BNSF 9600, Shrink Wrapped! Whats to come???

Didn't think they had to meet tier whatever, they weren't built then. The 710 is actually a very clean engine that EMD hasn't had any plans to replace even amungst the tier this n that.

Those early 70MAC's are getting to be 16yrs old or better now too. Maybe it's just time.

 

Umm, I cannot imagine that that is true at all.

For one, EMD has a kit to upgrade the 710 to meet CFR 1033. Which is the requirement for those engines. As far as I know, BNSF has already applied the part to the GP60Ms for California work.
So in fact, the 710 is upgradeable.
Secondly, the idea that the 710 needs to be replaced with a 4 cycle in the near term is also bull plop.
EMD and Argonne already have a version of the 710 that meets tier 3 without after treatment. And rumors have it that they can meet tier 4 with it without after treatment.

Now, its true that at some point, the 70s won't be good enough anymore, but I'm pretty sure that's at least a decade down the road if not further.

 

And won't THAT be a fun weathering project to model?

 

Scrapping SD 70 MACs

BNSF 9600 has major damage of some kind, that BNSF doesn't seem interested in fixing so she is going into L-O-N-G term storage @ Glendive MT. She is going to have ALL useable parts harvested. The word from the BNSF Alliance NE Diesel shop from which I work is not a happy one for this unit. The 710 is NOT a clean engine, I have access to the opacity test(emissions test for a locomotive). and trust me they DO NOT meet emssions. The special part(s) is basically a CO2 scrubber and it is expensive to maintain. It is not cost effective to equip the MACs with these parts. They are 15 or so years old and they are showing thier age. They are failing more and more and in too critical of places ie Crawford Hill, Logan Hill , Claremont Hill and single track to name a few. And when they go down they do it in a big way. The GP-60's are captive to California, because CA emissions are more restrictive than current federal emissions. So it is more cost effective to equip those units that stay in CA. Not an entire fleet of locomotives. The GEEVO's are the only thing meeting emissions right now and standards that are not even in effect yet. I look for BNSF to be a GE railroad in the not far off future. Or come up with a 4 Stroke replacement. The world said Oh they will never get rid of the steam engine and look where they ALL went, to the parks and the scrapper....That's just how it is.

 

Well, I don't work in a diesel shop, but I have seen the fuel consumption and emissions numbers for the 16-710G3C-T2 and it meets or beats the GEVO.
So, I have a hard time beliving the ACe is causing problems. Of course the MAC doesn't meet the GEVO. It's older than the GEVO. that's not a useful comparison. Compare it to an AC4400. With the 1033 part.

 

I'm sure that BNSF has looked into the long term storage solution for a while. Yes, the units in question may not ever run under their own power again, but the chance of them being "mounds of rust" are fairly slim if sored properly. The Aerospace Maintenance And Regeneration Group, "The Boneyard", in Tuscon has thousands of military aircraft that have been in storage since the end of WWII.

There are a large number of them that have been in storage since the 80-90s that could be rebuilt and flown, in fact the Marine Corps is currently taking delivery of at least two CH-53 helicopters a year that have been in storage for over a decade. The process would be the same for an engine as it is for an airplane.

All ports, vents, and openings are covered. Then a protective barrier is applied to the windscreens and surfaces, similar to shrink wrap.
http://www.amarcexperience.com/Default.asp

My only question is where are they planning on storing them? AMARG is in AZ and there is a similar "boneyard" in Mojave CA for commercial aircraft. The process works best in drier environments.

 

The key is have them completely sealed up. The computers on the 70's are full of dirt and coal dust. So now they get hot or short out under load and wham-o you are now in two and get to go pack iron. And spend the next 4-5 hours tying down your train and putting it back together again. Because it (the computer) just anchored your DP unit. The key here, they are showing their age and they don't meet emissions unless are equipped with some expensive upgrades. BNSF is not that interested in spending that kind of money to try and save them. A fairley inexpensive 4 stroke engine might save them. As far the ACe goes it meets emissions now but not a couple of years. The ACe program is a failure. The shop can't keep'em running. They are rattling them selves apart. They are a nightmare to work on. Mitsubishi made the inverter system and walked away from the program. No tech support, no schematics just "sionara" and walked away from the program. Their mean time between failure rate for a new locomotive is not that great. The GE's are way better. Unless they need wheels, then they go into the weeds and wait for a wheel set. The GEEVO's are also a 4 stroke diesel engine that currently meet emissions and those that are not in place yet.

 

Yes, the Southwest would be ideal. That's why they store airplanes here long-term. And why we can drive around daily in 50-year old cars.

 

Please look up and read:
Particulate Matter Emissions From Tier 2 Locomotives" by Joseph McDonald EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

Both the GEVO and the Tier 2 710 will meet T3 emissions when running ultra low sulfur fuel.
I actually presume this is how MPI and GE will get the GEVO to Meet T3 specs for the new MTBA commuter engines.
They are in a virtual dead heat on fuel consumption.

I can't speak to their over the road characteristics nor would I. BNSF has been a mostly GE shop for a long time now, so who knows what sort of institutional biases that entails.
Also, I'd assume that coal hauling is tough on any locomotive.

I do know that EMD makes their parts cheaper than GE and so its cheaper to buy a GE up front, but cheaper to maintain an EMD over time. That's one of the reasons why there are so many old EMDs around and so few GEs, but whether that applies to stuff as new as the MACs I don't know.

One thing I do know is your statements implying that a 4 Stroke design is better for emissions are misplaced. And GE currently has not a clue how they will get the GEVO to meet tier 4. While rumors out of Argonne are that the 710 test engine comes darn close already without after-treatment.


On the practical side, wouldn't the GE computers in the AC4400s have the same problem?
BNSF bought a lot of MACs I think that it only makes sense that more of them would be having problems. There are more of them out there TO have problems.

Incidently, I've seen a number of reports at the usual places from Engineers and shop employees stating that Modern EMDs have Higher Availability than GEVOs. I don't know that its true, but I've heard it.


We'll have to see what happens as Tier 3 requirements pop up. I always see doom and gloomers saying EMD has nothing, and yet, I find that hard to imagine. Certainly now that Cat will be paying the R&D bills.
These same doom and gloomers were out in force when the ACe and M-2 came out, yet prior to the recession, EMD London was regularly at capacity (a capacity lower than GE Erie). Certainly they've sold a lot of engines...just not many to BNSF or Canadian Pacific.

 

GE does it with a 12 cylnder 4 stroke diesel and get 4400 horsepower and meet emissions now and the ones coming. The failure fleet can not. EMD NEEDS a 4 Stroke Engine to save themselves. Why do you think Honda Watercraft went to a 4 stroke engine for their personal watercraft, IT MEETS EMISSIONS. The 710 is an old design and for the most part has outlived her usefullness. Cat get in here and get a cost effeicient 4 stroke saviour. Cat has the R&D to do it.

 

Its actually a different story, the 20-645 apparently had better fuel consumption than most prime movers on the market....

 

The 265H is a completely different animal than a 645 or 710. I think the 265 got 6000 hp out of 16 cylinders. Now, a 265 that is set to deliver 4500 hp might be better behaved.

Also, the photo of 9600 is tagged as being in Minnesota, not the desert Southwest. If they leave it there for the test, I still think it'll be in bad shape when it comes out of storage.

 

The 265H in the 90Mac was a V16. They did intend to offer an SD89Mac-H with a V12 at 4500HP, but they never sold one.

BN Fan, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Both the EMD 710 engine and the GE EVO engine meet Tier 2 right now and both meet Tier 3 right now with Ultra Low Sulfur fuel. Actual real life testing shows that they are roughly equally fuel efficient.
The GEVO has much bigger cylinders, it needs them to get 4350 ponies out of a V12. So it is actually a bigger displacement engine than the V16 710.

There have been a number of discussions on a number of places on the internet. I will not specify them per the rules, but those discussions have included engineers, Railroad Shop personnel and diesel engine designers/Mechanical engineers.
Simply stating that "EMD MUST have a 4 cycle design" is not true based on the knowledge of many people I've read. I too defer to those knowledgeable, but I've read enough of them to know that statement is BUNK.
The 710 will at least make it through Tier 3. Tier 4 maybe not.

A 2 cycle Roots blown Diesel is nothing like your average put put lawn mower 2 cycle. It doesn't have the same emissions issues.

Coincidently, the H-Macs are not Tier 2 compliant, but Argonne has a 265H that has met tier 2. Not sure about tier 3.

 

Actually, per that chart, an SD45 isn't all that much of a hog compared to equivalent HP units.

And of course, the equivalent HP units are newer with microprocessor controls and EFI.
a 20-645 block with such advantages would sip less fuel.

My understanding was that while fuel consumption was an issue during the energy crisis, the real problem was the crankshafts breaking all the time. That was why SP derated their 45s. To reduce Crankshaft wear, not to reduce consumption.