ATSF is my favorite railroad, I've heard of them before.

The CF7’s looked ugly to some, but they were real miracle workers. I’ve heard crews praise the CF7’s for their flexibility and large windows

@@Coloribus2004 maybe it was the short little nose? The first railroad I worked for had about a dozen CF-7s and a pair of GP-7s. Except for the position of the batteries and the nose shapes, they were almost identical to each other to us crew folk.

@@AaronArroyo-sn4uysame

Those CF7s were built before the Environmental Police Agency really started mandating all these Tier rules. I think they overstepped their power and have caused many things to cost more because of their actions. Besides many older locomotives were grandfathered and allowed to keep running. Just look at the Alcos and MLWs that are still running. Anyway I thought that the EMD that opened the video was a rebuilt with EMD components. Thanks for the info.

They want to hire ILLEGALS YES I said ILLEGALS for the job.

Boeing all over again!

Meh ge’s have always been junk so they will be even worse!

Do you mean cheap, Mexican labor ?

se habla espanol

They are slippery from what I heard and have had issues in the colder climates.

It's just one more accessory to maintain. Locomotives used to have marker lamps or sometimes called section lamps. There was a mechanical rod that changed the lenses from red to white and to green. While their usage became unnecessary in the 70s, any Locomotive equipped with such accessory had to maintain it in order to pass inspection. Broken or malfunctioning section lights were a defect and the engine could not pass an inspection while the accessory was defective. This included the bulb behind the lens that were not used! And yet in certain cases, it was cheaper to keep a working light bulb in the socket than it was to remove and cover the fixture altogether, so it stayed. Appliances, fixtures and other accessories that are not required or have been made obsolete, are really more hassle than their worth. And making something a standard requirement would need some safety background to justify its necessity. Red lights vs ditch lights or even a glowing headlight is probably not going to win any favor since both have the same meaning. "Train or engine here, stop before you reach the coupler, thanks!" The argument about flashing or "wig-wag" ditch lights has been a fundamental debate since the mid-90s when ditch lights themselves became a requirement. But the wig-wags are not required by law. Certain railroads prefer them because they feel it offers an extra level of safety while other railroads remain firm in the stance that its just not necessary at all.

Canadian RRs have been trend setters for safety. So while the previous reply seemed to think this use of a red marker used in DPU mode at the rear end is just another item to repair and won’t last, I think it is a good idea. After 40 years working the ATSF mainline (now BNSF Transcon) a red marker on a crowded main I think it is much better than a headlight on dim.

yes😂

It's a SD23T4

The only difference is that it has a GEVO engine

​@@bowlinglegendofleftwich4775so like an ES44AC...

@@RaisedLetter yeah, ES44ACs and ET44ACs use the same engine, except that they used an ET44AC engine for the Tier 4 specifications

Don’t forget 7 Idea Productions my guy.

That's really cool! Thanks for sharing the channel with them.

Thank you, sir!

I left out of Tilford one time with 6 U18Bs, all painted orange for mow service “only”, on a revenue train, because they were the only engines left in the yard lol

@@mikeingeorgia1 sounds about right lol, there was a time we were down to two engines to cover all of our locals (7 at that time) and one for switching lol

They have two assigned to road service on the former Pan Am territory. Crew hate them, they are constantly breaking down, load slow, are slippery, and are gutless. For the longest time they were getting sent into the shops every other trip.

Illinois Central Paducah-builts with their strange ox-bow intakes. Santa Fe CF-7s where they took a F-unit car body off, and replaced it with a unique freight body. And then some one-of-a-kinds that served as a way for locomotive shops to flex their muscles and show just how much skill they had at building a jalopy of a locomotive. I've been railroading almost 25 years and only just recently learned about the "Beep" haha!

Water works fine. Antifreeze is expensive and toxic. In cold weather, diesels are kept running to prevent freeze-up. Water in oil will also destroy engines.

@@Greatdome99 That is interesting. My thought was that water lacks corrosion inhibitors (the primary reason I change my car's antifreeze according to the service manual)?

⁠while they could use the same pink antifreeze as RV drinking water systems, it is probably still too expensive and messy most of the time.

@@user-hb2gh6wh7e - For some reason, I know more about antifreeze than I should. In your car, when you add fresh antifreeze, it reacts with bare metal and forms a protective film to prevent further corrosion. As the miles add up, the pump slowly wears down, constantly exposing “fresh metal” that then reacts with the same corrosion inhibitors. Eventually the system “uses up” those inhibitors and that’s when you need to change the coolant. When carmakers switched to long-life coolants a few years ago, they had to redesign the pumps to reduce cavitation and erosion, some even switched to non-metallic pumps in spite of the high cost of glass-reinforced nylon parts.

@ClockworksOfGL the main reason locomotives do not use antifreeze is because they are running more often than not. And if they are running, the coolant will not ever freeze in normal conditions. That being said, I remember seeing instructions on a locomotive in Alaska to leave it running idle in Run 3 (throttle position) when the outside temperature was below -25C. I've also been a (trainmaster) of a short line that had to get out of bed at 11pm and go fire up some engines that would freeze otherwise.

U-boats don't have particularly large radiators. And if anybody tells you they've seen a U-boat today, they're almost certainly mistaken. There are almost none still running. Barely even any Dash-7s, which people keep calling "U-boats" but they're a generation later.

@@beeble2003 Most didn't, true, but it is worth noting the U36B and C had larger ones, and I think my dad associates radiator wings with U-boats as a result. Dad and I are both into trains, and we have had a number of Lionel O gauge and Bachmann HO and N U36Bs over the years, so he makes the association, as he is much more casual a railfan, in that he enjoys seeing them, knows some units, but that's about it. To him, every road unit GE has made is a U-boat.

Then Metra in Chicago might decide that they want a 710 with DEF in something rather than add the 265/1010 to the mix, as they have an all-EMD fleet except for the electrics and the yet to be delivered Stadler MUs.

@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis CSX got rid of the t4 SD70s they had, well gave them back to Progress Rail, anyways.

Because they sucked irrc

@@bluegrassman3040 They were on a 5 year lease, CSX never owned them, Progress did.

@@alexmarks7275 yes I know that.

Wonderful and Ekyrail usually aren't paired together

Thanks man!

Thanks!

Is CSX planning to put them in local or normal service anytime soon?

@@TealGuy like k said strictly MOW duties. They was the ones who funded the rebuilt

@@tylerrose5232 oh ok

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

@@v12productions You just replied to a porn spammer.

Thanks!

Will do. Thanks!

Thanks!

Amusingly, the 1010J is just an improved 265H (thanks to Caterpillar) from the SD90 and SD89 models.

@RailsofForney I wonder if cummins will ever produce a 8 cylinder 3/4ton truck engine. It's always been a 6 cylinder

@@freedomfan4272 i8s would be a bad idea due to their length, but a V8 or upscaled VR8 would be a good idea.

@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis Sounds good to me

"Finally"? EMD have been making four-stroke engines since 2015...

Many thanks!

Quite a bit more cost, and you end up as lower power in either diesel or electric mode. Neither diesel nor electric locomotives have enough free space in them to accommodate the equipment of the other.

@@beeble2003 You do know that virtually all diesel locos use their diesel engines to generate electricity to run electric motors. ‘Diesel-electric-electrics’ are also known ‘electric Diesels’. BtW there’s no space issue that can’t be resolved by making the locos a couple of metres longer. Go do a search. It really is as simple as sticking a pantograph unit ontop with the added electric switching & wiring. Yes some are a compromise, but there are ones like the Spanish ones that run like both a full power Diesel-electric loco & a full power electric loco, just with a choice of either. Although some have huge banks of batteries as well, that’s really another type that I wasn’t referring to.

@@mickvonbornemann3824 Thanks, I know how diesel-electric locomotives work. The problem is that you seem to think that an electric locomotive is simply an empty box with a pantograph on the top, traction motors at the bottom and wires between the two, so all that's needed is sticking a diesel engine and generator/alternator in the empty space. They're not empty boxes.

@@beeble2003 i know, but it’s not rocket science, do a search on “electric-diesels”, not all are compromises. There are ones that exist that match the full specs of both full powered electric locos & full powered diesel electrics, & they’re only a few metres longer. Go check out the Spanish ones. They really do make more sense on rail systems that are only electrified in urban areas & greater populated regional areas, leaving most of the country regions unnelectrified. Take Australia, where the big trans continental trains all have to change over to diesel locos about 100 to 300km out from capital cities

I've wondered why this isn't done elsewhere. Other than railroading's gigantic mutatiaphobia.

Thanks!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you!

“GE” is a strange way to spell “Alstom”

Ironically, GE Transportation made a lot of money rebuilding EMD locomotives for a while, as did MK, which became Wabtec in a somewhat complicated history before buying the GE Transportation division.

@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis Dash 8 are gone they got cut up like the Dash7 In 2006

​@@williamgreeter1855Dash 8s would and should have been considered for rebuilds. Not many left around anymore.

@williamgreeter1855 CSX has a lot more GE's on their roster than EMD.

Presumably Union Pacific did, and the answer was "terrible".

Thanks!

I have.

@@alexmarks7275 That’s great. Being a retired locomotive engineer I’ve run lots of locomotives but never one of those.

Thanks for watching!

Is it any good?

@@Biker_Gremling loads like a road engine. Shit for yard work. We need motors that load quick and put power down but once it loads up it pulls anything we put on it. But there are a lot of faults that keep popping up. It spends alot of time in the pit

No it isn't. That's a 2000s era GE locomotive. Tunnel motors were SD40s and SD45s. And I don't think any tunnel motors were rebuilds -- the whole thing would need to be re-engineered as, for example, the SD40T has body over the whole length of the frame.

what does the pit carry?...besides pearly whites>>>

Emd all day

Or you could research it yourself

@@freedomfan4272 Sure, but if somebody's going to make a video about low-emissions diesel locomotives and claim multiple times that bigger radiators reduce emissions, that claim should be explained in the video itself. It's not just some tangential thing -- it's one of the video's main points.

I'm no locomotive mechanic or anything but I know the way they measure a locomotives horsepower in the field is by attaching a dynamic grid to the generator output and measuring the amperage at max throttle. 3500 amps at 600 volts is just a little over 2000 horsepower. And then you are dividing that amperage between 4 or 6 traction motors, one with an ammeter in the cab for the engineer to see.

Should be on, but only actually _required_ if going through a grade crossing at more than 20mph. (Or is it 25?)

Or research it yourself

Thanks

There were all kinds of experiments with turbines for rail power in the 1960s and 1970s. They were all failures.