First of all I have not taken this as a bash Alcos. I, frankly could give a d___ about your opinion about an Alco! You used the Alco as the example. I used an EMD because I have those figures!

I have just tried to get you to deal the with facts!

Everyone who sells these locomotives wants to come out with these massive savings claims. The problem is, they always test them against some old worn out locomotive and the "jury" is still out as to how long these locomotives will last. Since your are in the business and word get around, how about you telling us all about some of the problems that have already come about with these "GREEN LOCOMOTIVES".

What happened to the Greeh Goat?
Died once it got into the real world.

First, many of your own claims changed after I challenged them. The Alco went from an RS18 to the most slippery locomotive on the CVSR system an Alco C425 with a 16 cylinder, 2,500 horsepower and 10,688 cubic inches.

GOOD GOD!!!!!!!! Why would your little ole' 12V2000 "MTU" with it's little 1,464 cubic inches not out perform the Alco on fuel?

As for a future market for the Alco engine, quite frankly, it is and will become even more limited. That is not because it is not a good engine, it is one of the best ever built! Just out dated.

The problem with the Alco engine started years ago with the split between Alco and GE. As such, the market has declined and no one has been willing to really do the "R&D" that could make this engine shine. There were attempts with the 251 "plus" package, but that did not go far enough. As I have discussed with a good friend that worked for Alco, as well as has been the CMO on Alco powered railroads, why has no one tried to develope a fuel injection system alone the lines of the new GE locomotives. The Alco and early GE engines used a very similiar fuel injector. So, why not do away with the fuel injection pumps and go to "electronic fuel injection"? Same thing GE has done as well as most other diesel engine manufactures have done to meet EPA rules.

You make the claim that your's will be more maintenance free then the model offered from CLCX, fine. But I fail to understand why you want to run all of your auxiliaries with an "APU", this is just something else to maintain and you are not giving them away either.

If your locomotive is making transition and making track speed, with all this tractive effort, all the savings in fuel, then why not give up a little to "parasite loss"? Parasite loss is not going to be that great on your locomotive. Get rid of the extra cost of the "APU" and the system to support it.

You talk about not needing a "PHD" to work on your locomotive, well you better have one to read the electrical schematics.

OH, an "Alternator" can be put in an Alco. The fact is that Alco was the first locomotive manufacturer to offer the AC/DC system.

The 4 Alco C425m locomotives I talked about running 25 years without a new main bearing or a complete engine overhaul, well 2 of them had GE GTA11 alternators out of 3,600 horsepower GE 6 axle locomotives installed in them. These locomotives were rebuilt in 1980/1981 by GE Hornell with 12V251C engines, which left enough room in them for the alternator, which was installed by the railroad.

While all new engines do have to meet EPA rules, the 1005 hp. "MTU" fell below most but not all of those rules, that is why it was built and rated at 1005 horsepower.

I believe DLW in India did some development work on electronic fuel injection, as well as some work on turbochargers, perhaps even dual turbochargers. All of this was built on GE's 251 Plus work. So while 251 R&D died here, it is apparently still going on overseas.

You DO NOT have to meet EPA emissions on a pre-1973 locomotive! PERIOD! I have seen this written all over the railfan world, but it's NOT true! Coming from an automotive background, and familiar with the legalese of the CFR, I read the appropriate sections of the CFR. If it was made for use in America and made prior to 1973, it is completely exempt!
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm
If I was rebuilding an Alco, it would have a 251F+ detuned to whatever the radiators could handle. FM-Alco offers this on any 251C or better block, the fuel effciency is supposed to be remarkably better.
By the way, DLW published emissions of some 251 variations, and the 251 can meet current emission standards with only slight modifications. You'd have to contact FM-Alco concerning 251F+ emissions and availability.
Generally, "replacement" engines for older vehicles only have to meet the emission standards of the vehicle, a new 350 bound for a '49 Chevy is exempt and I'd guess a new 251F+ bound for an RS-11 would be the same.

CD

I would have imagined that more people would be aware that Fairbanks Morse still manufactures 251 engines. At least someone is aware. Heck, the NASA crawler is powered by the 251, so there's a readily available supply of 251 parts. 539 and 244 are really the only problem, as they aren't a supported tool line any more.
*edit: come to think of it, the FM opposed-piston engines are still in production for use in marine applications.

Check out some of topics on Google. I think they will help answer q1uestions about the 251 engine.
John

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=u ... 40&bih=836

Setting aside the Alco debate I am interested in knowing more about the Green Machine and the idea of converting older locomotives that have been gutted. Could this really be a viable option in a situation where historic appearance and ambiance are important as well as being in an area with environmental concerns.

Some other questions I have about it would be, can it run on alternative fuels such as Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO)? Did I read this right that it is also possible to get HEP off of it also? I also assume that it can be MUed with other units.

The components of the Lean and Green are all modular and designed to be put in any locomotive. Some of the original design work involved the thought of doing "hulk" locomotive retro-fits. F's, E's, GP anything, Alco carbodys it doesn't matter. The 1550 H.P. model will not fit on an SW platform (Most models) is about the only limiting factor.
It can use original radiators and quite a bit of the original wiring. The 4 leads from the original electrical locker hook right to the rectifier.(assuming this equipment is still there and in good shape)
Alternative fuels are not really an option right now. One of the problems the engineers are finding is consistent fuel quality. The new generation of fuel injectors and pumps require consistently uniform fuel.
H.E.P. is very easy and scalable to meet any needs. There are several options available.
The prototype is M.U. able and has proven to get along well with everything from an Alco to a brand new G.E.s It operates just like any other unit either controlling or controlled. It has 8 throttle notches with 7 different engine R.P.M. just like most locomotives. This makes M.U.ing easier than the genset's that only have 2 or three engine speeds and are bringing engines on and off line. This makes M.U. operations with them problematic.

By "new generation" he means post-1920. :) That is about when diesel design abandoned support for the plant oils that Dr. Diesel originally envisioned.

The engineers are correct that biofuels are not as consistent as the well refined petroleum products. The worst-case biofuel, waste vegetable oil, is rather junky, with particulate, acidity, water content and viscosity issues. Kinda like bunker :) Viscosity is no big deal on an engine you don't expect to be able to start below 40 F. Particulates are solved with filtering, remembering the challenge of filtering viscous fluid. Injector design can affect the engine's tolerance to everything. I don't know if the engine builders are really getting behind making their injectors resilient to the varying properties in WVO... it would be a game-changer for diesels if they did, because diesel fuel is the most viable biofuel. Most likely they're staying modern and just saying "our delicate engines need perfect fuel". :(

The WVO question reminds me of the heavy fuel craze of the 1980s and the liquefied natural gas adventures of the 1990s. The interest in heavy fuels was short lived, several companies (particularly marine and power generating) converted some of their equipment to burn heavy fuels, starting and shutting down on #2 diesel to clean the lines. When demand for heavy fuel started to go up, the price did too, and they were left with a complex system with two fuel tanks burning stuff that was just as expensive as #2 diesel and ate the exhaust valves up in the process. So that one died off pretty quickly. Then there were the liquefied natural gas experiments, where several railroads tried to adapt dual fuel engines to locomotives. Remember the enormous LNG fuel tanks the UP had built, that they were going to put between pairs of locomotives? Out of all of those experiments, I think the only ones that have continually remained in service are the MK1200G switchers, mainly because they were well proven spark ignition CAT 3516's, not dual fuel engines. I still have a Union Pacific LNG program coffee cup, I guess it is a collectors item now. Back in the 1950s it was shale oil and free piston gasifier engines that were going to revolutionize the industry. This stuff would make a great subject for a museum display.

PC

My objection to repowering an Alco is repowering an Alco! They could use a dirt-common Geep and I wouldn't care.
The LNG-powered MK1200G was a failure, not at all reliable (and quickly disposed of by 1/2 of the initial buyers), retained only due to the politics of the region.
If they *must* repower an Alco, I'm rather see it get a GEVO 6-cylinder, which not only is an actual locomotive engine it has emissions and fuel consumption levels on par with the gensets.

CD

I'd like to know how a 45 yr. old Alco could be a solution to current concerns re:
locomotive fuel & lube consumption, emissions and maintainability.


DPK

In the same way that a $800 15-year-old car is a "solution" to not owning a car in an age of $20-30,000 new automobiles: In the long term, it isn't, especially for daily commuting use, but you make do with what you can afford. Provided, of course, you can shoe-horn it through emissions and physical inspections.

There's a reason states and insurance companies have available certain special policies and regulations for "antique" automobiles, after all.

http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/e ... co_251.php

CD

FWIW, the question I posed was rhetorical.

The most recent development on the 251 (the much vaunted 251Plus) dates back some twenty years and was done by GE Locomotives Canada. Given that the rail market place has changed a bit over that time, it is hard to see how the design is still relevant today.

DPK

Correction: The 251 Plus package was created by Bombardier, not GE.
FM/ALCO still does R&D on this engine including updating emissions standards.
Considering that FM still produces the OP engine, GE the FDL and EMD, the 710; I would say that the ALCO 251 is very much relevant.
The GEN-SET package is fine for switching but too weak for road units and certainly not as durable in the long run .