Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#41

Post by buildsjets »

Zak wrote: post #36
mikewarot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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.

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#42

Post by bluGill »

SoftTalker wrote: post #19
m463 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What a dumb requirement. Wonder how "disabled" it has to be? Or maybe it could be transferred to another organization that might meet the requirements of the state? Maybe something like roaring camp railroad, or niles canyon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Camp_%26_Big_Trees_Nar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon_Railway

"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.

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#43

Post by bluGill »

buildsjets wrote: post #41
Zak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#44

Post by Scoundreller »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #20

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 o…

> 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.

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#45

Post by ok_dad »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #37

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.

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#46

Post by Zak »

buildsjets wrote: post #41
Zak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#48

Post by toast0 »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #26
toast0 wrote: post #8

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.

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.

Re: Ask HN: What would you do with a 130 ton locomotive?

#49

Post by anticensor »

bluGill wrote: post #42
SoftTalker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.
Post reply on HN