anyone see this? tear down and rebuild trains?

Very interesting video.

Great video.  The short hood didn't at all look like a GP9 to me.  Did I miss something?

Alan

Wow!  A very intriguing video!  It's sure interesting to see what goes into the new Genset, but equally as interesting to see all that was in that old Geep.  I had no idea a GP9 frame could be used as the platform for a rebuild of anything, let alone to create a Genset.

Alan,

 I don't recall if any GP9's were built with low short hoods originally, but many did have the short hoods chopped into a low nose configuration later in their careers.

Doug

WOW the genset engine is half the size of the old 16 cyclender=fuel hog..

What makes you think that the "old" original 16 cylinder was a "fuel hog"?

heres another video from the same company..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0eAIq7HQ6E

Thanks for posting this.  I just watched the show.  It was very interesting and enjoyable (except all the metric and euro units)!  

It seemed to get a bit sketchy on how many gensets were installed.  The general description and computer animations depicted three gensets, but during the build I thought I heard something about two, and then they only showed one going in.

Also, they seem to credit one of the guys, maybe the owner of the company, with having had something to do with development of the genset locomotive design.  Was I hearing that right? Or do they just mean he is invoved insofar as he builds genset locomotives from recycled frames?

The show said one genset costs about 200000 euros.  Based on an Internet converter, that's around $260000.

Also interesting too me was that in addition to the frame, the trucks are reused and with refurbishment can "last forever."

Cool show.

come on look at the big boheamoth 16..bet it uses alot more fuel then the half size genset engine...All the engine is for is to power the generator and airpump..with todays tech you can have a small generator that puts out as much or more then the old generator t,the same a the airpump..=better fuel cost.. wonder if there running bio diesel in those loco since there subposed to be green tech..

joseywales, a smaller engine is NOT always more fuel effecient. I have been a truck driver for almost 25 years now, and have driven trucks with less than 300 HP to those with 550 under the hood.

 For three years I drove a 2000 Peterbilt 385 with a 435 HP C-12 Cat, 10 speed transmission, 3.55 gears and 295/75R-22.5 tires on it. It was stretched out to 246 inches, had a 48 inch sleeper and carried almost 350 gals of fuel (I MISS that tractor)

 I ran a very consistent schedule with very consistent loads, Mon/Tue Portland, OR to Nampa. Id and back, Wed/Thur Portland to Spokane, WA and back, Fridays were ususlly day runs to Seattle. I averaged 6.2 to 6.5 MPG with that Tractor.

 The lease on that tractor expired, and the bean counters in North Carolina(where my company is head-quartered) thought they knew more about trucks than the guys driving them.

 My next tractor was a 2006 Peterbilt 385 Day cab, same transmission, rear end gearing and tires, but only a 185 inch wheelbase, 220 gallons of fuel and no sleeper. That truck was over 1500 pounds lighter and the trailer rode closer to the cab, in THEORY it SHOULD have gotten BETTER mileage than my older tractor, hauling the same loads over the same routes, in Real life it only averaged 5.8-6.0 MPG, and did it slower, adding to the extra expense, as my company pays by the hour, not the mile.

 A smaller motor MAY save fuel in the flat lands of Kansas, but not in the Blue Mtns of Eastern Oregon. Mastching the motor to the job is very important. A smaller motor that is struggeling with the load, with the injectors wide open all the time will not save fuel, and will have a shorter more trouble filled service life, than a motor better suited to the task.

 Of course putting a 575-625 HP motor in my truck would not have likely saved any fuel, neither did putting in a smaller motor. A couple of times that my tractor was in for service, the leasing co. gave me a replacement with a 475HP C-15 Cat, and that was sure Nice just stepping down a little more on the pedal going up Cabbage Hill, it's nice what a little extra displacement AND a little extra HP will do.

Doug

 These are great videos. Thanks for posting.

smaller is proubley better.your not hooking a drive shaft to the loco and have gears..all the motor is driving is a generator and aircompressor ..thats it..hardly any bad drag to the engine..if bigger was better they would be sticking 426 HEMI's in SEMI's they put out more power and tork then your semi cat engine...The Reason why Id said 426 HEMI,is HOTROD TV did a test on all 60's erra bigblock engines....rules where engine cant be borded over 30.000 over from stock and the rest has to be stock specks parts..they dino all these engines..426 was the most hp!! a whooping 800hp!!  Fords with the 427 was at 750,chevy with 396 at 700hp..And boy oh boy if the insurance companys really knew the truth about those engines specks back then?/ say good luck to find a company that will insure you.. let along muscle cars sales would tanked too..

Well, yes, the GP9 uses more fuel than the Genset, but it does more jobs, producing enough horsepower to run 79 MPH pulling passenger cars, and to keep a freight train moving at 15 MPH on a 2% grade, both using about 120 gallons per hour while in Run-8 and less in all other throttle positions.  It idles at about 4 gallons per hour, and can be equipped with auto start to reduce engine time when idle.  It's also good for switching and transfer work, as well as low-speed shortline work, at reasonably low fuel consumption, which is the only work that the Genset is suited for.  

If you are highly concerned about emissions and the monthly fuel bill, then the Genset is your engine.  However, if you need versatility, or do your accounting on a strictly cost-of-ownership basis, then maybe you need the geep.  It's apples and oranges.  Pay for batteries or pay for fuel unless you want to go fast, and then it's bye bye batteries.

well we all area going to get hit with high cost of fuels..bet we see 4.00 agallon this summer..diesel is the most costly too....which is bS because it the lowest fuel left after gas is refined..since train and semis ,they desides hey lets jackup the diesel prices there going to use it the most..like to really see them refine and fine tune using propane since its man made..if all engines ran on it.this would hurt the big oil companys bitime..

Joseywales, just how much TORQUE do you think a 426 Hemi produces? How much Torque do you THINK a Caterpillar Diesel produces? I can tell from your comment that you are WRONG about at least one, if not both.

 Yep, I'm sure you are Right, smaller PROBABLY is better, I'm sure that you know much more than the guys that are designing these things for a living. That generator and air compressor can't have that much drag, no reason that they can't just use a 10 HP Briggs & Stratton, and save all that money and fuel buying those wasteful big engines.

 I bow to your superior intellect, and will dis-regard my own real world experience in the future, and just ask you anything that I need to know.

Doug

Mr. Challenger,

Don't get too up-set. This is just another case of a "hobbyist" participating in a technical discussion, where he has no experience in the field being discussed. Having spent more than 50 years working in the railroad motive power industry, both diesel & steam, I've seen this quite a bit.

Hot Water,

 I have been guilty of that myself. Not too long ago we werer discussing the hopeful return to steam of the 4014, somewhere in the past I had read that the Challengers used 3 burners when firing on oil, You informed me that was incorrect. Being just a hobbiest, and you having  run an oil fired Challenger, I did not question you further, and accepted that you knew more about your field than I. I guess that some don't accept real world experience  of others over their own "Ought to be Logic".

 I would also like to Thank You Jack, for all the knowledge that you share with those of us on the forum, this member, and I am sure many others appreciate your contributions.

Doug

You need to do some research, the Hemi will make about 600 ft lbs of torque at that horsepower level, at about 4500-5000 rpm, a c-12 Cat will make 1500 ft lb at 1200 rpm, and do it all day long the Hemi will explode in a few minutes. I am a Hemi owner so no bias here. The hotrod motor built to stock specs is far from stock, stock spec hemis will make 800 hp or more with stock spec modern parts, but are far from what the factory delivered, in factory form maybe 500-550 with good tuning, and the insurance companies did know, I might add an EMD 645 like a gp9 might use will make about 1600 hp, and 10,500 ft lbs of torque, at 800 rpm.

If you look at the dynamic break blister, you will see that it has been reconfigured as an air intake filtration unit, making this a GP9RM.

Here is the subject of the video, CN 4010, on the point in better days:

I think SP got some low nose GP9s. Maybe hot water could confirm.

The Southern Pacific received their last 20 GP9 units with low short hoods directly from EMD (look just ilk a low short hood GP20), in 1959. Original "as delivered" road numbers 5872 - 5891 (later renumbered to 3708 - 3727).

Thank You, Hot Water.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/sp/sp5876rsa.jpg