That locomotive is an early GP9, serial number 19201, order number 5321,
frame number 5321-A71 delivered to UP in April 1954 last used as

Indiana Transportation Museum #200 in Noblesville, IN.

Some moons ago it was offered via Ozarkmountain where it is now marked "sold".
Any idea where the lokie go?

More confusing is when I watch the pics, did I miss something in EMD or UP history?
Show clearly a GP9 but not an 567"C" (no round hole covers)...?
The engine builder plate read 16-567-B with an extra C stamp, so maybe an 567BC?
Somebody know what is behind that story?

That is a replacement engine installed in that locomotive. It is indeed a 567B, upgraded with 567C liners.

That engine UP#200 was built with is engine #54-C-108. I can not quite make out the serial number in the photo to tell you what that engine currently in it was originally in.

Nova55 has it correct.

A 16-567BC in place of original 16-567C, reason unknown.

Engine serial number might begin with "52", hard to tell in photo.

PC

On the right hand side of the locomotive (with the short hood considered the "front") it has GP7 style handrails as well. I wonder if it was involved in an accident at some point.

Very early GP9s had the GP7-style handrail post-to-rail connector.

Howard P.

Thank you all for the fast answers.

Very strange, who change an 16-567C when they have an 16-567BC available...?
Any idea who make this change?

According to utahrails the life after UP for this GP9:
sold to Rail Car Corporation, Denver, Colorado, in May 1980;
sold to Dixie Railroad, Sylva, N.C., in August 1987;
sold to Great Smoky Mountain Railroad 200 in September 1988;
no info when it comes to ITM.

:-)

If you look on RR Picture Archives, there are often links for a unit's previous owners, as you can see at this link: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/LocoPi ... x?id=93198 There are photos of it at ITM as far back as 2007, and before that it apparently was at Central Railroad of Indianapolis in the 1990's. See the links at the top of the photos. I recall a person from ITM saying on the now-defunct Indiana Railroad discussion board (they are still on facebook) that the basic black scheme was to make it sort of resemble an early Conrail unit, since UP didn't have track in Indiana (a note on one of the photos says UP denied them permission as well), but another factor was that the paint job was simple and cheap. This was about the time that their problems started when a volunteer complained to the county/ track owner about the poor track maintenance at ITM.

For all we know that engine has been in there since the 80's before the UP sold the engine. Think about something for a minute. Railroads are cheap when it comes to maintenance of anything. They do as much as possible to keep it running with for as long as possible for the minimum amount of cash spent. So say 200 needed a new engine in the late 70s right before the UP sold it. Well instead of rebuilding the engine that was in it they would look around find something that would work and drop it into the frame and call it good. For them it was a case of blown engine find a good one drop it in and get it back on the ready track. They can care less about whether or not if the locomotive has the same style of block it is supposed to have from the factory. Santa Fe built hundreds of GP7's and GP9's along with CF-7's in the 70s and guess what they all shared the same 567BC series engine. For the railroads it is just a matter of what parts are shoved into that block. GT went even further and made 645's out of their 567's when they redid their GP7 and 9 series but used 567 series camshafts to keep the HP down. So quit your whining that it is not a 567C engine installed be glad it still is running.

I don't think he's whining, just curious.

I don't think it was all that uncommon though. Didn't the C&NW for instance have some rebuilt GP7's with C blocks under the hood that were classified as GP9R's as well as at least one GP9 with a BC block that was classified as a GP7R?

It might be as simple as being sold by Union Pacific without an engine, Rail Car Corporation decided what was left was in good shape, and rather than parting her out she instead became a recipient of a replacement engine from a scrapped F unit or a Geep that otherwise was in worse shape.

I got a better one than that. Back in prehistoric times, when I worked for BN, it sometimes happened that when they needed an engine bad enough and didn't have the right parts readily on hand, they would stick a 567 power assembly into a 645 motor !!! Or, a 645 assembly into a 567. Of course they paid for it later (Usually not much later).

QJ you are reminding me of what happened to my father when he got a new truck in the late 70's. He picked it up from the dealership for his company and was not happy with how the engine sounded. Mechanic goes your a dumb driver would not know how an engine is supposed to sound when running. So my father pulled out as ordered gets about 3 blocks away and said engine scattered all over the pavement. It was supposed to have been a 350 Cummins. However when they tore it apart it had the pistons of a 400 the connecting rods of a 450 V8 the camshaft of a 290 the pushrods were from a 350 the crankshaft of a 315 the water pump was for a low flow cooling system truck had a high flow. Then it got really weird. The injectors were off a V8 903 engine along with the fuel pump. They could not figure out how that engine even ran long enough for my father to take delivery of the truck. Even the engineers at Cummins said this one had to have been built on a Monday after a holiday weekend or their QC person was drinking on the job. They literally had to jerk another 350 off the assembly line for that unit.

This got me to thinking about those days... A motor would usually last a few weeks, maybe even a few months with one mismatched power assembly in it... BUT, there were even a few cases of MORE THAN ONE such assembly in a single motor. Those didn't fare so well, but since BN must have had thousands of units, there was at least some chance of getting it back to it's home shop before it was too late... or maybe not...

I saw many examples of engines and generators being swapped around between units to create one good unit to keep, and a multiple defect bad unit that could be a core for trade-in. The trade-in unit often had the engine or generator bolted in without anything else being re-connected.

PC

That's hilarious. I guess though that it serves the purpose of taking a unit off the market, even as a core for a rebuild at Paducah and the like, which was a competitor of sorts to EMD.

You can do rebuilds and swaps with more that just the stuff under the hood. VIA 6300, one of their rebuilt FP9s suffered some major front end damage in the infamous 1986 Dalehurst, Alberta crash. VIA and CN located a Kansas City Southern F7A which had been retired after an engine room fire, cut both apart near the back of the cab, and grafted the front of KCS 4062 onto the rear of 6300, making one good unit out of two wrecked ones.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=1326857

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=4480715

6300 ended up being that last active F-unit on VIA roster, spending it's final years as the shop switcher at the Vancouver maintenance centre until being acquired by the NRHS British Columbia chapter around 2011. Along with most of that chapter's equipment it is now on the Heber Valley Railroad in Utah.