> Locomotive engine must be disabled per a state grant funding agreement.
What a dumb requirement. It's like the cash-for-clunkers program requiring the engines to be destroyed.
The service life of a locomotive is effectively infinite - even after their useful freight days are done, they usually get refitted and sent to the developing world, or converted into a fixed power generator.
>What a dumb requirement. It's like the cash-for-clunkers program requiring the engines to be destroyed.
The whole point of the "cash-for-clunkers" program was to remove as many older, more polluting, and unsafe, cars from the market as possible, to force an upgrade of the fleet, and simultaneously provide incentives to buy new cars.
It wasn't dumb in the larger scheme, but yes... on the individual level, it made it almost impossible to get an affordable good used car for a few years.
The locomotive is now only good for scrap metal, if the engine is similarly disabled.
> It wasn't dumb in the larger scheme,
It was an insanely regressive cash redistribution program that punished poor people for many years after it was over. You can call that 'not dumb' but I won't.
I wonder how many years a car eligible for that program would need to be driven to equal the environmental impact of building a new car and driving it for the same number of years.
I lack the expertise to offer a useful estimate, but I'm guessing that number is not small.
That’s totally beside the point. Breathing smog is disgusting, regardless of the economic balance. It removed an incredible number of local point-source polluters from high population density areas. Cash 4 Clunkers was so successful that Seattle completed eliminated emissions testing, because not enough crapboxes were failing the test after they weeded out the vast majority of the clunkers.
Most clunkers were not eliminated. It only covered if you bougt a more fuel efficien vehicle so small cars didn't get covered and people who couldn't afford new cars were not covered.
emmisions were already improving and tests rarely found anything so this was used as an excuse to eliminate waste
I did not say anything about economics; I wrote only about environmental impact.
It's hard to compare different kinds of environmental impact, but building a new car involves several, often with effects far away from the place where the car is used.
"Currently, sales and shipping only available in state of CA."
So they don't want it to be used in CA, but are only selling it in CA. Hence the engine must be disabled.
Buy it, take out the glow plugs and sell it out of state. new buyer just needs to sorce glow plugs which are consumable and cheap.
i don't know if this engine has glow plugs but there is likely a similear cheap part that if removed disables the engine.
Uniflow diesels such as EMD engines don't have glow plugs, they instead have pre-pump fuel heaters.
They're extremely efficient too! I forgot the marketing line but they can move one ton of freight something like 500mi on a gallon of fuel IIRC. Who knows, maybe even could be run on biodiesel?
Yep, plenty of the freight world runs on 1940s and 50s era diesels. These were built in 85. They are some of the most efficient engines out there. Hell if you’re worried about efficient send this to Amtrak to replace their 1941 built sw1’s and you’re ahead. There’s freight companies running even older locos too.
This requirement was clearly made by someone who doesn’t know the freight rail industry at all. Freight trains are so efficient that the fuel costs are low no matter what. The biggest problem is upgrading the 1940s and 50s equipment out there to newer models since there’s little incentive. Here’s a perfect upgrade for those trains rendered useless by politicians.
These will absolutely be bought by a smaller freight rail company even if for spare parts. The requirement to disable the engine is wasteful.
Eg. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Shorthaul_Railroad still runs 75 year old diesel locomotives since the tech hasn’t changed that much. This is common in the industry. The caltrain models are positively leading edge since they are only 40years old.
Suggesting a use other than continuing as a freight car for such a young model of diesel locomotive is like putting an iPhone 16 in an ancient history museum. It’s crazy talk.
> The requirement to disable the engine is wasteful.
I wonder what the disabling process is. During the wasteful “cash for clunkers”, the common method was to replace the oil with a polymerizing solution and rev it until it fails, but I wonder how consistently this was actually done and how many parts can be re-used.
I also wonder what this did to the market for used engines already in inventory.
At 130 tons it seems like the only reasonable way to actually take possession is to transport it by rail (not self-powered, but presumably it's still mobile). But even then... it's still on a rail. Move it to a defunct spur where it can probably be dragged the last leg even if the rail is in poor shape?
People mention old trains being used in a foreign country after leaving service in the US, but even then I assume it goes by rail to some port with excellent equipment for moving heavy things, then on a boat to a similar port, and then directly onto rail again. Besides this do trains get moved other than by rail?
Well... looking it up, I guess 40 tons is the normal max load for a truck without special permits, 10 tons per axle. While you need permits above that, my impression is that the per-axle limit is the real limit of a road, so as long as you can distribute the weight over enough axles...
I found this fairly helpful page: https://www.atsinc.com/blog/heavy-haul-trucking-cost-informa...
It gives about about $1/axle/mile (plus a bunch of fees) BUT only up to 50 tons and for loads under 13 feet in height and 50 feet in length. This is 130 tons, and probably around 16 feet tall and 70 feet long.
Anyway, seems super hard to actually make use of the vehicle, other than in a train museum. Or do a lot of disassembly before moving it off the rail.
Sounds like a diesel-electric locomotive, right? If only the diesel engine is irreversibly damaged, it would still make a very good electric locomotive; easiest to convert for 750 DC third rail/1.5/3kV DC overhead, but with modern power electronics all options are possible (also 25kV AC overhead power). You just need some new circuitry, either modern, IGBT transistor-based, or old-school resistive DC one, possibly re-using most of the circuitry powering it from the original diesel-moved generator. Would be nice to own one :)
You could DM me if you would some need help in "rewiring" it, I have some experience with railway rolling stock of all kinds.
A locomotive doesn't make a good cafe. You'd want a car with big windows at least. A Caltrain passenger car might work, but even then, kind of iffy.
A locomotive might be nice in a museum or as an art piece at a playground, or for scrap value.
> A locomotive doesn't make a good cafe. You'd want a car with big windows at least.
I guess it depends on what kind of vibe you're going for. Plenty of cafes that are tiny, cramped with no windows, but still manages to be cozy and interesting.
Agreed. There is a B&B in my hometown that consists of converted passenger cars. Breakfast is even served in a diner car. There are locomotives in the area, but they are in parks for their historic value.
It’s far too young for a museum piece. Amtrak still runs emd sw1’s built in 1942 ffs. And there’s plenty of small time railways using even older locos for shunting.
This is a 1970’s model diesel ffs. That’s basically brand new in this industry.
Well, would have been nice if they could sell it with the engine not disabled and another operator could use it.
With enough land and disposable income you could build a 1:1 scale model railroad.
If disabling the engine weren't a requirement, my first thought would be to donate it to a local non-profit that, for some reason, owns a large WWII era tug boat. Its original steam engine was removed, so it's without propulsion. A locomotive engine might be just the thing for it, though I imagine the engineering challenges might be complex.
The power train from a diesel-electric locomotive would probably be ideal, since you could just park it in the boiler room and run power cables to electric thrusters. Or something like that.
There's actually numerous small regional freight railways, again. They're hungry for gear and bodging together all sorts of antiques to make stuff run, I gather.
The private collectors of rail stock still exist, but they're getting less common.
The weight is actually easy to deal with: you put the car on a section of rail. This spreads the load over a wide area just as happens when they're in use.
That's an EMD (division of General Motors) F40PH diesel-electric locomotive, not a gasoline locomotive. Gasoline locomotive did exist, but they were much smaller and usually served in mines or industrial railways.
Even with the engine disabled, the electric components and other parts will still be useful to the many railways still running F40 locomotives (like VIA rail in Canada).
A Locomotive without the... locomotive is pretty useless beyond spare parts. Seems really wasteful and political to push this agenda. It would make a great emergency generator in the SE right now...
I was going to say they should send them to places like Alaska where you still need big diesel generators for backup because solar and batteries are hard to use in the cold dark weather, but the engine is disabled so you can’t do that.
People forget that the most important part about reducing our emissions is that we need to use the things we’re building as long as possible. These trains used immense resources to be built but now they’re going to waste!
Build less oil powered stuff, but let’s use the fuck out of the things we do build.
Dig a large pit, then drive the train into it. Post the results to YouTube.
Somebody call that Sir Monster fella all the kids are so into
Drag it out into the country somehow and shoot guns at it. Everybody needs a shootin’ car, and this is even better.
Fit a new emissions compliant engine inside it and refit the insides with modern control hardware.
You are describing the business of Progress Rail.
Playgrounds. To instill an early desire for engineers. They went electric.
I put my money on it becoming an installation at Burning Man.
I am already imagining another HeavyDSparks episode they they attempt to recover it after it gets stuck in several feet of subsurface mud out there. Half of their content is extreme Burning Man vehicle recoveries.
Roll it downhill to create surf waves
rusting aside, it does sound like a big heavy metal sled on rails that's already in california would make a pretty good surf machine
Google The Train to Heaven Wroclaw ;)
it's a shame they demolish (disable) a working diesel engine. Such an entitled mindset.
Sell it for scrap and use the money to travel.
130 tons is a hefty millstone indeed.
It's around $10,000 as scrap, assuming the scrap price for a car/truck.
If I am reading these numbers correctly, one recycling page is claiming that car scrap is worth $100-$200/ton. So I am not sure you are coming out ahead, even if train scrap commands a premium vs cars.
The question was about what I would do with a 130 ton locomotive.
Would I avoid having to deal with a 130 ton locomotive is a different question.
My comment suggests my answer to that question, I hope.
It's scrap. Needs cut up as close as possible to its current location.