I was recently reminded of the Ill-fated BL20-2 rebuild from around 18 years ago. This was EMD's attempt to enter the loco remanufacturing market in the 90s. and update of the GP15, it was a 16-567 in a totally new carbody with AR10 alternator and Dash-2 electricals. Pictures here What's interesting to me is that they made it look like a mini GP60 with the squared off dynamics similar to the way a GP15-1 looks like a mini-tunnel motor. Fast forward to a couple years ago and EMD is touting their latest Rebuilding plan, the 710ECO. In this case, the GP22ECO can be a 2nd gen unit or a 1st gen unit. The Gen2 unit looks pretty much exactly the same as far as the carbody goes, but a rebuilt GP9 looks radically different. EMDX7102 It looks like EMD decided not to rebuild the cab or the Dynamic brake housing, but the rest of the unit is totally new. I wonder why in 1992 they rebuilt the whole thing, but in 2008, they didn't? Is there that much money being saved here? And the rebuilt fodder for this was a CP GP9u which already had a low short hood. I wonder what they would do if it had been a high nosed GP for rebuild? And why the dynamic brake difference? Now, EMD is getting a lot of traction on ECO rebuilds with KCS jumping in and UP and NS testing them out, Class 1s have very few 1st gen diesels on the roster, so its no surprise that they would be rebuilding GP40s, but I wonder why GP40s and not GP38s? Or is the Roots blown 645 with the 1033 part a better investment? And I have to wonder about BNSF's huge fleet of GP30/35 rebuilds. Those seem like good candidates for this. Other questions that enter my mind are Will larger regionals/Shortlines upgrade their 1st gen units or go for Gensets? Or 1033 upgraded Gen2 hand me downs? What about GP39-2s/SD39-2s are they upgrade material? What about GP50s and SD50s?
GP40s were designed as fast freight power. For the jobs GPs do these days, they're not as well suited as GP38s.
The 710/AR10 repower option was around before the BL20-2... EMD called it the GP2000, it was a repower/upgrade utilizing an 8 or 12-710, a remanned AR10 and D77 or D78 traction motors, with EMD SS electronics and a 700amp db system. High costs (933k vs the 1.3 mil a brand new SD60 was going for) and EMDs sales tactics (sure we'll sell you those 60 SD60s for 1.2mil a pop... but only if you buy 100 GP2000s and give us the maintenance contract) killed it... The BL20-2 was just an attempt at getting rebuild businiess (and NOT an update of a GP15), reusing and rebuilding older components... but again... EMD went overboard, high costs, new carbody, rebuilt stepwells, anticlimbers, etc. Fast forward to today, with fuel consumption being the number one concern for railroads, with emissions standards a close second, and that old 710 repower option suddenly makes a heck of a lot more sense than it did back in the 80s... FWIW... 7102 was extensively rebuilt... and had DBs added, but reusing exisiting carbody components is still cheaper than building a new carbody from scratch. As for GP40s over GP38s... keep in mind you're just using KCS as an example, and for them it makes sense to rebuild an exisiting high-fuel cost GP40 member of their fleet to a GP38ish standard, the long-term payoff is more worthwhile than rebuilding an exisiting GP38. If NS gets funding, they'll use GP38 cores, as that's pretty much what they have.
That makes sense, and I made this thread thinking you'd have an answer. I thought the GP15-1 was also a rebuild business product that used a 567/GP7/9 core. Basically an answer to the IC rebuilds and the like which is why I equated it to the BL20-2. I figured the GP40s made more sense, because the role they filled is no longer needed. High HP 4 axle. Whereas a GP38-2 with the 1033 part fills the role more appropriately. As for costs of carbodies. Again, it makes sense for a unit that already has a chopped nose, but I wonder about a unit that is high hood. I didn't realize the Dynamics weren't from the CP GP9u on 7102. OTOH, maybe that's why POTB has this lying in their "yard" Cheaper just to weld an existing nose onto a high nosed unit than chop the nose.
GP15's were new from the ground up, frame and all... (save maybe some traded in trucks, etc)... basically filling a need for low-hp over-the-road switcher. Also keep in mind there's new cab requirements out now that weren't in place when 7102 was rebuilt... they'd probably have to replace the cab regardless now.
Really? I hadn't heard that. What are the new Requirements? And wow, I feel sheepish on the GP15. I don't know where I got the idea it was a rebuild.
New crashworthiness standards... I'm not up to speed on them though, but I'm certain they're why NS has replaced the standard cabs on the SD40E rebuilds and is looking at a new wide-nose/cab on the SD60E. As for the GP15... you're not alone in your thinking, so don't feel sheepish. A lot of people think it was built on a GP9 frame...
I can't find a document that specifies it in 2 minutes of looking, but I did encounter a wall of docs to sift through. I guess I never realized there was a crashworthiness difference between the more modern Spartan Cab and the older one. Though I'm not surprised. I would assume (and you know what happens when one does that) that the potential speed of impact dictates the strength of the cab and that therefore UP chose the SD60Ms and NS added an M cab to the ECO rebuild they did expressly because they expect them to be in higher speed service. whereas the SD/GP22 builds will not be in such service? Although, I noticed the SD40Es have spartan cabs.
Look for CFR Part 229 and AAR S-580 It's rumored, but not confirmed NS' SD60E rebuild will be an ECO rebuild... it needs a new cab regardless, as the unit it's being rebuilt from was one of the ones in the Graniteville wreck. The SD40Es are getting new standard cabs, as well as the SD40-2s that are getting rebuilt.
