EMD allows 2 hours to change a power pak, probably on a hot engine, but I saw it done in an half hour from dumping the water to hitting the start button and that was with taking a lead wire reading. Another example is that on an McAllister tug the engineer changed a power pack while the cook and deck hands went out to buy food and was ready when the dispatcher radioed with the next job. Since that was a hot engine it probably took two hours. I think that the Southern Pacific completely re-packed a 16 engine in one shift but they were going for the record.
HERBYD WHICH IS EASIER TO WORK ON. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS. WHICH LASTS LONGER HERBYGD@AOL.COM
WHICH IS EASIER TO WORK ON. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS. WHICH LASTS LONGER
HERBYGD@AOL.COM
Many moons ago when I was on the "Bull Gang", I replaced five, count 'em...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, EMD power assemblys while the guy in the bay next to me replaced only ONE GE power assembly!!! That was on an eight hour shift, meaning that it took way less than eight hours.
.
episette The loading situation could easily be fixed with the addition of a small electric motor (one hp) to keep one of the turbos spooled up at low RPMs. It would function like a supercharger at low RPMs to improve throttle response and then kick off at higher RPMs.
The loading situation could easily be fixed with the addition of a small electric motor (one hp) to keep one of the turbos spooled up at low RPMs. It would function like a supercharger at low RPMs to improve throttle response and then kick off at higher RPMs.
One HP wouldn't do it. You'd be pumping quite a bit of air with the compressor side of the turbo.
What they do for stand-by generators is use compressed air to get the turbo spinning. You can knock that 80 seconds to full load down to less than 30.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I'm surprised that they railroads don't spec a hard tube instead of a braided line if they have experienced fires. When worked for GM heavy truck division silicone lines were a common option instead of generic butyl rubber engine lines that were spec'd for low cost.
In terms of "LOADING UP" GE's will always load slower, due to a gas driven turbocharger. EMD's turbochargers are mechanically driven through notch, 5 which allows them to load up much quicker than a GE. I believe this is why EMD's have a higher pitched sound to them.
There is really nothing inherently wrong with GE locomotives. Once they load up, a GE will pull right along with any other locomotive. Grandet, GE's have a track record to "burn up" more often than an EMD. I guess it's just all in the eye of the beholder.
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
They are both easy to work on a similar mechanically. The major difference is GE uses cast iron blocks and GM uses steel blocks. When a GM engine throws a rod you can cut out the damage and weld a new piece of steel in it's place. When a GE throws a rod and damages the block the engine is scrap metal. It is possible to repair cast iron damage with a method called "lock and stitch" but it is very slow and expensive. EMD's seem to last longer and are a lot more cleaner.
GE has a bad reputation for using steel braided fuel lines instead of the solid steel tubes that EMD uses, which is why a good portion of the GE locomotives have a burned out middle section due to fires from pinhole leaks in the fuel line.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO YELL!!!!!
Ford vs Chevy....it depends on who you ask.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.