EMD (General Motors)

[cessna 310]

What became of the 265 H engine?

What were the problems that forced EMD to cancel its four-stroke engine?

Why has General Electric been so successful with their four-stroke engines?

 

 

[carnej1]

cessna 310

What became of the 265 H engine?

What were the problems that forced EMD to cancel its four-stroke engine?

Why has General Electric been so successful with their four-stroke engines?

 

 

China is in the process of building 300 new 6,000HP locomotives powered by 265H engines. So while it the engine is dead in North America for now, EMD(which is not part of General Motors anymore, BTW) has not abandoned it. There is a longer discussion about this question in the "SD22ECO" thread on this very forum..

[Bryan Jones]

EMD has not canceled the 265H prime mover. EMD has continually worked on the design to refine and improve its performance. This is not a fast process. Currently the 16 cylinder, 6000hp 265H prime mover is being installed in new 6000hp locomotives in China which were designed by EMD.

GE has always used a four stroke engine in its locomotives.The current EVO prime mover is a heavily redesigned version of the very troublesom HDL prime mover which was found in the AC6000CW. The flaws in the HDL design were corrected with the end result being the EVO prime mover.

 

Bryan Jones

[trainfan1221]

Lets not forget that GEs original FDL engine (four stroke) was actually a design they bought outright from Cooper Bessemer.  I guess that gave them a good head start.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

EMD (201, 567, 645 and 710) and FM (OP) were the only major builders with two-stroke engines.  All of the other builders used four-stroke designs.

[bubbajustin]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've heared is that 6000 hp contained in one unit was too riskey to just slap up on the head end of a train (especially intermodal trains). If the unit failed in the middle of no where you are up a creek without a paddle. Also didn't the unit have mechanical problems? Didn't it also suck down fuel? I think the idea of a 6000 hp prime mover looks better on paper right now. I really do think the idea was really rushed as well though. Here GE and EMD were tring to dish out a 6000 hp prime mover before the other and I think that it wasnt thought out well. However, one day I think that EMD and GE will work out the kinks in their desighns and we will see the 6000 hp locomotives in scervice again in North America.

[fecsd40-2]

I agree with you 100%. Everything suggests that reliability doomed these units and probably caused BHP in Australia to order the SD70ACe.  I believe reliability has improved, evidence being the CSX and BHP reeingining programs, the big China rail orders and the fact that the Indian Railways are looking at 6000HP units as well.  If only BNSF would bring the warbonnet back and get these big units in the greatest scheme ever!

[Stevo3751]

Considering that EMD produced only 2-stroke motors, don't you think that the 265H had problems just because it was a completely different design of engine for them?

[soilredneck]

The GE AC6000 was powered by a engine developed in partnership with the German company Deutz, and while certain FDL features may have been used, it was not a modification of the FDL series.  It is correct that the basic FDL is of Cooper-Bessemer heritage.

[Tugboat Tony]

The 265H engine was troublesome for railroads for it incredable weight as much at it's reliability. it has been re-worked by EMD and is extensivly used in industrial and stationary applications with great success. 

[CNTRAVLER]

When there is an application of high horsepower on a single axle there is going to be a problem .Even with all the new traction control / wheel slip computer controled systems it just does not work well , unless EVERYTHING is just right . If there is a little morning dew on the rail , or a few critters keeping warm on top of the rail , you are going to pick up a wheel slip . We have a bunch of newer GE's (GE should have stuck with making light bulbs)(MY OPINION) and the traction control is less than desireable . It does not put down sand till AFTER getting a wheel slip and it does not lightly reduce power , it DROPS the load and takes F O R E V E R to load up again .

EMD years ago had the "SUPER SERIES" wheel slip control which allowed the wheels to "creep" . It allowed the wheels to almost slip , put down a LOT of sand , and worked real nice . The Roadmaster was not too happy with all the sand wearing out his rails , BUT , we moved a lot of freight with a few less locomotives . WHEN it was working . Again , the RELIABILITY gremlin. Remember when EMD sported their line of "XR" locomotives ?                                                                                                                           

GE also had a good wheel slip control . Each axle was monitored with an axle monitor simular to a speedometer drive . But , that was the old "U" series and through progress they have reduced the "pull factor" in less than desireable conditions .

The BNSF is placing orders for GE's in the A-I-A wheel arrangement . It will be interesting to see if 1100 horses per axle will work . And I thought that any thing over 750 horses per axle woul never happen !

Gotta go grab my horses , ya'll be safe out there ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,The Travler (DPH)                    

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Well, there used to be C-C units with a per-driving-axle weight load of 50,500 lbs. that had a short term rating of 8,500 to 9,500 HP (sources vary), which works out to 1,417 to 1,583 HP per axle.  That fleet of 139 units worked just fine in both U.S. passenger and heavy freight service - often M.U'ed together - for about 50 years, and no one ever said they were slippery, as far as I know.  Of course, I'm referring to the PRR's GG1 electric locomotive - a 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement.  See: http://www.spikesys.com/GG1/specs.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRR_GG1 .

And today, Amtrak's AEM-7's are rated at 7,000 HP on 4 axles = 1,750 HP per axle, also with 50,500 lbs. per axle loading -  see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_AEM-7  But because they don't have the need for high tractive effort pull, I wouldn't put them in the same class as the GG1's or the EMD and GE locomotives that are being discussed here. 

But it's not HP per axle that cause the slipping problems, as long as that HP isn't being fully applied in the lower speed range.  Instead, it's the whipping of the iron horse to attempt to get more tractive effort out of the available weight on the drivers - pushing the envelope on higher Coefficients of Friction for the wheel-rail interaction (= lower Factors of Adhesion) that causes the challenges.

- Paul North.

[creepycrank]

The 265H engine is a product of the late General Motors era. Since 1980 EMD has developed and produced 2 new designs. The first is the 710 essentially a raised deck 645 with 10 % increase in displacement. I thought that it wasn't ambitious enough and except for reusing old photos in the service manual about the only components common to both are the cylinder heads and and the injectors are the same size. At the time the designers could clean up some features of the 745 that weren't ideal and they could get it into production quickly. The 265H is a case of what were they thinking? It has about 1000 CI displacement per cylinder and now what. There is a market for 300 engines in China and Tidewater Marine built 5 large offshore supply boats with 4 engines each driving a diesel/electric drive. At this point they only have the 16 cylinder engine. For smaller marine units there is various sizes of the 710 that has been selling well. Its a shame they didnit start with a clean sheet of paper and built a 2 stroke engine about 50% larger than the 645 in the first place.