645 E-units

According to the three-part article AN EXPOSITION OF E'S from 1986 PTJ, there were some Amtrak E-units that were rebuilt with 645 prime movers. Does anyone know which units received such upgrading?

I don't believe any E units got actual 645 engines, the confusion probably started when 567 engines were being rebuilt with 645 power assemblies.
Lots of 567 engines were rebuilt with 645 power assemblies including the FL-9's on both MNCR and Amtrak.
It still remained a 567 engine however in performance, it just made it easier to obtain parts, and made engine more reliable.

I believe that I read UP's business train E's have 645s. Where or when I read it, I do not recall. Perhaps Railfan and Railroad.

wilwel1024 wrote:I believe that I read UP's business train E's have 645s. Where or when I read it, I do not recall. Perhaps Railfan and Railroad.

You are correct. 949-951 are rebuilt with 645 prime movers.

kmillard wrote:

wilwel1024 wrote:I believe that I read UP's business train E's have 645s. Where or when I read it, I do not recall. Perhaps Railfan and Railroad.

You are correct. 949-951 are rebuilt with 645 prime movers.

I believe they are basically idential to GP38-2s mechanically. So are NS F units as well I believe.

correct the 12 cylinder 567 was no longer available, so they installed one 645 prime mover in center with a new electrical and cooling plant, leaving plenty of room for big HEP unit.
can't leave brass without heat and lights
But I still believe no Amtrak units ever got 645's, and after all that was subject.

645E Power Packs in a 567C or 567D block is a common thing. But dutch is not exactly right, you do get a few extra ponies from doing this, but nothing to write home about. 50 per engine at most.

Now the UP E units are a special case, they took real 16-645E engines (as well as an AR10 and Dash-2 Cabinets) and placed them in the E units. They really did a ton of work on these. The largest headache was the standard Dash-2 cabinet is too tall for the E units, so they cut them in half and placed the halves back to back behind the cab.

Burlington Northern's Chicago-area commuter E9s were a typical example of turning a 567 engine block into a 645. Each unit's 12-567 prime mover was retained, but 645 components were added to it, resulting in a new prime mover designation: 12-645CE (source: http://www.irm.org/cgi-bin/rsearch.cgi? ... thern=BN-3) If Amtrak had locomotives similarly modified, I suspect that this change in prime mover designation is the cause for confusion. In reality, like others have said, it's physically the same 567 engine block with modifications.

The 567 got it's designation from 567 cubic inches per cylinder......how do you fit components from a cylinder that has 645 cubic inches into one that's only 567? Is the 645 a longer stroke? Are the cylinder liners thinner? Or, are the cylinders individually bolted to the block from the bottom?

trainwayne1 wrote:The 567 got it's designation from 567 cubic inches per cylinder......how do you fit components from a cylinder that has 645 cubic inches into one that's only 567? Is the 645 a longer stroke? Are the cylinder liners thinner? Or, are the cylinders individually bolted to the block from the bottom?

Each cylinder is called a "power assembly",and each cylinder can be individually removed from the block. Its not like a block in say an automobile engine, where the cylinders are carved out of one big piece of metal.

the diesel engine's "block" isn't really an block like you would think, but really just a bunch of holes, that the power assemblies slide into. the block holds the crankshaft and then also the oil and water passages, as well as the airbox for the air to reach the cylinders.

But yes, I do bleieve the 645 gets its extra cubic inches from a longer stroke, while the 710 I believe is a litlte bit bigger around, so a 710 power assemblly would not fit in a 645/567 block, as far as I know.

Thanks for the info...one more question...if a V-12 567 is 6804 cubic inches, and a V-12 645 is 7140 cubic inches, why wouldn't there be a bigger horsepower increase than the 50 HP mentioned before? If you're increasing the displacement by roughly 13%, why wouldn't there be an increase in HP by roughly the same percentage?....EG ....2000HP for a 567 to 2250 for a 645?

Cause the 567 has shorter stroke so the full cubic inches of the 645 power assembly is not produced.
The HP produced is useless anyway unles the Generator and Traction motors are upgraded.
Look at it as yes pump is bigger but the plumbing stil has same capabilities.

567 is 8-1/2 by 10, 567.45 cubic inches per cyl

645 is 9-1/16 by 10, 645.04 per cyl

710 is 9-1/16 by 11, 709.54 per cyl

I'm not a mechanic, but obviously horsepower produced is determined by many factors besides just raw displacement and were constantly figuring out how to extract more and more power out of smaller and smaller packages. Facors such as turbocharging and supercharing affect horsepower as well as does the fuel delivery system and combustion efficiency. I know I'm just scratching the surface so I'll let an EMD guy take it from here.

I would assume the process of converting a 567 to 645 power assemblies is a fuel-efficiency measure. Like Dutch says, if you don't bump the alternator and motors (and wires) you aren't pumping more power to the wheels. You may cut down on fuel consumption and make running repairs easier due to better 645 parts availability.