G&W to destroy 88 locomotives as part of settlement with EPA

filmteknik · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:49 pm

So what was the violation? They can’t install a prime mover rebuilt in-kind?

Chris Webster · **Joined:** Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am **Posts:** 1027

filmteknik wrote:

So what was the violation?

From the Consent Decree:

Quote:

34. The Defendants remanufactured the following locomotives and/or locomotive engines, or acquired the following locomotives and/or locomotive engines that had been remanufactured by their prior owners

a. Locomotive identified as AGR3412 remanufactured some time in 2017.
b. Locomotive identified as PNWR 2303 remanufactured some time in 2012.
c. Locomotive identified as CCH 3348 remanufactured some time in 2012.
d. Locomotive identified as CCH 3349 remanufactured some time in 2012.
e. Locomotive identified as CCH 3350 remanufactured some time in 2012.
f. Locomotive identified as HAL 3351 remanufactured some time in 2012.
g. Locomotive identified as CAGY 3353 remanufactured some time in 2012.
h. Locomotive identified as OHCR 4023 remanufactured some time in 2008.
i. Locomotive identified as RCPE3463 remanufactured some time in 2009.
j. Locomotive identified as IORY3494 remanufactured some time in 2005.
k. Locomotive identified as ARZC 3999 remanufactured some time in 2008.

35. All of the locomotives and/or locomotive engines identified in the foregoing Paragraph 34 were sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, delivered for introduction into commerce, placed back into commerce, and/or distributed in commerce without being covered by a certificate of conformity issued by EPA following their remanufacture in violation of Section 203(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1); § 7547(d), 40 C.F.R. § 92.1103(a)(1)(i)(A) (2020) or § 1033.601(e).

and

Quote:

38. From approximately 2011 through the present, Defendants failed to ensure that all emission-related maintenance was performed on multiple locomotives and/or locomotive engines as specified in the maintenance instructions provided by the certifying manufacturer or remanufacturer (or equivalent to the maintenance specified) as required by 40 C.F.R. § 92.1004(a) (2020) and § 1033.815(a). Defendants also failed to maintain and repair multiple locomotives and locomotive engines in such a manner that the locomotive and/or locomotive engine continues (after the maintenance or repair) to meet applicable emissions standards as required by 40 C.F.R. § 92.1004(b) (2020) or 40 C.F.R. § 1033.815(c), and/or to perform required maintenance on locomotives and/or locomotive engines in a timely manner as required by 40 C.F.R. § 1033.815(b).

39. Each failure to perform the required maintenance set forth in the foregoing paragraph constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 92.1004(b) (2020), § 92.1103(a)(3)(iii) (2020) or 40 C.F.R. § 1033.815(a), (b), (c) and (e).

Rainier Rails · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:36 am

Rainier Rails wrote:

Not included in the list are:

PNWR SD9's #1851 and #1853

#1851 and #1853 may also already be off-roster; I remember seeing reports of units being scrapped on the PSAP the other year, waiting on confirmation on which units were cut up.

Various replies to inquiries have provided the following info:

Trucks were swapped between #1501 and #1851, after which the #1851 was sent to the A&E for parts removal and subsequent scrapping.

#1853 was scrapped at Albany.

Both units were scrapped ~10 years back.

Rainier Rails wrote:

PNWR GP9 #1803 ex-Louisiana & Delta RR #1752 (another G&W property), exx-SP #3790, exxx-#3579, nee-#5738...the #1803 was transferred by G&W several years ago from the PNWR to another G&W property in the Pacific Northwest, the Puget Sound & Pacific (PSAP)

(There seems to be some confusion on the #1803, as another source lists that LDRR #1752 was ex-SP #3790, exx-#3578, nee-#5737; and that SP #5738 was later #3579, then #3787, then NBSR #3787.)

#1803 has now been scrapped on the PSAP.

Rainier Rails · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:50 am

Forgot to include numbering histories:

PNWR SD9 #1851 ex-SP #4326, exx-#3819, nee-#5360

PNWR SD7 #1853 ex-SP #1532, exx-#1409, exxx-#2709, nee-#5288

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:08 am

So let me get this straight:

They can use a loco scrapped "~10 years ago" as "credit" against their violation punishment?

Randy Gustafson · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:13 am

I have a client that has contacted the attorney, who contacted the EPA, and got a response that they could be donated to a museum if the prime mover were disabled.

PM me for details, but that's 'more or less' consistent with with happened in California with the GE 70-tonners of the M&ET to qualify for the gensets.

The problem is the prime movers, not the entire locomotive.

G&W has a ton of locomotives, and you'll see this is very railroad specific. I noticed that none of our local lines were on it. So this is a definite pick and choose here, based on something very locomotive and rebuild specific. My experience with G&W is that the railroads may be largely autonomous from each other in many respects.

I know here that the GP38's and 40's are alive and kicking, and one of the GP35's has been converted to a permanent road slug. None on the list.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:23 am

Randy Gustafson wrote:

I have a client that has contacted the attorney, who contacted the EPA, and got a response that they could be donated to a museum if the prime mover were disabled.

PM me for details, but that's 'more or less' consistent with with happened in California with the GE 70-tonners of the M&ET to qualify for the gensets.

The problem is the prime movers, not the entire locomotive.

So:
1) Have them "disable" the prime mover.
2) Get the loco donated.
3) Museum swaps out the "disabled" PM with another one that can at least be made to function.......

Ed Kapuscinski · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:27 am

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

Randy Gustafson wrote:

I have a client that has contacted the attorney, who contacted the EPA, and got a response that they could be donated to a museum if the prime mover were disabled.

PM me for details, but that's 'more or less' consistent with with happened in California with the GE 70-tonners of the M&ET to qualify for the gensets.

The problem is the prime movers, not the entire locomotive.

So:
1) Have them "disable" the prime mover.
2) Get the loco donated.
3) Museum swaps out the "disabled" PM with another one that can at least be made to function.......

Maybe, but it's this type of thinking that gets the EPA knocking on the door of museums. Why poke the bear?

Not everything needs to run.

And honestly, having the engine sans prime mover might be a good opportunity to interpret the history of locomotive emission controls depending on your organization's mission.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:34 pm

Ed Kapuscinski wrote:

And honestly, having the engine sans prime mover might be a good opportunity to interpret the history of locomotive emission controls depending on your organization's mission.

I think I just heard Homer Simpson shouting, "BO-O-O-O-O-O-RING!!!!!!!"

Seriously, that sounds like a solution in search of a problem. We barely even have exhibits explaining the transition from steam to diesel/electric, or the transition from private passenger rail to government-run passenger rail, or the change from rail to road transport in the 20th century.

And whatever one's views of the government regulations on emissions, displaying an incomplete locomotive and having to explain "we only could get this empty because the government made them take out the diesel engine and destroy it" looks like an anti-government political tirade, even if wrapped with "feel-good" environmental information.

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 2492

Frankly, there is an obvious solution here, which ADM IV hinted at but I think doesn't quite realize the possibilities.

Many museums would benefit from an 'interpretive' display of how a diesel prime mover works -- with sectioned crankcase or block, power assemblies, injectors, etc. What better way could there be for a bureaucrat to be utterly assured that a given diesel motor would be made 'unserviceable for making emissions' than to be made into such an exhibit? Indeed, there might be some possibility of grant money from EPA or one of the other agencies to facilitate this...

NS 3322 · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:11 pm

Overmod wrote:

Many museums would benefit from an 'interpretive' display of how a diesel prime mover works -- with sectioned crankcase or block, power assemblies, injectors, etc. What better way could there be for a bureaucrat to be utterly assured that a given diesel motor would be made 'unserviceable for making emissions' than to be made into such an exhibit? Indeed, there might be some possibility of grant money from EPA or one of the other agencies to facilitate this...

One of the best examples of such a display is the UP GE U28C at MOT in St. Louis. It was used by Union Pacific as a mechanical training tool.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=831489

Alan Walker · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:35 pm

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

Randy Gustafson wrote:

I have a client that has contacted the attorney, who contacted the EPA, and got a response that they could be donated to a museum if the prime mover were disabled.

PM me for details, but that's 'more or less' consistent with with happened in California with the GE 70-tonners of the M&ET to qualify for the gensets.

The problem is the prime movers, not the entire locomotive.

So:
1) Have them "disable" the prime mover.
2) Get the loco donated.
3) Museum swaps out the "disabled" PM with another one that can at least be made to function.......

Replace the prime mover with a genset. Problem solved.

Rainier Rails · **Posted:** Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:46 pm

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

So let me get this straight:

They can use a loco scrapped "~10 years ago" as "credit" against their violation punishment?

No, my inclusion of specific data for units that are/have been on the PNWR (some of which are included in the total of 88), is a side-thread within the thread, for those interested in the historical significance of some/all of said PNWR power (in relation to the history and operation of the various ex-SP branchlines in the Willamette Valley).

I did not indicate anything about "credit", sorry if it was interpreted as such, but it was not intended to be.

Stationary Engineer · **Joined:** Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:26 pm **Posts:** 258

If I read it right, you can buy one of those locomotives as long as you put a Tier 3 or 4 engine in it.

Ed Kapuscinski · **Posted:** Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:53 am

traindude70 wrote:

my 10 cents. So long as the left wing party holds power in this country there will be no functional locomotives built in the united states or apparently rebuilt since the EPA holds congressional un-elected power to kill industries. left wing politicians despise american industry and will fight to see it destroyed as they have been proactively working on my entire life. Steam locomotives will be banned by the EPA or heavily regulated out of practical use in the next ten years. They're banning gas stoves and lawnmowers so kiss the beloved hobbies good bye. Remember you will own nothing and be happy...

Ge & EMD are glorified back shops now. No one is buying the tier 4 garbage that collapsed both american locomotive manufactures. GE is now part of wabtec and closed their major plants for a tiny comparable plant in Texas. EMD got bought by caterpillar and last produced a sizable american order when? Basically the Lefts plan to fix locomotive emissions was to mandate an impossible leap in technology and destroy an industry. I'm sure there will be lots of screeching but eh enjoy railroading while it lasts.

Yeah. The EPA that that godless commie Nixon set up is clearly out of control.

G&W to destroy 88 locomotives as part of settlement with EPA

Who is online