It's possible to just add gearing between the two. This was done on some Sulzer engines, the 750rpm engine was geared up to over 1000rpm to drive the generator in a class 45 so no reason why you can't do it the other way.
The other factor would be if the alternator, electrical system and traction motors can take the additional 600hp or so. If you were to just use the 60 as a shell you could put in the CAT, new alternator, electricals and do DC-to-AC conversion.
That's fairly easily sorted, debate the engine.
I assume the poster is implying that the UK would be affected by any supply chain issues, but the 710 is old enough and ubiquitous enough to the extent that third party manufacturers can almost certainly fabricate spare parts as needed already. If anything, the CAT engine is more of a risk in that regard.
Although both the EMD 710 and the C175 engines are supported by the same parent company - Caterpillar.
Three different emission variants of 710s fitted to 66 and 69s and two different turbo options on 60s so which set of emission are you comparing and are you worrying more about CO2 or air quality (NOx and PM ) when you define "emissions"?
Tbh, if the precise variants being compared are all in the same ball park, then to me, it doesn't really matter
Some of the differences aren't marginal though and the directionality can be interesting though...Tbh, if the precise variants being compared are all in the same ball park, then to me, it doesn't really matter
My question essentially has two purposes:
1) Understand if an engine swap to a 710 or C175 would have a noticeable impact on general emissions
2) further my understanding on which engines are theoretically best for applications
But as illuded to before, if the variants and their marginal differences alter whats considered the most eco friendly, then I doubt there's much in it between em
Yeah, maybe I am making assumptions based on how many modern products seem to work, where you are quite tied in to the manufacturer if you need spare parts and so on, and these assumptions don't apply in this particular case.
IIRC most of the last lot have the major engine failure.
Caterpillar/Progress Rail advertise complete packages and kits for repowering old locos using 8 or 12-cyclinder EMD-710 engines plus alternator and new control systems.
Why not keep things simple and renumber them as 60/9 ? I believe 609xx rolling stock vehicles are class 221 centre cars 60951-60994, but are 60901-60950 vacant ?
I'm fully aware of what Progress offer and my comment was made with full knowledge.
The US EMD F125 passenger diesels use the V20 version.
Presume the weight reduction is so they can get over the canal bridge in Sandiacre. Not the easiest of depots for removal of heavy locos by road.
I'm sure at least one has already been cut up. Was it 60006
60006 has been scrapped, only one so far, I believe.
Cut up on site at Toton in January 2020
60006 was the one that got scrapped
All of which seem to be part of the recently operational fleet as well so I'm expecting this wave to potentially be swept up by other FOCs
Yeah as rail quest says thats the ones that COULD make a come back as built instead of a re enging project
But they've already been rebuilt and they still keep breaking down! If Toton can't keep them going then who can?
I don't necessarily think DB got rid because their reliability was so poor they were falling off their wheels - they were withdrawn because increased maintenance costs over 66s is not a justified cost for a (arguably) dying business like DB. GBRF and DCR continue to demonstrate the locos can be workable.
