Would this have been a good way to keep the amount of used locomotives on the
market lower? If there aren't enough used engines available you can kind of
force companies to go new.
Dan
On Jan 3, 2012, at 9:11 AM, William Barber <clipperw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
>
> The car bodies and frame structure of the "F" model locomotives was unusable
> on GP type locomotives. The "F" carbody was sort of a bridge structure. The
> frame was not self supporting. The framework of the carbody and the frame was
> one integral structural assembly. The outside covering was strictly a non
> structural enclosure. For GP and SD locomotives, on the other hand, the frame
> was a self supporting stand alone structure. The complete carbody was simply
> an enclosure with no structural function.
>
> The trade in program that began with the GP20 model, salvaged usable and
> rebuildable components. The rest was scrapped. Components included truck
> frames, traction motor frames and armature cores, generator frames and
> armature cores, engine crankshafts, cams, pumps, gears plus other sundry
> items. Customers could trade a four axle locomotive for a six axle and still
> get credit for components such as truck frames which then went into a pool.
> In some case, EMD even took non EMD locomotives in trade. In most cases,
> nothing was used from those locomotives, but some GP30s and GP35s were
> equipped with rebuilt Alco trucks if the customer requested the reuse. The
> customer still received some credit for the non EMD locomotive. If a trade in
> piece could not be salvaged, such as a broken crankshaft, the customer did
> not receive credit for that item and was billed for new. They could ship
> another qualified crankshaft in if they so desired. As locomotive design
> evolved, fewer components were reusable and the program gradually faded. The
> development of the AR10 alternator eliminated the generator trade in from
> older locomotives. The introduction of the 710 model diesel engine eliminated
> most of the salvageable engine components.
>
> From EMD's standpoint, it was a complicated book keeping process in the days
> before computers. For the customer, it proved to be an outstanding
> opportunity to upgrade their motive power, reduce locomotive fleet! s and
> gain significant financial benefit from their old trade in power. The Q was
> an early and frequent participant in the trade in program up through the 40
> series models. GE, of course, offered a similar program, but could reuse most
> of the components. Government accounting procedure changes in the early stage
> of the program helped facilitate the process.
>
> Bill Barber
> Gravois Mills, MO
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|