Why is there so few ECO rebuilts yet?

When EMD presented its demo units (GP22ECO and GP32ECO) in may of 2008, I thought that it was the way to go, although the price the rebuilding was rather high. Almost two years after, I am surprised that the rebuilding of older units to ECO standard is so slow.

Although we can read in the papers about some rebuilding, it seems to me that it is always for a small number of units, not at all what I expected, particularly with the huge fleets of SD40/SD40-2, old but still very usable. Why not a fleet of SD32ECO pulling long consists? Is an SD32ECO unit less reliable of less effective than and old plain SD40-2?

If the numbers saying that the investment recovery at today's fuel prices could occur in five years or less for a normal Class I duty cycle for a retrofitted SD40-type locomotive are true, why so few? Why is NS rebuilding SD50 with older 645-engines instead of 710-ECOs. We all read about a batch of 8 Union Pacific SD60s that have been returned to EMD for an ECO-rebuilding, but it still is a small number of units.

If a new SD70Ace cost $3.6 million and the rebuilding of a SD40 to SD32ECO cost $1 million (budgetary figures found on Internet, could be very wrong), is it really more money-wise to pull a consist with 5 SD70Ace ($18 millions) instead of 7 SD32 ($7 millions)? If numbers showing that the cost of oil per hp would be about the same are also true, then only overhead would be the cost of lube oil and the maintenance of 2 more units, but on the same maintenance cycle than new units. Would the cost of lube oil and maintenance negate the saving of rebuilding?

As the same computerised system (EMD EM2000) is used in new ECO units and is included in the retrofit price, shouldn’t the traction be as good as a new unit? And, anyway, there would be two more units to pull the consist. Isn’t that the basic principle shown by EMD with the coming of the F-serie of diesels (in 1940s), “put as many units as required”. And if a unit should fail in a consist, wouldn’t it be preferable to loose 1/7 of the motive power instead of 1/5 of it.

Why not more GP32ECOs for yard duties? Are they less reliable than gensets? Is a turbocharged 710 more problematic than a root-feed 645?

Am I so wrong? What did I missed? Are my numbers realistic?

I am not starting a war. I just want to have a better understanding of the situation and of the thinking of the players. Please comment…

Blame the almighty dollar. No point in retrofitting a perfectly good unit, if it's still making money in its current trim.

When it dies... then you've got an argument for a rebuild.

Even if the 645 engine isn't perfectly good it can be repaired back to new tolerances seemingly forever. The fuel cost savings are based on running the engine at full power which not the case in switching or short haul service. EMD makes an issue of the "equity" value of all the rebuildable components that includes the diesel. If a railroad already owns the locomotive the equity costs nothing. The 645 can be made Tier 0 with the 1033 kits and that includes all the C crankcase version built in the '50's. There are a couple of companies listed below that can do interesting things as far as repairs are concerned. They show repairs on bent base rails and cracked "A" frames, both of which would condemn the block years ago.

www/emdservice.com This is Doucet's Diesel Service with some pictures of great interest if you have done this thing before. The pinkish die color is for checking for cracks.
The other company is Advanced Engineering Industries that makes the tools as well as makes the repairs. www/aei-quality.com. There are many more companies as well as the railroads that can do this type of repair. The reason for a whole new engine would be that they can't avoid not using a Tier 2 locomotive in a certain location.

QuestionMarc wrote:When EMD presented its demo units (GP22ECO and GP32ECO) in may of 2008, I thought that it was the way to go, although the price the rebuilding was rather high. Almost two years after, I am surprised that the rebuilding of older units to ECO standard is so slow.

Although we can read in the papers about some rebuilding, it seems to me that it is always for a small number of units, not at all what I expected, particularly with the huge fleets of SD40/SD40-2, old but still very usable. Why not a fleet of SD32ECO pulling long consists? Is an SD32ECO unit less reliable of less effective than and old plain SD40-2?

If the numbers saying that the investment recovery at today's fuel prices could occur in five years or less for a normal Class I duty cycle for a retrofitted SD40-type locomotive are true, why so few? Why is NS rebuilding SD50 with older 645-engines instead of 710-ECOs. We all read about a batch of 8 Union Pacific SD60s that have been returned to EMD for an ECO-rebuilding, but it still is a small number of units.

If a new SD70Ace cost $3.6 million and the rebuilding of a SD40 to SD32ECO cost $1 million (budgetary figures found on Internet, could be very wrong), is it really more money-wise to pull a consist with 5 SD70Ace ($18 millions) instead of 7 SD32 ($7 millions)? If numbers showing that the cost of oil per hp would be about the same are also true, then only overhead would be the cost of lube oil and the maintenance of 2 more units, but on the same maintenance cycle than new units. Would the cost of lube oil and maintenance negate the saving of rebuilding?

As the same computerised system (EMD EM2000) is used in new ECO units and is included in the retrofit price, shouldn’t the traction be as good as a new unit? And, anyway, there would be two more units to pull the consist. Isn’t that the basic principle shown by EMD with the coming of the F-serie of diesels (in 1940s), “put as many units as required”. And if a unit should fail in a consist, wouldn’t it be preferable to loose 1/7 of the motive power instead of 1/5 of it.

Why not more GP32ECOs for yard duties? Are they less reliable than gensets? Is a turbocharged 710 more problematic than a root-feed 645?

Am I so wrong? What did I missed? Are my numbers realistic?

I am not starting a war. I just want to have a better understanding of the situation and of the thinking of the players. Please comment…

The reason that the railroad industry has gone to higher horsepower units in road service is unit reduction as the fuel and maintenance costs on those 5 SD70ACes in your example would be on the average cheaper than the 7 SD32ECO's. It is also the case that most of the Class 1 RRs prefer AC traction in a lot of services. A SD32AC built from an older unit would be very expensive (it is not a simple rebuild and AC traction equipment is very expensive)..

Keep in mind that there is often a delay between the production of demonstrators and substantial railroad orders. EMD produced their first SD70ACe demonstrators in the middle of 2003, but the vast majority of SD70ACe units now in service were built in 2006 and later.

Also another reason why few Rebuilt Efficient SD40s or GP40s exist because companies like CSXT or UP would shot for new Engines like a popular ES44AC or a SD70M-2 for say $3.6 Million for a fleet than worry about rebuilding the older SD40. Plus another way to look at it is the 16-645E3 Engine is very successful in Freight as well as Passenger Services to go against. But who knows the 8-710 Engine Assembly will get to the top if Global Emissions get any tougher!!!