Need helps to improve this newly created page. Thank you.

265 Rebranding[edit]

The EMD 1010 is a re-branded 256. I had already brought up on the 256 page the need for a merger or rename. I am going to start doing that manually. Sturmovik (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any problems with this please bring it up here instead of reverting things. If you have to propose a rename or a merger/split I'll do that, but there are few enough editors to avoid that sort of hassle.Sturmovik (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the J engine is a rebranded H. I do believe they have the same bore and stroke but is otherwise substantially different. As things stand you have two different engines sharing one page. I think that's dumb. I also point out with some degree of bemusement that EMD seems to have repented from having deviated from their old method of naming engines after the cubic inch displacement of a single cylinder like the 567, 645, and 710. The H was named after the cylinder diameter in mm. With the J engine, presumably still a metric measured engine, they have gone back to one cylinder CID, hence 1010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.145.130 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling[edit]

Does the 1010J use water or antifreeze cooling? The 265H infamously used antifreeze, unlike the straight water which nearly all other North American locomotive diesel engines use.

That's a good question. Do you have a source on the anti-freeze thing? I feel that would get a citation-needed.Sturmovik (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a question of climate rather than the type of engine? In cold climates it may be impractical/uneconomical and environmentally undesirable to keep the locomotive heated while parked, so you add antifreeze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias b köhler (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anti-freeze is optional then it is a matter of climate. If it is required then it is an issue with the engine. Anti-freeze gets very expensive very quickly and railroads prefer using water whenever possible.Sturmovik (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that while less than reliable in locomotives, the 265H has been quite successful a marine engine. 2001:56A:F1D2:A900:2C15:3565:8320:40BE (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of the kinks were worked out with the 300 units built in China. I heard there were issues with the crankshaft, sort of like the 645F.Sturmovik (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research and while some say the 265H was used in many marine applications, others said it had few sales and was dropped from the catalog. Also, I believe that mechanically the 265H was improved during its initial production, but the SD90MAC was so poorly designed in general it cast a pall over the engine. Finally GM was reluctant to invest in a new engine at that time.Sturmovik (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

265H in India?[edit]

I don't think that India uses 265H engines, or has that changed in their latest order? The WDG5 has a 20-710G3B engine (same as the EMD SD80MAC). However it seems that the WDG5 still has not been produced in large quantities yet; partly due to infrastructure issues (axle load). [1] --Tobias b köhler (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please no more argument of the EMD 1010J successor![edit]

I have contacted Progress Rail privately and personally to settle the disputes concerning the successor to the EMD 1010J for good. Here's their answer (I didn't even edit a single letter!):

"Desianto the EMD 265H's successor would be the EMD 1010j. The Caterpillar C280 was the successor to the Caterpillar 3600 series. The EMD engine's and the Caterpillar engines are their own separate entities."

I hope this is enough. Thank you! Desianto F. W. (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]