6 cylinder GEVO

[carnej1]

 I do know that the SCL U18B fleet led relatively long lives as far as U Boats go, a number made it well into the CSX era. I also seem to remember the Guilford Transportation had some of the Maine Central units on it's roster well into the nineties. So it seems the FDL-8 (which was def. a "V" engine) was a reasonably successful design...

[erikem]

carnej1

 I am somewhat confused as GE did build a large number of locomotives with the 8 cylinder version of the FDL engine, which is a four cycle. The U18B and a number of export models used that powerplant. so obviously it can be done. Alco also built 6 and 8 cylinder versions of the four cycle 251 engine (S6, C415)....

I don't know about the 8 cylinder FDL engine, but I do recall reading that the 8 cylinder engine on the C-415 required balance shafts to keep vibration down to a manageable level (as it was a 45 degree Vee block). The 6 cylinder 251 was an inline configuration, which is reasonably well balanced and has even firing intervals.

[carnej1]

erikem

carnej1 wrote:

erikem wrote:

Dutchrailnut wrote:

There is both a 6 and 8 cylinder inline Gevo, here is folder for marine version. http://skamek.com/default.asp?page=6621,6727,7160&lang=2

 

Thanks for the link - 'course I could have gone to the GE website and tried looking up the info myself.

An inline 8 cylinder engine makes more sense than a V-8 for lcomotive use, a 90 degree Vee would be too wide for locomotive use (unless using a large truck engine). Alco did have a V-8 in the C-415, but the 45 degree Vee configuration necessitated the use of balance shafts. The disadvantage of the inline 8 is that it wieghs only 2,000 pounds less than the 12V250 (42,000lb vs 44,000lb).

Part of the interest in the inline 8 (AKA straight 8) is nostalgia about the prevalance of straight 8's in American luxury cars from the 1920's to the early 1950's - though these were typically flatheads (with the excption of the DOHC Duesenberg and OHV Buick). 

 

 

 EMD has the V8 version of the 710 in the new demonstrators (GP22) they are offering. IINM back in the early days of the 710 engine EMD had a GP2000 in their catalog which would essentially have been a GP15(or maybe a BL20 if built on a recycled frame) with an 8-710 in it. I know they never built even a demonstrator....

 

 

Bear in mind that EMD engines are two cycle, while GE engines are four cycle. A 45 degree two cycle V-8 is no problem as that would give 45 degrees between ignition events with a normal crankshaft. A 45 degree four cycle V-8 would require a split crank (as GM did for the 90 degree V-6) to maintain 90 degree timing between ignition events. 

 I am somewhat confused as GE did build a large number of locomotives with the 8 cylinder version of the FDL engine, which is a four cycle. The U18B and a number of export models used that powerplant. so obviously it can be done. Alco also built 6 and 8 cylinder versions of the four cycle 251 engine (S6, C415)....

[erikem]

al-in-chgo

Please help me out here:  I've always heard that two-stroke engines (gas-powered chainsaws, small rotary lawnmowers, the hideous little E. German Trabant auto) are inherently more polluting than the four-stroke engines, which is why today in very pollution-aware districts like Southern California, we're getting mostly four-stroke scooters as well as motorcycles, four-cycle lawnmowers instead of two-strike (or go to electric), etc. 

Does any of this apply to the workings of EMD's big guns?  And if so, how does EMD keep its stuff from polluting more compared to (all other things equal) a roughly same-cylindered and -horsepowered GE engine? 

Two stroke gasolene engines (more technical term is "mixture engine") tend to be more polluing than a four stroke engine due to the fuel/air mixture being blown from intake port to exhaust port and thus dumping a lot of unburned fuel into the exhaust. A two cycle diesel engine just blows air through the cylinder during scavenging, so the emissions from a two cycle diesel isn't much different from a four cycle diesel.
 

[al-in-chgo]

There is both a 6 and 8 cylinder inline Gevo, here is folder for marine version.

http://skamek.com/default.asp?page=6621,6727,7160&lang=2

Thanks for the link - 'course I could have gone to the GE website and tried looking up the info myself.

An inline 8 cylinder engine makes more sense than a V-8 for lcomotive use, a 90 degree Vee would be too wide for locomotive use (unless using a large truck engine). Alco did have a V-8 in the C-415, but the 45 degree Vee configuration necessitated the use of balance shafts. The disadvantage of the inline 8 is that it wieghs only 2,000 pounds less than the 12V250 (42,000lb vs 44,000lb).

Part of the interest in the inline 8 (AKA straight 8) is nostalgia about the prevalance of straight 8's in American luxury cars from the 1920's to the early 1950's - though these were typically flatheads (with the excption of the DOHC Duesenberg and OHV Buick). 

 EMD has the V8 version of the 710 in the new demonstrators (GP22) they are offering. IINM back in the early days of the 710 engine EMD had a GP2000 in their catalog which would essentially have been a GP15(or maybe a BL20 if built on a recycled frame) with an 8-710 in it. I know they never built even a demonstrator....

Bear in mind that EMD engines are two cycle, while GE engines are four cycle. A 45 degree two cycle V-8 is no problem as that would give 45 degrees between ignition events with a normal crankshaft. A 45 degree four cycle V-8 would require a split crank (as GM did for the 90 degree V-6) to maintain 90 degree timing between ignition events. 

Please help me out here:  I've always heard that two-stroke engines (gas-powered chainsaws, small rotary lawnmowers, the hideous little E. German Trabant auto) are inherently more polluting than the four-stroke engines, which is why today in very pollution-aware districts like Southern California, we're getting mostly four-stroke scooters as well as motorcycles, four-cycle lawnmowers instead of two-strike (or go to electric), etc. 

Does any of this apply to the workings of EMD's big guns?  And if so, how does EMD keep its stuff from polluting more compared to (all other things equal) a roughly same-cylindered and -horsepowered GE engine? 

 

[erikem]

There is both a 6 and 8 cylinder inline Gevo, here is folder for marine version.

http://skamek.com/default.asp?page=6621,6727,7160&lang=2

Thanks for the link - 'course I could have gone to the GE website and tried looking up the info myself.

An inline 8 cylinder engine makes more sense than a V-8 for lcomotive use, a 90 degree Vee would be too wide for locomotive use (unless using a large truck engine). Alco did have a V-8 in the C-415, but the 45 degree Vee configuration necessitated the use of balance shafts. The disadvantage of the inline 8 is that it wieghs only 2,000 pounds less than the 12V250 (42,000lb vs 44,000lb).

Part of the interest in the inline 8 (AKA straight 8) is nostalgia about the prevalance of straight 8's in American luxury cars from the 1920's to the early 1950's - though these were typically flatheads (with the excption of the DOHC Duesenberg and OHV Buick). 

 EMD has the V8 version of the 710 in the new demonstrators (GP22) they are offering. IINM back in the early days of the 710 engine EMD had a GP2000 in their catalog which would essentially have been a GP15(or maybe a BL20 if built on a recycled frame) with an 8-710 in it. I know they never built even a demonstrator....

Bear in mind that EMD engines are two cycle, while GE engines are four cycle. A 45 degree two cycle V-8 is no problem as that would give 45 degrees between ignition events with a normal crankshaft. A 45 degree four cycle V-8 would require a split crank (as GM did for the 90 degree V-6) to maintain 90 degree timing between ignition events. 

[al-in-chgo]

One of GE's sites says that the new freight units they're building in Kazakhstan (for Kazakstani use) meet U.S. EPA Tier II requirements.  Does that mean some of the longer and more aggressive short lines would be able to buy this kind of engine assuming GE can make vehicle(s) for a good price? 

I'm more interested in hearing whether it meets EPA pollution requirements than whether short lines can actually afford it -- which remains to be seen.   -  a. s.

 

[WSOR 3801]

With the V8 in place of a V16, there is a lot more room inside to add Hotstarts, other emission add-ons, Head End Power units, etc.  Ballast can be added where and as needed.  Could also make a shorter engine, for tighter spaces, on maybe a MP15 frame (road trucks). 

[carnej1]

There is both a 6 and 8 cylinder inline Gevo, here is folder for marine version.

http://skamek.com/default.asp?page=6621,6727,7160&lang=2

Thanks for the link - 'course I could have gone to the GE website and tried looking up the info myself.

An inline 8 cylinder engine makes more sense than a V-8 for lcomotive use, a 90 degree Vee would be too wide for locomotive use (unless using a large truck engine). Alco did have a V-8 in the C-415, but the 45 degree Vee configuration necessitated the use of balance shafts. The disadvantage of the inline 8 is that it wieghs only 2,000 pounds less than the 12V250 (42,000lb vs 44,000lb).

Part of the interest in the inline 8 (AKA straight 8) is nostalgia about the prevalance of straight 8's in American luxury cars from the 1920's to the early 1950's - though these were typically flatheads (with the excption of the DOHC Duesenberg and OHV Buick). 

 EMD has the V8 version of the 710 in the new demonstrators (GP22) they are offering. IINM back in the early days of the 710 engine EMD had a GP2000 in their catalog which would essentially have been a GP15(or maybe a BL20 if built on a recycled frame) with an 8-710 in it. I know they never built even a demonstrator....

[MStLfan]

Who says the main market for this engine (6 or 8 cylinders) will be North America?

Horsepower is about right for many European applications if not worldwide.

And another thought: how long and how often can you remanufacture old locomotive platforms like GP7's or GP9's or even GP38's?

It seems from past experience that GE is in it for the long haul, who knows, maybe they come up with a smaller locomotive too if they can get the price right. Not all regional railroads can make the leap from GP38's or GP40's x many times remanufactured to 4400 hp locomotives.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

[edbenton]

Actually by going with the INLINE GE had a stroke of Genuis when you think about it.  Why you are asking.  ONE YOU DO NOT NEED TO ADD BALLAST to get the unit back up to weight.  Second with it being an INline the other side can be used to run the emissons and other stuff on the unit.

[erikem]

There is both a 6 and 8 cylinder inline Gevo, here is folder for marine version.

http://skamek.com/default.asp?page=6621,6727,7160&lang=2

Thanks for the link - 'course I could have gone to the GE website and tried looking up the info myself.

An inline 8 cylinder engine makes more sense than a V-8 for lcomotive use, a 90 degree Vee would be too wide for locomotive use (unless using a large truck engine). Alco did have a V-8 in the C-415, but the 45 degree Vee configuration necessitated the use of balance shafts. The disadvantage of the inline 8 is that it wieghs only 2,000 pounds less than the 12V250 (42,000lb vs 44,000lb).

Part of the interest in the inline 8 (AKA straight 8) is nostalgia about the prevalance of straight 8's in American luxury cars from the 1920's to the early 1950's - though these were typically flatheads (with the excption of the DOHC Duesenberg and OHV Buick). 

[al-in-chgo]

  A good repowering is more than just replacing the prime mover.  There is a combination of issues, and the components must match:

• New Prime Mover - will it spin at a similar RPM so it matches the Main Generator?
• Main Generator - can it deliver the power supplied by the new prime mover?
• Electrical Control System - will it match the power delivered and be able to control it? 

  Repowering jobs have gone bad due to a mis-match of the above 3 systems.

Jim

Just as the eight cylinder 710ECO is matched to the alternator and cooling system of a GP40, the six cylinder GEVO matches any number of B23-7, B30-7, B40-8 and similar.

The 6L250 (extrapolating from the name used in non railroad applications of 12V250 for the GEVO) has 250mm bore, 320mm stroke and a maximum speed of 1050 rpm which matches the old FDL.

Rebuilding of old GEs was unpopular because the FDL engine would generally need replacement. Since a new engine would be needed for emissions reasons, the rebuilt B23-7 might become a branch line unit or switcher of choice.

M636C

Were most of the "SUPER 7" rebuilds done using new prime movers or did they remanufacture the core units Diesels?

 It's my understanding that there are not large numbers of 4 axle Dash 7 units on the market as so many have been recycled for scrap...

 The shortline Georgia Central still has several ex-Southern high-hood U23Bs.

 

GE still had the original U25B "XP24"demonstrator at Erie until a few short years ago.  I think GE eventually scrapped it. 

Many Dash 7s that left Class I service ended up in South America, some retrucked for narrow gauge.  Even if the new GEVO reengineing option isn't very successful here in the US, there's still a potential rebuild market for GE in South America and elsewhere.

I should keep the picture of the U-boat just to prove that not all GE's fritz out years before their equivalent EMD models. 

And I'm beginning to understand why GE wanted (and gets to) replace all the works on its Russian "Soviet-Era" diesel-electrics; then it will be all their workings except for the exterior.  - a.s.

 

[Lyon_Wonder]

  A good repowering is more than just replacing the prime mover.  There is a combination of issues, and the components must match:

• New Prime Mover - will it spin at a similar RPM so it matches the Main Generator?
• Main Generator - can it deliver the power supplied by the new prime mover?
• Electrical Control System - will it match the power delivered and be able to control it? 

  Repowering jobs have gone bad due to a mis-match of the above 3 systems.

Jim

Just as the eight cylinder 710ECO is matched to the alternator and cooling system of a GP40, the six cylinder GEVO matches any number of B23-7, B30-7, B40-8 and similar.

The 6L250 (extrapolating from the name used in non railroad applications of 12V250 for the GEVO) has 250mm bore, 320mm stroke and a maximum speed of 1050 rpm which matches the old FDL.

Rebuilding of old GEs was unpopular because the FDL engine would generally need replacement. Since a new engine would be needed for emissions reasons, the rebuilt B23-7 might become a branch line unit or switcher of choice.

M636C

Were most of the "SUPER 7" rebuilds done using new prime movers or did they remanufacture the core units Diesels?

 It's my understanding that there are not large numbers of 4 axle Dash 7 units on the market as so many have been recycled for scrap...

 The shortline Georgia Central still has several ex-Southern high-hood U23Bs.

 

GE still had the original U25B "XP24"demonstrator at Erie until a few short years ago.  I think GE eventually scrapped it. 

Many Dash 7s that left Class I service ended up in South America, some retrucked for narrow gauge.  Even if the new GEVO reengineing option isn't very successful here in the US, there's still a potential rebuild market for GE in South America and elsewhere.

[carnej1]

  A good repowering is more than just replacing the prime mover.  There is a combination of issues, and the components must match:

• New Prime Mover - will it spin at a similar RPM so it matches the Main Generator?
• Main Generator - can it deliver the power supplied by the new prime mover?
• Electrical Control System - will it match the power delivered and be able to control it? 

  Repowering jobs have gone bad due to a mis-match of the above 3 systems.

Jim

Just as the eight cylinder 710ECO is matched to the alternator and cooling system of a GP40, the six cylinder GEVO matches any number of B23-7, B30-7, B40-8 and similar.

The 6L250 (extrapolating from the name used in non railroad applications of 12V250 for the GEVO) has 250mm bore, 320mm stroke and a maximum speed of 1050 rpm which matches the old FDL.

Rebuilding of old GEs was unpopular because the FDL engine would generally need replacement. Since a new engine would be needed for emissions reasons, the rebuilt B23-7 might become a branch line unit or switcher of choice.

M636C

Were most of the "SUPER 7" rebuilds done using new prime movers or did they remanufacture the core units Diesels?

 It's my understanding that there are not large numbers of 4 axle Dash 7 units on the market as so many have been recycled for scrap...

[jrbernier]

  The unfortunate part of the Zeigler/Generation 2000 repowering of the BN/SOO engines was the problems with the KATO alterntor/electrical system.  It took several tries to 'get it right', and BN/SOO eventualy tired of the project.  However the engines have been performing fine on their new regional homes.  The overall cost of the project just got too high for BN.  It did not compare well with other repowering projects that BN was experimenting with(GP39/GP28).  The SOO engines were not well liked by crews and since they were 'odd', left the CP/SOO system.

  The new V8 710ECO offering should be a good match for potential repowering jobs.  The GEVO 'Straight 6' offering may depend on the pool of older GE engines.  Previous 'remanufacturer' programs by GE(Super 7 Series) did not get a lot of response from domestic customers.

Jim

[Dutchrailnut]

There is both a 6 and 8 cylinder inline Gevo, here is folder for marine version.

http://skamek.com/default.asp?page=6621,6727,7160&lang=2

[M636C]

  A good repowering is more than just replacing the prime mover.  There is a combination of issues, and the components must match:

• New Prime Mover - will it spin at a similar RPM so it matches the Main Generator?
• Main Generator - can it deliver the power supplied by the new prime mover?
• Electrical Control System - will it match the power delivered and be able to control it? 

  Repowering jobs have gone bad due to a mis-match of the above 3 systems.

Jim

Just as the eight cylinder 710ECO is matched to the alternator and cooling system of a GP40, the six cylinder GEVO matches any number of B23-7, B30-7, B40-8 and similar.

The 6L250 (extrapolating from the name used in non railroad applications of 12V250 for the GEVO) has 250mm bore, 320mm stroke and a maximum speed of 1050 rpm which matches the old FDL.

Rebuilding of old GEs was unpopular because the FDL engine would generally need replacement. Since a new engine would be needed for emissions reasons, the rebuilt B23-7 might become a branch line unit or switcher of choice.

M636C

[al-in-chgo]

does anyone have the specs on this engines? Cubic Inches? Bore? Stroke? Torque? Etc...Mike

I don't, but perhaps this link will be of some help:  http://www.grcblog.com/?cat=21 

- al s.

 

[NSlover92]

does anyone have the specs on this engines? Cubic Inches? Bore? Stroke? Torque? Etc...Mike

[erikem]

Interesting that it is a six cylinder engine - sounds like the engine group decided it was more economical to go with fewer cylinders using the same components as the 12 and 16 cylinder engines. The in-line configuration is almost a given, but it makes me wonder if there are plans for an in-line 8 cylinder engine as Cat did with their 3600 series.

2300 HP is about right for re-powering GP-30's... 

[carnej1]

  A good repowering is more than just replacing the prime mover.  There is a combination of issues, and the components must match:

• New Prime Mover - will it spin at a similar RPM so it matches the Main Generator?
• Main Generator - can it deliver the power supplied by the new prime mover?
• Electrical Control System - will it match the power delivered and be able to control it? 

  Repowering jobs have gone bad due to a mis-match of the above 3 systems.

Jim

  What you post is 100% correct but the current trend seems to be to replace everything with an new integrated package of components and essentially remanufacture rather than repower a locomotive.

 A historical example would be Zieglar in Mn. who completely rebuilt some older geeps for BN and SOO with CAT engines and electrical systems. These were considered fairly successful as compared to contempory efforts to rebuild SD40/45/45-2 units with Cat 3600 Prime movers mated to EMD main alternators (the ATSF/BN/C&NW SDCAT experiments).

 It does seem to me that the EMD offered 710 rebuild project will allow much more component reuse than some of the competition (GE in particular)...............

[jrbernier]

  A good repowering is more than just replacing the prime mover.  There is a combination of issues, and the components must match:

• New Prime Mover - will it spin at a similar RPM so it matches the Main Generator?
• Main Generator - can it deliver the power supplied by the new prime mover?
• Electrical Control System - will it match the power delivered and be able to control it? 

  Repowering jobs have gone bad due to a mis-match of the above 3 systems.

Jim

[carnej1]

I've never heard of a GE engine being put into an EMD frame, either, but generally speaking putting one company's prime mover into another company's locomotive doesn't work out well. The resulting Frankenstein loco is often too problematic, complicated, or expensive to carry over to the entire fleet. The Santa Fe "Beep" is a good example: it worked (and still does), but it would have cost ATSF a lot of time and money to carry over the concept to the remaining Baldwin switchers.

There are also some 6-axle Dash 7s still around, and if the railroad doesn't mind the horespower hit, the GEVO could probably be put into Dash 8s. If I remember correctly, every railroad must eventually meet EPA regulations, so GE may be doing this out of nessecity as well as for profit.

 While repowering as you describe it does have a long history of being problematic If the "core locomotive" is completely stripped down and rebuilt from the frame up then it is entirely possible to build what is essentially a new unit. Many of the Genset locomotives built recently reuse old EMD and GE Frames and trucks. This is also true of many of the recent Wabtec/MPI rebuilds which use Cat,Cummins or MTU primemover/alternator packages(see the Pacific Harbor Lines article in the TRAINS ""LOCOMOTIVES" special edition for a good example. The key is to use an all new electrical system and auxiliaries rather than trying to "bang a round peg into a square hole". Obviously this is far more expensive than rebuilding a locomotive "in kind".

[wgnrr]

Repowering...sucessful depending on what you are using.

Many industrial locomotives are repowered with cummings or CAT engines, as have been a few full sized diesels over the years (SOO and TCW come to mind)

GE has done some rebuilding and replacing of prime movers over the years...the two MRS-1s at the Cass Scenic Railroad were rebuilt by GE with new prime movers and electrical equipment.

Many Alcos and Baldwins have been remototed with EMD engines (MKT, C&NW, many different RS-3s)

If you really think about it, as long as your prime mover is reliable, and can turn a generator, there is no reason why it should act different than what was previously there. Problems arise when the shop does a bad job, or they have a defective prime mover.

Phil

[jrbernier]

 This is interesting - an 'in line' engine.  Shades of the old Alco 539!  This engine and the EMD 710ECO may give the 'genset' crowd some competition.

Jim

[CopCarSS]

I'd love to hear what this one sounds like. GEVOs already have kind of a grumble to them, and I've noticed that locos with fewer cylinders can sometimes have more character to their exhaust. Ever listen to a 6 cyl ALCo 251? It's a lot of fun!

[ArtOfRuin]

I've never heard of a GE engine being put into an EMD frame, either, but generally speaking putting one company's prime mover into another company's locomotive doesn't work out well. The resulting Frankenstein loco is often too problematic, complicated, or expensive to carry over to the entire fleet. The Santa Fe "Beep" is a good example: it worked (and still does), but it would have cost ATSF a lot of time and money to carry over the concept to the remaining Baldwin switchers.

There are also some 6-axle Dash 7s still around, and if the railroad doesn't mind the horespower hit, the GEVO could probably be put into Dash 8s. If I remember correctly, every railroad must eventually meet EPA regulations, so GE may be doing this out of nessecity as well as for profit.

[Lyon_Wonder]

A photo has appeared of what looks like a 6 cylinder, 2,300hp version of GE’s GEVO. 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1324365 

 

From reading the description, it looks like GE intends for this engine to be used on medium-hp locos, either rebuilt or new build?   This is similar to EMD’s 710ECO offering, enabling older switcher/road switchers to be rebuilt with lower emissions and fuel savings.  The only problem for GE is they’re fewer 4 axle GE’s out there than EMDs. There’s still dozens of B23/30-7s out there, and a handful of U-boats still on a couple of shortlines or so.  CSX still has some B30-7s, while BNSF retired there 4200-series B23-7s last year.  I suppose a  rebuilder could even build a GEVO-powered switcher on a frame of an EMD, though I’ve never heard of any EMD rebuilt with a GE prime mover.