Home Open Account Help 222 users online

Western Railroad Discussion > Genset polluting the Harbor Sub


Date: 09/22/10 16:13
Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: trainjunkie

I guess the BNSF 1293 and 1294, which are unique models on the BNSF, made it from delivery at Paducah, KY to Watson Yard in Wilmington, CA in July. Apparently they have been working down there since. I saw some sort of hideous genset a couple weeks ago near my house on the Harbor Sub but I didn't get a chance to I.D. or photograph it. I was just hoping it was a fluke and that the geeps would soon be back in force.

But yesterday, on a very cloudy and flat Tuesday afternoon, I heard an unusual "blat" from what I can only describe as an "ugly sounding horn" coming from the direction of the Harbor Sub. I was on my way out to run errands so I drove over to the spot where the crew usually stops for beans and there it was, the 1293. Someone had let it out of it's cage in Watson so it could further pervert the hideous innercity landscape of Los Angeles' South Bay. Thankfully there was a GP60M keeping it company but I suspect gensets will be what the future of railroading in this area will look like soon.

I feel like one of those old farts who constantly griped about those "newfangled diesels" when they put steam out to pasture. But man, I really don't like much about any genset I've seen (or heard) thus far (strictly from a rail enthusiast point-of-view. I have no idea what they are like to work on).

Oh well. I hope my sons can appreciate these things better than I can some day when they grow up a little.








Date: 09/22/10 16:34
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: SP_8299

I feel ya, Mike. Those Gensets are hideous. I'm kinda glad Espee didn't last into the new millennium; if they did, they'd probably be forced to operate those ugly, ugly things.

PE



Date: 09/22/10 17:06
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: rcall31060

You raise a good point about these gensets, Mike. If I were a Motive Power Supt., why would I want one of these morphodite creations, with their multiple TRUCK engines (Cummins, Cat) and non TRUCK engines (MTU, Deutz) that my shop forces are NOT familiar with, not to mention generators/alternators and non familiar electrical systems, versus an EMD ECO unit, that's designed to do the same job as a genset, meets the same EPA requirements as a genset, my shop forces are used to and in all probability, will have better residual value in the used locomotive market, than a genset? Tell me again why I want a genset?

What's that you say? The genset gets better fuel economy? How much better? It doesn't pollute as much as the EMD ECO unit and far exceeds the EPA standard? Really. The EPA says you have to meet their standard. It doesn't say that you have to far exceed their standard. The EMD ECO unit meets the standard. How much extra initial cost am I paying for a genset with TRUCK or Industrial engines, that FAR exceed the EPA standard? What's the incremental cost of that, versus the incremental benefit to me? And what about the crews? Are they going to like one of these morphodites when they're kicking cars or hauling a long transfer, etc? From what I can see on TO, the rails on here, who have to run these things day-in and day-out, aren't all that enamored of them. At least with an EMD ECO unit, they have a pretty good idea about what they're getting and they know in their gut, that in all probability, it will do the job.

So Mike, you and I are of the same mind, here. Give me an EMD ECO unit (preferably NOT rebuilt on a GP9 frame) any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Mike Haverty is buying EMD ECO's and I'm darn sure not betting against him!!!

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/10 21:27 by rcall31060.



Date: 09/22/10 19:41
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: lwilton

But keep in mind the power guy isn't the only one at the RR with an opinion. The PR guy is going to LOVE that they "far exceed" the requirement, especially in SCAMD-land, where politics outweighs sensibility 90 to 1 any day of the week. The PR guy doesn't care whether the engines run or not; heck, he might be happier of they didn't run at all, because then he could show how much the RR was spending for no business benefit at all, except for the lower emissions. And the local politickers would like that even better than the RR having something that was useful to them and met requirements.

So, all in all, when you have to live and work in a fantasyland ruled by children, it can be good to have lots of things that look like lollypops, even if that doesn't contribute in the slightest to how well they work.



Date: 09/22/10 20:20
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: 2720

trainjunkie Wrote:
"Thankfully there was a GP60M keeping it
company"...

The GP60M is there to rescue the train when the genset won't do what is asked of it, or totally fails!!
Mike



Date: 09/22/10 21:12
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: DRGW5502

Great, first the UP Torrance local, now this. My days of railfanning between meetings are numbered in the BNSF 129Xs and UP 27XXs FML.



Date: 09/22/10 21:28
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: TS2010

If EMD had been a little faster with their eco repower option, the gensets may never have gotten a foot hold. But EMD was slow and NRC, RailPower, Brookville (seems like there is another Genset builder im forgetting), all swooped in to fill a widening gap in most railroads motive power rosters. It won't take too long for those shop forces to become familiar, and chances are alot of them were probably truck mechanics at one time or another anyway.



Date: 09/23/10 03:47
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: QU25C

rcall31060 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The EPA says you have to meet
> their standard. It doesn't say that you have to
> far exceed their standard.
There raising the bar soon and they wont exceed it for long.



Date: 09/23/10 07:43
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: DrLoco

rcall31060 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You raise a good point about these gensets, Mike.
> If I were a Motive Power Supt., why would I want
> one of these morphodite creations, with their
> multiple TRUCK engines (Cummins, Cat) and non
> TRUCK engines (MTU, Deutz) that my shop forces are
> NOT familiar with,
<SNIP>

Sure the shop forces aren't qualified, but all you need to do if there is an issue is make one quick phone call to your local Cat or Cummins truck dealer, and their fancy repair truck guy is on his way--and he IS qualified...Plus, there is a good chance that if the Cat (or Cummins,etc) guy doesn't have the part needed right then, he can have it tomorrow(or go back to the shop and get it later that day).

See, the genset switcher is designed to be fixed by any truck mechanic...not a specially trained enginehouse employee skilled on the EMD's and GE's. Parts availability and having any Joe Schmo who just got out of truck mechanic school fix the thing when it breaks is the advantage here--in addition to that cleaner air from all those carbon emission reductions.

Gensets are here--they will continue to be here. Everyone comments about the lack of a switcher model from EMD or GE...you're looking at it--and it sounds like a garbage truck.



Date: 09/23/10 09:02
Re: Gen-set polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: BurtNorton

Keep in mind the State of California (a.k.a. The People's Republic of California) subsidizes the purchase of the gen-set locomotives. Not sure the exact amount, but its in the $25k to $100k range per locomotive.



Date: 09/23/10 09:22
Re: Gen-set polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: Evan_Werkema

BurtNorton Wrote:

> Keep in mind the State of California (a.k.a. The
> People's Republic of California) subsidizes the
> purchase of the gen-set locomotives. Not sure the
> exact amount, but its in the $25k to $100k range
> per locomotive.

The program guidelines for California's Carl Moyer Program and the Prop. 1B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program both appear to provide subsidies for engine remanufacture or repowerng in existing locomotives as well as for the purchase of new gensets or other new technology locomotives. Carl Moyer's guidelines add the caveat that "Locomotive engine repowers are also eligible for funding, although very few have been funded to date."

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/cmp_guidelines_part1_2.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/prop_1b_goods_movement_2010_final_guidelines.pdf



Date: 09/23/10 11:00
Re: Gen-set polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: zephyrus

Not going to debate the mechanics. Haven't worked on one and I've heard opinions both ways. Won't debate clean air. I happen to really hate grungy, brown sky and I'm thankful my folks moved out of LA so I could grow up seeing some blue.

On looks, though, I find the reactions kind of interesting. I squint at one of these and I can't help but see an RS1325 (especially with the Railpower and MotivePower units) or a GMD-1 (with the NRE units). I've rarely heard anyone call those ugly (well, the GMD-1s a few times) and many fans seem quite excited with they spot one of these rare birds.

Could it just be the rejection of something new at the expense of something familiar? As Trainjunkie points out, the first diesels were reviled as ugly, unwanted things and that wave includes the E, F and PA units so many of us revere as aesthetic marvels. F40s were spurned as graceless, but now have fans. Even spartan cab Geeps, which were looked down upon by the lovers of Fs and early GPs now are viewed with fond nostalgia.

The wheel turns.

Z



Date: 09/23/10 13:33
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: rcall31060

DrLoco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rcall31060 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You raise a good point about these gensets,
> Mike.
> > If I were a Motive Power Supt., why would I
> want
> > one of these morphodite creations, with their
> > multiple TRUCK engines (Cummins, Cat) and non
> > TRUCK engines (MTU, Deutz) that my shop forces
> are
> > NOT familiar with,
>
>
> Sure the shop forces aren't qualified, but all you
> need to do if there is an issue is make one quick
> phone call to your local Cat or Cummins truck
> dealer, and their fancy repair truck guy is on his
> way--and he IS qualified...Plus, there is a good
> chance that if the Cat (or Cummins,etc) guy
> doesn't have the part needed right then, he can
> have it tomorrow(or go back to the shop and get it
> later that day).

Really??? I've got shops around my system, with people already trained on maintaining and fixing EMD products, I've got a parts inventory dedicated to EMD products, the EMD 710 product is a known quantity to me and my people, I know good and well that the single-engine EMD ECO locomotive is designed to do anything that these morphodite gensets will do, meet any EPA standard that these multi-engine gensets will meet and you're telling me and the operating people, that all I have to do is call my local Cummins, Cat, MTUDD, or Deutz distributor and he's going to put my needs ahead of his other customers who require the services of his field service technicians, he's going to drop whatever he's doing and run right over to fix my genset engine? I'm supposed to rely on that, am I? Really???
>
> See, the genset switcher is designed to be fixed
> by any truck mechanic...not a specially trained
> engine house employee skilled on the EMD's and
> GE's.

And if it's not an engine problem?

> Parts availability and having any Joe Schmo
> who just got out of truck mechanic school fix the
> thing when it breaks is the advantage here--in
> addition to that cleaner air from all those carbon
> emission reductions.

What is it about the fact, that the EMD ECO engine will meet any of the EPA standards that these gensets will meet, that you don't comprehend or understand???
>
> Gensets are here--they will continue to be here.

You're absolutely sure about that, are you? Given the conflicting reports I read on TO from Rails who run these gensets, I'd say the jury's still out on that score.

> Everyone comments about the lack of a switcher
> model from EMD or GE...you're looking at it--and
> it sounds like a garbage truck.

Could it be that the EMD ECO locomotive is the switcher model that "everyone" comments about the lack thereof? Like I said before: Mike Haverty and his people have made their decision and it's in favor of the EMD ECO loco. I'm putting my money on them.

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN



Date: 09/23/10 14:12
Re: Gen-set polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: rcall31060

zephyrus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Could it just be the rejection of something new at
> the expense of something familiar? As Trainjunkie
> points out, the first diesels were reviled as
> ugly, unwanted things and that wave includes the
> E, F and PA units so many of us revere as
> aesthetic marvels. F40s were spurned as
> graceless, but now have fans. Even spartan cab
> Geeps, which were looked down upon by the lovers
> of Fs and early GPs now are viewed with fond
> nostalgia.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the looks of a genset. I'm not approaching this from a "Railfan" standpoint. It's irrelevant in the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

As a hypothetical Motive Power Superintendent, I want to know what the total cost of ownership of one of these things is. What's my purchase cost? What kind of maintenance and repair costs should I expect? When am I going to have to overhaul it and what's that going to cost me? What kind of an operating cost per hour should I expect from it. When I'm ready to unload it in the used loco market, what kind of residual value should I expect? Most importantly, will it do the job? These questions will do for starters.

The unvarnished truth is that the ONLY reason that these gensets exist at all, is because of the existence of a Government Bureaucracy called the EPA (CARB in CA). Now the question becomes: am I better off with a multi-engine genset or a single engine EMD ECO unit? My money's on the EMD ECO unit.

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN



Date: 09/23/10 14:27
Re: Gen-set polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: trainjunkie

zephyrus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could it just be the rejection of something new at
> the expense of something familiar? As Trainjunkie
> points out, the first diesels were reviled as
> ugly, unwanted things and that wave includes the
> E, F and PA units so many of us revere as
> aesthetic marvels. F40s were spurned as
> graceless, but now have fans. Even spartan cab
> Geeps, which were looked down upon by the lovers
> of Fs and early GPs now are viewed with fond
> nostalgia.

I hear what you're saying but not for me. Throughout my lifelong interest in trains I've almost always embraced the "new stuff" that has come along. When I was still a kid, SD40-2s were new and I loved them. Especially the tunnel motor and snoot versions. As much as the crews hated U-Boats, I always thought they put on a great show of sight, sound, and smell. And then there was the almost universally hated Cleburne creation, the CF7. I loved them from the first time I laid my eyes on one. Same with the "Topeka cab" GP7s. Growing up in Southern California I even managed to appreciate those ubiquitous SW1500s that some fans refer to as "cruds" for reasons that elude me. At least they sounded and smelled like a locomotive, towering above you as they passed by.

When I worked for the railroad I loved a lot of the new stuff, like GE's C40-8 models and EMD SD60s when they were new. I liked the safety cabs when they came along (except when they made us switch with them). I generally have nothing against new locomotives. There is something to appreciate in nearly all of them.

But these gensets just do nothing for me. They provoke no emotional response, which almost everything else in railroading does. As someone above said, they sound like trash trucks. I've always thought the uninspiring sound was much like a city bus. I understand their purpose in the business of railroading, and yes, the People's Republic of Kalifornia has facilitated the push for railroads to move in this direction. I'm sure it all makes sense to the bean counters and the morons in Sacramento. But as a fan, there is little to love from where I sit. Even if I could get over the looks, the low-slung hood, and the GMD-1 styling accents that always looked too "European" for my taste, I can't get past the dull sounds from these things that doesn't resemble anything that makes the passing of a locomotive exciting and inspiring.

But hey, that's just me. ;)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/10 17:31 by trainjunkie.



Date: 09/23/10 20:19
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: TS2010

2720 Wrote:
>
> The GP60M is there to rescue the train when the
> genset won't do what is asked of it, or totally
> fails!!
> Mike

When I was an MYO at Proviso in early 2007, all of the gensets came to us first. The popwer transfer jobs had 1 one night, and that little engine was draggin 9 dead C44's up harbor hill to the ramp all by itself, with only two of the three gensets online, and it was making a pretty decent speed while doing it.



Date: 09/25/10 09:41
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: cadmus

rcall31060 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You raise a good point about these gensets, Mike.
> If I were a Motive Power Supt., why would I want
> one of these morphodite creations, with their
> multiple TRUCK engines (Cummins, Cat) and non
> TRUCK engines (MTU, Deutz) that my shop forces are
> NOT familiar with, not to mention
> generators/alternators and non familiar electrical
> systems, versus an EMD ECO unit, that's designed
> to do the same job as a genset, meets the same EPA
> requirements as a genset, my shop forces are used
> to and in all probability, will have better
> residual value in the used locomotive market, than
> a genset? Tell me again why I want a genset?
>
> What's that you say? The genset gets better fuel
> economy? How much better? It doesn't pollute as
> much as the EMD ECO unit and far exceeds the EPA
> standard? Really. The EPA says you have to meet
> their standard. It doesn't say that you have to
> far exceed their standard. The EMD ECO unit meets
> the standard. How much extra initial cost am I
> paying for a genset with TRUCK or Industrial
> engines, that FAR exceed the EPA standard? What's
> the incremental cost of that, versus the
> incremental benefit to me? And what about the
> crews? Are they going to like one of these
> morphodites when they're kicking cars or hauling a
> long transfer, etc? From what I can see on TO,
> the rails on here, who have to run these things
> day-in and day-out, aren't all that enamored of
> them. At least with an EMD ECO unit, they have a
> pretty good idea about what they're getting and
> they know in their gut, that in all probability,
> it will do the job.
>
> So Mike, you and I are of the same mind, here.
> Give me an EMD ECO unit (preferably NOT rebuilt on
> a GP9 frame) any day of the week and twice on
> Sunday. Mike Haverty is buying EMD ECO's and I'm
> darn sure not betting against him!!!

Well, rcall, since you are from Indiana, here's some "why":

As you point out, EMD ECO repowered locomotives meet EPA Tier 2 emissions levels (the same levels which GE Evo's and EMD ACe's and M-2's meet). The gensets are also Tier 2 certified but produce about 45% less NOx (which makes smog ... ever been to LA?) than the Tier 2 limit, and about 65% less particulate matter than the Tier 2 limit. Simply put, an ECO repower MEETS Tier 2 limits but cannot meet the emissions levels of the gensets. Yes, an ECO repower "is designed to do the same job as a genset", it's "legal" under EPA regulations, but it still produces greater emissions.

Wanna know "why #2"?

There are even tighter EPA limits for new locomotives coming up in 2012 and particularly 2015. Today's Evo's, ACe's, ECO repowers and even gensets as they are built today cannot meet those limits. For lower horsepower applications, the gensets more likely to achieve those limits. So get ready for more change (eventually even in Indiana).

"Why #3?":

California, particularly southern California, isn't Indiana. Oh, by the way, the same things generating change in southern California are now generating change in other parts of the country (not necessarily yet in Indiana). In some areas (like California) it's no longer what a motive power superintendent may "want". Motive power superintendents in general in the 1940s did not "want" to replace their steam locomotives with diesel locomotives (N&W was building new steam locomotives in 1954).

Clearly this post will generate more derisive comments lamenting change. There's a biblical passage that comes to mind: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn on the floor." One of the steam locomotive manufacturers made reference to that passage around 1949 in advertising that said they were building both steam (their "ox") and diesel locomotives (the newcomer at that time) but implied they would never give up on steam (they rightfully indicated that steam-versus-diesel was the customer's choice). Those guys went out of business long ago. They didn't understand the real reasons why customers were switching from steam to diesel locomotives and failed to see the handwritting on the wall. The "pressure" that drove railroads to dieselize was, in most cases, not environmental but financial (diesel locomotives were less expensive to operate and maintain than steam). The "pressures" today include environmental change. Tier 2 locomotives (including ECO repowers) meet the EPA regulations but increasingly that isn't and won't be sufficient. And in southern California even Tier 2 is under great challenge.

By the way, KCS operates in the middle, between Indiana and California.



Date: 09/25/10 20:59
Re: Genset polluting the Harbor Sub
Author: rcall31060

cadmus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, rcall, since you are from Indiana, here's
> some "why":
>
> As you point out, EMD ECO repowered locomotives
> meet EPA Tier 2 emissions levels (the same levels
> which GE Evo's and EMD ACe's and M-2's meet). The
> gensets are also Tier 2 certified but produce
> about 45% less NOx (which makes smog ... ever been
> to LA?) than the Tier 2 limit, and about 65% less
> particulate matter than the Tier 2 limit. Simply
> put, an ECO repower MEETS Tier 2 limits but cannot
> meet the emissions levels of the gensets. Yes, an
> ECO repower "is designed to do the same job as a
> genset", it's "legal" under EPA regulations, but
> it still produces greater emissions.

OK cadmus, I'm up for a challenge.

1: Yeah, I've been to LA.

2: On the NOx and Particulate Matter side of the equation: so what? Are you telling me that an ECO unit cannot be sold in the LA Basin? IT MEETS THE EPA TIER 2 STANDARD and if you look at the latest EMD ECO ad (see the latest Trains "LOCOMOTIVE 2010" special edition, inside the front cover), they say it exceeds it. Let's see your proof on NOx and Particulate Emissions on the gensets.
>
> Wanna know "why #2"?
>
> There are even tighter EPA limits for new
> locomotives coming up in 2012 and particularly
> 2015.

No!!!! Really???? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I Tell you!!!

FYI, I am an avid reader of Diesel Progress magazine and have been for many years. If you haven't heard of that magazine, Google it. I think that I've got a pretty good handle on what's coming via the out-of control, tyrannical, Federal bureaucratic SOB's at the EPA and their moron stepchildren at CARB. In the latest issue of the magazine, there's a pretty interesting interview with the CEO of CAT. He expounds on CAT's purchase of EMD through Progress Rail. By the way, will the last business or industry to leave "The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia" please turn out the lights?

Today's Evo's, ACe's, ECO repowers and even
> gensets as they are built today cannot meet those
> limits. For lower horsepower applications, the
> gensets more likely to achieve those limits. So
> get ready for more change (eventually even in
> Indiana).

Gensets are more likely are they? I seem to recall "everyone" saying that EMD had to ditch the 2 cycle engine in favor of the 4 cycle 265H, because there was just "NO WAY" that EMD was going to meet the draconian standards that the EPA and CARB were foisting on the loco builders. Guess they were wrong, huh? Do you seriously want to bet that EMD, now backed by CAT's considerable resources, is NOT going to meet the coming standards for its ECO engine platform? You're not that dumb, are you???

>
> "Why #3?":
>
> California, particularly southern California,
> isn't Indiana.

Yeah, I know. "Kalifornia" is the land of fruits and nuts. Indiana isn't. Thank God.

Oh, by the way, the same things
> generating change in southern California are now
> generating change in other parts of the country
> (not necessarily yet in Indiana).

Yeah. Just what we in "Flyover Country" want: change initiated by "Kalifornia". They've driven business and industry out of the state, spent themselves into oblivion, are handing out IOU's to taxpayers and for all practical purposes, are BANKRUPT!!!! And as sure as I'm sitting here writing this, they're going to ask the US Taxpayer to bail them out. My response to that scenario? You don't want to know. I could go on, but what's the point?

In some areas
> (like California) it's no longer what a motive
> power superintendent may "want".

Yeah, I know. Some moonbat, liberal politician with a(D) behind his name, is now calling the shots. And business and industry continue to flee the state. George Orwell had it right. Ayn Rand saw what was coming in "Atlas Shrugged".

Motive power
> superintendents in general in the 1940s did not
> "want" to replace their steam locomotives with
> diesel locomotives.

You know this for a fact how???

(N&W was building new steam
> locomotives in 1954).

You REALLY don't want to be making statements on why the N&W was building steam locomotives in 1954 (they built S1a 0-8-0 switchers that year), on the basis of what their MPS wanted, BTW. In point of fact, in head to head tests against an N&W A and a Y6b (I can give you the exact engine numbers, if you like) an A-B-B-A set of EMD F7's failed to demonstrate any significant advantage over the A or Y6b, that would cause the N&W to immediately begin the process of wholesale Dieselization of it's RR. That is a FACT.
>
> Clearly this post will generate more derisive
> comments lamenting change. There's a biblical
> passage that comes to mind: "Thou shalt not muzzle
> the ox that treadeth out thy corn on the floor."
> One of the steam locomotive manufacturers made
> reference to that passage around 1949 in
> advertising that said they were building both
> steam (their "ox") and diesel locomotives (the
> newcomer at that time) but implied they would
> never give up on steam (they rightfully indicated
> that steam-versus-diesel was the customer's
> choice). Those guys went out of business long ago.
> They didn't understand the real reasons why
> customers were switching from steam to diesel
> locomotives and failed to see the handwritting on
> the wall.

Failed to see the handwriting on the wall??? When do you think Baldwin, Lima and Alco started building Diesel locomotives??? After they built their last steam locomotives??? Your credibility's going down the drain quickly here, pal.

The "pressure" that drove railroads to
> dieselize was, in most cases, not environmental
> but financial (diesel locomotives were less
> expensive to operate and maintain than steam). The
> "pressures" today include environmental change.
> Tier 2 locomotives (including ECO repowers) meet
> the EPA regulations but increasingly that isn't
> and won't be sufficient. And in southern
> California even Tier 2 is under great challenge.

We shall see. The political landscape is going to change markedly on Nov 2nd. How I look forward to it!!!
>
> By the way, KCS operates in the middle, between
> Indiana and California.

And your point is what? That because KCS doesn't operate in SoCal, they don't need to buy these hyped-up gensets, can do without their wonderful benefits and EMD ECO units will do just fine??? How elitist of you. If they're good enough for SoCal, they're good enough for the the folks in Kansas City, or Shreveport, or New Orleans, or TX, or even in Mexico. No? I mean, if these gensets are SO much better for the environment than an EMD ECO unit, then the KCS must be guilty of criminal negligence by buying ECO units vs gensets. NO???? BTW, the UP does operate in SoCal. The first of 10 ECO units are now going into service. I'm sure that they'll be seen in SoCal. Keep an eye out for them.

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/10 20:45 by rcall31060.



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.2769 seconds