I saw this listing on Sterling Rail:

http://www.sterlingrail.com/classifieds ... p?id=19040

Given that used four axle EMD's usually go for 150K and up, why only 85K?

Something odd about 567D3's or something else?

Prices usually reflect condition in units that will probably move on the market (vs. museum junk that's listed for whatever). You can find the wheel reports for those 30s on Ozark Mountain. IIRC there were some thin wheels/flanges. You'd also want to see at least an oil test and maintenance log. I've no other knowledge of those 30s, but reduced prices can mean a unit needs packs/cams/rockers/etc. or have questionable main bearings. Could be any number of things that would warrant deducting $75k from a top-condition unit price, and 567s aren't getting any newer. Just because a unit's blue carded doesn't mean it's in great operating condition. FRA is interested in safety, not how well a unit loads or pulls.

Value is subjective. Units sold for 'real' RR use are more valuable because of the work they're expected to do. If you're looking to buy for a small tourist operation, you'd likely be looking for something that can be nursed along with some TLC and might get a few years out of worn bearings, thin wheels, etc. Volunteers that can't afford more cash/loco but CAN afford TLC for a lightly used loco would find (mistakenly, in my opinion) more value in a lesser unit. That's something that a freight RR wouldn't want to put up with. They'd need the value of a fully conditioned unit and pay/repair accordingly.

A lot of people don't like GP-30's citing a lack of available parts to the electrical systems etc.

They also don't have a lot of horse power for people who want a turbo charged locomotive, and they have too much turbo for those of us who don't want a turbo charged locomotive.

Whether or not any of the above is true, I'll let people who actually run/ maintain them weight in. I'll stick to my GP-9's and RS-11.

The turbo issue is interesting and I think I understand that.

Could you elaborate on the electrical system issue? What distinguishes it from a GP-9 or a GP38?

I'm no EMD expert, but I recall that as the horsepower ratings of the 567 engine got into the 2250-2500 hp range, multiple steps of traction motor shunting were required. EMD used a complicated (compared to ALCO) setup to accomplish that function.

EMD turbochargers are relatively expensive; I agree that a normally-aspirated GP9 in good condition would be a preferred shortline locomotive, rather than an GP30/35.

Howard P.

GP30 locomotives had a very complex transition system. Like most locomotives built at that time and still using a D.C. generator, they were pushing the limits of the generator. That is why they had many steps of transition and field shunting.

Later, there was a system add-on make by "Barco" that made this less complex.

The old wiring is also an issue, unless they have been rewired.

The old wiring cracks and with this, it develops ground faults.

You also have the high cost of the complex turbocharger, which is gear driven until the engine produces enough "boost" to over ride the centrifugal clutch, there-by letting the turbo turn freely.

What is the origin of the units on Sterling Rail? It looks like the GATX scheme almost though I don't see them bothering with such an old unit. Some railroads completely re-did the electricals, Santa Fe among them, but I am pretty sure that is not an ex-Santa Fe unit (when they relocated all the headlights to the short hood around 1990 they cut an obvious square notch in it).

I had a conversation with a dealer - on FaceBook of all places - where I learned that it's oftentimes less expensive to convert a GP40 (turbocharged) to a GP38 (Roots blown) than to replace a bad turbo! That's the entire blower setup, exhaust manifolds, 16 injectors (I believe) and 16 pistons (they honed and re-used the existing liners). Stuff like that is why these will command bottom dollar, along with the electrical issues. There's reasons why de-turbocharging early EMDs was so popular!
ATSF, BN, and BNSF have all used upgraded GP30s and GP35s largely due to high altitude - the Roots-blown EMDs lose a lot of power at 5,000' while the turbocharged units maintain full rated power. Turbocharged EDs are also close to 20% more fuel efficient, as I recall, hence NS's recent turbocharging efforts.

CD

EMD's turbocharged locomotives are not 20% more fuel efficient than their non-turbocharged locomotives, unless you reduce the number of cylinders.

An EMD GP40-2 will use 154.4 gallons per hour in run 8 and the GP38-2 will use 119.1 gallons per hour.

It takes fuel as well as air to produce that extra horsepower. The turbo will let you better burn the extra fuel, but you have to make that extra 1,000 hp. some how.

In theory, if you could add a turbo to the GP38-2, you could reduce it's fuel consumption, but EMD makes nothing of equal comparison.

The EMD GP15T puts out 1500 hp. with a turbocharged 8V645E and uses less fuel than the GP15, which uses a 12V645E without a turbo. Four less cylinders and only a little over 10 gal per hour savings in run 8.

Looks like the Western Group paint scheme. Two potential possibilities are former Southwestern units, which would make them originally Phelps Dodge locomotives (Didn't they have a C&O unit, too?). Or Cimarron Valley, which would make them former Rio Grande.

I assume these are 4 of the 9 GP30's that got displaced by four SD40's and five SD50's that were relocated when the Southwestern's Carlsbad Division was closed a while back, allowing the six axle units to take over from the GP30's that were then slated for retirement and disposal.

Since there's four of them, I'm going to take a guess that they're from the Cimarron Valley. These were replaced by the SD50's, while the SD40's took over from the five GP30's on Southwestern’s Whitewater Division

The issue is the horrific parasitic drag of the Roots blower. Using your numbers:
3,000 HP '40' Series uses 154.4 GPH, so it makes 19.43 HP/H per gallon.
2,000 HP '38' Series uses 119.1 GPH, so it makes 16.79 HP/H per gallon.
The '40' is almost 16% more fuel-efficient on the basis of power produced based on fuel consumption, based on this it can be assumed that a '39' produces 15% more horsepower than a '38' while having similar fuel consumption.
I can't find the chart I'd referenced before, showing various EMD and GE locomotives, but I recall the GEs were substantially more efficient than blown EMDs - and marginally more efficient than turbocharged EMDs.

CD

The issue is the horrific parasitic drag of the Roots blower. Using your numbers:
3,000 HP '40' Series uses 154.4 GPH, so it makes 19.43 HP/H per gallon.
2,000 HP '38' Series uses 119.1 GPH, so it makes 16.79 HP/H per gallon.
The '40' is almost 16% more fuel-efficient on the basis of power produced based on fuel consumption, based on this it can be assumed that a '39' produces 15% more horsepower than a '38' while having similar fuel consumption.
I can't find the chart I'd referenced before, showing various EMD and GE locomotives, but I recall the GEs were substantially more efficient than blown EMDs - and marginally more efficient than turbocharged EMDs.

CD[/quote]

You are right about the horsepower produced per gallon of fuel used. I am sorry, but I did not take your 20% savings that way. That does not equate to a fair comparison of a turbo to non-turbo.

Years ago, when I farmed, I had a John Deere 4020 diesel with an add on turbo made by M&W Gear company. It gave me about 10 more hp. with no changes at all in the fuel system { Same injectors and same fuel pump settings. } by forcing more air in to the engine and thereby more completely burning the fuel that was already being injected. This amounts to true fuel saving and more hp. with the addition of a turbo.

Somewhere along the way, you have to strike a balance. Turbocharged EMDs have to be used where you can properly use that extra power, that is why many small railroads still use GP9 etc.

The main fuel savings between an EMD and a GE come from two things. One is 2 cycle verse a 4 cycle and the other is cylinder reduction. An EMD is injecting fuel in to the cylinder every time the piston comes up, it may be less per shot, but it is every time. GE and Alco locomotives do on 12 cylinder what an EMD does on 16, on older units.

It all really boils down to the application and finding the proper locomotive for the intended use. If you are running 10 miles per hour, all that EMD turbo hp. is just wasted.

I remember reading, several years ago, that there was a trick to cheaply de-turbo an EMD. It involved simply replacing the clutch with a solid block, so that the turbo was gear driven at all times; this in lieu of a Roots blower. Did I remember this correctly? And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong-

The other part of the operation was electrical, getting rid of the multi-stage field shunting on a GP-30 or -35, and rewiring them like a GP-9 or -18. Both the de-turbo 'fix' and rewiring would greatly simplify maintenance, of course.

Often wondered about this-

I think you are right. The funny thing is the Rio Grande units were never rewired but stayed in service through the SP merger until the UP takeover, but the GP35s were all out of service by 1990, and only returned about 1994 when SP was short of power. I lived in Denver at the time and remember the GP35s sitting in the dead line next to the Burnham shops until they were all shopped quickly and sent out.

On Conrail we had a few GP30's and 35's where we pinned the turbo and essentially turned it into a supercharger. I believe one of the GP30's that was pinned wound up on the WMSR in Cumberland. There were also governor rack changes and some other excitation changes in the conversion.

The 30's and 35's used a rotary program switch to control transition which was a real pain. Conrail bought big into the Barco speed actuated transition system which was a huge improvement from a reliability and especially a troubleshooting standpoint.

The best part about Barco was you didn't have to be connected to a load box or carbon pile and use an MG set to test transition for function and deal with setting resistors to adjust pickup and drop out. With the Barco you just use a speed pulse generator and run the speed range to look at what picked up and dropped out as speed increased. It was possible to check transition during 92 day in about five minutes time.

At the end of the day with fleet reductions coming and we had a bunch of good 7500 series GP10's that were either Paducah, Silvis, or Altoona rebuilds and rewires that were a better fit for yard and local power then the GP30 and 35's and it didn't pay to put money in them. We were still running GP10's through the Juniata Backshop as late a 94 or 95.

EBL