The May 2015 issue asks the question whether it's SD9043MAC or SD90/43MAC.
Today I had an engine (SD70ACe) that's equipped with EMD's "Smart Consist" fuel saving system. (Most of us, including some managers, wouldn't use the word "smart" to describe it, but that's for another time.) In a nutshell, Smart Consist controls the lead engine plus up to 2 trailing engines. The system determines when the engineer throttles up or down, how to divide the load between the engines to get the most fuel efficiency.
Anyway, to enable the system you have to enter the trailing unit model designation. You do this by choosing from a list of models, both EMD and GE. (Being an EMD offering, there are a lot more specific EMD models. Going back to include the GP9.)
While enabling the system this morning I had to go through the list. I noticed it had the slash, SD90/43, in the listing. I don't remember now if it had AC or MAC behind it. I'm thinking it didn't.
While I've seen the slash in the designation before, I've seen it more often without the slash. Now those editors favoring the slash can reopen the discussion.
Jeff
Jeff, if I hadn't seen the question in the magazine, I would have envisioned a topic that involved somebody in a hockey goalie mask and some clueless college kids in a spooky house.
The use or not of a slash is one of those topics that could be the subject of great debates over something of little importance. Just one opinion, though.
The interesting thing is that any version of SD9043MAC really doesn't need to exist. All of the 6000 HP units were classified by EMD as either SD90MAC-Hs or SD90MAC-H IIs as they had the 265H engine. Since all of them have been retired in North America, there really is no reason not to simply call the convertibles what they were originally designated by EMD: SD90MAC. It is interesting that UP apparently found differentiating the variants troublesome enough that they classified all of the 4300 HP units as SD9043MAC.
I don't know about EMD's practices, but I have seen times when even the manufacturer of a product cannot settle on what character to use to separate terms in a model number.
You will notice that the programmers of the system used here, solved the problem of deciding whether to use nothing between the sections of the "model number" terms, or to use a slash, (and whether a "Forward slash" like this, "/", or a "Backslash", like this "\") or a dash, or an underscore, or a space, or a period, or a comma, or any other character that humans tend to use, at random and interchangeably, as a separator of terms, by giving the user a "list" of acceptable responses. It is MUCH easier to rely on the human to recognize the equivalences of the various forms than to anticipate what possible characters might be used by the human to type in the model number, and then write software code to recognize them all (so as to not get yelled at because someone’s favourite character for doing so was not recognized).
And don't get me started on the people that don't give a thought to using a string of characters that contain ambiguous shapes between numbers and alphabetics, such as "0" and "O", or "l" and "1". These ambiguities are maybe not important when a human is reading it, but to a computer they are as different as "0" and "1", or "4" and "W".
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
This reminds me of back in the 1980's or so, when Trains Editor David P. Morgan changed the style of designating the wheel arrangement for articulated steam locomotives from the 'pure' Whyte style to one that was more logical to him, mainly by using a "+" symbol to designate the articulation point. For example, consider a N&W Y6b:
Whyte: 2-8-8-2
Morgan: 2-8+8-2
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr This reminds me of back in the 1980's or so, when Trains Editor David P. Morgan changed the style of designating the wheel arrangement for articulated steam locomotives from the 'pure' Whyte style to one that was more logical to him, mainly by using a "+" symbol to designate the articulation point. For example, consider a N&W Y6b: Whyte: 2-8-8-2 Morgan: 2-8+8-2
It started earlier than that, I believe around the time Kalmbach was reprinting with great hoopla Lionel Wiener's book 'Articulated Locomotives' -- in which Wiener gives great care to the syntactic conventions that express different methods of articulation. How influential Le Massena might have been in trying to get this + adopted for a hinged articulation is unknown to me; long before my time. But it makes enormous sense:
4-4-6-4 = rigid-frame duplex drive
4-6+6-4 = Mallet-style articulated chassis hinged between the engines
4-8-4+4-8-4 = simple way to express a Garratt chassis in extended Whyte coding.
Think of the fun you would have trying to illustrate a double- or "Super-"Garratt (which is a couple of Mallet-style chassis with the Garratt boiler arrangement between them) with nothing but the dashed notation:
2-6-6-2-2-6-6-2
vs. what Wiener might suggest with the parentheses:
(2-6+6-2)+(2-6+6-2)
that clearly shows you have three articulation connections.
Now, if I were doing a set of taxonomic conventions for this sort of articulated, I'd want more conventions than just + to show different kinds of articulation, for starters something that distinguishes Garratts with no pony wheels on the 'inner ends' from Mallets. (I am the sort of person who would like to have conventions distinguishing double-axis hinging of a Mallet forward engine from Alco-style horizontal-only hinging ... but I might have to wait a long time for enough enthusiasm to get that convention established!)
Perhaps Mike (wanswheel) or someone at Kalmbach might provide scans of the relevant pages in Wiener that cover his proposed notation.
Paul, I think it was in the fifties that Dave Morgan commented on the matter. But, you know my memory. It was when I was quite new to the expanded world of knowledge that the magazine presents.
Johnny
jeffhergert Today I had an engine (SD70ACe) that's equipped with EMD's "Smart Consist" fuel saving system. (Most of us, including some managers, wouldn't use the word "smart" to describe it, but that's for another time.) In a nutshell, Smart Consist controls the lead engine plus up to 2 trailing engines. The system determines when the engineer throttles up or down, how to divide the load between the engines to get the most fuel efficiency.
I don't understand how the throttle decision is made. Assuming the engines are close to the same horsepower, does the system sometimes run one engine is notch 6 while the other(s) is at idle? Does the system have information regarding total train tonnage or route profile -- presumably both of those are needed when PTC is implemented.
Dakguy201 jeffhergert Today I had an engine (SD70ACe) that's equipped with EMD's "Smart Consist" fuel saving system. (Most of us, including some managers, wouldn't use the word "smart" to describe it, but that's for another time.) In a nutshell, Smart Consist controls the lead engine plus up to 2 trailing engines. The system determines when the engineer throttles up or down, how to divide the load between the engines to get the most fuel efficiency. I don't understand how the throttle decision is made. Assuming the engines are close to the same horsepower, does the system sometimes run one engine is notch 6 while the other(s) is at idle? Does the system have information regarding total train tonnage or route profile -- presumably both of those are needed when PTC is implemented. Progress Rail has a PDF touting the benefits of the Smart Consist system, but cagily avoid disclosing any details of the algorithm used except to provide a cryptic graph showing specific fuel consumption 'gains' overlaid on throttle position. The system provides fuel gain of "1 to 3%" -- which may not look like much but is substantial over time, and probably represents much more significant fuel economy during certain relatively short periods like acceleration into sags. (I would also expect that the 'fuel optimization' algorithm would be tied into pollution-reduction algorithms, such as slow changes in fueling for engine acceleration, and perhaps traction-alternator field modification.) It is not too difficult to develop an algorithm to 'optimize' engine throttle position if the sfc of each prime mover in a consist, over its range of speeds and loads, is known, or can be empirically determined by 'learning' software, as some automotive controllers like Ford's EEC do). For steady-state operation, this might involve running the trailing locomotive of a consist at its most efficient rotational speed and load, with the other two locomotives just far enough off idle to keep their draft gear stretched; if running out of a sag, 'idling' power coule be ramped up and then all the units accelerated together (as slightly as possible) above best efficiency in response to throttle setting and train speed over time. I would NOT expect this system to be like Select-A-Power or selective idle/shutoff systems, and actively shut down one or more engines in a given consist when the others are fully capable of keeping the train at acceptable speed over a given track profile. But I would definitely expect a separate system would do that (with the 'optimizer' then working on the running engines just as if the consist were shorter). Fun issue. I hope Caterpillar can get it right.
Progress Rail has a PDF touting the benefits of the Smart Consist system, but cagily avoid disclosing any details of the algorithm used except to provide a cryptic graph showing specific fuel consumption 'gains' overlaid on throttle position. The system provides fuel gain of "1 to 3%" -- which may not look like much but is substantial over time, and probably represents much more significant fuel economy during certain relatively short periods like acceleration into sags. (I would also expect that the 'fuel optimization' algorithm would be tied into pollution-reduction algorithms, such as slow changes in fueling for engine acceleration, and perhaps traction-alternator field modification.)
It is not too difficult to develop an algorithm to 'optimize' engine throttle position if the sfc of each prime mover in a consist, over its range of speeds and loads, is known, or can be empirically determined by 'learning' software, as some automotive controllers like Ford's EEC do).
For steady-state operation, this might involve running the trailing locomotive of a consist at its most efficient rotational speed and load, with the other two locomotives just far enough off idle to keep their draft gear stretched; if running out of a sag, 'idling' power coule be ramped up and then all the units accelerated together (as slightly as possible) above best efficiency in response to throttle setting and train speed over time.
I would NOT expect this system to be like Select-A-Power or selective idle/shutoff systems, and actively shut down one or more engines in a given consist when the others are fully capable of keeping the train at acceptable speed over a given track profile. But I would definitely expect a separate system would do that (with the 'optimizer' then working on the running engines just as if the consist were shorter).
Fun issue. I hope Caterpillar can get it right.
Yes, you can have one engine loading while the other engine isn't. (I've so far only used it when I was only allowed two engines on line due to fuel conservation rules.)
I don't think the system knows anything about tonnage or grade profiles. There is nothing programmed by the engineer, unlike the NYAB's LEADER system. (Another winner.) Usually it seems to drop the load on the lead engine. Generally, it has the lead engine stop loading about notch 4 and it won't start again until notch 6. Many of the newer engines have a consist monitor. You can see not only how the lead engine is loading, but also how the entire consist is doing. Without that feature, you're just hoping the other engine(s) are still working when it decides to drop the load on the lead unit. (Note, the other engines also have to have that feature to work on the lead engine.)
I didn't know that Smart Consist only promises 1 to 3%. At least that's more honest than the LEADER. When it was rolled out, LEADER was supposed to deliver 11% fuel use reduction. I read somewhere that it was actually in the "high single digits." They wouldn't come right out and say the actual percentage, but it was still described as a huge success.
jeffhergert There is nothing programmed by the engineer, unlike the NYAB's LEADER system. (Another winnerWhistling.)
FUEL CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY. REDUCE THROTTLE.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The other day I heard another engineer tell Loco Mtce his LEADER system wasn't working. He said the system wanted to go slow (5 to 10 mph under authorized speed) where it should go fast (authorized speed) and wanted to go fast where it should be starting to slow down.
It was all I could do to not break in over the radio and say that's how it always works.
Here is a link to a presentation on the "Intellitrain" systems and their interrelation with NYAB's LEADER
Still a bit short on 'hard' technical information, particularly about the rather interesting use of lines in the 27-pin MU cable to carry relatively high-speed data, but still very useful. Note that one of the specific 'optimizations' is to reduce noise in the cab (perhaps the result of 'focus group' analysis from road-slug users?) which is almost surely the principal reason why the lead unit is observed to load less than the others in a consist.
There are few things more annoying than automatic 'assist' systems that can't be relied upon to do the right, or the safe, thing at critical times. This is what I look at as the chief problem with things like NAJPTC, and with the upcoming mandated versions of PTC so far: if they can't be trusted to do the 'right' or the safe thing consistently, they'll cause more 'unsafety' than they help (as crewmembers burn out having to constantly worry and second-guess what the system is telling them). I understand that older versions of Microsoft Windows were infamous for doing this.
They could have solved it by going with just Horsepower as the model number.
SD43MAC
SD44MAC
SD50MAC
SD60MAC
SD44ACe
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
There are EMD advertisements from the late 40's and early 50's, that include a dash in model designations like the GP7. So nothing new for EMD to not stick strictly with their own standard.
Probably made a tiny bit of sense in this case, at the time this software was in development. It wasn't the impossibility that it is today that they'd have an H engined SD90MAC in the consist. This logically differentiates between two types of locomotives with greatly different capabilities, where the common factory model designation doesn't.
WizlishHow influential Le Massena might have been in trying to get this + adopted for a hinged articulation is unknown to me; long before my time.
Le Massena was behind this switch at Trains from 1982-1987.
"American either did no read Allen or Wiener or was not impressed until a non-tradesman, Robert A. Le Massena, dropped anchor (Or should we say hyphen?) in his Articulated Steam Locomotives of Amerca and urged TRAINS to follow suit." - May 1982 Trains
Paul_D_North_JrThis reminds me of back in the 1980's or so, when Trains Editor David P. Morgan changed the style of designating the wheel arrangement for articulated steam locomotives from the 'pure' Whyte style to one that was more logical to him, mainly by using a "+" symbol to designate the articulation point.
Happily, they soon tired of the confusion and complaints, and of course eventually killed this nonsense off. Nobody likes reinventing the wheel when it's unnecessary. There was no confusion that something like 4-6-6-4 referred to an articulated wheel arrangement (Granted, there are duplexes and other isolated examples, where it could legitimately be of use to a novice steam fan).
I'm afraid that they created more confusion than they could've possibly hoped to have resolved, making the entire deal counterproductive.
Sorry for the double post.
Wizlish [snipped - PDN] . . . Think of the fun you would have trying to illustrate a double- or "Super-"Garratt (which is a couple of Mallet-style chassis with the Garratt boiler arrangement between them) with nothing but the dashed notation: 2-6-6-2-2-6-6-2
2-6-6-2 - 2-6-6-2 ?
- Paul North
Paul_D_North_JrMischief 2-6-6-2 - 2-6-6-2 ?
If you are wondering, this is the historical reference:
Were you capitalizing for emphasis, or as an illustration of how to denote groups of powered axles?
It could have been worse. For those familiar with Alfred Bruce's book 'The Steam Locomotive in America', either the author or his copyeditor decided to leave ALL punctuation out of the Whyte code references, perhaps referencing a French system but with wheels instead of axles. A Berk, for example, is "284", and a Texas type '2104'. A Super-Garratt in this system would be 26622662. Pass the Anacin.
[Note to Kalmbach IT department: Smileys do not render correctly in quoted text, and now I see that text attributes like size and weight don't, either. I'd be surprised at this, so many years into the 21st Century, except that I see places like Yahoo Groups suffering with even sillier and more egregiously slipshod problems. Is this an endemic problem with some Web-site 'design environment' packages?]
This is where a modified Whyte-Wiener system would shine: A Mallet-Garratt would be classified as a 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2. I'll stick to the vagaries of diesel wheel arrangements, much easier to understand.
Hey, Jeff!
What does the '9043' model builder's plate say?
Of course, UP oftentimes has their own designations. AC45 for ES44AC, for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Wizlish: Yes, I've seen it referenced someplace before - either one of LeMassena's articles, Brian Reed's Locomotives in Profile series. or one of David P. Morgan's (or Victor Hand's, etc.) articles. But that's the first time I've seen a diagram of one - thanks !
I was using a larger font to graphically depict the differences, just as driving wheels are usually larger than the unpowered pilot/ trailing wheels.
As to your IT note: (That's "banghead" against the brick wall for subsequent quotes, because as pointed out, it doesn't come through then).
Not to get off track too far, but could that boiler produce enough steam to succesfully power the locomotive? Thanks for posting, I've never seen that before.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote the following post 2 days ago: This is where a modified Whyte-Wiener system would shine: A Mallet-Garratt would be classified as a 2-6-6-2+2-6-6-2. I'll stick to the vagaries of diesel wheel arrangements, much easier to understand.
Of course, if you use the German steam locomotive classification system you get:
a 1'C'C'1' 1'C'C'1' h8v
That shows that all the wheelsets have movement independent of the others (the "dash"after the letter or number) and there is no confusion between driven and non driving axles. The "h" is for superheating ("heissdampf") and 8 the number of cylinders. I didn't check to see if it was a compound, but I seem to recall it was, in which case the suffix would be "h8v", "h8" implying a simple articulated...
It is easily understood by anyone familiar with diesel locomotives.
K. P. Harrier wrote the following post 16 hours ago: Hey, Jeff! What does the '9043' model builder's plate say? Of course, UP oftentimes has their own designations. AC45 for ES44AC, for example.
It is important to note that when these units were purchased, they were all intended to be converted to the 265H engine when the bugs were worked out. Thus, all of the SD90MACs would have the 265H, and there would no longer by any 710-powered SD90s, so no need for a special convertible designation. Since this didn't happen, EMD designated the 265H-powered units with the added H.
I didn't check to see if it was a compound, but I seem to recall it was.
3'6" (Cape gauge) simple articulated.
Remember that a Garratt has a much larger diameter boiler, with much greater space for firebox depth than on a conventional locomotive. That allows the tube length to be optimized with a shorter barrel length, and the firebox to have much larger radiant surface, longer combustion path, and better circulation than the 'usual' locomotive boiler. A Garratt or Meyer can have the 'best of both worlds', a wide grate, and at the same time a deep firebox.
Even with restricted drafting arrangements from the long exhaust pipe runs, there would likely be adequate draft for the boiler (as drawn) to supply the eight cylinders (proportioned as drawn). I suspect that 'improving' the front end would take care of any problems that might arise. This is not an Erie Triplex situation with 'too many legs and not enough steam', even if it is difficult or impractical to get the exhaust steam from the 'rear' engines back up to the front end to assist in producing draft.
The piping for a compound version (which would probably have the LP cylinders 'outboard' an the conventional Mallet position) would be a bit more complicated, and there remains the difficulty of bringing the larger diameter exhaust back past the firebox space. I suspect you would see use of something like the N&W 'boosting valve' on one of these locomotives if built. Simpling/intercepting-valve arrangements on a Mallet-Garratt might be interesting to see (and even more interesting, likely in the Chinese sense, to maintain...)
I see. Thanks!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.