I would sy it in a little different manner ;
Vossloh is actually working toghether with EMD, wich supplies the 'core' part of the locomotive (see it here, http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/en/products/diesel-electric_locomotives/euro4000/euro4000.html, here http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_Espana_EURO4000_freight_us.pdf and here http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_Espana_EURO4000_passengers_us.pdf ), and the rest of the engineering side (trucks, carbody) being done by the company. Technically speaking, these engines are soome sort of SD70, but adapted to Europe's norms and operating procedures.
In the 1950s there was no way that British Railway would have been allowed to buy foreign equipment if there was a domestic alternative, and at the time Britain was one of the world's largest builders of steam locomotives. Britain was almost bankrupt after WW2 and the balance of trade was a major concern for the government. British manufacturers were strongly encouraged to focus on exports, and even private companies struggled to get import permits for equipment. EMD would have been an obvious source for prime movers etc. when BR decided to convert to diesels, but this would only have been allowed by the British government if they were built under license in the UK (as per MAN/North British Locomotive and Maybach/Bristol-Siddeley). IIRC EMD were not keen on license-building arrangements at the time - which cost them some significant business (e.g. India's decision to go with locally assembled Alcos instead). As BR was under government control, the government insisted that the dieselisation programme support as many British manufacturers as possible to encourage them to develop new diesel technology which could be exported. This led to an almost unbelievable proliferation of manufacturers being involved in dieselisation: Beyer-Peacock, Birmingham RC&W, Brush Traction, Clayton Equipment, English Electric (Vulcan Foundry, and Robert Stephenson & Hawthorn), Metropolitan-Vickers, North British Loco and Yorkshire Engine all built diesel road locomotives for BR in the period 1957-68, on top of which BR themselves built their own locomotive designs at no less than 7 separate works (Crewe, Darlington, Derby, Doncaster, Eastleigh, Horwich and Swindon). It will be apparant that this was not very efficient, and after the feast of orders in the steam-diesel transition era dried up virtually all of these builders pulled out of the locomotive market - only Brush is still in the picture, and on a fairly small scale.
EMD broke into the UK in the 1980s by providing a SW1001 for use by Foster Yeoman at a quarry with none of the usual loading gauge restrictions (incidentally this locomotive was badly damaged not too long ago when it ran away from the quarry and encountered a tunnel). When Foster Yeoman and a couple of other private firms reached agreement with BR to have their own road locomotives they went to EMD for class 59s because none of the few survivng British manufacturers could offer the specified service availability. At the time BR was buying British built class 58s (BREL) and 60s (Brush Traction). The choice of class 66s after privatisation reflects the highly satisfactory performance of the 59s, but also the fact that most of BR's freight sector was initially sold to Wisconsin Central who were obviously familiar with EMD. IMHO it also reflects the fact that successive British governments have stopped supporting British manufacturing industry and that the privatised rail operators have absolutely no national pride, which is why since privatisation all new locomotives have been built in Spain, Canada or the USA, and passenger stock is increasingly built in Germany, Austria, Spain and Japan (the governments and rail industries of which countries do still support their domestic manufacturers).
I wouldn't have thought that North American manufacturers had much to fear from European imports as to compete in the North American market they would have to develop completely new models, and a German built locomotive is unlikely to be any cheaper than a US/Canadian one. Chinese manufacturers may be a different matter as if the price can be kept down then someone may try a few, and if these prove to be successful then they will have broken into the market.
creepycrankWe'll have to start a new post on Gen-Set locomotives, a fascinating subject itself. Back to Europe. I did a little checking and it looks like EMD was very influential in getting Europe dieselized as far as it goes as they started to electrify their main lines after WW 2. They could do that since they were nationalized railroads. In countries that didn,t have the were with all to do so the diesel locomotive looked very attractive. Nohab of Sweden built locomotives with EMD components that looks like a double ended F unit back in the 50's that some of which are still running or are preserved and run throughout Europe. Romania, Ireland, Norway and the former Yugoslavia have been and are good EMD customers. Vossloh has 2 models of diesel electric built with EMD components in 3000 hp and 4000 hp units. Their smaller diesel hydraulic units come with either CAT 3500 series engines or at long last MTU engines probably from Germany but with the value dollar it might be cheaper to get them from Detroit. GE is moving into this market but their engines are too large apparently to fit the English loading gauge so they are building some units with Genbacher engines from Austria. EMD has been hugely successful with the English market Class 66 and are designing an enlarged version for the continent that can accommodate dynamic braking and a better cab.
The relationship between the UK rail industry and EMD is interesting.From my reading as early as the 1950's one of the major British locomotive manufacturers (English Electric?) attempted to negotiate an agreement with EMD to use engines and electrical gear in units built over there. But the British Government who had nationalised the rails (British Rail) nixed the idea as "not invented here". Eventually in the 1980's, a couple of construction materials firms that had an agreement with British Rail to operate their privately owned equipment on BR rails with BR crews bought the first EMD units imported into the UK (Class 59s). When privatisation (via open access) took hold EMD became the industry standard in the UK..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
BNSFwatcherIsn't the idea behind "GenSets" to have a second (and third) engine to kick in when more power is required, and shut down when not? What would the advantage of a single-engined GenSet be? Bill
Isn't the idea behind "GenSets" to have a second (and third) engine to kick in when more power is required, and shut down when not? What would the advantage of a single-engined GenSet be?
Bill
Fuel saving. When it is broke, it doesn't consume any fuel.
Emissions regulations are forcing the use of less-robust prime movers, and increased shop time to keep all the gewgaws emissions-compliant. Over-the-road trucks are dealing with this stuff first, but EPA and CARB mandates are bringing the problems to the railroads in short order. Emissions will go down, because nothing will be moving.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Didn't Roger Penske buy "Detroit Diesel" from the shambles that is now "Gummint Motors"?
An interesting development is the new GE ES-44C4s that BNSF bought (6600-series). Two pistons, on each side of the truck, pick up the idler axle of the A1A truck when higher loading is needed on the A axles. The 'jury is still out', but so far, so good, according to BNSF. Apparently it saves weight, and the expense of the third traction motor of a C-truck, especially for high speed service. Bears watching....
The older GEs are virtually all gone on the BNSF. There may be a few in storage, especially in southern California. Most have gone to re-builders or used loco dealers. Retirement/storage is based on fuel consumption, mainly, methinks, for locos that work 24/7.
The question that needs to be asked is how maintenance-intensive were Chapelon's designs? As mentioned previously, relatively high down time for maintenance is tolerated in Europe but a high-maintenance design would wind up parked in the weeds behind the shop in North America.
European technology is coming to North America through the back door. Siemens is responsible for the design of the electrical components on EMD's AC-drive locomotives. MPI specifies MTU/Detroit Diesel power for its switchers, and MTU is a major German engine builder.
Paul Milenkovic Brian Hollingsworth's book on express passenger steam locomotives offers some interesting insights into the regard in France for complex locomotives such as the de Glehn and later Chapelon machines. Apparently France is lacking in coal supplies, so thermal efficiency was paramount. England went to four cylinder steam like the de Glehn designs, but opted for simple instead of compound operation because coal was somewhat more plentiful. It had been suggested somewhere else that the reason that the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the wide spread use of steam power) happened in England and not France is that the early steam machinery was only marginally cost effective, but the abundance of coal in England tipped the balance towards using coal in steam engines (coal was a form of labor in that someone had to dig it out of the ground) over direct labor in the factories and mills. Similarly, France is 80% nuclear on their electric grid. One could argue that France is "more progressive than we" on CO2 emissions, but the simple fact is that France went nuclear because they had to, much as they went for complex compound steam because they had to. What is interesting from Hollingsworth's book is reviewing the stats, and on comparing US Superpower steam against some of Chapelon's creations. It seemed that Superpower needed about twice the weight, grate area, evaporative and superheating surface to get the same amount of "cylinder horsepower" as the French designs. I suppose if coal was relatively cheap and you wanted the weight for pulling tonnage, Superpower was a good design. But it is brute force in comparison. Hollingsworth comments, however, that some post WW-II US-built Mikes they had in France were more cost effective than the best that Chapelon had to offer -- what they gave up in coal consumption, even at French coal prices, they made up in lower maintenance, although it was explained that the Mikes were that good because Chapelon had made some steam passage "tweaks" on them. Kind of like a big-bore V-8 with tuned headers being more effective than some fancy small displacement overhead cam multi-valve exotic European mill.
Brian Hollingsworth's book on express passenger steam locomotives offers some interesting insights into the regard in France for complex locomotives such as the de Glehn and later Chapelon machines.
Apparently France is lacking in coal supplies, so thermal efficiency was paramount. England went to four cylinder steam like the de Glehn designs, but opted for simple instead of compound operation because coal was somewhat more plentiful.
It had been suggested somewhere else that the reason that the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the wide spread use of steam power) happened in England and not France is that the early steam machinery was only marginally cost effective, but the abundance of coal in England tipped the balance towards using coal in steam engines (coal was a form of labor in that someone had to dig it out of the ground) over direct labor in the factories and mills.
Similarly, France is 80% nuclear on their electric grid. One could argue that France is "more progressive than we" on CO2 emissions, but the simple fact is that France went nuclear because they had to, much as they went for complex compound steam because they had to.
What is interesting from Hollingsworth's book is reviewing the stats, and on comparing US Superpower steam against some of Chapelon's creations. It seemed that Superpower needed about twice the weight, grate area, evaporative and superheating surface to get the same amount of "cylinder horsepower" as the French designs. I suppose if coal was relatively cheap and you wanted the weight for pulling tonnage, Superpower was a good design. But it is brute force in comparison.
Hollingsworth comments, however, that some post WW-II US-built Mikes they had in France were more cost effective than the best that Chapelon had to offer -- what they gave up in coal consumption, even at French coal prices, they made up in lower maintenance, although it was explained that the Mikes were that good because Chapelon had made some steam passage "tweaks" on them. Kind of like a big-bore V-8 with tuned headers being more effective than some fancy small displacement overhead cam multi-valve exotic European mill.
Chapelon's last designs were very high horsepower, on one case demonstrating an output of 40 horsepower per ton of engine weight. How many American steam designs could manage that? A 500 ton simple articulated such as a Challenger type would have to produce 20,000 horsepower to match it. Yes, these locomotives were comparatively small, between 80 and 120 tons or so, but they could fly like the wind with comparatively heavy loads. Restricted to small size by the European loading guage, I wonder what would have happened if Chapelon would have been able to use his talents here with our larger loading guage?
After studying some of the work done by Chapelon and other English and Continental engineers I have to take my hats off to them as well as ask myself whether diesels would have taken over as soon as they did if we on this side of the Atlantic had been a bit more appreciative of what others were doing rather than our too-common "not invented here" thinking.
Yes, conditions on European railroads are different and thus European equipment often isn't a good fit if just picked up and dropped into American operation. But we shouldn't sprain our arms patting ourselves on the backs, thinking we have nothing to learn from elsewhere.
BNSFwatcherBNSF is purchasing used GP-38s? Do you have a reference? With the downturn in business, the GP-38s, GP-39Ms, and SD-40-2s are becoming rara avis, with hundreds of them in "stored, servicable" status. Our locals, and branch 'line-hauls', have almost eliminated them, in favor of newer GEs. I live on the BNSF "Hi-Line" in Montana and don't miss the "Jimmy Junk".
BNSF is purchasing used GP-38s? Do you have a reference?
With the downturn in business, the GP-38s, GP-39Ms, and SD-40-2s are becoming rara avis, with hundreds of them in "stored, servicable" status. Our locals, and branch 'line-hauls', have almost eliminated them, in favor of newer GEs. I live on the BNSF "Hi-Line" in Montana and don't miss the "Jimmy Junk".
Where are all the GEs of similar vintage to the GP38s, GP39E-M-Vs, and SD40-2s? U-boats, Dash 7s, etc.?
There are still places of lighter rail that the techno-toasters can't go.
There are still how many older 4-axle engines around that could get refitted with the newer emission standard engines that importing European engines wouldn't make any sense.
With the downturn in business, the GP-38s, GP-39Ms, and SD-40-2s are becoming rara avis, with hundreds of them in "stored, servicable" status. Our locals, and branch 'line-hauls', have almost eliminated them, in favor of newer GEs. I live on the BNSF "Hi-Line" in Montana and don't miss the "Jimmy Junk". We do see an occasional SD-70MAC, but mostly in 'detour' service on coal trains, like when MRL's Mullan Tunnel caved in a few weeks ago.
Maybe the "Cash for Clunker EMDs" program is a good idea. Same with "Amfleet" cars!
Bill Hays
Buy American! Buy General Electric! Forget the rest...
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
European railroad equipment is for the most part, built to a smaller loading gauge than that of most of North America. In addition, the rail network in Europe operates very differently than that in the U.S where heavy haul freight service is dominant. European builders have their strengths, particularly in electric motive power and passenger equipment, and those market segments are where they have had success on this side of the pond selling (or licensing to domestic builders) "Americanized" versions of their offerings......
CSSHEGEWISCHThere are several cultural factors involved. European railroads were willing to accept more down time for maintenance than American roads. Also, the cost of labor compared to the cost of fuel was lower than in North America. How engineers view the nature of their profession is also different. European engineers view themselves more as men of science, and seem to be more interested in getting an "elegant" solution; American engineers tend to be more interested in results, and are more willing to improvise and arrive at "inelegant" solutions that work.
There are several cultural factors involved. European railroads were willing to accept more down time for maintenance than American roads. Also, the cost of labor compared to the cost of fuel was lower than in North America. How engineers view the nature of their profession is also different. European engineers view themselves more as men of science, and seem to be more interested in getting an "elegant" solution; American engineers tend to be more interested in results, and are more willing to improvise and arrive at "inelegant" solutions that work.
My experience is from the steel industry and may be biased. Every time a European process was purchased engineering and maintenance personnel were assigned to reduce the maintenance and downtime that European steel mills favored. Don't know the reason for that other than make work in Socialist countries but it was extremely excessive and many components were designed to fail. An example is a brick machine purchahed for Armco Middletown BOF shop that had over 400 limit switchs. Idea was this thing delivered bricks for relining vertically on a conveyer and then out to the end of an arm a man stood on and placed the bricks in their final resting position as this thing rotated and screwed itself vertically up every revloution. Within six weeks we had it down to 14 limit switchs and had replaced several weak components. I know when the PRR tried a French De Glehn steam engine the Frenchman commented, "You don't move cars. You move houses". The Europeans have developed superior electric engines but their other equipment isn't that geat or rugged amd therefore dependable in my opinion.
beaulieuIt must be noted though that the Siemens and Bombardier locomotives cited are both Diesel-electrics, with 3-phase Asynchronous AC traction motors.
Hello,
also I would like to add to this that the SD70MAC and the various versions of the SD90's all have their electric equipment made by Siemens. Keeping this in mind and having a European manufacturer with good North American experience my thinking was why not use a European design over here as well. Mind you it would have to be modified to meet North American requirements, but still it could have been an alternative.
Thank you for all the responses so far. The points raised are very interesting. As for the Diesel Hydraulics, I believe it was the wrong locomotive for the wrong application. The Hydraulics might have done better with a HEP unit in passenger service. Here in North America we really push the equipment compared to Europe. That is why the British Class 66 made by EMD is such a success.
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
da_kraut Hello everybody, after reading this excellent post: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/159698.aspx and seeing that BNSF is purchasing used GP38's this question came to mind. I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service. The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself. Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model. It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either. From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags. This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units? It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view. Here are some of the European Manufacturers: Siemens http://www.mobility.siemens.com/ts/en/pub/products/lm/services/platforms/eurorunner.htm Bombardier http://www2.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp and Voith http://www.voithturbo.de/lokomotivtechnik-gravita-en.htm I am looking forward to everybody's opinions and thoughts. Frank
Hello everybody,
after reading this excellent post: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/159698.aspx and seeing that BNSF is purchasing used GP38's this question came to mind.
I know that there have been attempts of using European diesel engines over here in freight service. The electric locomotives that are used in passenger service seem to fare well but mainline freight is another subject in itself. Also EMD and GE are manufacturing locomotives for Europe-six axle engines and the European manufacturers have to build a competitive model.
It seems that the gen-set engines are not quite the answer either. From what I have seen and read I believe that branch line service is probably not as harsh on the units as main line coal drags. This begs to ask the question if European made four axle locomotives would be a viable alternative to refurbishing old GP units? It would be great to see more variety on the rails over here as well, specially from a modelers point of view.
Here are some of the European Manufacturers:
Siemens
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/ts/en/pub/products/lm/services/platforms/eurorunner.htm
Bombardier
http://www2.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp
and Voith
http://www.voithturbo.de/lokomotivtechnik-gravita-en.htm
I am looking forward to everybody's opinions and thoughts.
Frank
Vossloh, one of the major European manufacturers of diesel electrics, is using EMD engines and electrical systems in many of their locomotives. Keep in mind that the US railroads aren't purchasing 4 axle locomotives for road service but for yard and local freight/ branchline service. I don't really see what advantages any of the European offerings have for that market. Many of the manufacturers in North America building GenSet units also offer new single engined BB locomotives as well..
Frank:
Logts of interested 'FANS" haveasked questions as to why did the K-M Diesel Hydraulics fain in service here and in South America. Here is a link that might explain some of these faults:
http://sp9010.ncry.org/faq.htm
And this link as well for additional information on the K-M Diesel-Hydraulics ( 15 to SP and 3 to D&RGW):
http://espee.railfan.net/spml4000.html
I hope this will answer some of your questions, satisfactorily:
I have no doubt that should the North American Class Is communicate the desire for NEW four-axle locomotives to GE and EMD, they will be more than happy to provide them. They always have and always will!
Mike
Bombardier is actually a Canadian company, and already builds locomotives for EMD (if you look at a current EMD builder's plate, it will list country of origin as a check one of Canada, USA or Mexico - Mexican built EMDs are built by Bombardier).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.