710 Emissions I going back down to the diesel shop, but my BN Machinist freinds that run the Opacity tests. Tell me that our BN-SF SD 70MAC's with the 710, DO NOT meet emsissions. Some are close, most are not. Mainly due to lack of maintance. I watch our MAC's run everyday when they go by me with exhaust blowing as black as a steam engine, you can't tell me they meet ANY emssions standards. And for the most part about 80% of them do it. I will go check it out AGAIN and get back to you.
I would presume this is true of any loco that receives insufficient maintenance. They won't meet emissions. I know its true of my car. But even so, without the 1033 part the MACs don't have a good standard to meet anyway. I've been talking about the 16-710G3B-T2/16-710G3C-T2 in terms of Tier 3, not the 16-710G3B/16-710G3B-EC. The 7FDL-16 doesn't meet Emissions either. My fault for introducing new product into a thread about the old ones. Has BNSF ordered any ACes in the past year or 2? The last order I remember was a while ago. Again, BNSF is a GE shop now, so its hard to judge. Also, I've yet to hear of an SD70 being put through the ECO program, though UP did it's 60s, so its possible I'd assume. Assuming BNSF felt a power crunch. It also probably would depend on if the units are leased or owned. I know that with the ATSF dash 8s, they're getting rid of the Leasers, but haven't heard anything about the owned units. I wonder if a similar split occurs with the MACs?
We're getting pretty far afield from the topic, if the 9600 is too broken to return to service, what's the point in storing it? If they're stripping all usable parts before storing, how will they know the effects of long-term storage when they won't be able to run it after? What's the point in storing a carcass? How do you test effects of storing something that's not there? That would be like me removing the engine and transmission from my truck and storing the truck to see how storage would affect the engine and transmission...
Presumably they would put temperature and moisture sensors in the compartments to take readings or if not that, then periodically check for those things. I mean, its not like there's a big question of WHAT could go wrong, IE corrosion Rust, but rather how effective the tarp is at stopping it. You don't need the transmission in the car to check the level of moisture in various places and assess how that compares to nominal. I still don't get though why they would store them in the north. It's not like BNSF doesn't have track in dry parts of the country.
You answered your own question. If they're testing this, it makes sense to test it where it is most likely to fail.
You'd still be better off with all of the component parts in place. You can then observe how sitting unused will effect them. It's just like long term storing an automobile, things can and will deteriorate. Boxcab E50
Actually, the test would also check on what happens to the other parts (frame, hood doors, cab, nose). It is an interesting question, though- if the traction motors are remved, it makes little sense to check on the effects of long-term storage on such items. The obviously difficult thing to remove (all the wiring) could be tested, though. Oh well, who knows- perhaps it's the bright idea of some desk jockey with no real-world experience pulling some idea out of thin air. I hadn't even thought of the age of the SD70MACs, but all the heavy hauling they've been put through has had to wear them out. While KCS and UP are exploring installing new 12-cylinder 710s with ECO packages, it's odd that BNSF is not exploring this avenue- unless they can't rebuild leasers.
That's why I'm curious if they are in fact leasers. I know BNSF has been pretty aggressive about culling the GE's that have ended their lease. I would think that as you say, the wiring is the most important part of this test. Traction motors are regularly rebuilt, so, its not so big a deal as the wiring. I wonder if locos that are regularly laid up in long term storage are similarly stripped for usable parts that could simply be restored if put back in service?
710 Emissions This is what I got out of the shop. When the Mac's come for their once a year checks they do not meet emissions. Be it injector failures, dirty air filters and just plain wore-out. They fix what they HAVE-TOO(BNSF) to get them back into compliance. Then out the door to get tested and on down the road unless they do not pass opacity. Back inside for repairs to get them into compliance. Then back out the door, Not to be seen again for the rest of the year unless they come back broke, or their every 3 mo checks until a year goes by then back to shop and start the process all over again. The mechanical folks tell me that usaully 30-60 days they quit meeting emissions.The have never been taken care-of per EMD maintence protocols. The MAC's are wore out. Nobody has heard anything about retrofitting any kind of new/expensive parts onto them to make them meet future emissions. For the most part ALL BNSF locomotives are leased. The ones that they own are like the -2's getting retrofitted, GP-60's from CA that will stay in CA(for now).-8's I'm not sure of or the genset locomtives. The word from management is: we will not keep locomotives over 12 years old. They will get returned to the leasor. Also nobody here knows anything about new or different fuel. As for the 4-stroke rumor that is no more than a rumor running wild in the shop. And that's the Way it is...(WC) Also for the shrink wrap test if the parts are not there to fail, then it was a good test. just have to think like a LARGE CORPORATION...
I'm not going to pretend to know anything about what's going on with this but I do think that might be an interesting thing to try and model.
Hmm. If the unit is leased, and is at the end of its lease, why extend the lease so they can test long-term storage effects? Maybe the real test is to remove the parts, wrap it, and see if the bank notices a bunch of parts are missing. If they don't, then the railroad can remove a bunch of parts before returning all of them, and just gift-wrap them for the bank to take back. Just kidding (I hope). Maybe the point of the test is to see if the wrap protects the paint and interior from fading and wear, so it wouldn't have to be repainted when put back in service. It would almost certainly deter taggers, they want their work to be visible.
Yeah, I'm surprised they are putting a leased unit in storage. If the BNSF Shops have not been maintaining the engines to EMD specs, then you can't blame that on EMD or the units themselves. The part for the engine is the Title 40 CFR 1033 part. EMD and Wabtec both have EPA certified parts. All locos rebuilt from now on MUST include this part. Which probably has a lot more to do with why BNSF is being so agressive returning old units. If they aren't going to rebuild the MACs, then it won't matter.
Regarding the SD45s... You have to look at the entire package. Compared to an SD40... SD45s were fuel hogs... and that 600 extra hp simply wasn't worth the extra costs, when an equivalent SD40 would do the same thing, just at a slightly lower speed. Factor in the traction motors at the time couldn't take more than 500hp, so SD45s (and GP40s) had a reduction circuit which limited hp at low speeds (below 12mph), so you effectively had an SD40 anyway... and it becomes a bit more clearer. Cranks were an issue at first... but they were remedied quite quickly
There is no CO2 scrubber in EMDs 1033 kit... power assemblies, injectors, oil fittings, plumbing, etc yes... but no scrubber or catalyst.
