The advantage would be that when a truck goes into a curve, the rear of the frame slues and will kick out causing friction and less tractive effort. I know that the radial trucks has helped alleviate much of this, but having an "idler" in the middle of the truck allows for a wider stress point on the truck with a 215 ton locomotive. Placing the idler on the rear allows the weight and the pulling axles to maintain a better tractive effort while maintaining a lower stress level on the truck once the idler is lifted off of the top of the rail. NOW, whether or not this has anything to do with WHY EMD is doing this, I don't have a clue. But, after running four and six axles over many years, the two axle B trucks handle and pull through the curves better than the three axle C trucks do.
Incorrect, The DLW truck is fabricated.
Karl
No, I won't find that EMD is all that important to CAT. I work in the industry and many of us believe that EMD will eventually get dumped. CAT hasn 't invested in the business the way GE has invested in their locomotive business.
Care to argue the point-with specifics ?
I am aware of that change since I know IR units very well, although I live in California.
Naturally, I am interested to know how this new B1-1B configuration works.
Greg McDonnell could not shed more lights since EMD is tight lipped.
prakash Indian Railway or IR had B1-1B configuration for 4,000 HP passenger locos based on SD70MAC. They were a flop. IR then switched over to C0-C0 version, more like SD70MAC with different gear ratio and it was a success.
Indian Railway or IR had B1-1B configuration for 4,000 HP passenger locos based on SD70MAC. They were a flop. IR then switched over to C0-C0 version, more like SD70MAC with different gear ratio and it was a success.
The B1-1B truck EMD is offering to BNSF was a modified version of the ones designed for the Indian units..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
don't forget stationary power plant applications. Many was the time I walked past an Air Force power plant in some overseas location, remarking on how it sounded JUST like an idling GP-7
Leo_Ames And Caterpillar's annual revenue for 2012 was well under half of GE's. And GE Transportation is a good bit more diversified than EMD is so a good bit of that dvision's contribution isn't even in the area of locomotives. . I think you'd find that the EMD locomotive business is just as important to Caterpillar as GE's locomotive business is to the much larger General Electric.
And Caterpillar's annual revenue for 2012 was well under half of GE's. And GE Transportation is a good bit more diversified than EMD is so a good bit of that dvision's contribution isn't even in the area of locomotives. .
I think you'd find that the EMD locomotive business is just as important to Caterpillar as GE's locomotive business is to the much larger General Electric.
Good point, Leo. What many railfans do not look at is EMD's stationary and marine power plant sales - There are a lot of V16 & V20 710's in ocean going tugs and smaller ships. Cat purchased EMD for more than existing locomotive sales...
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
CPM500 The important to remember is this: EMD represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 percent of CAT's sales. GE Rails' sales are approx. 4 to 5 times greater than EMD's. So, it should be easy to recognize which builder is more significant to their respective corporate profit profile.
The important to remember is this:
EMD represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 percent of CAT's sales. GE Rails' sales
are approx. 4 to 5 times greater than EMD's. So, it should be easy to recognize which builder is more significant to their respective corporate profit profile.
And Caterpillar's annual revenue for 2012 was well under half of GE's. And GE Transportation is a good bit more diversified than EMD is so a good bit of that division's contribution isn't even in the area of locomotives. .
I was talking to a Siemens engineer a few weeks ago who told me he personally thought the one inverter per axle was a waste of money and weight.
Of course, Siemens did EMD's the 60/70/90MAC AC drive, so he was defending their solution.
CPM500 The important to remember is this: EMD represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 percent of CAT's sales. GE Rails' sales are approx. 4 to 5 times greater than EMD's. So, it should be easy to recognize which builder is more significant to their respective corporate profit profile. oltmannd a#1beau EMD will never -- repeat N-E-V-E-R -- regain its dominance as number 1 diesel locomotive builder again. GE has already sworn to this. In thirteen more years, GE will have been the market leader for as long as EMD ever was in all its history. Thank you, Roger Smith and all your early 80's GM cronies for the death of EMD as we once knew it. Oh, I don't know.... I remember when Brand X was Brand X for a reason. What goes around, comes around, they say. Nothing would surprise me.
oltmannd a#1beau EMD will never -- repeat N-E-V-E-R -- regain its dominance as number 1 diesel locomotive builder again. GE has already sworn to this. In thirteen more years, GE will have been the market leader for as long as EMD ever was in all its history. Thank you, Roger Smith and all your early 80's GM cronies for the death of EMD as we once knew it. Oh, I don't know.... I remember when Brand X was Brand X for a reason. What goes around, comes around, they say. Nothing would surprise me.
a#1beau EMD will never -- repeat N-E-V-E-R -- regain its dominance as number 1 diesel locomotive builder again. GE has already sworn to this. In thirteen more years, GE will have been the market leader for as long as EMD ever was in all its history. Thank you, Roger Smith and all your early 80's GM cronies for the death of EMD as we once knew it.
EMD will never -- repeat N-E-V-E-R -- regain its dominance as number 1 diesel locomotive builder again. GE has already sworn to this. In thirteen more years, GE will have been the market leader for as long as EMD ever was in all its history. Thank you, Roger Smith and all your early 80's GM cronies for the death of EMD as we once knew it.
Oh, I don't know.... I remember when Brand X was Brand X for a reason. What goes around, comes around, they say. Nothing would surprise me.
True, but CAT spent a fair amount of $ to acquire EMD, something they hardly did on a whim....
oltmannd timz oltmannd: This is controlled by CHEC which is desperately trying to avoid smoke by keeping the engines speed ahead of the load, allowing the turbo to spool up. Which raises the question: did the U34CHs do any better, with their constant-speed prime movers. (Guess P42's are constant-speed too?) As always, it's too bad US railfans have never been train-timers like they have in Europe. Would be nice to know how well FM's etc actually did. A couple of differences between a U34 and P42. The U34 was allowed to make smoke, so it probably loaded faster. CHEC with the three slope loading curve was designed to minimize smoke. The P42 probably has a lower volume exhaust manifold, though, which gets the juice to the turbo faster, allowing faster loading.
timz oltmannd: This is controlled by CHEC which is desperately trying to avoid smoke by keeping the engines speed ahead of the load, allowing the turbo to spool up. Which raises the question: did the U34CHs do any better, with their constant-speed prime movers. (Guess P42's are constant-speed too?) As always, it's too bad US railfans have never been train-timers like they have in Europe. Would be nice to know how well FM's etc actually did.
oltmannd: This is controlled by CHEC which is desperately trying to avoid smoke by keeping the engines speed ahead of the load, allowing the turbo to spool up.
Which raises the question: did the U34CHs do any better, with their constant-speed prime movers. (Guess P42's are constant-speed too?)
As always, it's too bad US railfans have never been train-timers like they have in Europe. Would be nice to know how well FM's etc actually did.
A couple of differences between a U34 and P42. The U34 was allowed to make smoke, so it probably loaded faster. CHEC with the three slope loading curve was designed to minimize smoke. The P42 probably has a lower volume exhaust manifold, though, which gets the juice to the turbo faster, allowing faster loading.
His point is a bit different: On the U34s, the engine was ALREADY spooled up due to the HEP load, so the smoke would come with the acceleration fueling, not the loading rate per se. I don't remember turbo loading being related to the character of the smoke, or that wonderful flame, that the U34s could generate as they accelerated.
It was my understanding that the grave delays in loading (up to 30 seconds) that plagued subsequent generations of GE locomotives was indeed pollution-related (anyone remember the VW that was built for the early California pollution regs, with the 30-second dashpot on its throttle? 0-to-60 times measured with a calendar...) but most of this (IIRC) involved acceleration from low engine rpm. U34 in commuter service was high-horsepower for high acceleration rather than heavy train load, too.
And it was CERTAINLY good at accelerating those trains! Wish they'd kept at least one in a 'collection' like NYCTA's, so future generations could have the experience too...
Various stuff:
The ACe-P4 variant probably brought CatEMD to the present/future. The GE's inverter for each axle rather than an inverter for each 3 axle truck makes so much sense; On a work-worn SD40 truck, compare the wheel sizes. Likely the outboard wheels will be thinnest, the middle the thickest, and the inner somewhere in between. comparing rotational speed is what excites anti-wheel spin/slip technology..If all 3 axles of a truck share an inverter's output, the rotation of the varying diameter wheels would indicate compromised adhesion. An inverter per axle......
The starting capabilities of various locomotives discussed cheating the inherent short comings of some of the best and worst
Make a drop with a solid bearing axle Alco "S" (1 thru 6) required rarely any more than closing the throttle like slamming a door and wildly pulling the throttle to the max. within a second or two. But the S-6 was different: go to the "generater field" toggle switch, when the command, "pin" comes leave the throttle in Run 8 and momentarily open the GF, then close it when you think the pin has opened the knuckle.
We dropped some, maybe 8 (sugar beet) cars from the Lompoc branch into the (geo.north) west leg of the Surf wye.
"make the drop, highball," a lantern signal. DL701 gets to and makes transition, a (very slightly later) signal for a "pin,"while dragging a light independent brake application, throw the throttle to idle, slam it back to Run 8, kick off the independent and go, get away from the trailing cars.
The brakeman who pulled the pin got it when the engine made transition and we nearly recoupled during the duration of the "pin" lantern signal. The get-a-way engine and caboose went to a faster track than the west leg, but I was already way-over authorized speed.
Lots more content on this subject but my girlfriend will be expecting me real soon.
.
beaulieu The first SD70ACe-P4 has hit the road, EMD test locomotive 4223 has been photographed after being released from Muncie.
The first SD70ACe-P4 has hit the road, EMD test locomotive 4223 has been photographed after being released from Muncie.
The 4223 is going to have ITCS installed, I believe the P4 demonstrator is 1207.
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
I wonder if the 4 SD70ACes that BNSF's converting are part of the #9130-9329 series with the isolated cab, or from the earlier #9330-9399 series that only have the original non-isolated cab?
You are correct about the rehostat-controlled vane-moter controlling the generator field circuit. There were alternatives to minimum and maximum for the at-rest position, and as far as I know, the GP-9 was produced with an intermeidate rest position that divided the idle-speed diesel torque evenly between accelerating the diesel and accelerating the train. This seemed to solve the problem and made unnecessary both the hot start switch and the commuter engineer's power-with-brake start. Also, I think most of the burned commutator ring segments actually occurred when the throttle was advanced beyong notch one to notch two or three before releasing the brakes.
Using test GP-7's 1568 and 1567, the B&M engineer did not have to use that technique to meet the schedule and even make up for delays on the 4PM local to Portsmouth, NH. That is why they liked these two test locomotives.
To get pack to the original point of the post, It seems that BNSF has become the railroad willing to test nw ideas and technologies. At one time UP used to be the railroad that the builders went too. They testes the gas turbines, turbo charging on the GP20's , etc. Now it seens that BNSF is willing to do that for GE and EMD.
Hi timz!
I run intermodals and mixed freight out of Atlanta. The Piedmont Division on the NS between Atlanta and Washington, DC has some of the best track on the railroad. It used to be a mecca for passenger trains before Hartsfield-Jackson airport. It is double track for the most part and there are many sections that allow for 60 MPH running.
A mile long piggyback train with about 4000 tons powered by three GP60s or SD60s will stay ahead of the Crescent all the way to Greenville, SC if you can get it through Peachtree Station immediately ahead of the passenger train's arrival. We used to run 214 with four GP60s and stay ahead of Amtrak every night! As a matter of fact, I have a picture of 204 with GP60s up front as my Avatar passing the Doraville, GA signal doing 60 MPH.
As long as the yard doesn't have more than a mile and a half of pigs for the train and you have at least three big engines up front we can run the wheels off of em! My preference for intermodals today are SD70ACes, SD70M-2s, ES44ACs and ES40DCs. The Dash 9-44CWs are okay but I hate all of the Dash 8 engines. I can't wait until they are history on the NS.
On a side note, NS is currently rebuilding SD60s to SD60Es to be used in intermodal service. I look forward to seeing them in action.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
EMD#1I've had EMD engines on our 60 MPH intermodals and outran the 79 MPH Amtrak Crescent with their AMD-103s a number of times
Jim, others...
I don't know the exact details of the guts inside an engine to say what makes some move faster than others but I do know from daily experience running GE locomotives and EMDs the difference between the two builders. I will admit the newer GEVO engine equipped GE engines are far superior than their predecessors when it comes to loading up and getting them to move. You can take a Dash 8 and a Dash 9 and move the throttle from idle to run 8 and they won't load any faster than if you notched them one notch at a time at five second intervals. On the other hand, an EMD will start loading almost immediately, especially the GP38s, GP60s and SD40-2s. In my early career as a brakeman I've stood next to one end of a stopped GP38. By the time the other end of the locomotive went by me from a standing start it was moving too fast to catch up! When you kicked cars in the yard you better be close to the cut lever on the car you wanted to cut loose when you told the engineer to kick it!
Running trains now on the mainline I've always appreciated the way the EMD engines start pulling when changing from dynamic brake to power compared to GE engines which take what seems forever to load. When starting up the other side of a hill or grade you want to pull the slack out before it starts shoving you. If your engines don't start loading until you're 1/2 mile up the grade you will lose speed really fast.
As far as using SD70ACe-P4 for long distance passenger trains the fact that they are a six-axle engine compared to a four-axle engine means that they can be heavier. They don't have to have a 5000 gallon fuel tank like the freight engines do but even still I would bet with a higher gear ratio capable of 90 MPH they would outperform a GE AMD-103 or P42. I've had EMD engines on our 60 MPH intermodals and outran the 79 MPH Amtrak Crescent with their AMD-103s a number of times, something that would have been impossible when they ran EMD F40PHs!
Tim
daveklepper It is too bad the LIRR didn't try the GP-9. The GP-7's tried by the LIRR must have had the passenger load regulator controls. The alternative switcher and frieght ones for the GP-7 did load a lot faster. My 1953 MIT thesis addressed this problem and concluded that in raising prime mover rotational speed from idle to maximum, half the torque should be used to accelerate the prime mover and half to move the train, for optimum acceleration, and without any serious loss of the smoothness characteristic of the slow loading E units other locomotives with passenger load regulators. B&M 1567 and 1568 were equipped with experimental load regulators pretty much in accordance with this idea, which proved successful, with these GP-7's liked for passenger, freight, and switching. So that was the success of the GP-9 load regulator. It also was a simpler control system than previously, fewer parts on the locomotive. I think this idea did influence subsequent EMD designs as well. I have no idea why they did not adopt it for the later E-8's and E-9's, except possibly to insure their compatibility with the earlier E-8's and E-7's where jar-proof, jerk-proof acceleration was the major goal. Note that the heavier the combintion of pistons and crankshaft and valves etc., the longer it will take to accelerate the prime mover. In this respect a two-cycle engine is ahead of a four-cycle of equal horsepower. And a lower speed engine ahead of a high-speed engine.
It is too bad the LIRR didn't try the GP-9. The GP-7's tried by the LIRR must have had the passenger load regulator controls. The alternative switcher and frieght ones for the GP-7 did load a lot faster. My 1953 MIT thesis addressed this problem and concluded that in raising prime mover rotational speed from idle to maximum, half the torque should be used to accelerate the prime mover and half to move the train, for optimum acceleration, and without any serious loss of the smoothness characteristic of the slow loading E units other locomotives with passenger load regulators. B&M 1567 and 1568 were equipped with experimental load regulators pretty much in accordance with this idea, which proved successful, with these GP-7's liked for passenger, freight, and switching. So that was the success of the GP-9 load regulator. It also was a simpler control system than previously, fewer parts on the locomotive. I think this idea did influence subsequent EMD designs as well. I have no idea why they did not adopt it for the later E-8's and E-9's, except possibly to insure their compatibility with the earlier E-8's and E-7's where jar-proof, jerk-proof acceleration was the major goal.
Note that the heavier the combintion of pistons and crankshaft and valves etc., the longer it will take to accelerate the prime mover. In this respect a two-cycle engine is ahead of a four-cycle of equal horsepower. And a lower speed engine ahead of a high-speed engine.
Both the GP7 and the GP9 had battery field excitation. The governor pretty much called the shots on how fast loading would occur. It had control of how and how fast the load regulator (a rheostat powered by a vane motor) moved.
I think what you are referring to is whether the load regulator when to min or max at rest. Some locomotives had a "fast start" switch added to the control stand so that the engineer could select whether he wanted min or max on the load regulator at start. Max was good for kicking cars, but not smooth starts.
Without the switch, commuter engineers often learned to fool the system. They'd sit with the train brakes applied and crack the throttle to notch one to get the load regulator up off of min, the release the brakes and away they went. Problem was they'd also stall burn the commutators on the traction motors.
SP's latter U33C's came with a smoke abatement eng. speed/throttle position/performance abberation that might answer.
Recollection drives this; I can't find documentation; performance was improved but they were Clydesdales, nothin' like a cowpony.
When you took run 1 you got run 3 engine rpm; over run 3 rpm increased to run 5; over run 5 full maximum rpm with faster loading than the standard " throttle increase, eng speed increase, load increase sequence."
Thus the U34's probably were veritably hot-rods 'cause of their constant HEP required engine rpm.
This might entertain: SP's GP35's instantly loaded to maximum amperage when throttled up at starting a train. I've got 120 mty (you knew they had solid journal bearings....sure) at a precise West Oakland crew change point called the toe-, or tow- path: inbound you'd stretch-brake to spot your front fireman's side steps on a 6 foot wide asphalt sidewalk crossing accessing the West Oak' Diesel Shop.
After about 10 minutes to allow this AB brake train to release I tried to get out of town, freeing up 16th St, West Oak interlock and Magnolia Tower....in other words most of the center of the center of the railroad.
.That the controlling locomotive was not modified for faster loading and was a "stock" U33C allows guesses.
Run 2 throttle, decrease independent brake, wheel spin alarm, close throttle.
"took slack...after asking the inbound crew if I can take a few cars of slack to make sure i wouldn't shove past an interlocking signal behind me. The caboose said OK so I tried again; WS from the GP35l long before the U33 had "rubbed the sleep out of its eyes."
Shoved back for slack more vigorously and got no further. West Oak interlock is more derisive.; other cohorts complain close by in the terminal.
I asked the my head brakeman to put the GP35 on-the-line on my signal. Back to the U33C and open throttle,wait until (about a minute) amperage is about 900, I signal my head brakeman to put th e GP35 on-the-line and we walked out of Oakland.
oltmanndThis is controlled by CHEC which is desperately trying to avoid smoke by keeping the engines speed ahead of the load, allowing the turbo to spool up.
The SD40-2s and SD45-2's I've tested take about 30 seconds to full load - it's controlled by the RC module. Power comes on linearly in that time
A GE with the FDL engine and CHEC excitation with a 3 slope curve, takes 80 seconds, about half of it in the last 20 seconds. This is controlled by CHEC which is desperately trying to avoid smoke by keeping the engines speed ahead of the load, allowing the turbo to spool up.
A B36-7 would make a horrible commuter train locomotive. You'd be at the next stop before the engine decided it was going to actually make any HP.
"EMD locomotives load faster than"....another can of squirming tubular animals opened.
Bring your lunch when you start an SP E7,8 or 9.
An SP PA? Put it in run 3,from idle, and there'd be hundreds of amps in a couple of seconds.
A commute GP9: wipe the throttle,idle to run 8, full amperage in about 8 seconds.
The FM Trainmasters were said move out so fast that someone standing at the front end couldn"t climb on the rear-end.
The SDP-45's when used on the same schedules of the TM's took so much time transitioning that they had a switch that locked them in full-parallel. Normal FM (2400 hp) vs. SDP-45 (3600 hp) hybridized.
The LIRR demo-ed a GP7; it dieselized with Alco's and FM's.
The P30CH's that Amtrak leased to SP ran for me just fine on ferrying moves powering the Coast Starlight from LA to San Luis, this while remembering there was a fast- start switch on the lamented Amtrak SDP-40F's
Favorites exist, reasons for them are boundless, and here's a screw-loose admiration of EMD's "40's"
We refueled the DRG&W GP40-2, our work train's power, and on the way back to our assignment, I said I had no idea. light engine, O k?
the question was "0 to 60 how fast?"
Independent fully applied, run 8, indepentent released when the engine over powers the ind brake, My watch timed it at 36 seconds.
Amtrak's 200's and 300's were great, more than that DRG&W freight GP.
Smaller brush please when you paint passenger engines.
e
EMD#1 With a higher gear ratio enabling the unit to run at higher speeds this engine would make a great long distance passenger model. EMD locomotives load faster than GE locomotives making them quicker off the starting line and less likely to lose a lot of speed coming out of dips. If it turns out successful on the BNSF it may be preferred power on their intermodal trains where superior train velocity means everything.
With a higher gear ratio enabling the unit to run at higher speeds this engine would make a great long distance passenger model. EMD locomotives load faster than GE locomotives making them quicker off the starting line and less likely to lose a lot of speed coming out of dips. If it turns out successful on the BNSF it may be preferred power on their intermodal trains where superior train velocity means everything.
Higher gearing will produce lower axle rotation/speed. At 200+ tons, these would not make attractive passenger engines. The key is to keep the weight down for a passenger engine(GE had to have custom-made car bodies for the AMD-103 so they could keep the axle loading down).
BNSF is basically getting AC drives for DC prices. The starting TE is close to the DC 6 motor drive, and the continuous TE at track speed is higher. And they get a parts inventory reduction as these vengines use the same AC traction motors/invertors as a normal SD70ACe. This is why BNSF already has over 200 GE ES44C-4 engines with a similar configuration. As far as loadinging faster, EMD products usually are faster to load up, but this is something that can be adjusted by the computer/injector settings as well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.