I would like to understand why GE is producing the models ES58ACi and ES59Aci to Brazil and China and no one U.S railroad ordered them. In Brazil, Vale ordered ten untis to test in its broad gauge EFC railroad. Two ES58ACi are doing the job of thee C44-9W´s leading the big ore trains with 340 cars each one wheighing 150 tons. Now Vale received more seven units, of an order of seventy. Another brazilian company ordered ES58Ci too. MRS will test the big power units this year, perhaps borrowing two units from Vale. It intends to order 100 units to pull the ore trains too.
showPicture.aspx?id=1633666
pedrop I would like to understand why GE is producing the models ES58ACi and ES59Aci to Brazil and China and no one U.S railroad ordered them. In Brazil, Vale ordered ten untis to test in its broad gauge EFC railroad. Two ES58ACi are doing the job of thee C44-9W´s leading the big ore trains with 340 cars each one wheighing 150 tons. Now Vale received more seven units, of an order of seventy. Another brazilian company ordered ES58Ci too. MRS will test the big power units this year, perhaps borrowing two units from Vale. It intends to order 100 units to pull the ore trains too. showPicture.aspx?id=1633666
For some reason Vale's AC4400CWs don't have the pulling power of their ES58ACi locomotives. For US railroads the ES60AC doesn't have enough low speed pulling power to match the horsepower. To match the ES44AC's TE to HP ratio the ES60AC would have to be able to produce 272,000 lbs of TE which it can not do. US railroad do not feel the need to go faster, which is all the extra horsepower can offer.
Would an extra set of axles(4 axles per truck ) instead of the current 3x increase tractive effort? It would lessen the overall weight per axle but it might allow more power to be put to the rails before the wheels started to slip at low speed?
I'm also wondering if the 6000hp locomotives are tier 3 compatible? Being able to use 3 locomotives me be optimum in some conditions but if something happens to a locomotive and you are left with 2 healthy engines you might be dead on the rails and block an important corridor until the company can get a few helpers to push you out of the way.
I think the idea that if two 6000 HP engines are used on a very long freight train, but one of them goes out you basically lose half the train's pulling power there and traffic ends up being tied up until something is done to help the disabled train. Although I wouldn't be too surprised if a horsepower race is going to take place soon. By the way here is the new ES58ACis in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTfvmasHEmY
Simply put, American railroad mechanical managers have a very long institutional memory. Having been burned by the first generation of 6k HP locomotives you literally have to wait a generation until someone has the intestinal fortitude to test the 6k HP waters again. In the meantime GE has refined its larger bore diesel prime mover and produced the successful ES40AC and ES40DC series of locomotives.
Two things are happening which will lead to another test for the American appetite of 6k HP road locomotives: 1) intermodal share is growing and 2) a new generation of mechanical managers are taking their places in the upper ranks of railroad management. For railroads to be competitive they shall need speed and speed means horsepower. With GE refining their 6k HP offerings overseas, when the railroads come calling for “bigger and better” GE shall be ready.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Between September 2007 and December 2009, 6000-hp GEVO16 prime movers were installed in all of CSXT's 113 production-model AC6000CWs.
Railroad CMOs (Chief Mechanical Officers) will buy 6000 hp. locomotives when they feel they have a need for them. The rising price of fuel is the biggest driver in the decision making process of what type of locomotive to buy. The question asked is how many ton-miles per gallon of fuel will this locomotive be able to produce when operated on the trains that we run. Higher speeds are not that important for Intermodal, as running Intermodals faster on a route that has significant numbers of manifest and and bulk trains decreases track capacity even without adding trains.
Right now there is a second question being asked, can we get delivery before Tier 4 Emission standards kick in. The railroads are worried about the performance of locomotives built to meet Tier 4 standards, look for the major railroads to take a very cautious course when buying the first of these locomotives.
6000 HP, and even 5000 for that matter, have never been successful in North America. Maybe GE and EMD just weren't really ready, maybe railroads weren't, but whatever the case, everything over 4400 HP has crashed and burned, sometimes literally.
I wasn't aware that Conrail's SD80MACs ever had mechanical problems. I was under the assumption that they were built just for Conrail, and neither CSX or NS wanted to purchase more of them when they split up Conrail.
I know that NS didnt like AC locomotives and assumed that it played a role. CSX had the GE C-6000, so why would they a want to go back to a 5000 hp locomotive such as the SD80.
I'm probably wrong.
AS was mentioned in this thread, the big problem is that if one of 3 ~4k hp units goes down, the train will still probably move. If one of 2 6k HP units goes down, the train goes nowhere. So I'd expect 6000HP to become popular when train length and weight justify 3 6k HP units.
JayPotter Between September 2007 and December 2009, 6000-hp GEVO16 prime movers were installed in all of CSXT's 113 production-model AC6000CWs.
GE is currently performing electrical work and changing out the original 7HDL engines with a new 6,000 hp (4,500 kW) GEVO-16 engines on several CSXT and BHP units. This is essentially creating an ES60AC, but neither CSXT nor GE reclassifies the locomotives because they retain the original computer systems and intercooling system of the AC6000CW. So far,[when?] four units have undergone the change: CSXT 606, 620, 628 and 640. The work is being performed by GE at CSXT's Waycross, Georgia locomotive facilities. Plans are for all units to be rebuilt eventually. There are no external changes to the locomotive.
An interesting subject to watch, indeed.
Dan
The 113 CSXT AC6000CWs have new control systems. The reason that the railroad has not changed their class is that neither their horsepower nor their tonnage ratings has changed.
With 2 extra axles per locomotive you could make the locomotive heavier (at least based on load per axle), as long as the Cooper's rating did not change - which is based not just on weight per axle, but also axle spacing. If you did build them 33% heavier based on 33% more axles under the locomotive, you could expect to get 33% more tractive effort from the locomotive. This would happen even with a 4400 hp locomotive, it is just that the locomotive could start a bigger train, just not move it at as high a top speed. A slug unit is used in the yard for this purpose. It basically doubles the tractive effort of the mother locomotive, since it is ballasted to the full weight of the locomotive the 3,000 hp (assuming an SD-40 mother) is distributed across 12 axles, you get the tractive effort of two SD40's but the mother/slug sets cannot pull the train very fast (which is not important in yard work).
Based on your premise of just adding a fourth axle without increasing the locomotive weight you would not change the tractive effort of the locomotive. The wheels might actually slip sooner because the weight per axle was less. With modern controlled wheel slip the wheels, however, would not actually slip.
Essentially HP correlates with speed and locomotive weight per axle x number of axles to tractive effort.
I think it will be a long time before you see railroads increase intermodal train speeds. Fuel consumption increases logarithmically with speed, and as another poster noted, track capacity effectively declines unless you move all trains faster. China just recently knocked the maximum speed of its new HSR trains down from 217 mph to 186 mph because the cost of energy was so high at the higher speeds.
I agree with the poster who said, 6,000 hp locomotives will not see wide spread use in North America until trains get longer and heavier enough to require 3-4 of the 6,000 hp locomotives and the locomotives can generate a 33% greater amount of tractive effort.
My comment on this issue would be fuel, NS has finally started purchasing EMD ACe,s. The railroads excitement with the new power has led to demanding assingnments. My trips lately have included, 2 New SD70ace, most of them with heavy tonnage and length. The problem is, most of our Power is DC,and most of the trains with the same length and tonnage use 3 DC units online. The ACes pull but, the fuel usage was incredible,GAS HOGS,and the speeds were 20 to 30 mph slower on most hills. In Ohio, I feel the 6000 HP units would be suitable for speed on level track(pig trains). For the NS that would be Conway PA. to Chicago IL. CSX used the 6000 units on their Pig trains on the Indy line and Chicago line through Ohio?I do know railroads out-west have more experience with the AC power and its uses.
DaviaP: you seem to have hit the nail on the head. Use 2 6000 Hp units that can move a train at 60 MPH. Then if one fails then the reaining one can bring the rain home at 30 MPH? TE will limit the starting pull to protect couplers but be able to run at speed.
blue streak 1 DaviaP: you seem to have hit the nail on the head. Use 2 6000 Hp units that can move a train at 60 MPH. Then if one fails then the reaining one can bring the rain home at 30 MPH? TE will limit the starting pull to protect couplers but be able to run at speed.
Except there are a lot of track situtions that would cause your train to stall with only 3,00 HP and the single working unit might not be able to get it moving again.
Although frankly it is not accurate to claim that 6,00o HP units were a complete failure in the US. given that CSX rebuilt there fleet AC60CW with 16 cyinder GEVO engines when they could have rebuilt them to 4,4000 HP or just retired them..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
episette I wasn't aware that Conrail's SD80MACs ever had mechanical problems. I was under the assumption that they were built just for Conrail, and neither CSX or NS wanted to purchase more of them when they split up Conrail. I know that NS didnt like AC locomotives and assumed that it played a role. CSX had the GE C-6000, so why would they a want to go back to a 5000 hp locomotive such as the SD80. I'm probably wrong.
No, your are right! Conrail was going back for more SD80MACs but the order got changed by CSX and NS because of the merger.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
To return to the ES58aci itself, I note from the rear photo (that I hadn't seen before) that the radiators and the intake screens are very similar to the Rio Tinto ES44dci units. Does anyone have technical details for these ES58aci units?.
I note that they have water to air intercoolers, since there is no intercooler housing in front of the radiator.This means that they are basically the same as the CSX and BHP Billiton rebuilt AC6000 units. Does anyone know if the rebuilt CSX AC6000 units meet Tier 2 emissions standards? The ES58aci units don't need to meet any emission requirements, of course... Is it possible for a GEVO 16 to meet Tier 2 with water intercoolers?
The other point of interest is the length. How long are the ES58aci units? Are they built on an AC6000 frame or on an ES44 frame? There is about one metre difference with the AC6000 being longer. The original posted photo shows the hood extending the full length of the frame, suggesting that the frame is shorter than the AC 6000. The radiator overhangs the end in both cases.
M636C
not only will this make for longer/ heavier trains for one engine, but this thing probably takes fuel like a fat man at a buffet.
Mr. Railman not only will this make for longer/ heavier trains for one engine, but this thing probably takes fuel like a fat man at a buffet.
In the "Best of all possible worlds" going from 3 units to 2 more powerful units would save fuel (a 6,000 HP locomotive doesn't burn as much fuel as 2 SD40-2's over a given distance and 2 6,000HP locomotives use less fuel than 3 4,000HP units)) but in the real world or running real trains it seems that unit reduction can only be pushed so far...
Vale says two ES58ACi are more economical than three C44-9W´s, that´s why it ordered more 60 units to GE.
MRS also will test the model here in the south. Below we can see one AC44i wearing the templates of ES58ACi. This locomotive is running MRS lines to see the clearences for the new model to be tested here.
pedrop Vale says two ES58ACi are more economical than three C44-9W´s, that´s why it ordered more 60 units to GE. MRS also will test the model here in the south. Below we can see one AC44i wearing the templates of ES58ACi. This locomotive is running MRS lines to see the clearences for the new model to be tested here.
I have no trouble believing that 2 ES58ACi are more economical than 3 AC4400CWs. My question would be, why do they need 3 AC4400CWs?
How heavy are the AC4400CWs?
How heavy are the ES58ACi ?
How fast do the trains run?
3 AC4400CWs will produce 560k lbs TE
2 ES44ACi will not produce more than 400k lbs TE
So the 3 AC4400CWs will be able to move a heavier train.
For these profiles to match the ES58aci appropriately it would be on the same frame and the same truck spacing as the Dash 9. Certainly the radiator outline appears to be in the same location as on the ES58aci...
The main question to MRS is the clearence on tunnels and bridges. Most of the tunnels are very large, but it also have lines where they are not so big.
I´ve never been to EFC, but people say the ore trains there run at 60Km/h. Each train has 340 ore cars, weighing 130 tons each. Vale is doing an upgrade to the ore cars and they will accept 150 tons each. So 340 x 150 = 51,000 tons each train. Vale use three C44´s or SD70M to lead those trains without tail pushers to leave the yards. With the two ES58, Vale needs the pushers to leave the yards or sidings. Also, Vale uses a pair of C36-7 to work as Dynamic Helpers to the ore trains. These locomotives can couple to the train without the need of stop to couple in the tail of the ore trains. See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCQxOQ0auQQ
Pedro
pedrop I´ve never been to EFC, but people say the ore trains there run at 60Km/h. Each train has 340 ore cars, weighing 130 tons each. Vale is doing an upgrade to the ore cars and they will accept 150 tons each. So 340 x 150 = 51,000 tons each train. Vale use three C44´s or SD70M to lead those trains without tail pushers to leave the yards. With the two ES58, Vale needs the pushers to leave the yards or sidings. Also, Vale uses a pair of C36-7 to work as Dynamic Helpers to the ore trains. These locomotives can couple to the train without the need of stop to couple in the tail of the ore trains. See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCQxOQ0auQQ Pedro
EFC must be very level to operate with the very low power to weight ratios. The very low operating speeds, 60 kph (37 mph), are typical for Iron Ore railroads. None of our railroads operate like that save a tiny handful of Iron Ore railroads which have fairly short hauls to the docks.
Coupling on the move is totally against the rules here, if the train were to go into Emergency Braking as the pushers approached , the crew on the pusher would likely be killed.
From reading this thread it seems to me that one of the biggest concerns preventing U.S. RR's from using 6000 hp units vs 4000 hp units is that in a 12000 hp train if a single 6000 hp unit fails you lose 50% of your power instead of only 33% if a single 4000 hp unit fails.
Also, it seems to me that the same train, with 6000 hp may have enough power to keep moving, but if it stopped would lack the tractive effort to get started.
How about this: If a unit fails, it would be the prime mover in that unit that would fail. So about about including the feature to connect electrical cables from the good engine to the failed engine, in effect making the failed engine a slug? That would you could get the required tractive effort to get the train moving should you have a failed unit and you stop on the road.
Sawtooth500 From reading this thread it seems to me that one of the biggest concerns preventing U.S. RR's from using 6000 hp units vs 4000 hp units is that in a 12000 hp train if a single 6000 hp unit fails you lose 50% of your power instead of only 33% if a single 4000 hp unit fails. Also, it seems to me that the same train, with 6000 hp may have enough power to keep moving, but if it stopped would lack the tractive effort to get started. How about this: If a unit fails, it would be the prime mover in that unit that would fail. So about about including the feature to connect electrical cables from the good engine to the failed engine, in effect making the failed engine a slug? That would you could get the required tractive effort to get the train moving should you have a failed unit and you stop on the road.
The part about losing half your power when one 6000hp unit goes down on a 12000hp set of locomotives is a Red Herring. Seeing a train powered by just two locomotives is a common occurrence. CP regularly runs trains with just a single locomotive. The reason the 6000hp. units are not popular is the same reason high-horsepower 4-axle locomotives are no longer bought, not enough pulling power to go with the horsepower. No Class I railroad runs their trains with that high a power to weight ratio, and no Class I has grades as favorable as EFC does in Brazil.
The Dynamic Helper is a new technology being tested by Vale. It is totaly safe because is controled by the computer ans laser sight in the locomotives.
although not a class 1 the FEC IMHO would be a great canadiate for 2 - 6000HP units on their MIA / FLL - JAX intermodal trains. Enough tractive effort for the high HP/ton ratio to accelerate and would be using all the 6000 HP for tractive effort by quick acceleration to 25 -30 MPH and be able to pull the intermodals at their 60 MPH track speeds and lack of grades?? Failue of one unit woould just mean a slow time to ge to 60 MPH?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.