News Wire: CN orders 200 locomotives from GE

3986 views
28 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
Moderator
  • Member since
    January, 2011
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 940 posts
Posted by Brian Schmidt on Friday, December 22, 2017 8:40 AM

Company says the Canadian railroad's order is the largest of any Class I railroad since 2014

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/12/22-cn-order-with-ge

Brian Schmidt, Associate Editor Trains Magazine

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 757 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, December 22, 2017 12:43 PM

Very good news, we are very short of power right now and the aging Dash-8 and SD60 fleets are on their last legs.

This announcement also comes after several weeks of testing two EMD SD70ACe-T4 demonstrators in Western Canada.  Perhaps management is not impressed with them?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 1,195 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Friday, December 22, 2017 6:01 PM

For the engineering types out there, why do Tier 3 engines continue to be ordered? It seems like any chance they get, the railroads will order a Tier 3 unit rather than a Tier 4 unit. Are Tier 3 units less expensive up front? Or are they more fuel efficient? Or less maintenance-intensive? Please note I am not a proponent for more Tier 4 rather than Tier 3 or some such. I am just wanting to learn more. Thanks in advance for any insight you might be willing to share!

  • Member since
    May, 2013
  • 3,042 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, December 22, 2017 6:18 PM

All three: they are cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain. They also are more fuel efficient.

  • Member since
    April, 2011
  • 585 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Friday, December 22, 2017 6:34 PM

There's still a GE?

 

snark/ON

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,086 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Saturday, December 23, 2017 4:03 AM

NorthWest
They also are more fuel efficient.

Do you have any fuel consumption that show this?

I tried to find informtion. In an EMD 710 brochure is a chart that the fuel consumption got better from Tier 1 to Tier 3: s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-60253-59723

I didn't find a comparison of a EMD 710-T3 and a EMD 1010-T4.

The 1010-T4 is a newly designed four-stroke engine with a completely different auxilliary management, idle measures etc. It is not the engine alone it is the whole package that is relevant.

Canadian railroads can buy Tier 3 engines for use in Canada as they don't have the same emission regulation.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 1,685 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Saturday, December 23, 2017 8:19 AM

I do not beleive that tier 3 locomotives are more fuel efficent than tier 4's untill I see the actual fuel use per hour for each notch setting for both engines.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,820 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, December 23, 2017 8:44 AM

caldreamer
I do not believe that tier 3 locomotives are more fuel efficient than tier 4's untill I see the actual fuel use per hour for each notch setting for both engines.

That would be wise; I'm surprised someone like Volker hasn't taken the time yet to compile the data in one place.

The GM two-stroke engine is inherently less fuel-efficient than an engine with a four-stroke cycle, for a number of reasons we've discussed in different threads.  This was brought up in at least two of the discussions on the 265-H engine (whether or not you subscribe to the "1010 evolved out of the 265 design", the 1010 has the same relative combustion efficiency over the 710 family)

One point that needs to be carefully considered is that a Tier 4 design that uses SCR can intentionally use hotter/better combustion in its power stroke, and compensate fully for the additional NO generation by increasing the consumption of the ammonia source if necessary.  This is a reason for the push towards 'liquids consumption' rather than just specific fuel consumption in determining a fair measure of 'fuel use' economically.

Now, I believe the existing 'practical' (meaning 'those railroads will buy') Tier 4 freight locomotives are still relying on relatively carefully-managed EGR to meet standards; that argues to me that even before discussing a need for active 'particulate filter regeneration' the actual sfc will be at least slightly higher for the same engine output provided by an equivalent Tier 3 compliant unit.  But I will wait for detailed data.

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,086 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Saturday, December 23, 2017 10:13 AM

Overmod
That would be wise; I'm surprised someone like Volker hasn't taken the time yet to compile the data in one place.

I would have if had more data than linked above. That is the reason I asked. So someone else hopefully does the legwork.Wink

I doubt myself that freight Tier 4 locomotives are less fuel efficient. That the EGR equipped Tier 4 locomotives don't need diesel particulate filters shows that they have a completer combustion needing less fuel for the same output.
Regards, Volker

Edit: Perhaps we should create a separate thread. Here it might get lost.

  • Member since
    May, 2013
  • 3,042 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, December 23, 2017 11:30 AM

I have no information on the EMDs, and as the prime mover is different I should have restricted my comments to the GEs. EGR has traditionally reduced fuel economy somewhat (ballpark <10%) between otherwise similar model runs. I don't know if that is the case here, but I suspect the efforts to reduce NOx output without SCR have reduced fuel efficiency.

  • Member since
    March, 2015
  • 140 posts
Posted by Entropy on Saturday, December 23, 2017 8:54 PM

The Tier 3 locomotives in this order are "Tier 4 Credit" units. Without question they cost less initially and cost less to run than a Tier 4 equivalent. 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,820 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 24, 2017 10:28 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
Edit: Perhaps we should create a separate thread. Here it might get lost.

I concur ... do it!

We can then recapitulate the physics and engineering briefly there so the discussion stays on proper tech focus.

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 1,195 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Sunday, December 24, 2017 10:51 AM

I am glad I asked the question! And thank you all for the excellent information - I have learned a lot already! Much appreciated!

  • Member since
    June, 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 6,143 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Sunday, December 24, 2017 9:12 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 
Overmod
That would be wise; I'm surprised someone like Volker hasn't taken the time yet to compile the data in one place.

 

I would have if had more data than linked above. That is the reason I asked. So someone else hopefully does the legwork.Wink

I doubt myself that freight Tier 4 locomotives are less fuel efficient. That the EGR equipped Tier 4 locomotives don't need diesel particulate filters shows that they have a completer combustion needing less fuel for the same output.
Regards, Volker

Edit: Perhaps we should create a separate thread. Here it might get lost.

 

A short SEARCH of "Fuel Consumption on General Electric Tier 4 Locomotives?"  Turned up the following linked site:

@ https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/?mobileFormat=true

This is information from a CSX Document titled: "Fuel Efficiency"  .

A further Search on "EMD Tier 4 Locomotive performance" turned up a number of sites, but this linked "Railway Age " seemed to offer some information(?)

Linked @  http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/engines-of-change.html

FTA:"...• EMD’s Tier 4 freight locomotive, the SD70ACe-T4, is powered by an all-new, 4,400-traction-hp, 12-cylinder, four-stroke EMD-developed 1010 diesel engine. EMD attained Tier 4 without the use of urea as an after-treatment. The 1010 is a radical departure from EMD’s traditional two-stroke engine. It is not based on a Caterpillar engine, though, according to Progress Rail President and CEO Billy Ainsworth, it “combines the engineering expertise of Progress Rail, Electro-Motive and Caterpillar.” EMD’s other Tier 4 offering, the F125 Spirit high-speed passenger locomotive, utilizes a 4,700-hp Caterpillar C175-20 engine..."

Hope this will shed some light on this topic! Whistling

Sam

 

 


 

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,086 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Monday, December 25, 2017 11:25 AM

I have copied the posts regarding the fuel efficiency of Tier 3 and Tier 4 freight locomotive into a new thread: Fuel Efficiency of Freight Diesel locomotives, Tier 3 vs. Tier 4 http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/266965.aspx

Please post your comments regarding the fuel efficiency in the new thread.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 757 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Thursday, June 07, 2018 12:11 AM

The first one, a ES44AC:

http://railpictures.net/photo/660258/

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    October, 2015
  • 69 posts
Posted by longhorn1969 on Monday, June 11, 2018 1:39 PM

First locomotive six months after ordering, pretty quick. Does GE have a backlog of orders or not?

  • Member since
    May, 2013
  • 3,042 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, June 11, 2018 3:28 PM

No, there's actually a lot of free capacity right now as there have been few new orders in the last couple of years. They are doing a lot of rebuilding, though.

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 757 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Monday, June 11, 2018 5:10 PM

Does anyone know yet what the exact split of ET44AC's vs credit-user ES44AC's will be?

They will all have to meet EPA requirements, CN and CP now have an agreement with the Government of Canada that their new locomotives will conform to U.S. standards. 

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,478 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Monday, June 11, 2018 5:11 PM
By law, would that not be 50-50?
  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,156 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, June 11, 2018 6:27 PM

Interesting point about Canadian Law you bring up here.   Isn't it currently against Canadian Law for any investor outside the country to acquire a controlling interest in CN or CP and thats the reason the mergers and acquisitions are always structured so that CN or CP is the controlling party?    I think I read that somewhere or was told it a while back.

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 757 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Monday, June 11, 2018 6:53 PM

YoHo1975

By law, would that not be 50-50?

GE and/or CN may have some emission credits from somewhere else that they can use toward additional Tier-3 units.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 757 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Monday, June 11, 2018 7:00 PM

CMStPnP

Interesting point about Canadian Law you bring up here.   Isn't it currently against Canadian Law for any investor outside the country to acquire a controlling interest in CN or CP and thats the reason the mergers and acquisitions are always structured so that CN or CP is the controlling party?    I think I read that somewhere or was told it a while back.

No idea about CP, but as far as I know they are just like any other private enterprise.

There were several conditions imposed on the 1995 privatization of CN, including that the legal name must remain "Canadian National Railway Company", the headquarters must remain in Montreal, the company comply with Canadian language laws, and no one shareholder could own more than 15% of the company (Bill C-49 just increased that to 25%).

Last I checked Bill Gates was right up against the then-15% limit.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,156 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, June 11, 2018 9:49 PM

SD70Dude

I think your right CN might be exempt because itself was privatized after the robber barron era was over.

So I am in the same position basically I know it is the case with one but possibly not the other.   So maybe it is CP that has the provision.    It was something like 3/4 of Parliament has to approve or some other restriction and it was passed a long time ago.........I think the intent was to keep the railroad out of JP Morgans hands or some other rail barron because the Canadian government had money invested or land grants or something to that effect.     Provision still holds today.    I can't remember it exactly though what I was told.

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 1,195 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, June 11, 2018 11:10 PM

Well, if no one shareholder can own more than 25% of CN, that pretty well locks out any of the five Class 1 US railroads buying CN. It pretty much locks out any US railroad including Genessee & Wyoming, or Watco, etc., from buying it or controlling it.

UP owns something like 25%-26% of Ferromex, but that doesn’t give it control of Ferromex.

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 757 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, July 14, 2018 1:33 AM

More units are starting to show up on the property:

http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=33971

Leasers are still running rampant, for now.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 1,195 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Sunday, July 15, 2018 5:54 PM

That CN paint scheme is very classy. The timeless “noodle” logo, the red front with the white band looks great on both wide cabs and standard cabs, and some black to harken back to the days of steam. All that and about the closest thing one can get to a Warbonnet in this day and age! Very classy indeed!

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,678 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, July 16, 2018 7:04 AM

The "wet noodle" design dates from about 1962 and is distinctive at the very least.  The color layout is not that different from NdeM (orange and Pullman green) and is hardly comparable to the red and stainless steel of the ATSF Warbonnet design.  For "classy", consider Erie's two-tone green passenger colors, especially on an ALCO PA.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January, 2015
  • 1,195 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:40 PM

I know, but I still think CN’s paint scheme is classy!

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy