If Cummins holds up to its name of being one of the most reliable and efficient motor making companies, we might see some new locomotives with Cummins power. Again, that depends on if they get a working formula with this new engine.
Didn't we discuss this back in April and determine that GE Had the entire Locomotive certified, not the Prime Mover without the locomotive built around it? Whereas, since Cummins doesn't build locomotives, only Diesel engines, they Certed the engine independent of installation. So they were both first in their respective categories. IT is of course mincing for purposes of marketing.
BaltACDI do believe GE beat Cummins to Tier 4 certification and have been turning out T4 compliant locomotives since the end of 2015. So the puffery of being 1st to be T4 compliant is false.
There are a number of these 'reports', all suspiciously worded alike and, I suspect, taken from a Cummins press release with a little too much editing. Either 'prime power' is a codeword for something to do with smaller engine footprint or weight, or the qualifying words 'high-speed' were removed from the blurb about 'first' engine qualifying for Tier 4 certification. (Didn't MTU have a fairly large engine that passed Tier 4 without aftertreatment a relatively long time ago, and hasn't the C175-20 variant, at least the genset version, passed with urea?)
You can add 83 Vossloh built Am 843 locomotives used in Switzerland are powered by Cat 3512 series diesel engines (76 SBB, 4 Sersa, 3 BLS).
MikeF90 Looks like the EPA has sprinkled their holy water: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/technology/single-view/view/cummins-qsk95-achieves-tier-4-certification.html Looking forward to the in-service reliability testing .....
Looks like the EPA has sprinkled their holy water:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/technology/single-view/view/cummins-qsk95-achieves-tier-4-certification.html
Looking forward to the in-service reliability testing .....
I do believe GE beat Cummins to Tier 4 certification and have been turning out T4 compliant locomotives since the end of 2015. So the puffery of being 1st to be T4 compliant is false. The article dates from the end of March 2016, so it is old news.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
You have to love those Plymouth Fury tailfins!
Waiting with some interest to hear why the locomotive took so long to be 'finished' for service, what the actual construction details are, and what issues come up and are solved going forward.
The demo is in 'service':
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/578846/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/578879/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/578880/
Sygnet Rail, who is the designer/builder of this loco, developed a concept that is modular in nature. The 'power module', as they call it, contains the engine, alternator, support equipment, etc.-which can either be applied in their shop or on the customers' site.
I wonder how much of the original Siemens AC package (GTO inverters) has been retained. Also wonder if the local Cummins dealer will supply field support and parts-which the SOP for both Cummins and CAT.
CPM500
M636C NorthWest The Indiana Railroad QSK95 testbed, rebuilt from an SD90MAC-HII, has been released from conversion. We'll see how well it works. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/cummins-unveils-qsk95-tier-4-engine-indr-is-first-customer.html (Old article with background) http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104477 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104488 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104510 It is interesting to compare the drawings in the article with the photographs. The drawings show an SD90MAC with just the QSK 95 and the exhaust treatment dropped in in place of the 16-265H. The actual locomotive is new from the cab back and the frame up. Even the dynamic brakes have been replaced with what look a bit like GE dynamic brake units forward of the engine. This is no quick or cheap conversion: new dynamic brakes, new engine, new alternator, new radiators, presumably new cooling fans.... It doesn't look as easy they first suggested. It will still be interesting to see how it works. M636C
NorthWest The Indiana Railroad QSK95 testbed, rebuilt from an SD90MAC-HII, has been released from conversion. We'll see how well it works. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/cummins-unveils-qsk95-tier-4-engine-indr-is-first-customer.html (Old article with background) http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104477 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104488 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104510
The Indiana Railroad QSK95 testbed, rebuilt from an SD90MAC-HII, has been released from conversion. We'll see how well it works.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/cummins-unveils-qsk95-tier-4-engine-indr-is-first-customer.html
(Old article with background)
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104477
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104488
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4104510
It is interesting to compare the drawings in the article with the photographs.
The drawings show an SD90MAC with just the QSK 95 and the exhaust treatment dropped in in place of the 16-265H.
The actual locomotive is new from the cab back and the frame up.
Even the dynamic brakes have been replaced with what look a bit like GE dynamic brake units forward of the engine.
This is no quick or cheap conversion: new dynamic brakes, new engine, new alternator, new radiators, presumably new cooling fans....
It doesn't look as easy they first suggested.
It will still be interesting to see how it works.
M636C
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
nfotis As far as I know, in continental Europe nobody uses the C175, yet.
As far as I know, in continental Europe nobody uses the C175, yet.
Only the two prototype Eurolight units 248 001 - 002
Is this the same solution adopted for Stage IIIB? I ask because I remember that the diesel fuel available is also different (low-sulphur diesel is standard in Europe, if my memory is correct)
Is this the same solution adopted for Stage IIIB?
I ask because I remember that the diesel fuel available is also different (low-sulphur diesel is standard in Europe, if my memory is correct)
My understanding is that the high pressure+EGR solution is new and MTU had previously used urea and SCR to meet these standards.
I think GE engines before GEVO often had burned hoods, too (for similar reasons?) But EMD units rarely showed these scorch marks.
I think GE engines before GEVO often had burned hoods, too (for similar reasons?)
But EMD units rarely showed these scorch marks.
Both Alco 251 and GE FDL engines used external fuel pumps driven by the camshafts with high pressure fuel lines to the nozzle in the head. EMD engines used unit injectors combining the pump and the nozzle so there were no high pressure pipes to fail.
The only application of Cat 3500 I know is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GP20D and the ALP-45DP (a pair of 3512 per locomotive) Don't know if these are good, but their market share is not exactly large (forty GP20D and forty-six ALP-45DP) N.F.
The only application of Cat 3500 I know is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GP20D
and the ALP-45DP (a pair of 3512 per locomotive)
Don't know if these are good, but their market share is not exactly large (forty GP20D and forty-six ALP-45DP)
N.F.
As well as the GP20D, there were:
10 GP15D with the 3512
4 MK1200G
32 MK1500D
4 MP 2000D
10 GP15 (Amtrak)
4(?) PR30C
17 PR22L (Tasmania)
(Not about to unseat the ES44 in popularity ....)
Quite a few Chinese export units including two designs for Argentina use the 3500.
But the MK/MP units have been around for more than twenty years.
M636C In terms of numbers out on the road, the British HST power cars are probably the most numerous application of the MTU 4000 in the form of the 16V4000 (and these have the later design of common rail fuel pump).
In terms of numbers out on the road, the British HST power cars are probably the most numerous application of the MTU 4000 in the form of the 16V4000 (and these have the later design of common rail fuel pump).
Well, yes, I was thinking about original designs, not repowered units.
The MTU Tier IV solution combines exhaust gas recirculation with very high pressure in the common rail to ensure complete "atomisation" of the injected fuel to control NOx formation and to eliminate HC in the exhaust.
I'm not sure if a production engine meeting these standards has been built yet although I assume that they've run test engines successfully. MTU already use double walled tubing for the common rail but very high pressure fuel lines are a risk, as the fuel pump failures proved. Engine hood fires were quite common with Alco 251 engines to the extent that some operators had fixed fire extinguishing systems. If GE have adopted the same solution, we might see more fires on locomotives.
I'm not sure if a production engine meeting these standards has been built yet although I assume that they've run test engines successfully.
MTU already use double walled tubing for the common rail but very high pressure fuel lines are a risk, as the fuel pump failures proved. Engine hood fires were quite common with Alco 251 engines to the extent that some operators had fixed fire extinguishing systems. If GE have adopted the same solution, we might see more fires on locomotives.
The C175 is an enlargement of the CAT 3500 which has been very successful in locomotive applications unlike the much larger 3600 which hasn't been successful in locomotives, There have been some problems with the C175 itself but the PR43 which combines a 3600 HP with a 700 HP C18 as a form of Genset locomotive may have problems unrelated to either type of diesel engine matching such disparate sources of power.
DARREN OTTEI live close to where this is built there is no way emd is using this . Contractors are'nt allowed to use cat equipment at cummins. Fierce rivals
No one is claiming that EMD will be buying engines from Cummins.
The Indiana Railroad is having an SD9043Mac that they own rebuilt with the Cummins engine. CAT/Progress/EMD has nothing to do with the project.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
nfotis If I am not mistaken, the MTU R4000 is currently the only mainline diesel engine certified for Stage IIIB emissions? As far as I know, the two-stroke EMD engines are going to die in two months in the North American and EU markets, hence railroads were buying as many 710G-based locomotives as possible before the December deadline. Also, the C175 seems to not comply with Tier4 / Stage IIIB regulations, yet. At Innotrans, I saw a large SCR installation hanging above a C175-16, it will be a rather tight fit even in continental Europe loading gauge (and probably it will be near impossible inside UK loading gauge). Note that the MTU R4000 is practically the default diesel option in platforms like the Bombardier TRAXX, the Siemens Vectron and PESA Gama, in their 16-cylinder, 2.4 MW version. N.F.
If I am not mistaken, the MTU R4000 is currently the only mainline diesel engine certified for Stage IIIB emissions?
As far as I know, the two-stroke EMD engines are going to die in two months in the North American and EU markets, hence railroads were buying as many 710G-based locomotives as possible before the December deadline.
Also, the C175 seems to not comply with Tier4 / Stage IIIB regulations, yet. At Innotrans, I saw a large SCR installation hanging above a C175-16, it will be a rather tight fit even in continental Europe loading gauge (and probably it will be near impossible inside UK loading gauge).
Note that the MTU R4000 is practically the default diesel option in platforms like the Bombardier TRAXX, the Siemens Vectron and PESA Gama, in their 16-cylinder, 2.4 MW version.
To return to the QSK 95, The QSK 19R which is a simple in line six of the same basic design is perhaps the most successful engine for diesel railcars in the world, if the preceding KTA 19R is taken into account. The upright QSK 18 is regarded as the best engine available for the recent genset designs. That doesn't mean that a V-16 sharing the same basic design and components will be a success, but the designers had some experience of rail traction to base their engine on. All the grain traffic in Western Australia is handled by 22 locomotives powered by QSK 60 and QSK 78 engines, and although they had to lease a couple of GEs recently, the system is holding together with only the most basic of service facilities (the established maintenance depots being retained and closed by the organisation that lost the contract).
M636C I was recently advised of this development by MTU. I understand that MTU had intended to use SCR and urea but had found that with very high pressures in the common rail system that emissions could be controlled without the need for that additional stage. GE also have tested GEVO locomotives with SCR and urea but have moved to a version that doesn't require urea. Of course, you have to be happy with very high pressures in the common rail fuel system and given some unhappy experiences with the MTU 4000 and an early design of high pressure fuel pump, I might let a competitor try the MTU Tier 4 solution first (and maybe the urea free GEVO too). M636C
I was recently advised of this development by MTU. I understand that MTU had intended to use SCR and urea but had found that with very high pressures in the common rail system that emissions could be controlled without the need for that additional stage. GE also have tested GEVO locomotives with SCR and urea but have moved to a version that doesn't require urea.
Of course, you have to be happy with very high pressures in the common rail fuel system and given some unhappy experiences with the MTU 4000 and an early design of high pressure fuel pump, I might let a competitor try the MTU Tier 4 solution first (and maybe the urea free GEVO too).
A related blog article might be of interest:
https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/railways-and-law/2014/02/20/eu-emission-limits-bite-for-new-freight-locomotives/
Overmod I thought it was in reference to the squabble a few months ago regarding EMD's complaint that the Siemens-IDOT contract had to be overturned because the QSK95 (they said) couldn't quite make the horsepower to reach 125mph with the required load, while the C175-20 nominally could. (I'm too lazy to find the thread where we discussed that.)
I thought it was in reference to the squabble a few months ago regarding EMD's complaint that the Siemens-IDOT contract had to be overturned because the QSK95 (they said) couldn't quite make the horsepower to reach 125mph with the required load, while the C175-20 nominally could. (I'm too lazy to find the thread where we discussed that.)
Note that the excerpt came at Innotrans, which is mostly focused on European rail market, not North-American rail market.
So, I drew my conclusions according to the people who were the intended audience on location.
carnej1
M636C Overmod nfotis ... Some interesting promotional reading here, -- don't miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the '20-cylinder high-speed engine'! I do think that Cummins was pointing more at the MTU R4000 instead of the Caterpillar C175. I thought it was in reference to the squabble a few months ago regarding EMD's complaint that the Siemens-IDOT contract had to be overturned because the QSK95 (they said) couldn't quite make the horsepower to reach 125mph with the required load, while the C175-20 nominally could. (I'm too lazy to find the thread where we discussed that.) I think nfotis is correct. The 20V4000R43 and R53 are used quite widely in locomotives built in China for use in New Zealand and Australia. The 20V4000R43 is rated at about 3750 HP and the 20V4000R53 is rated at 4000 HP. The R43 is used in the Kiwi Rail DL class built by China Northern and the Pacific National 88 class, model SDA-2 built by China Southern in Qishyuan. The R53 is used in the model SDA-1 (SCT CSR class and QUBE QBX class) in Australia. I think the intention was that the larger Australian locomotives were to use the R43 rated at 4000 BHP, about 3800 HP into the alternator but about the time the first SDA-1s were delivered, the quoted gross rating rose from 3000 kW to 3150 kW and the description changed from R43 to R53, suggesting that the loco manufacturer and the customer had different ideas about the rating. I think the 20 cylinder C175 is rated at 4700 HP in the F125 which is more than the QSK 95 can produce. M636C
Overmod nfotis ... Some interesting promotional reading here, -- don't miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the '20-cylinder high-speed engine'! I do think that Cummins was pointing more at the MTU R4000 instead of the Caterpillar C175. I thought it was in reference to the squabble a few months ago regarding EMD's complaint that the Siemens-IDOT contract had to be overturned because the QSK95 (they said) couldn't quite make the horsepower to reach 125mph with the required load, while the C175-20 nominally could. (I'm too lazy to find the thread where we discussed that.)
nfotis ... Some interesting promotional reading here, -- don't miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the '20-cylinder high-speed engine'! I do think that Cummins was pointing more at the MTU R4000 instead of the Caterpillar C175.
... Some interesting promotional reading here, -- don't miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the '20-cylinder high-speed engine'!
I think nfotis is correct. The 20V4000R43 and R53 are used quite widely in locomotives built in China for use in New Zealand and Australia.
The 20V4000R43 is rated at about 3750 HP and the 20V4000R53 is rated at 4000 HP. The R43 is used in the Kiwi Rail DL class built by China Northern and the Pacific National 88 class, model SDA-2 built by China Southern in Qishyuan. The R53 is used in the model SDA-1 (SCT CSR class and QUBE QBX class) in Australia.
I think the intention was that the larger Australian locomotives were to use the R43 rated at 4000 BHP, about 3800 HP into the alternator but about the time the first SDA-1s were delivered, the quoted gross rating rose from 3000 kW to 3150 kW and the description changed from R43 to R53, suggesting that the loco manufacturer and the customer had different ideas about the rating.
I think the 20 cylinder C175 is rated at 4700 HP in the F125 which is more than the QSK 95 can produce.
The MTU engines also use Exhaust Gas Circulation based emisssions control rather than SCR. Wonder if that could help them against Cummins and Cat(at least until CAT/Progress/EMD) in the North American market? I'm thinking of commuter locomotives as I doubt the freight railraods would be interested at this point...
M636CI think the 20 cylinder C175 is rated at 4700 HP in the F125 which is more than the QSK 95 can produce
Thank you for the voice of expertise with this post! I was hoping you'd contribute.
No question that the C175-20 makes more nominal horsepower than the QSK95. I have not yet determined what the weight and length 'penalty' of the QSK120 (the Cummins 1200rpm 20-cylinder engine design) over the QSK95 is, but I'd suspect it is more, perhaps substantially more, than that of the C175-20 over the engine in the PR43C. Something I noted with some interest in the Cummins press release was that the nominal power output of the QSK95 appears to have been slightly tweaked upward from what it was when the EMD contract controversy erupted. I have not run the numbers through the adjusted Davis formula, but would put quite a good dinner on the line betting that the 'math' now produces 125mph or better...
You can probably also resolve the question about whether the 4700 traction HP of the C175-20 includes or excludes the HEP power in the Spirit locomotive -- I have seen it both ways, with the indication that at full nominal HEP draw there *might* not be enough horsepower left ... by EMD's own calculations ... to get to or sustain 125 mph.
Overmod Some interesting promotional reading here, -- don't miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the '20-cylinder high-speed engine'!
Some interesting promotional reading here, -- don't miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the '20-cylinder high-speed engine'!
I do think that Cummins was pointing more at the MTU R4000 instead of the Caterpillar C175.
The 20-cylinder MTU R4000 barely reaches 3 MW, while the C175-20 reaches 3.5 MW
Overmod It's going to be fun to watch the 'progress' of the C175 engine in the PR43C... and then with a longer crankshaft in the turbocharged potato-chip Spirit locomotives. Suspect it isn't going to quite work out now, either. Meow.
It's going to be fun to watch the 'progress' of the C175 engine in the PR43C... and then with a longer crankshaft in the turbocharged potato-chip Spirit locomotives. Suspect it isn't going to quite work out now, either. Meow.
I am wondering that myself, too.
Neither Caterpillar nor NS are publishing anything about these C175-equipped locomotives. The first C175-equipped locomotives are just now entering service in the UK, in the Class 68 type., so their performance and reliability will be at the spotlight.
I'm doubtful that the QSK engine will find any takers among Class 1 freight railroads as it requires SCR(Urea) to acheive Tier iv compliance...
It will be interesting though, to see how the converted SD90Mac does...
Also keep in mind that EMD has apparently given up on bringing the 710 engine into compliance with Tier 4, which isn't going to go away.
D.Carleton That's nice but has a QSK made it into real-world railroad service yet?
That's nice but has a QSK made it into real-world railroad service yet?
Yeah, and it worries me even more when Pence's own comments in Cummins' own press release get the locomotive number wrong.
I still think that a 1200 rpm engine has a better shot at being successful in 'regular' railroad service than an 1800 rpm one, and that would be true of the proposed 20-cylinder QSK120 too.
I remember a pre-EMD Cat making the same sort of promises 20 years ago. Didn't quite work out then.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.