With teh EGR in the OTR they were lucky to see 5 MPG when they are hooked up. Disconnect it and they Jump 2 MPG or More. I am going off of Drivers that I know that have done it Personally all O/O that have to pay their Fuel Costs all have ISX motors all pull Flatbeds and run Hard. Why do you think Schiender and Heartland bought so many trucks in 2003 2006 2010 they are trying to avoid the Next Gen o fEPA BS Heartland bought enough Prostars to REPLACE the entire fleet and PAID FOR THEM IN CASH. 3500 trucks at 100K each and paid for them all with Cash.
The EPA thinks what they are doing is perfect but there is not much Differance between any Diesel Motor all it is how big the sucker is and what your pumping into it. So the Larger it is if your Lose 37% Feul Economy like we did whent hey shove EGR on to the Motors and this is Real World not some Test cell crap since we also had the Test cell motors also before they are released. The 710 burns 210 gallon an hour at Notch 8 IIRC that will increase to 289 GPH. The GE EVO Motor at 200 GPH will be up to 275 GPH and all they did was add one system to it.
ED,
it is fascinating reading your posts regarding the trucking industry and the way the motors were played with resulting in all kinds of havoc. It just goes to show us all that it always looks good on paper. It will be interesting to see what route the railroads take to meet the EPA standards.
In the above article you say that the trucks go back to 7 MPG when the EGR valve is removed. How many MPG did the trucks use before with the EGR valve being used? Also, if one gets twice the mileage, ie uses half the fuel does one also not reduce the pollution by 50%???? Some things just do not make sense, but then again I am not a engineer, just a consumer.
Thank you
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
Creepycrank in the OTR field the Detroit 60 Series Cummins ISX and CATs C-13 and 15 lines all had a B-50 service life of 1 million miles. That means you could expect 1 million miles BEFORE you should have to Overhaul 50% of the motors they Produced or even do a Major Repair. The others that failed 90% of the time was due to the Owner Not Maintaining the Engine.
Then EGR's were shoved down the OTR Truckers Throats and those same Engines went froma B-50 of 1 Million to 500K miles. We lost 50% of our Engine life with one added omponenant. Cats Acert which had Turbo OCmpoundeds on it was even Worse it was a B-50 of 400K These are Real World Numbers from Companys that run them day in day out. Why were they failing so bad the EGR Valves would break in the Open Position and then their Coolers would leak letting Coolant into the OIL what happens when you get Coolant in Motor Oil. With the Cats Acert even though it did not have EGR on it they would Blow the Second of the TUrbos and ingest parts of that into the Motro via the Cylinder Head. Why do you think Carriers like Schiender and Heartland Did not Order Trucks for Years they were waiting for all the Crap from the EPA to sort itself out then they replaced all their equipment at one time.
When that EGR Valve Breaks off in a Turboed motor all kinds of Havoc is Created it starts dumping more exhaust back into the motor than it supposed to and creates alot more soot loading in the Passages of the EGR Valves. Companies anymore are simply Disconnecting the EGR Valves since the fine is Cheaper than the REPIARS in OTR trucking. To replace an EGR Valve on an ISX it costs 3500 dollars in PARTS alone and takes 3 days to do it.. Now what happened to the Drivers that DC their EGR Valves the Engine went back to getting 7 MPG and became the Reliable things they were BEFORE EGR was FORCED ONTO THEM. All this from one system that some Tree Hugger in the EPA wanted on so he can feel good driving his Hybrid Priuis to work in.
ED;
I'm sure that the CAT engines satisfied the EPA test procedure in order to be allowed to manufacture the engines in the first place. If your having problems now probably your not following the EPA / CAT owners manual. Remember the EPA bureaucrats are self appointed geniuses on how the world should work and your not. I suggest you take it up with your congressman.
The EPA load diagram for line haul locomotives is quite different than for switching cycle. For instance: for line haul you run in run 8 about 18% of the time; in switching its only not quite 1% and most of the running is at low power or at idle. The genset loco's take advantage of the switching cycle by using over rated engines very little at war-emergency-power and shut down at idle.
Counting announced orders for both builders but not yet built. North American market only;
GE - 184 locomotives
EMD - 150 locomotives
not all of these are for 2011 delivery.
Union Pacific has announced they will order 100 locomotives, but no builder breakdown has been announced. BNSF will certainly order something, but nothing is known yet.
See I want to know if the Test Results EMD is getting is Test Cell Data where they ae Steady RPM. Or are they varying the RPM constantly like what the Real World is like. See CAT Cummins and Detroit heck ALL the OTR boys thought they had the EPA crap figured out based on the TEST cells. Then they hit the REal world and were like OH CRAP we did not know that the THrottle was moving going down the road all the time or there is times were the engine maybe spinning 1400 RPM but only loaded up to 15% of max power. See the Real World makes the Test Cell look Stupid. So they started to have problems left and right. Were did they have issues with the EGR valves since they were having to open and close more often than the Engineers that designed the motors thought they should.
I run both EMD SD70s and the GE Dash-9s and Evos. In my opinion I have to say the 2-cycle 710s sound smooth as butter compared to the 4-cycle GEs which sound like an old washing machine. I'm glad to see EMD making a comeback and finding a great partner to compete with the mega corporation of General Electric. If they really want to hit one out of the park they should submit opinions and recommendations from the engineers that run their products everyday about what makes a great locomotive.
Paul_D_North_Jr And the one technical observation I can make: The 'duty cycle' of loads and changing between the various throttle settings has to be radically different between Over-The Road trucks - changing every minute or two, main line locomotives - changing maybe every hour or so, and marine and stationary applications - running hours, maybe even days, on the same setting. Wouldn't that affect the emissions compliance ability of an engine, as I understand that a lot of the problem occurs when the engine is not at equilibrium, but is either 'spooling up' to its maximum speed - think of ALCo's 'turbo lag' - or slowing down from same ? - Paul North.
And the one technical observation I can make: The 'duty cycle' of loads and changing between the various throttle settings has to be radically different between Over-The Road trucks - changing every minute or two, main line locomotives - changing maybe every hour or so, and marine and stationary applications - running hours, maybe even days, on the same setting. Wouldn't that affect the emissions compliance ability of an engine, as I understand that a lot of the problem occurs when the engine is not at equilibrium, but is either 'spooling up' to its maximum speed - think of ALCo's 'turbo lag' - or slowing down from same ?
- Paul North.
When running down the line, usually there are constant throttle modulations, to maintain speed over the territory. Some places are put it at Notch 8 and hammer along (especially when underpowered, I guess network speed doesn't matter to some outfits), but many lines require almost constant attention to notching up and down to keep the speed.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Exactly... GM has not been a healthy company for some time.
As for GE Capital. I had read there were some shady dealings and goings on as well. Perhaps that will level the playing field, but in either case, having a management team that is interested both emotionally and financially in making Locomotives is going to do wonders for EMD.
The Notion that GM abandoned EMD, because they were somehow technically incapable of competing is ludicrous. Their engineers weren't dummies.
GP40-2 GM didn't start tanking until 2 years after it sold off EMD.
GM didn't start tanking until 2 years after it sold off EMD.
Unless you have an unusual definition of "tanking", that statement is false. See Wikipedia: "GM profits struggled from 1981-83 following the late 1970s and early 1980s recession " and "The decade of the 1990s began with an economic recession, taking its inevitable toll on the automotive industry, and throwing GM into some of its worst losses." The numbers are available on the web at Fortune magazine, including a $4.5 billion dollar loss reported in 1992 and a $23.5 billion loss reported in 1993.
The Fortune 500 data (which ranks companies by revenue, not profits) also helps put in context the other years in the 1981-2004 period: even when profits weren't negative, they were a small percentage of revenues relative to companies with revenues of similar size. In 2002, for example, GM's profit was 0.3% compared with 3% for Walmart, 8% for Exxon Mobil and almost 11% for GE. Even in years when GM didn't actually lose money, it was under pressure from Wall Street to raise that percentage, and GM management responded by reducing investments in non-automotive operations and by seeking to sell them.
YoHo1975 I have consistently heard that GE's capital financing department out muscles EMD's and pretty much anyone else and I've consistently heard that this was a problem for EMD and a problem CAT can help solve.
I have consistently heard that GE's capital financing department out muscles EMD's and pretty much anyone else and I've consistently heard that this was a problem for EMD and a problem CAT can help solve.
Historically that was true. However, GE Capital got caught in the credit crisis; essentially they were borrowing short and lending long. When their ability to issue commercial paper evaporated, they were in deep trouble. The Washington Post of 6-29-09 reported that $74 billion of TARP funds went toward shoring up GE Capital.
I suspect these days GE Capital may be operated in a somewhat more prudent manner, thus leveling the playing field.
ADDITIONAL EMD VERSUS GE HOW IS THE GEVO250 ENGINE DOING. ANY PROBLIMS. THE EMD ENGINE IS HARD TO BEAT. BUT IM ALL FOR COMPITION.
TIER 1 THRU 4 HAS BEEN A BOON TO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MFG . COs. CUTS OUT THE AFTER MARKET GUYS. ENVIOMENT HAS OUT TRUMPED FUEL ECONEMY & PERFORMANCE. THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL CLOSE TO HOME BUT THEY WOULD RATHER SEND THE MONEY OUT OF THE COUNTRY. IM HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP. YEAR SURE.
It may not be true, but it has been reported through many sources. The finance rate is important. If you're talking about a 200 million dollar order for a hundred AC locomotives, you better believe that the capital available to the lender is a big deal.
Does financing really matter when selling locomotives to Class I railroads ? Maybe to regionals, shortlines, or others with limited cash reserves or 'lines of credit', but most Class I's could pay cash for 100 new locomotives a year if they wanted to or had to. Also, as 'rolling stock' locomotives can be financed by the modern versions of 'equipment trusts', and the lenders also have the unusual advantage of the exemption from the 'automatic stay' in the fortunately now-unlikely event of bankruptcy proceeding. All of which says to me that the capital and financing resources of CAT vs. GE might not be relevant to locomotive sales - or a least not the determining factor.
I few things just got jarred loose that need to be commented on as well.
EMD has/had other problems that affected sales
1: The price of an SD70 was and is more than the price of a Dash-9/AC/GEVO. The cost to maintain is lower (or so I've been told by multiple sources), but the up front cost is more. This is a difference in marketing in sales, not something inherent. GE took advantage of this along with a more stable product.
2: In a related issue, GMAC started having trouble at the same time which culminated again with 9/11 and of course only got worse with the recession. GE finance is bigger and better capitalized. It is simply speaking cheaper and easier to lease with GE. Lease at a cheaper rate
These 2 combined make sense. GE provides a less expensive engine that is easier to finance. It is generally more reliable up front (10 years ago), so between the lease and the reliability, it's easy to swallow the higher price for maintenance.
EMD on the other hand costs more and is harder to finance, parts and Maintenance are less expensive, but it's a bigger drag on the books.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the engineering or the product except indirectly. This is about Sharp pencil guys in the Finance department.
And this is the single biggest thing Cat can do to help EMD. Provide financing support. They aren't as big as GMAC, but they also aren't in as much pain.
GP40-2 . The bottom line, even after 2 ownership changes is EMD still doesn't have a product that can compete with their competition.
. The bottom line, even after 2 ownership changes is EMD still doesn't have a product that can compete with their competition.
By what measure? The Tier 2 engines have marked a return to quality product and have driven sales. Driven sales in a down economy.
The only reason EMD still exists is because of the monster UP order of SD70s, but that was 10 years ago and those engines are delivered. EMD is now selling ACes to most of the market. Those aren't pity sales. Yes, GE is still outselling them...a bit, but in an absolutely dismal market, it's telling that EMD is making sales at all. With the ECO market potential on top of it.
And Cat has been eyeing EMD for years. EMD was put up for sale in 2004 GM couldn't afford to keep her and she'd been run into the ground. CAT tried to buy the company then.
Thirty years at the minimum, really even longer. It takes a bit of time to run a great enterprise like GM into the toilet.
Take it from someone who came of age in the 1960s, when it looked like the General owned half the world. There were plenty of early milestones in the collapse we've just witnessed. Think of the shabby development work preceeding the 1971 Chevrolet Vega, the 1978 Olds diesel engine, and the 1981 Cadillac V-8/6/4, then consider the myopia of the peace-at-any-price labor agreements (ignoring the hungry, quality-minded, non-Big Three competition). These are just a few of the highlights.
The downfall was already in process thirty years ago, and pretty much kept getting worse. Given the pattern of looming failure, it would have been surprising to see relatively small EMD escape from the larger GM death spiral, which it didn't. By the early 1990s, of course, GE had taken over the locomotive market.
GM started ruiining itself a long time ago.
YoHo1975 If they aren't going to invest, if they don't think it's a worthwhile business to be in, then they would have sold as soon as possible, not wait around for half a decade developing a Tier 2 engine and limping along.
If they aren't going to invest, if they don't think it's a worthwhile business to be in, then they would have sold as soon as possible, not wait around for half a decade developing a Tier 2 engine and limping along.
They were trying to dump off money losing EMD for years. The problem was nobody wanted to buy it. Limping along was their only choice. It would have been cheaper just kill it, but GM was locked into pension liabilities and union contracts. GM had to continue to assume certain EMD liabilities even after the investment group took control for the deal to go through. The bottom line, even after 2 ownership changes is EMD still doesn't have a product that can compete with their competition.
GP40-2 YoHo1975: It's also worth remembering that GM was trying to stave off financial issues for much longer than just the past couple of years and EMD suffered because of it. What?? From 1980 to 2005, when EMD was sold, GM made $60 Billion in profits. GM didn't start tanking until 2 years after it sold off EMD. GM didn't invest in EMD not because it didn't have the money, it realized that EMD's base platform could no longer compete with GE in its current form, and wasn't worth investing in. If you want to be an EMD fan-boy, that's ok. Just stop trying to rewrite history in the process.
YoHo1975: It's also worth remembering that GM was trying to stave off financial issues for much longer than just the past couple of years and EMD suffered because of it.
It's also worth remembering that GM was trying to stave off financial issues for much longer than just the past couple of years and EMD suffered because of it.
What??
From 1980 to 2005, when EMD was sold, GM made $60 Billion in profits.
GM didn't invest in EMD not because it didn't have the money, it realized that EMD's base platform could no longer compete with GE in its current form, and wasn't worth investing in.
If you want to be an EMD fan-boy, that's ok. Just stop trying to rewrite history in the process.
It would be nice if this post made a point besides being insulting.
Making 60billion in 20 years is nice, but doesn't actually tell you anything. Over the course of those 20 years.
In fact, I can't find a link for that number, but even if I could, it doesn't tell you anything about real performance.
http://www.economist.com/node/13782942
The economist is a trusted source.
GM has been losing market share and profit margin since at least the mid 1980s. They had significantly bad performance from 1991-1993. They had a huge pension and benefit funding crisis following 9/11, they divested themselves of their share in suzuki, they cut their dividend in half and their financing arm struggled.
GM was not a solid car company. It was a company hiding it's problems in it's size.
EMD suffered along with everyone else. McCook's erecting hall was closed and moved to London, in order to save money, not because the facility was unusable.
Yes, the Failure of the H engine caused serious problems for EMD, but they were only major problems, because GM couldn't afford to fix them.
The very notion that General Motors, a company that owns EMD, Detroit Diesel, all their car companies doesn't think they are capable technologically of meeting GE is absolutely ludicrous...unless you acknowledge that GM was suffering financially. That is the ONLY way it makes sense.
And remember, the H engine has sold overseas and they still had significant marine sales. They had their partnership with Argonne and it is very very very telling that the independent EMD was able to regain a bit of their market share. EMD became a valid option again.
Your notion that GM realized that the base platform could no longer compete in it's current form and wasn't worth investing in makes absolutely no sense. Why, why in the good lord's name would GM decide that it wasn't worth investing in, but then keep the company for a few years? What sense does that make at all? If they aren't going to invest, if they don't think it's a worthwhile business to be in, then they would have sold as soon as possible, not wait around for half a decade developing a Tier 2 engine and limping along.
That's not good business.
GP40-2: GM didn't start tanking until 2 years after it sold off EMD.
No GM started to "Tank" when Roger Smith became chairman in the 70's. It just took 30 years for events to catch up. The main problem was that in 2006 GM was paying 3 times as many people (retirees) to not work for them as they did to work for them. For those 30 years the problem was GM's one-size-fits-all brand of management that hurt the non-consumer product divisions, such as Detroit Diesel, Allison, , Terex, EMD, and Fridgedaire a non core product. EMD was constrained by a GM style labor agreement where the engine division had something like 100 different job description where GE had only 4. When things get a little slow 4 people is all you need to build one diesel whereas at EMD you would still have to have 100, most of which would do their little part and spend the rest of the day reading the newspaper. Then there's the making process where every manager has to get a consensus to get a decision anyrthing done. Detyroit Diesel is a good example. For many years they had been losing money and as a money losing proposition GM didn't want to put more money into it. When Roger Penske took over it made a profit in its first year. Penske's method is to give each department head all the authority to make the decisions and if you screw up your fired. He didn't have to fire many people.
YoHo1975 It's also worth remembering that GM was trying to stave off financial issues for much longer than just the past couple of years and EMD suffered because of it.
YoHo1975 It's also worth remembering that GM was trying to stave off financial issues for much longer than just the past couple of years and EMD suffered because of it. We shouldn't conflate engineering issues and corporate issues with regards to recent EMD history and what they and their platform are capable of.
We shouldn't conflate engineering issues and corporate issues with regards to recent EMD history and what they and their platform are capable of.
Very, very true. I recall that during GM's financial struggles during 1991-1992, EMD took major engineering headcount and capital investment hits. No doubt the ramifications from these cuts were felt right up to the point where GM divestied itself of EMD!
Mike
The carriers want to see at least 2 manufacturers of locomotives....so they can play each off against the other and attempt to secure better pricing on the locomotives they actually end up buying. I do believe that the carriers have actually bought 'inferior' product, just to keep the 'competition' in business.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
My opinion of EMD's R&D efforts and its future competitiveness with GE hasn't changed because I didn't -- and still don't -- have an opinion on those issues. The article is an interesting discussion of some -- but I'm relatively confident not all -- of EMD's plans; however I base my opinions regarding locomotive technology on (1) the number of locomotives that railroads actually order and (2) how reliably those locomotives perform after delivery.
So the answer is that no, nobody's opinion has changed on this topic with the recent information.
There are some people I've encountered who wouldn't believe that EMD could make a Tier 4 710 if they had a 16-710XX-T4 dropped on them.
I don't believe there is any meaningful connection between Caterpillar and Berkshire Hathaway. B-H's public filings certainly do not include Cat among its operating entities. There is a web site out there -- "Warren Buffet Watch" -- that lists the 15 largest investments of B-H in companies they do not control. Cat is not on that list.
Back in 1999 we would have been in what is call Teir Zero Emmisions. Then in 2000 We had Teir 1 Rammed UP the collective OTR Industrys Backside. See in 1999 The EPA without any evidence accused the Engine Manufactors of having a so called Cruise setting on the Engine Settings. Were the Engine had a special Fuel Setting were it polluted more but got better Fuel Economy. They never could Prove it but refused to Certify any of the New Engines for 2000 Unless the Engine Makes Agreeed to the Sped up Introduction of the Emissions Standards. So basically they Forced the Engine Makers to agree that they were cheating and then as Punishment forced them to cut the timelime in 1/2 on each step for reductions in emmissions. In 2000 there was the First change we got by with no loss in Mileage just ran them hotter for less NOX. Then the Second step which was not supposed to happen til 2008 was forced on in 2004. The Next one which was not even supposed to happen til 2015 was forced on us in 2008. Then we have the last round which was supposed to be in 2019 yet the EPA forced it in 2010.
Do not give the EPA or the CARB board an inch or they will take 20 MILES from you from your HIDE every time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.