New 4 axle power from EMD?

On a model railroad site someone posted a link to this picture showing a "new" 4 axle locomotive based off the GP40 frame/body. Some are calling it a GP68.

Here's the link.
http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails. ... toID=82912

Well, assuming it is a genuine photo ("Photoshop" can play tricks...), it's an interesting idea. The picture of an engine on the side of the hood suggests an EIGHT cylinder version: does anyone here know if 8-710 engines have been produced before this?

The last digit of the (unofficial?) model number suggests a 2000 hp rating: a GP-38 replacement. People keep trying... Recall EMD's BL-2000? I keep thinking that sooner or later the supply of old switchers and roadswitchers is going to dry up and SOMEBODY will start making a profit off replacements, but so far they haven't been big sellers. Good luck to EMD on this one!

V-8 versions of locomotive size diesel engines have often been problematic in the past, and I don't think EMD originally wanted much to do with applications of the 710 engine idea with fewer than 12 cylinders...

Allen, here is another link that was posted today in the same thread.

Guess its official, but as you guessed it does look like a V8.
http://www.emdiesels.com/lms/en/company ... 710ECO.jsp

Its some pretty convincing arguments for it, at least in that press release (but of course, its a company press release!!! hahaha).

With whole GENERATIONS of mechanical people working on the same loco (40 plus years for GP40s), the inside out knowledge of the loco is a tremendous selling point. Also, the most of the parts of the V8 710 look to be the same as all other 710 equipped locos (and maybe even some parts from the 645?) the spare part inventory and costs are going to be cheap, and more than likely, already on hand.

What Ive wondered about the Genset diesels is how long are they going to last. Sure, they are common engines, and can be replaced easily as they are on skids, but why would you want to have to replace them? They are going to wear out faster, and there isn't the knowledge of those engines as there is with the EMD 710.

the only concern I have with these "new" locos is how new is everything else? Are the trucks rebuilt? Is the air system/plumbing checked/rebuilt? New rads? New electrical cabinet? All those things could add costs to the price of the rebuild. However, with BNSF recently purchasing "new" GP38s, you gotta wonder if the big guys are gonna jump on it and expand the concept.

There are a lot of SD40s and SD40-2s still racking up the miles - If a turbocharged V8 710 can put out 2k HP, a Turbocharged V12 710 should be able to put out 3000 HP (looks like maybe 3150HP from the press release), as the turboed V16 puts out about 4000-4200HP. So now, you got the familairity of a SD40-2, equivalent performance of a Turboed V16 645, but with 4 less cylinders, Tier 2 emission compliance and the fuel economy of the newer computer controlled prime mover (and computer controlled troubleshooting and info logging) and 4 less cylinders to feed with pricey diesel fuel.

Maybe EMD has learned, along with some of the other railroads, that the KISS model works - keep it simple, stupid. All these bells and whistles that were selling points in the 1990s and early 2000s aren't exactly helping reliabilty. Newer isn't always better and a "back to basics" approach might not be a bad idea. (wow, thats a lot of cliches in that paragraph isn't there? hahah)

the BL20 was a failure because that was basically an entirely new locomotive, new sheetmetal, new cab, new everything, with a rebuilt (or new, i don't remember) motor. However, this is the other way around. Basically its an old locomotive, but with a totally new and more efficent prime mover (and im assuming/hoping new Main Generator) Something similar to what other companies have been doing to these same locomotives for years now, maybe EMD can do a better job???

There was discussion of this on the LocoNotes group as well. Apparently EMD has done this with a GP9 as well; the horsepower rating is a bit less than 2000 on that unit because of the smaller radiators.

EMD is calling these prototypes GP40ECO and GP9ECO, but the model names entered into the UMLER database are GP68 and GP67, respectively. This could be due to "GP40ECO" being too many characters for the database, and/or somebody out there thought EMD's GP40ECO/GP9ECO designations didn't really reflect traditional EMD locomotive nomenclature. (In that case, GP68 isn't entirely accurate either, as that would represent [based on past EMD naming conventions] a unit with a 16-cylinder, non-turbocharged 710. Oh well...)

If this thing with EMD takes off, maybe GE will get on board and I'll live to see the resurrection of GE roadswitchers with 8-cyl engines!

Not to ask probably such a redundant question. But what does the 645/710 stand for? Cubic inches?

Steve F45 wrote:Not to ask probably such a redundant question. But what does the 645/710 stand for? Cubic inches?

Yes, cubic inches of displacement per cylinder. So, if you have a 16-cylinder 645 engine, the total displacement would be 10,320 cubic inches.

Allen Hazen wrote: does anyone here know if 8-710 engines have been produced before this?

The newest Block Island Ferry, the Block Island (c. 1997) has two EMD 8-710 engines. But there again, that is a marine application. Domestically, there have never been any railroad versions of the 8-710 that I have heard about.

-Dan

The closest thing would be the MP15T and the GP15T, which had turbocharged 8-645 engines.

Another question: What is ULMER?

Thanks

UMLER is an equipment database used by the railroads. More info can be found at:

http://www.railinc.com/view.cfm?cnid=182

[/img]

oh yeah that's right i had forgotten about those...

-Dan

Post a question here and you LEARN! So, having learned of American non-rail and non-American rail applications of the 8-710, is there a 6-710?

(6-567 was used in a lot of small switchers-- SW-1 and SW-600-- and assorted export units. 6-645 was never used in domestic locomotives -- the SW-600 was a poor enough seller that EMD didn't think it worth while offering a 645-engined equivalent ("SW-750") -- but was used in some export locomotives (e.g. the later Y-class switchers for Victorian Railways in Australia). These all used Roots-blown engines: I don't know of any applications of turbocharged six-cylinder 567 or 645 engines, and last I heard no non-turbocharged 710 variant had been marketed... So I'll be very surprised to hear of a 6-710 application, but then, I'm often surprised!)

We have another wrinkle in the unfolding story of the 710ECO project:

According to Mr. Ken Lanovich of the LocoNotes group, the FRA blue card
inside the EMDX 7101 lists a model designation of GP22ECO. So
now we have a conflict between what EMD calls it, what the person who
entered the unit into UMLER calls it, and what the person who filled out the
blue card calls it.

To respond to Mr. Hazen's remarks, I have never heard of a "straight six"
version of the 710 engine... but like you say, we could be surprised
tomorrow and find out that there are several examples of it in (for
instance) stationary or marine service. What I do know is that on EMD's
web page of products for stationary and marine service, they have never
listed a 6-710 on that page... but that doesn't necessarily mean that
a 6-710 doesn't exist.

It was also mentioned on LocoNotes -- and this is still unconfirmed -- that
GE may be working on a "straight six" version of the GEVO, which would
have an output of 2250 HP. If I hear anything more about this (especially
if there's any evidence to back it up), I will post it in the GE forum.