greyhounds Well, I'll try to answer this without getting political. But, for years Illinois has had a government/cultural climate that is anti business in general and anti heavy industry in particular. If you want to open a law office you're welcome. If you want to open a facility to develop and test diesel engines, you're not. (As Navistar just experienced when they tried to open an engine development/test facility in the Chicago suburb of Lisle. They eventually gave up promting the Chicago Tribune to run an editorial "Why We've Got 10.7% unemployment.") The current governor has made a career of bashing "These Big Corporations." I'll leave it at that. But the "Big Corporations" can take the hint and also leave because of that. Despite this, Caterpillar does have strong Illinois roots and is making a small expansion at its Aurora, IL facility that will add all of 300 jobs over three years. I don't think Illinois is out of the question for new locomotive builds, Cat could always get a sweatheart deal from the state. I can't see Cat opening up in Illinois to get passenger engine contracts. They're going to be small potatoes.
Well, I'll try to answer this without getting political.
But, for years Illinois has had a government/cultural climate that is anti business in general and anti heavy industry in particular. If you want to open a law office you're welcome. If you want to open a facility to develop and test diesel engines, you're not. (As Navistar just experienced when they tried to open an engine development/test facility in the Chicago suburb of Lisle. They eventually gave up promting the Chicago Tribune to run an editorial "Why We've Got 10.7% unemployment.")
The current governor has made a career of bashing "These Big Corporations." I'll leave it at that.
But the "Big Corporations" can take the hint and also leave because of that.
Despite this, Caterpillar does have strong Illinois roots and is making a small expansion at its Aurora, IL facility that will add all of 300 jobs over three years. I don't think Illinois is out of the question for new locomotive builds, Cat could always get a sweatheart deal from the state.
I can't see Cat opening up in Illinois to get passenger engine contracts. They're going to be small potatoes.
This is kind of interesting as far as Engine Manufactury goes :
http://www.edpa.org/docs/Auto-Engine-Plants-in-Alabama.pdf
Specifically on the list linked is a Navistar facility went to Huntsville, Al. Navistar builds some engines in Melroase Park,Il, Indianapolis,In and Huntsville,Al. The curious might find this link of interest( about Navistar)
From Greyhounds Post: (As Navistar just experienced when they tried to open an engine development/test facility in the Chicago suburb of Lisle. They eventually gave up promting the Chicago Tribune to run an editorial "Why We've Got 10.7% unemployment.")
Those interested might find this link of interest:
http://ir.navistar.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=54636
Motive Power's facility in Boise seems to handle building their passenger engines fine and that's a much smaller facility. So new orders for that type of unit could probably be handled there in a place like Paducah as well.
There is something to be said for Caterpillar and EMD preferring to return to their Illinois roots, but I wouldn't hold my breath and they certainly aren't going to shutter London in the near term.
As long as the Canadian plant has the capacity to build enough EMD units to meet the demand, I don't see any real need for EMD to build or buy a US-located facility, except to meet the 'Buy America' requirements for any rail equipment that would be powered by traditional diesel-based locomotives.
For the handful of such 'Buy American' units, EMD would likely do better to contract out the assembly to a locomotive service company that has done that kind of work already, rather than sink all that money into a potentially redundant and 'stranded' facility - the phrase ''a colossal mis-deployment of capital'' comes to mind. Progress Rail's various facilities are the obvious candidates, but so are Amtrak's, NS' Juniata locomotive shop in Altoona, the Super Steel or whatever facility in Schenectady, NY, and various others. Actually, that range of candidates means there could be some competition between them, and perhaps some would have unique advantages, as well as geographic diversity adn flexibility aand potentially being closer to the end users, etc. - all of which just supports the merits of that approach I would not see a need for another US facility unless the volume reaches over 100 units a year for that market, and/ or the Canadian plant is forecast to be at capacity for the next couple of years. Neither of those appear likely to occur in the forseeable future.
- Paul North.
nanaimo73 This article talks about Caterpillar possibly moving construction of locomotives into the United States. http://www.chicagobusiness.com:80/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=33571
This article talks about Caterpillar possibly moving construction of locomotives into the United States.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com:80/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=33571
Dale's linked article is pretty interesting.
FTA: "...The acquisition by Caterpillar could complicate Illinois' hopes of winning an expansion. After years of bruising contract battles with the United Auto Workers at Illinois plants from Aurora to Decatur, Caterpillar in recent years has favored building new U.S. factories in non-union states such as Arkansas and Texas. Although Electro-Motive will continue to be run by McCook-based CEO John Hamilton, it will be part of Caterpillar's Alabama-based Progress Rail Services division, which repairs railway equipment and is largely non-union..."
The article mentions as well that an unattributed spokes person for the State of Illinois says it will fight aggressively for the jobs ( what else you one expect them to say?)
Anyway with a number of automotive manufactures moving into Alabama in recent years, an extrapolation of a similar scenario might be that Caterpillar/Progress Rail (already an Alabama resident) might very well consider a move to Alabama as well. My conjecture.
Auto Industry currently in Alabama: http://www.edpa.org/industries/automotive.html
Mercedes-Benz
Honda
Hyundai
and the link estimates estimates 350 adjunct suppliers there as well.
For what it is worth, there you have it. Lots of meat ther to be gnawed on in these Threads.
beaulieuInteresting article in Construction magazine ENR speculating that one of the reasons for Cat buying EMD is as a source of electric drive components for the large construction machinery. According to the story the wave of the future for large construction machinery is going to be electric drive. Cat has introduced the D7E Bulldozer with all electric drive as the first of a complete replacement of all the large equipment line.
That is a good point. Cat is also in the process of developing AC electric drive systems for their big mining trucks (which are currently all mechanical drive) and reportedly for their biggest scraper models as well...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Sounds like a rather complicated arrangement that would increase both production and maintenance costs unnecessarily.
The application of common rail fuel supply with electronic control of fuel injection is becoming more common aboard ships and I would expect such systems to be applicable to locomotive engines as well. On board my ship, which is diesel electric, the MaK engines use a blast of starting air to increase the speed of the turbochargers when a propulsion drive motor is started. This increases the volume of air available to the cylinders as the electronic governor increases the fuel injection rate, thus reducing the amount of smoke normally produced in such situations. When paralleling generators, the governor software controls the rate at which the incoming engine loads up to reduce smoke levels to near zero. This system of control should be transferable to locomotive engines if they are using electronic governors.
World wide, there appears to be only three manufacturers of large 2 stroke engines for marine propulsion, as follows:
Makita Corporation: 9 models of 4 to 8 cylinder slow speed engines, with outputs of 1600 to 13,280 kW.
MAN B&W Diesel Group: 67 models of 5 to 14 cylinder slow speed engines, with outputs from 1350 to 87,220 kW.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd: 19 models of 4 to 12 cylinder slow speed engines, with outputs from 1120 to 46,800 kW.
There appears to be only one manufacturer of 2 stroke medium speed engines for use aboard ships.
Electro-Motive Diesel Inc: Four models of 8 to 20 cylinder medium speed engines with outputs from 1249 to 3729 kW. They appear to be the only manufacturer of medium speed 2 stroke engines for marine use.
The above information is from "Propulsion, Incorporating the directory of marine diesel engines 2009", published by IMarEST, UK.
The Wartsila 20 through 64 models are all medium speed 4 stroke engines. The Wartsila RT models are all slow speed 2 stroke engines designed and built by the former New Sulzer Diesel company, Switzerland, which was taken over by Wartsila in April 1997.
As previously stated, CAT-MaK do not produce any 2 stroke engines. CAT-MaK's engines are all medium speed 4 stroke engines used as ship propulsion and generator plants, and in stationary power plants ashore.
GP40-2As to the first part of your question, perhaps you can show me why you think a two cycle, which needs to uncover inlet ports well before BDC, can have as complete as combustion as a 4 cycle?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
GP40-2oltmanndSecond, because fundamentally, a two stroke can't match a four stroke in efficiency. Fuel efficiency was the name of the game in the 80s and 90s. GE always held a couple of a percent advantage over EMD. Emissions regs changed the game. What? Are you saying with the vast increase in the cost of oil (which will continue to increase in cost in the future) that fuel efficiency gains are no longer important? We must be living on different planets. Either that, or NS doesn't care about the bottom line any more. LOL.
oltmanndSecond, because fundamentally, a two stroke can't match a four stroke in efficiency. Fuel efficiency was the name of the game in the 80s and 90s. GE always held a couple of a percent advantage over EMD. Emissions regs changed the game.
Second, because fundamentally, a two stroke can't match a four stroke in efficiency. Fuel efficiency was the name of the game in the 80s and 90s. GE always held a couple of a percent advantage over EMD.
Emissions regs changed the game.
What? Are you saying with the vast increase in the cost of oil (which will continue to increase in cost in the future) that fuel efficiency gains are no longer important? We must be living on different planets. Either that, or NS doesn't care about the bottom line any more. LOL.
Haven't seen anything about the upside down finances in this purchase.
Progress Rail buys a company with $1.8 BILLION in revenue for $820 MILLION. Do I have my figures right and, if so, what is wrong with this picture?
It likely means that the current owners have (1) no one else to sell to and (2) want out of the market FAST.
Thoughts?
creepycrankJune 5, 2010 From Marine Log magazine, very carefully worded. "Cat subsidiary buys EMD Caterpillar, Inc. (NYSE:CAT) subsidiary Progress Rail Services has signed a definitive agreement to purchase Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD) for $820 million in cash from Berkshire Partners LLC and Greenbriar Equity Group LLC. On completion of the transaction, EMD will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Progress Rail. Not too surprisingly the Progress Rail press release announcing the deal focuses on what it means for Cat in terms of penetrating the rail market, though it does mention that EMD is a "a global provider of diesel engines for marine propulsion, offshore and land-based oil well drilling rigs, and stationary power generation." Presumably, under CAT ownership EMD will continue to offer its 710 series in these markets, where its two cycle design has a loyal following."
That is entirely possible, although the CAT series of engines also compete in all those markets. Given that European manufacturers (MTU in particular) are making inroads it might be that CAT will seek to "give the people what they want" and offer both the 4 cycle and 2 cycle (710) familes for those applications..
cr6479 Progress rail is NOT buying EMD. CAT has just bought EMD
GP40-2I was talking about the GEVO, not the FDL.
Progress rail is NOT buying EMD. CAT has just bought EMD
GP40-2As to the first part of your question, perhaps you can show me why you think a two cycle, which needs to uncover inlet ports well before BDC, can have as complete as combustion as a 4 cycle? I never said you couldn't get complete "enough" combustion in a 2 cycle to pass the current regs., I just said it would never have as complete a combustion cycle as a 4 stroke along with lower fuel economy. However, I am willing to keep a open mind on this, and if you can show me concrete data why you believe a 2 stroke can match a 4 stroke, then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
As to the first part of your question, perhaps you can show me why you think a two cycle, which needs to uncover inlet ports well before BDC, can have as complete as combustion as a 4 cycle? I never said you couldn't get complete "enough" combustion in a 2 cycle to pass the current regs., I just said it would never have as complete a combustion cycle as a 4 stroke along with lower fuel economy. However, I am willing to keep a open mind on this, and if you can show me concrete data why you believe a 2 stroke can match a 4 stroke, then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
Hmmm.
Combustion should be complete not too long after the fuel injection stops injecting fuel into the cylinder, so that's not much of an advantage of 4 cycle over 2 cycle. What the 2 cycle does lose is getting work from the further expansion of gas. Also bear in mind that the exhaust valves on an EMD engine close well after the air ports are covered, so the engine ends up having a larger expansion ratio than compression ratio.
While I've seen several references to 4 cycle engines having a slim lead over 2 cycle engines in Run 8, I haven't seen much with respect to differences in the lower notches.
- Erik
oltmanndI would think the clean stack on the 710 vs a dirty stack on the FDL at full throttle is pretty good evidence of who has the more complete combustion.
I was talking about the GEVO, not the FDL.
GP40-2I never said you couldn't get complete "enough" combustion in a 2 cycle to pass the current regs., I just said it would never have as complete a combustion cycle as a 4 stroke along with lower fuel economy.
GP40-2However, I am willing to keep a open mind on this, and if you can show me concrete data why you believe a 2 stroke can match a 4 stroke, then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
YoHo1975... and word on the street has been very positive as well.
And what "street" would that be?
oltmanndThe H engine was developed for two reasons. One, because it looked the the industry was headed toward 6000 HP AC locomotives and a 20 cylinder 710 didn't look like it could do much more than the low 5000s.
The H engine was developed for two reasons. One, because it looked the the industry was headed toward 6000 HP AC locomotives and a 20 cylinder 710 didn't look like it could do much more than the low 5000s.
Ok, we all know that the 710 isn't going to make 6000 HP. But think about it. If EMD needed a new engine to make 6000 HP, and they thought the 2 cycle was going to be around for the long term, why not just stick with what they know, and build a larger displacement 16 cylinder 2 cycle? The increasing emissions regulations DID NOT appear overnight. We have known for 20 years this was going to happen. But the fact is they spent a lot of time and money developing a 4 stroke from scratch. Time and money that would NOT be spent to develop a 6000 HP only version. The simple fact is that EMD decided at the time to replace ALL their engines with a version of the H engine. Just like GE has 12 and 16 cylinder versions of the GEVO. The GM financial crisis put that on hold (for now).
oltmanndThe H engine was developed for two reasons. One, because it looked the the industry was headed toward 6000 HP AC locomotives and a 20 cylinder 710 didn't look like it could do much more than the low 5000s. Second, because fundamentally, a two stroke can't match a four stroke in efficiency. Fuel efficiency was the name of the game in the 80s and 90s. GE always held a couple of a percent advantage over EMD. Emissions regs changed the game.
The H engine was developed for two reasons. One, because it looked the the industry was headed toward 6000 HP AC locomotives and a 20 cylinder 710 didn't look like it could do much more than the low 5000s. Second, because fundamentally, a two stroke can't match a four stroke in efficiency. Fuel efficiency was the name of the game in the 80s and 90s. GE always held a couple of a percent advantage over EMD.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
The H engine was developed to compete in the 6000HP market. The expectation was that that was where the industry was going in the 90s. That didn't end up happening. Once that didn't happen, the entire reason for doing the engineering on the H engine would have mostly disappeared.If the 6000HP need hadn't come up, there is no way GM would have funded H engine dev. I don't need to be a Mechanical Engineer to understand fundamental R&D funding concepts. if the 710 would do the job, you don't spend a dime to develop a replacement. GM would never have spent the money. They would have expected 710 to last just as long as the 645 and 567 did.
In the mean time, Tier 2,3 and 4 appeared which is a different engineering challenge. I don't have access to EMD's emissions numbers, I would like to see them, because Argonne, the lab working with EMD seems to think the 710 is great on emissions and word on the street has been very positive as well. I'd like to see some proof.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.