Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: "New" BNSF GP60

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeBlossom View Post
    The GP60Ms and GP60Bs were slightly different, mechanically and electrically, from a standard GP60. They have their own unique electrical systems, different traction motor specification, etc. Being mechanically similar to the GP60Ms is why these rebuilds were put in the 170 series rather than the 8740 series on top of the standard cab GP60s.

    The B units also lacked all the piping related to control stands and air brake systems that would need to be added. There is alot for this design to prove. There was never a "standard cab" GP60M built. (the M in that designation implied more than a different cab)

    All of the work done so far has been done by contractors. The remaining stuff can be done by BNSF at Topeka at their leisure after the unit is deemed a success.
    I understand the differences, but has anything drastic been done to the normal GP60B systems in this conversion that would necessitate a test period? It's my understanding it's just the addition of a cab and other accessories not present previously like the control stands and piping you mention.

    Not really any components here that are unproven and not already present on the BNSF roster in various models. From what I've read, the test unit was done to detirmine the financial viability of a conversion program, not to decide if it's viable from a mechanical standpoint.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hastings, MN, 55033
    Posts
    3,604

    Default

    ...That's probably because CNW did that research for them a few decades ago...

  3. #13

    Default

    The CNW had GP60s decades ago? LOL.... E8s, GP60s, all the same.....

    Personally, I think we are just parsing words here as part of this uselss arguement. Potatos, or potatoes?

    Financial viability is impacted by mechanical availability. The more time this demo sits in the shop getting bugs worked out during its trail period, the less financially viable the program becomes - because any lack of availability due to a lack of reliability has a price that gets 'charged' to this conversion program, too.

    This certainly wasnt just to test the price of the actual conversion activities. Most of that cost is ironed out beforehand, before anyone turns a wrench, and there is nothing really to test. The railroad's mechanical people and accountants come up with a certain per-unit cost figure, X dollars, that the railroad is willing to spend, and they cut a deal with contractors for X dollars. If the contractor gets the work done for less than X, its certainly not their incentive to disclose that back to the railroad, as they would be undercutting themselves on the potential remaining work.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->