Does anyone know EXACTLY what the problem(s) are with the 265H engine. I know that the SD90MAC-H's are being retired because of problems with the engines.
Both the EMD 265 and the GE HDL were considered 'rough running' compared to the EMD 710 and the GE FDL power plants. Neither are used in in new domestic production currently. The other big issue was computer/software control issues. IIRC, only China has ordered locomotives with the EMD 265 power plant as of late.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
igoldberg Does anyone know EXACTLY what the problem(s) are with the 265H engine. I know that the SD90MAC-H's are being retired because of problems with the engines.
The contention has been made about the 265H that, when the engine had it's initial teething troubles, EMD was slow to respond due to it's then parent companies unwillingless to invest resources. I.E GM wasn't in an hurry to invest more money in the program due to it's view of EMD as an asset to be sold off ASAP.....
I do wonder how the "product improved" 265-Hs the Chinese are buying are performing.
I wouldn't hold my breath to see the 265's return to the North American locomotive scene as EMD is focusing on developing the 710 engine to meet the upcoming Tier 4 emissions standards (read this month's TRAINS) and EMD's new corporate parent, CAT, has competing 4 cycle designs it is working on for Tier 4....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Certainly I would expect any knowledge gained with the H engine to influence CAT. Afterall, EMD's partnership with Argonne includes and H engine, so they may have some really good scientific information about the H engine that CAT does not have for it's own designs.
We shall see what we shall see though.
Having spent 44 years in the information Technology (Computer) industry, 15 of which was spent programming. The rough running can be easily corrected by adjusting the data that the computer program reads and/or changing the program to fix the way data is read. I would imagine that EMD would have used a language such as Fortran or other scientific based language that is designed for number crunching and data analysis.
The EMD 265H engine had a reasonable amount of minor bugs when it was introduced, all since solved. The problem with the SD90MAC-H is that the whole locomotive was poorly engineered, the integral fuel tank/frame created problems, the wiring routing was poorly thought out, and basic production quality was not good. The 16V-265H is the dominant Marine main engine, in its power category, so if EMD makes the change to 4-stroke cycle power it will be ready. One catch, and GE is already seeing it, is that a large V12 diesel is subject to greater harmonic vibrations and is more difficult to properly counter balance. The new Evolution Series locomotives have noticeably more vibration than the late model Dash9 locomotives they replaced in the GE catalog. The re-engined V16 GEVO powered AC6000CWs for CSX have significantly less than their smaller brethren. A V12 powered SD89ACe would have the same problem.
beaulieu The 16V-265H is the dominant Marine main engine, in its power category, so if EMD makes the change to 4-stroke cycle power it will be ready. One catch, and GE is already seeing it, is that a large V12 diesel is subject to greater harmonic vibrations and is more difficult to properly counter balance.
The 16V-265H is the dominant Marine main engine, in its power category, so if EMD makes the change to 4-stroke cycle power it will be ready. One catch, and GE is already seeing it, is that a large V12 diesel is subject to greater harmonic vibrations and is more difficult to properly counter balance.
I would assume that's due to using a 45 degree angle between the cylinder banks (which is optimum for a V-16) rather than a 60 degree angle between cylinder banks. A V-8 would be even worse, especially with a 45 degree "V", so that's almost certainly the reason that the 8 cylinder GEVO is in an in-line configuration (as well as the 6 cylinder GEVO).
- Erik
beaulieu The EMD 265H engine had a reasonable amount of minor bugs when it was introduced, all since solved. The problem with the SD90MAC-H is that the whole locomotive was poorly engineered, the integral fuel tank/frame created problems, the wiring routing was poorly thought out, and basic production quality was not good. The 16V-265H is the dominant Marine main engine, in its power category, so if EMD makes the change to 4-stroke cycle power it will be ready. One catch, and GE is already seeing it, is that a large V12 diesel is subject to greater harmonic vibrations and is more difficult to properly counter balance. The new Evolution Series locomotives have noticeably more vibration than the late model Dash9 locomotives they replaced in the GE catalog. The re-engined V16 GEVO powered AC6000CWs for CSX have significantly less than their smaller brethren. A V12 powered SD89ACe would have the same problem.
Is there any Tier IV development work going on with the 265 H at this time? The article in the current issue of Trains about EMD mentions the 710 Tier IV program but nothing about the 265H..
CAT is certainly developing Tier IV solutions for the various 4 cycle engines they produce..
Well, Argonne does have a 1-265H engine that they HAVE done testing with, but I haven't heard anything specific.
I thought all of UP's SD90MACs were gone but I saw one to my surprise over the weekend. It's not uncommon to see SD9043's but this was a 90 according to the writing under the cab. Is there a timetable for their complete retirement? Are the 9043's on their way out as well?
The UP has only SD9043MACs on their roster. It is very easy for a paint shop to make a lettering mistake, or it is possible that the UP with none of the 6000hp versions still running has decided to abbreviate the designation of the 4300hp. version. Some of the 6000hp locomotives still exist stored in various places around the country and they are in UP paint, but the words "Union Pacific" on the sides is lined out. There are also four currently in Montreal that we built for the CP, who had a deal to sell them to Saudi Arabia, but the deal fell through after they were sent to Montreal for export.
one of the big issues I remember hearing about (they very infrequently ran through my shops) was the antifreeze in the cooling system. I never understood why they didn't put water in it. it costs a LOT of money to drain/refill 400 gallons of antifreeze vs treated water. I also remember hearing about a siginificant amount of lube oil dilution by the fuel. Not sure if this is from poor injector nozzles or a internal pump leaks.
The biggest issue for the whole 90MAC series is the traction systems; the siemens computer system is NOT designed to handle a railroad enviroment. It is very sensitive to the heat of summer, and high load periods in general. When it is working properly nothing else out there can pull or brake like it; it just doesn't work like that very often. 92% of the 90's failures were traction control electrical in nature. Mechanically the 90/43's are really not a bad locomotive. pretty easy to work on. lots of extra room as they were built for the 265 engine.
Tugboat Tony one of the big issues I remember hearing about (they very infrequently ran through my shops) was the antifreeze in the cooling system. I never understood why they didn't put water in it. it costs a LOT of money to drain/refill 400 gallons of antifreeze vs treated water. I also remember hearing about a siginificant amount of lube oil dilution by the fuel. Not sure if this is from poor injector nozzles or a internal pump leaks. The biggest issue for the whole 90MAC series is the traction systems; the siemens computer system is NOT designed to handle a railroad enviroment. It is very sensitive to the heat of summer, and high load periods in general. When it is working properly nothing else out there can pull or brake like it; it just doesn't work like that very often. 92% of the 90's failures were traction control electrical in nature. Mechanically the 90/43's are really not a bad locomotive. pretty easy to work on. lots of extra room as they were built for the 265 engine.
Interesting info. regarding the Siemens electrical system. The Early SD70MACs (and Conrail's SD80MACS) also used Siemens equipment, However I don't recall reading of major problems in those units (particularly BN/BNSFs large fleet of 70MACs)
carnej1 Interesting info. regarding the Siemens electrical system. The Early SD70MACs (and Conrail's SD80MACS) also used Siemens equipment, However I don't recall reading of major problems in those units (particularly BN/BNSFs large fleet of 70MACs)
All EMD locomotives using AC traction motors used Siemens inverters until the SD70ACe came out. With the SD70ACe, EMD switched to Mitsubishi inverters.
beaulieu carnej1: Interesting info. regarding the Siemens electrical system. The Early SD70MACs (and Conrail's SD80MACS) also used Siemens equipment, However I don't recall reading of major problems in those units (particularly BN/BNSFs large fleet of 70MACs) All EMD locomotives using AC traction motors used Siemens inverters until the SD70ACe came out. With the SD70ACe, EMD switched to Mitsubishi inverters.
carnej1: Interesting info. regarding the Siemens electrical system. The Early SD70MACs (and Conrail's SD80MACS) also used Siemens equipment, However I don't recall reading of major problems in those units (particularly BN/BNSFs large fleet of 70MACs)
the Mitsubishi inverters and switch gear are FAR more reliable and durable than the Siemens equipment. I believe that its very close to the same gear used by Komatsu and Caterpillar in the electrical drive haul trucks. not 100% on that though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the SD90s had a unique electrical system that was not the same as that found in the 70s or even the 80s?
Coincidently, I had heard that it was the electrical system that was the big problem as well. Not the prime mover.
Also, as for Anti-freeze, the Feb issue of Trains touches on this, but AntiFreeze protects the engine more cheaply than just leaving it running all the time. However, it was noted that often anti-freeze engines are topped off with water and that messes up the mix and/or Water is a better coolant in the summer. And thus Automatic Start/Stop and such have become the norm.
YoHo1975 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the SD90s had a unique electrical system that was not the same as that found in the 70s or even the 80s? Coincidently, I had heard that it was the electrical system that was the big problem as well. Not the prime mover. Also, as for Anti-freeze, the Feb issue of Trains touches on this, but AntiFreeze protects the engine more cheaply than just leaving it running all the time. However, it was noted that often anti-freeze engines are topped off with water and that messes up the mix and/or Water is a better coolant in the summer. And thus Automatic Start/Stop and such have become the norm.
OK. I think you're wrong. My recollection is that the 80s and 90s had the larger motors and inverters along with 45" wheels. The 70s had smaller motors and 42" wheels. (although wheel size has more to do with the contact patch and adhesion than motor size)
But, maybe my recollection is wrong....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You may very well be right. I don't have any material on me to back up my recollection. I know that when people have suggested "just re-engine the H-MACs with 710s." There's been a flurry of arguments about why that wouldn't fix the problems.
Though, I understand that the units bound for Australia had that exact thing happen to them, so who knows.
A 45 degree v-12 has a crank with the same 120 degree layout as an inline six. The firing order is the same as an inline six because the narrow v-angle means opposite cylinders have fired before the first cylinder of the next pair. In the past v-12s have been pretty smooth engines. It could be that current engines having higher peak pressures run "rougher" in spite of more accurate combustion control and mechanical design.
ALCO's v-8 251 (a 45 deg. v-angle) was a poor runner because of balancing problems.
I have always believed that inline engines are far more durable than v engines.
Reading all the posts makes me think EMD forgot the old KISS rule, you know," Keep It Simple, Stupid!" But then, there're not the only ones over-engineering these days. Trust me.
Firelock76 Reading all the posts makes me think EMD forgot the old KISS rule, you know," Keep It Simple, Stupid!" But then, there're not the only ones over-engineering these days. Trust me.
The KISS system went out the window the EPA came in.
oltmannd YoHo1975: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the SD90s had a unique electrical system that was not the same as that found in the 70s or even the 80s? Coincidently, I had heard that it was the electrical system that was the big problem as well. Not the prime mover. OK. I think you're wrong. My recollection is that the 80s and 90s had the larger motors and inverters along with 45" wheels. The 70s had smaller motors and 42" wheels. (although wheel size has more to do with the contact patch and adhesion than motor size) But, maybe my recollection is wrong....
YoHo1975: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the SD90s had a unique electrical system that was not the same as that found in the 70s or even the 80s? Coincidently, I had heard that it was the electrical system that was the big problem as well. Not the prime mover.
Conveniently, Siemens have detailed brochures available on the web for SD70MAC and SD90MAC locomotives. The description of the power conversion circuits are identical even to the inverter ratings where quoted. The traction motors are identical, model 1TB2630.
The wheel diameters are different, 42" on the '70, 44" on the '90,
But UP appear to be still using 307 of the 309 SD9043AC units they bought.
They are still using none of the SD90AC units with the H engine.
If the real problem is the electrical system, which is pretty much common to the SD70MAC why are UP still using nearly all of their 710 engine SD90MACs? And BNSF still using their hundreds of SD70MACs with very similar electrical equipment?
Clearly UP can live with the electrics but not the 265H.
The 265 was intended to be a smaller engine initially and seems to be influenced by the GE FDL in some design features. If the 710 keeps meeting emissions requirements, the 265 might not be needed again...
M636C
M636C oltmannd: YoHo1975: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the SD90s had a unique electrical system that was not the same as that found in the 70s or even the 80s? Coincidently, I had heard that it was the electrical system that was the big problem as well. Not the prime mover. OK. I think you're wrong. My recollection is that the 80s and 90s had the larger motors and inverters along with 45" wheels. The 70s had smaller motors and 42" wheels. (although wheel size has more to do with the contact patch and adhesion than motor size) But, maybe my recollection is wrong.... Conveniently, Siemens have detailed brochures available on the web for SD70MAC and SD90MAC locomotives. The description of the power conversion circuits are identical even to the inverter ratings where quoted. The traction motors are identical, model 1TB2630. The wheel diameters are different, 42" on the '70, 44" on the '90, But UP appear to be still using 307 of the 309 SD9043AC units they bought. They are still using none of the SD90AC units with the H engine. If the real problem is the electrical system, which is pretty much common to the SD70MAC why are UP still using nearly all of their 710 engine SD90MACs? And BNSF still using their hundreds of SD70MACs with very similar electrical equipment? Clearly UP can live with the electrics but not the 265H. The 265 was intended to be a smaller engine initially and seems to be influenced by the GE FDL in some design features. If the 710 keeps meeting emissions requirements, the 265 might not be needed again... M636C
oltmannd: YoHo1975: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the SD90s had a unique electrical system that was not the same as that found in the 70s or even the 80s? Coincidently, I had heard that it was the electrical system that was the big problem as well. Not the prime mover. OK. I think you're wrong. My recollection is that the 80s and 90s had the larger motors and inverters along with 45" wheels. The 70s had smaller motors and 42" wheels. (although wheel size has more to do with the contact patch and adhesion than motor size) But, maybe my recollection is wrong....
Good point regarding the 710's Tier IV potential. And given that EMD is now owned by a company that is one of the world's largest manufacturers of 4 cycle medium and high speed diesel engines, the 710's successor may well not be the 265H but rather a newer Caterpillar design....
M636C If the real problem is the electrical system, which is pretty much common to the SD70MAC why are UP still using nearly all of their 710 engine SD90MACs? And BNSF still using their hundreds of SD70MACs with very similar electrical equipment? Clearly UP can live with the electrics but not the 265H. The 265 was intended to be a smaller engine initially and seems to be influenced by the GE FDL in some design features. If the 710 keeps meeting emissions requirements, the 265 might not be needed again... M636C
The real electrical problem was not with the inverters or the traction motors but rather with the cabling layout. They had problems with chaffing, and with oil leaking degrading the insulation. Access to the cabling was poor in many areas. A big reason for this was EMD's decision to make the fuel tank an integral part of the frame. This forced them to move the main cables from the location used by all other modern EMD locomotives. With GM owning 41 of the SD90MAC-H locomotives and in the process of selling the division, the builder did not want to invest anything further to correct the problems with them. The new owners did not purchase the GM owned SD90MAC-Hs when they bought EMD truly making them orphans.That left UP owning 21 locomotives. From their prospective, having found that 6000hp locomotives did not fit their assignment plans and with the non-standard engine, they decided to part out their 21 locomotives and dispose of the engines for parts, while saving the inverters, traction motors and other parts that were common with the SD9043MACs. The SD9043MACs did not share the same internal layout details as their 265H brethren.
The SD89MAC prototype was spotted leaving LaGrange for more testing at the TTCI facility in Pueblo, CO right after the first of this year. So clearly EMD hasn't abandoned the design. Also as has been repeated many times, the 265H design is popular in the other areas that EMD sells diesel engines like Marine and Oil Well Drilling. With EMD now owned by Cat, they now have the resources to keep both engines available, though clearly they know that the 710G is the current favored design.
I'd sure like to find out where the rumor about power product sales for the H engine comes from. According to Hunt Engine, the only marine units are the 20 that were sold to Tidewater Marine for 10 OSV's. Hunt engine is heavily involved with oil exploration so they ought to know. The engine hasn't appeared in the power products part of the catalogue in several years. Its not fast start so it probably won't show up in nuclear or as emergency generators. For marine most of the market is fre twin engine set ups in the 2000 to 3000 hp range where they have sold several 12-710 G's. 6000 hp is too much for the market as in locomotives. With developments in DPU the 6000 hp units may make a comeback.
HI TONY
ALWAYS GOOD TO TALK TO SOME ONE WHO WORKS ON ENGINES. & UNDERSTANDS THEM. WAS PORT ENGINEER FOR A DREDGING CO. FOR 47 YEARS. RETIRED NOW MISS IT VERY MUCH BUT GLAD IM NOT THERE ANY MORE. DIFFERENT BALL GAME NOW. MOSTLY DETROIT CLEVELAND & EMDs. ALWAYS LOOKING FOR ANYTHING ON THE EMD 265 & THE GEVOs
HERBYGD@AOL.COM
The Conrail SD80MACs had 1TB2830AC motors. Maybe my recollection isn't so bad?
oltmannd The Conrail SD80MACs had 1TB2830AC motors. Maybe my recollection isn't so bad?
Yes.
My earlier comment about the SD90MAC was wrong, in that they have 1TB2830 motors also...
I was partly misled by your comment about "larger motors". The 1TB2630 and 1TB2830 are identical in size (to the millimetre) and virtually identical in appearance and the illustrations in the Siemens brochure were misleading...
The 1TB2830 has a slightly higher voltage rating and a slightly higher top speed but the significant change is a significant increase in the current rating from around 200 A to around 290 A giving a power increase from 433 kW to 638kW. The only visible change is the change from a conventional square cut pinion to an opposed pair of skew cut pinions.
The inverters, however, appear to be the same, at least as described, in all three types...
But to return to the thread topic, I don't understand why the cable routing in a 265H engined SD90MAC would be significantly different to that in an SD90MAC with a 710G engine, even in the area beneath the engine itself...
M636C oltmannd: The Conrail SD80MACs had 1TB2830AC motors. Maybe my recollection isn't so bad? Yes. My earlier comment about the SD90MAC was wrong, in that they have 1TB2830 motors also... I was partly misled by your comment about "larger motors". The 1TB2630 and 1TB2830 are identical in size (to the millimetre) and virtually identical in appearance and the illustrations in the Siemens brochure were misleading... The 1TB2830 has a slightly higher voltage rating and a slightly higher top speed but the significant change is a significant increase in the current rating from around 200 A to around 290 A giving a power increase from 433 kW to 638kW. The only visible change is the change from a conventional square cut pinion to an opposed pair of skew cut pinions. The inverters, however, appear to be the same, at least as described, in all three types... But to return to the thread topic, I don't understand why the cable routing in a 265H engined SD90MAC would be significantly different to that in an SD90MAC with a 710G engine, even in the area beneath the engine itself... M636C
oltmannd: The Conrail SD80MACs had 1TB2830AC motors. Maybe my recollection isn't so bad?
Thanks. Had no idea about the size vs. rating for the motors. The double helical cut pinion/bull gear arrangement rings a bell.
I, too am having trouble believing it wasn't the 265H engine that wasn't the problem with the 90MACs. The SD80MACs keep humming along for NS. They found a nice niche running coal branches where they get to show off their high tractive effort and radial trucks. Occasionally they get to stretch their legs on a round trip east from Conway to Enola or points east.
HI KEN. YOU GOT THAT RIGHT. IM HERE FROM THE GOVT. TO HELP. (SURE) HERBY
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.