Richmond Pacific SE15B No. 2016 shoves down Wright Avenue with a fresh swing shift crew on board, beginning chores in the Levin Terminal port area of Richmond, Calif., on Feb. 3, 2018
Davis Strench
RICHMOND, Calif. — In late 2017, the Richmond Pacific Railroad Corp. took delivery of two Knoxville Locomotive Works SE15Bs. These locomotives were funded in part by environmental grant money with the requirement that they replace older locomotives with cleaner Tier 4-compliant models. This meant the end for two of railroad’s veteran EMD end-cab switchers, as to receive full funding, the displaced units must be permanently disabled. This decommissioning process usually involves drilling irreparable holes into the prime mover. Many Class I and shortline railroads have taken advantage of similar grants, electing to acquire NRE and Railpower gensets. With Knoxville’s single high-rpm MTU engine receiving Tier 4 certification, a new and attractive option became available to railroads looking to take advantage of grants. Being distinctly not a genset, the simplified Knoxville design incorporates mostly standard EMD parts while utilizing an innovative high-speed prime mover with a low-speed AR10 traction alternator. Richmond Pacific is the first California short line to take delivery of a Knoxville product, but it may not be the last as other Northern California short lines, as well as a few grain elevators, could be in line for SE10B and SE15B models in the near future. — Davis Strench
Thank you Tom! That was truly a lot of good information.
The permanent disabling of the prime mover is not a California “Cash for Clunkers” program as Sam thinks. This is true of other federal and state locomotive funding and by no means started in California. So, no, Mr. Prest, this is not SURELY a California version of anything. The emissions from an older EMD or GE locomotive engine is very high high, and if a funder is willing to pay millions of dollars for a clean locomotive, they certainly have the right to decide what happens to the engine in the unit that is replaced. We are not talking about taking new Tier 2 EMD SD32ECO’s here and scrapping the engines. We’re talking about Tier 0, Tier 1 and even Pre-Tier 0 locomotives with very high diesel emissions, many times exacerbated by the fact that the engines are way overdue for a major overhaul.
As to those who question the need for cleaner locomotives, please do your homework. No, Mr. Hahn, it is not the carbon monoxide that is killing people. But the NOx and PM emissions are nothing to be taken lightly, and there are very well founded studies to indicate that NOx induced smog contributes to asthma and particulate matter (PM) is a carcinogen. These studies are not just California “made up” studies. Ask people in a neighborhood next to a busy railyard about some of the pollution issues. As much as you might enjoy the smell of diesel exhaust when you photograph that vintage Alco or EMD switcher, you probably wouldn’t want it constantly around your house. Diesel emissions are real folks, and they don’t just smell bad to most people – they are harmful.
As to Jerry’s comment about trading “them” for new EMD ECO units, and then the platform could be used to build new T4 locomotives, that would be great if EMD even offered a Tier 4 unit on the likes of old EMD switcher frames or first generation GPs. But they don’t. So it is not California’s fault that railroads can’t trade their SW1200 or NW2 in to be converted to an EMD Tier 4 ECO unit. Complain to EMD / Progress Rail about what is available, not the California legislators about what they are paying for.
Joe, you say equipment being re-used and up dated is bound to be cheaper than starting from the ground up. Have you ever tried rewiring and updating an old EMD cab, or even an SD40-2 cab, vs. just cutting it off and putting a new one on? If so, then please tell us how much cheaper and easier it is. Hint: Sometimes it is, many times it isn’t. If you don’t believe that brand new can be cheaper than to rebuild, then call someone at NS to ask them why they use new cabs vs. old ones on many of their road switcher rebuilds – and I’m not just talking about high-hood to low-hood conversions!
As to saving a huge amount of money by re-using an older EMD switcher instead of a new frame, does anyone out there really know what it costs to build a new frame? How easy it is to rebuild a vintage EMD switcher cab so that it meets current FRA (not California) safety and crashworthiness requirements? How much less does it cost to put in new Exane cable on an early EMD SW1 switcher frame than simply building everything on a stripped GP7 frame and scrapping the EMD SW1? Does re-using the EMD SW with old switcher trucks make sense for the money if I want higher tractive effort on my rebuilt locomotive? Or am I happier that the new unit has EMD Blomberg trucks with D78 TMs? Not so simple now, is it?
The comments so far make it seem that this is a huge California conspiracy to scrap old vintage locomotives with EMD 567 engines in them so the poor short lines can’t have them or some museum. Who can tell me what it costs to put alignment control couplers on that rare SW600 (which I would hate see go to scrap) so that a Class I railroad will move it a few hundred miles to a museum? It can be done, but who is going to pay for it? Or would you rather rent those cranes and pay to ship it on a flat car? Great! Get out your checkbook and write that five-figure check to your favorite museum. Seriously. Do it. We will all truly appreciate your generosity to save that NW2.
If it sounds like this has hit a raw nerve, the comments posted so far have. There is no reason to suggest that this is lunacy, a California thing, or that it would make more sense to convert an EMD SW or GP7/9/18 to an EMD ECO unit that EMD doesn’t even offer!!! If you have an issue, why not ask a question as to why things are being done a certain way before you complain, make accusations, or throw stones? These topics are many times read by industry folks (yes, such as me) and we would be more than happy to explain why certain things are done certain ways. We would be more than happy to explain the intricacies of moving a locomotive without alignment control couplers, and help you to find that museum willing to take advantage of your generosity in preserving vintage equipment. Remember, there are a lot of us that are just as interested in preservation and vintage locomotives as the rest of you are. But taking shots at clean locomotive funding or at new technology, and making unfounded assumptions or statements is not the way to go about locomotive preservation or make things better.
I agree Jerry. They can be re-used and up dated which is bound to be cheaper than starting from the ground up!
Surely, a California version od the old Federal Program for autos “Cash for Clunkers” as Mr. Keiser mentioned. It sound as if this ‘new rule’ was written by a California assemblyman’ as an election day strategy…. It may be remembered that the older afore mentioned ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program was necessarily by its own existence a failure, as auto dealers sought to circumvent its destruction requirement, and larcenously, re-market those cars taken in under that program……
To me this sounds totally wrong drilling holes into the prime movers of old locomotives, they should just take the old engines out of service and sell them off to a short line or industrial railroad that can’t afford Tier 4’s, cause the older units can be rebuilt and plus these older engines are also worth preserving for museums and preservationists that could run them on museum grounds for their and people’s enjoyment because an operational locomotive is slightly better than just a static display. Plus it’s not like these carbon monoxide exhaust fumes on the old locomotives are killing people
It would make more sense if the units could be traded in for the new Eco units, then the old units used as a platform to build new T4 compliant models.
Reminiscent of “Cash for clunkers”
Lunacy
That doesn’t quite make sense to have to permanently disable the units being replaced in order to receive these environmental grants, if the requirement is to replace older units with these Tier 4 compliant ones then the only thing that needs to happen is the older units are taken out of service and the new units take their place. Making so that the older unit has to be permanently disabled by drilling holes in the prime mover eliminates the potential for a company to donate them to a museum(which of course are exempt from EPA regulations).