC F7 has already been gutted, AND there's a WM f7 on the property properly preserved, AND they're in an urban (pollution) area in what could be sarcastically called a "bleedin'-heart lib'rul" state, AND the "green" technology allegedly severely reduces fuel consumption......... I'm coming up with that word "no-brainer" again.........

WMSR? Longer run, lots of dinner trains, already uses diesel for a lot of their work, so seemingly once again a no-brainer, provided dynamic braking is offered. However, how much has WMSR spent marketing its steam and "Rolling Thunder" image?

Relative to the issue of authenticity and correct historical appearance, I would just like to offer the following observation. This might get some people upset but since we are dealing with ideas here rather than cutting holes in a real locomotive, why not.

With current technology engine and alternator packages it is entirely possible to re-engine an EMD E-unit up to almost 1500 horsepower range with the new prime mover and alternator in the steam generator compartment, and have no cosmetic changes at all to the main engine room, retaining and carrying around the two EMD 567's and their generators (as ballast and a historical display). It really isn't that big a departure from the E-units that carried diesel HEP units in their final years, there are engines available now that can do it within the space and weight constraints. If you wanted to carry it further by trying to maintain or restore "original" appearance, it is possible although more complicated to do this and have no external changes to the appearance of the locomotive, and even use an original or replica steam generator roof hatch. Just something to think about as regards keeping the original historic equipment while adding new technology.

PC

We are having this same discussion at the New Hope Valley Railway. One of the two engines in our GE 80 ton locomotive #71 is bad and needs replacement. The rest of the locomotive is in good condition. We are currently weighing three options; replacing the engine with a rebuilt or used engine of the same make and model; replacing both engines with more modern but still used industrial type engines that would require new generators; or replace both engines with modern, brand new engines that can use the existing generators such as the APUs found in Lean and Green.

Our Collections Policy is also being re-thought. Our latest draft includes 4 different asset types, and it makes a distinction between operating assets used directly for generating revenue (whether they are historic or not) and historic assets that ought to be preserved and interpreted rather than actually ran.

Part of our mission is to replicate a typical North Carolina Short Line experience. In our discussions about remotoring our 80 tonner we asked what a North Carolina short line would do if a locomotive needed an engine rebuilt. I do not think it would be a stretch to say that they would pursue grants or government subsidies to replace old, worn out engines with new, modern engines in the same frame or shell.

Put those three ideas together and it makes perfect sense to re-motor an asset used directly in generating revenue in support of maintaining the historic assets of the museum with new engines. Especially when those new engines would be more reliable, cheaper to operate, and could act as a marketing tool to our number one customer; Moms with young children who would be delighted at the sight of a "green" locomotive pulling the train distracting their kids for an hour.

The big decision is whether that Alco, GE, F Unit, or whatever is an asset whose fabric should be preserved, or an asset that should be used. A decision we have yet to make about our little GE.

I agree with PCook, this would make a great clinic at TRAIN/ARM. I look forward to further discussion.

Regards,
Mike MacLean
President, New Hope Valley Railway

All this discussion is interesting and educational, but let's say we're running the PD&Q, an average sort of excursion-minded railroad with 10 miles of slow track, a GP9, and a half dozen excursion cars of various ilk.

The "green" concept is appealing and the 16-567 in our geep is ailing.

What would be a real world number for the cost to gut the geep and install a modern power package that would enable it to do what it now does on our 15 mph RR? Let's not complicate the issue with talk about grants. That kind of money is nice to talk about but it's not always available.

So, what would that conversion cost our RR?

Lets go back to the fuel usage and savings.

First of all, I am sorry, and I do not want to make anyone mad, but I do not believe you fuel figures. 279 gallons of fuel for the Alco.

How did you measure that fuel?
Over what period of time?
When was the last time that locomotive had it fuel system checked?
Are the injectors bad and the fuel pumps improperly set?
When was the last time it had a complete engine overhaul?
Was someone playing with the throttle just to make it smoke?

The only fair way to compare fuel consumption of two different locomotives, is to run the same train with one locomotive, then run that same train with the other locomotive.

The Detroit "MTU" series can measure their fuel useage, but were did you put a fuel meter on the Alco.

Anyone who has ever run an Alco locomotive mued to another locomotive, knows that the Alco will do the lion's share of the work. If I am not mistaking, that RS18 has a GE electric/hydraulic governor. These were great governors for switching, allowing the kicking of cars in the yard, but they were bad for fuel useage and throw large clouds of smoke out the stack. When you pull the throttle out on the Alco, it goes.

Try one with a "Woodward Governor" with load limiting.

What about the wheel slip control system on the Alco, when was the last time the "Blue Cards" were tested and set? Were all the axle alternators working properly?

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?

Now cost:

There is no doubt that with heavy usage, these repowers can pay for their selves over several years. How many years are these going to run, before they need a major overhaul?

I know of 4 Alco C425m's that ran 25 years without have a main bearing installed or a complete engine rebuild.

I priced the teir 4i engine and it is around $200,000 from a dealer depending on options. This is the engine alone. No alternator, no air compressor, no electricals, no APU unit and no installation cost.

CSX purchased 2 triple engine locomotives for the Avon yard in Indianapolis for $1.4 million each. They received grants for 80% of that with the help of the city. That still leaves the cost at around $280,000 each and we the tax payers are paying the $1,120,000. balance of the cost each.

Mike, a Southern shortline in 1955 would set it aside, buy the cheapest working unit they could find within reasonable distance, and cannibalize the old one to keep the newer one working until it too gave out. The shortline would probably go out of business then, as marginal returns preclude investing in better power and maintenance. If not marginal, it would get absorbed.

I'd suggest there's a better rationale for a changeout, but since the collections policy is a work in progress I'm not privy to, I don't know exactly which to suggest.

dave

Not mad. don't worry Thick skinned.
When was the last time that locomotive had it fuel system checked?
Don't know

Are the injectors bad
no
and the fuel pumps improperly set?
Don't think so

When was the last time it had a complete engine overhaul?
don't know

Was someone playing with the throttle just to make it smoke?
Not supposed to. Park frowns on that.
The only fair way to compare fuel consumption of two different locomotives, is to run the same train with one locomotive, then run that same train with the other locomotive.
We didn't get trick on this test. since we couldn't put a fuel meter on the Alco we did it old school.
On Firday morning both locomotives we filled into the neck.
Alco made Friday runs out and back. Saturday the Lean and Green was put on. Weather was close to the same, Same train same engineer same run length.
Filled both locomotives up to the same spot in the neck. Recorded amounts needed.
Should be a simple comparison.
The Detroit "MTU" series can measure their fuel useage, but were did you put a fuel meter on the Alco. read above.

the 12V2000 1005 H.P. is under 100K It will be hard to compare service life. 12V starts good in the winter uses anti-freeze and has auto start built in. will save allot of idle time wear.
Dave I will have your rough costs tomorrow. longer answer.