Since Ferrari, and Porsche are creating super cars that run on electricity, it got me thinking why havent the GE or EMD created Tier 4 versions of AC6000s and SD80macs?
Please ask if I need to clarify.
They have produced Tier 3 compatible versions of both those locomotives.
Nobody bought them in the USA.
There are ES59ACi units and SD80ACe units working in Brazil.
If UP or BNSF wanted them they would have bought them.
They didn't.
M636C
That doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to remain at this horsepower plateau. Witness the brief popularity of 3,600 horsepower models before the industry universally returned to the 3,000 HP standard and stayed there for quite a while.
I suspect we'll see this start growing upwards again one of these days. After a brief but essentially unsuccessful fling with 6,000 HP machines (And 5,000 HP SD80MAC's on Conrail), EMD and GE have been too preoccupied this century with adapting their existing product lines to ever more stringent emission standards, riding out economic troubles, moving/shifting their manufacturing centers, and EMD's various sales to mess around with this.
Once things stabilize for a while, I suspect we'll see a return to the horsepower race. The single biggest thing holding them back is reliability. They were spending too much time in the shop and were creating operational issues.
Where as a intermodal train for instance might keep moving reasonably well if one of its three locomotives go down, it's much less likely when you're losing half your power.
Build a reliable 6,000 HP machine and get a major customer to give you a chance to prove your stuff, and sales will come.
For locomotives, to haul tonnage you need tractive effort. To haul tonnage at speed, you need horsepower. As such, the 6000 HP locomotives were primarily intended to be operated on intermodal and fast freight services. Unfortunately, the reliability hurdle was not overcome and the prospects of losing half of the power on a Z train versus one third made them impractical for their intended service. 4000 HP locomotives are more flexible.
As Leo notes, once the 6000 HP locomotives failed, the horsepower race was over and the emissions race started. I think that this will continue for the next several years at least as it is unlikely that all the bugs will be worked out in the Tier IV locomotives at release. Beyond that, it is difficult to tell. Based on operational problems, I don't think we will see much more horsepower growth as it doesn't make much operational sense.
If memory serves, the ES58ACi and SD80ACe were both Tier II compliant, but not Tier III. South American mining railroads use them to move heavy trains at higher speeds where capacity is tight.
The determinate on locomotives is the effectiveness of the wheel/rail interface and it's ability to keep wheels moving without slipping.
With the current state of the wheel slip art - the locomotives we have today have maxed out today's technology. To be able to transmit more horsepower and toque to locomotive wheels, there needs to be another breakthrough beyond the AC traction we presently have.
Unless and until there is a wheel slip breakthrough we will continue to see the size and horsepower of the locomotives that are currently being built - just cleaner and greener.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Since November 4, 2011, CSX ES44AC 954 has been in captive service out of Grafton, West Virginia testing a variety of advanced adhesion control systems.
JayPotterSince November 4, 2011, CSX ES44AC 954 has been in captive service out of Grafton, West Virginia testing a variety of advanced adhesion control systems.
I suspect this is old news -- 954 was on the West Shore in early November 2013 and in South Carolina not too long thereafter.
It was in helper service on Cranberry Grade, which would be a highly sensible place to test adhesion systems! Now what we need is someone like Peter Clark to give us the details of the systems and approaches being tested ... and what the test results indicated.
ML
M636C They have produced Tier 3 compatible versions of both those locomotives. Nobody bought them in the USA. There are ES59ACi units and SD80ACe units working in Brazil. If UP or BNSF wanted them they would have bought them. They didn't. M636C
In an earlier discussion I believe it was stated that the SD80Ace's were only Tier I, not sure about the ES58ACi (ES59 is for Chinese market units) but I thought I read it was Tier 0.
proof on the SD80's emission compliance:
http://www.progressrail.com/cda/files/4564110/7/SD80ACe_ENG_A4_Web.pdf
There have been a few responses on these and other forums from members who work on the mechanical side of the railroad industry to similiar questions about hypothetical North American orders for 80 series and ES58/59/60(i.e GEVO 16) stating that it is thought that the greatly increased size and weight of the cooling system required for Tier IV compliance would rule out 16 cylinder versions of the ES series or any SD90Mac derivative. EMD's Tier IV locomotives are supposed to use a 12 cylinder prime mover derived from the 265 H engine..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
GDRMCoThink Jay would be the one to ask about that....
I would certainly have thought so ... but he isn't saying.
How about a DD75ACe!
GDRMCo Think Jay would be the one to ask about that....
I'm not sure I can add much either...
As GDRMCo will be well aware, EMD and GE export locomotives in Australia are generally much lighter than US Domestic units (with a few notable exceptions).
On the 3'6" gauge, much of the coal traffic is hauled by GT42CU AC locomotives, 3000 HP on 120 tonnes all up weight. As EMDs with one inverter per truck, the lead axle on these units can slip on steep grades, but of course it doesn't "run away" like a DC unit's axle when slipping, it just turns a bit faster than the others until it grips again.
There are standard gauge units which are limited to 134 tonnes in general traffic but are (in the case of the GE units) able to be fueled up to 139 tonnes all up in coal traffic on heavier rail, and a few of the EMD units have been ballasted up to 136 tonnes or 139 tonnes (some to each mass).
It seems to be agreed that the GE units with one inverter per axle slip less often than the EMD units. EMD are building three GT46C ACe demonstrators at Muncie with the "P6" arrangement of one inverter per axle, partly because with the lower all up weight, wheelslip becomes more important.
The experience of both builders with 134 tonne 4400 HP units must provide useful information should 180 tonne or more units of higher power (5300HP like the SD80ACe or even 6000 HP) be seriously considered in the USA.
I believe EMD are still using a radar doppler signal to measure true ground speed which must provide some advantage as against just comparing axle speeds.
The background to the use of CSX 954 as a test vehicle since November 2011 is as follows:
In September 2010, GE and CSX began testing an improved rail cleaning system. In April 2011, they began testing an increase in the limits of tractive effort that traction motors are allowed to produce. In July 2011, they began testing an additional inverter control software. Those tests were conducted intermittently on a number of locomotives. In November 2011, all of those systems were installed on 954 for long-term testing. Locomotives in helper service east of Grafton have the heaviest duty cycle on CSX; and retaining 954 in that service has enabled GE and CSX to determine that the systems would continue to perform over time when installed in production units. Between then and May 2015, when 954 was tested with GECX 2022 to ensure that the systems are compatible with Tier 4 units, various adjustments and modifications were made on the systems, all of which are being installed on the Tier 4 units that GE began delivering to CSX last month.
This same tractive effort system is being tested in 3251 currently?I find it interesting CSX found the steerable bogies gave a 5% increase to tractive effort in curves yet have ditched them on the later ES44ACs and now the ET44AHs don't have them. Seems to be one of the helping hands the GT46C-ACe has locally to outperform the C44ACi @134t.Have doubts there'd be enough space on even an 80' frame for a Tier 4 emissions package capable of handling a 20-710 or 16-1010J/GEVO-16. Maybe if urea was used who knows but the US RRs don't seem to like that idea outside commuters.
Not to distract from the thread, except momentarily -- interesting to consider why 954 was photographed away from the test area during that period in 2013. I'd have thought (1) going to have maintenance done, and (2) having upgrades or other work done at GE, but the West Shore seems an indirect way to Erie, and SC doesn't seem to be on a direct route to a shop. Were the locomotives used due to a traffic surge?
Was the 'rail cleaning device' the one that uses supersonic air through carefully-shaped nozzles? Were there any refinements or problems needing to be solved that were developed during the practical testing? This is an interesting approach to the problem.
I think the GE approach to steerable trucks is a comparatively expensive, high-maintenance, and perhaps kludgy method, and that is why we don't see it repeated on new power. But I certainly have no firsthand experience, and would quickly bow to better authority. Out of curiosity: was the problem with trailing-axle flange wear ever successfully addressed on either the EMD or GE steerable trucks, and if so, what were the approaches that were successful? (I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.)
Wizlish I think the GE approach to steerable trucks is a comparatively expensive, high-maintenance, and perhaps kludgy method, and that is why we don't see it repeated on new power. But I certainly have no firsthand experience, and would quickly bow to better authority. Out of curiosity: was the problem with trailing-axle flange wear ever successfully addressed on either the EMD or GE steerable trucks, and if so, what were the approaches that were successful? (I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.)
A very interesting brochure was issued by UGL, GE's Australian associate at last year's "Ausrail" conference.
UGL have developed a passive steering truck which they call a "Flexicurve". The first production trucks have been applied to export GEs in Africa, although three pairs were built for the as yet unused UGL "Powerhaul" demonstrators.
The brochure provided the first clear view of the GE steering mechanism (separated from the truck itself) that I've ever seen.
UGL were very critical of linkage guided steering trucks, quoting the GE design, although there were oblique references to the EMD design as well. It was suggested that many of these trucks were operated with the linkages disconnected. I can only assume that GE if reluctantly agreed with them.
While the GT42CU AC still uses linkage guided trucks, the GT46C-ACe uses a passive steering design, similar in principle to the more recent UGL design.
UGL have not adopted the Flexicurve on the C44ACi units. There are four with conventional trucks awaiting a buyer now, and these might well be the last locomotives built in Australia...
But I assume that GE have given up the linkage guided truck too...
UGL designed the (conventional non steering) truck for the Chinese ES59ACi and they listed in the brochure a number built for that design that suggested that hundreds more than the initial 300 units had been built in China by last year.
BaltACD The determinate on locomotives is the effectiveness of the wheel/rail interface and it's ability to keep wheels moving without slipping. With the current state of the wheel slip art - the locomotives we have today have maxed out today's technology. To be able to transmit more horsepower and toque to locomotive wheels, there needs to be another breakthrough beyond the AC traction we presently have. Unless and until there is a wheel slip breakthrough we will continue to see the size and horsepower of the locomotives that are currently being built - just cleaner and greener.
Note that European electric locomotives are regularly putting 2000+ hp per *axle* for many years now. So, the horsepower is not a problem - the weight and reliability is (when speaking about diesels).
The electric locomotives are rated at the power-on-rail and hourly power rating.
So, a 6.4 MW 4-axle electric locomotive puts 8.570hp on the rail for one hour.
N.F.
Short-term ratings are not really a fair comparison to diesels and other self-contained locomotives since electrics draw their power from a rather large outside source. If the engineer on an electric is drawing power based on a one-hour rating and doesn't reduce the draw, all sorts of interesting things (none of them good) will begin to happen.
M636CIt seems to be agreed that the GE units with one inverter per axle slip less often than the EMD units. EMD are building three GT46C ACe demonstrators at Muncie with the "P6" arrangement of one inverter per axle, partly because with the lower all up weight, wheelslip becomes more important.
Aha! That is one of the differences in the GT 46ACe Gen II in EMD's promotional literature! http://www.progressrail.com/cda/files/4705134/7/gt46c_ace_ENG_A4_web.pdf
Time for new Cowan Bank trials?
Also of note is the upgraded horsepower of the GT42CU ACe to the GT46CU ACe. They've gone to a 16-710.
Of note, the D-D version of the SD80ACe proposed above does somewhat resemble the B+B-B+B meter gauge version proposed by EMD in Brazil.
GDRMCoMost European trains are barely 5000t if at all and are designed to run at high speeds where HP is more critical. The same locomotives wouldn't work in the US.
Not all European freight hauls and electric locomotives are like that - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore
Six axle, 180 tonnes (396,000 lbs), AC drive, 7200 hp continuous, up to 160,000lbs of starting tractive effort.
There was a Bombardier Powerpoint presentation I found online a couple of years ago about possible designs for North American heavy line haul electric freight locomotives. They proposed either building electric motors based on the existing GE/EMD mainline freight locomotive designs or a modified version of the IORE locomotive. I believe the presentation was created for presentation in Southern California due to the interest in electrifying the Alameida corridor.
One point made was that the IORE uses a larger diameter wheel than standard North American freight locomtives and thus had a higher traction rating. It is interesting to note that the power curves shown in the presentation claimed that the starting to 5 mph tractive efoort would be identical for both 4400 HP and 6000HP designs based on current production diesel electrics and the "Americanized" Iore.
I had a copy of the powerpoint saved on a laptop that was destroyed in an accident. Sadly I can no longer find the presentation online anywhere.
Aha! That is one of the differences in the GT 46ACe Gen II in EMD's promotional literature!
http://www.progressrail.com/cda/files/4705134/7/gt46c_ace_ENG_A4_web.pdf
The change to the P6 arrangement is visible in that the forward inverter compartment now has three separate grilles on each side, and there is no rear inverter compartment providing space for the rear walkway. The original GT46C-ACe had no room for a walkway with the second inverter compartment.
The GT46CU-ACe is intended to be the same unit as standard gauge but on 1067mm trucks, so it is larger and heavier than the GT42CU AC. They could convert the demonstrators to 1067mm gauge if required. There may be clearance problems, and the decline in coal traffic means this is less likely.
The GT46CU ACe was one option for the presently stalled Adani Carmichael mine proposal, a new standard gauge line being another option.
Thanks for your insight. I notice that they apparently haven't specified what traction motor it would use, either. To be honest, even with Abbot's push, I don't see the Adani Carmichael mine happening in today's economic situation. As such, I doubt that we will see any 180 tonne models either as the Hunter Valley seems to have enough.
There was a question about why CSX 954 was operating along the eastern seaboard in 2013 when it should have been operating out of Grafton, West Virginia.
Basically it escaped from Cumberland.
Locomotives assigned to the helper consist that operates out of Grafton receive maintenance and inspections in the Cumberland Locomotive Shop. Sometimes a unit at Cumberland that should be assigned to a train dispatched to Grafton is instead assigned to a train that's dispatched onto the main line. When that happens, it takes awhile for the unit to be retrieved.
M636C Wizlish I think the GE approach to steerable trucks is a comparatively expensive, high-maintenance, and perhaps kludgy method, and that is why we don't see it repeated on new power. But I certainly have no firsthand experience, and would quickly bow to better authority. Out of curiosity: was the problem with trailing-axle flange wear ever successfully addressed on either the EMD or GE steerable trucks, and if so, what were the approaches that were successful? (I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.) A very interesting brochure was issued by UGL, GE's Australian associate at last year's "Ausrail" conference. UGL have developed a passive steering truck which they call a "Flexicurve". The first production trucks have been applied to export GEs in Africa, although three pairs were built for the as yet unused UGL "Powerhaul" demonstrators. The brochure provided the first clear view of the GE steering mechanism (separated from the truck itself) that I've ever seen. UGL were very critical of linkage guided steering trucks, quoting the GE design, although there were oblique references to the EMD design as well. It was suggested that many of these trucks were operated with the linkages disconnected. I can only assume that GE if reluctantly agreed with them. While the GT42CU AC still uses linkage guided trucks, the GT46C-ACe uses a passive steering design, similar in principle to the more recent UGL design. UGL have not adopted the Flexicurve on the C44ACi units. There are four with conventional trucks awaiting a buyer now, and these might well be the last locomotives built in Australia... But I assume that GE have given up the linkage guided truck too... UGL designed the (conventional non steering) truck for the Chinese ES59ACi and they listed in the brochure a number built for that design that suggested that hundreds more than the initial 300 units had been built in China by last year. M636C
There are two types of "steering" truck.
A forced-steer design applies positive guidance of the axles in response to some form of articulation of the vehicle. This articulation could be that between neighboring train cars sharing a truck (bogie) or a single axle, or it could be the rotating of the truck bolster relative to the carbody. Talgo, TurboTrain, and some Swiss locomotive designs are forced steer.
A self-steer design constrains the axles in a given truck relative to each other but does not apply any other external constraint. The South African Railway had a self-steer freight-car truck, and the EMD truck is a self-steer design.
There had been some proposals to apply steering forces using springs -- the axle on the TurboTrain was supposed to be directed by spring forces as it is on the Rapido Trains HO and MTH O-gauge models, but the prototype TurboTrain design was changed to mechanical linkages according to Jason Shron at Rapido. So the use of mechanical linkages does not distinguish between forced-steer and self-steer designs.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The two Australian trucks I was describing belong to neither of the groups you describe:
They have no linkages from the truck to the locomotive frame and they have no linkages between axles to ensure consistent curving angles.
What they do have is "dogbone" links supporting the traction motors from the frame allowing the axles to turn to a radial position and axle suspension and location designs that also allow the axles to take up a radial position in a curve.
The axles respond only to the creep forces on the wheel treads that cause the axles to take up a radial position in the curve.
The Downer (EMD licence) version uses the same axle location and motor support as their earlier design which had links between axles (but not between the truck and the loco frame, as in the EMD domestic design). The three GT46C-ACe units being built in Muncie use this design, known as "semi steering".
The UGL design is a bit more complex, probably to avoid Downer and EMD patents, but the principles of axle location are identical.
When the first unit with the semi steering design went out on its first revenue run, I asked an EMD representative whether they had carried out any instrumented trials. He said no, they just ran it at speed and decided it would be OK.
In the terms of the British TV comedy "Yes Minister" I thought that was "courageous". But they have run well since then...
CSSHEGEWISCH Short-term ratings are not really a fair comparison to diesels and other self-contained locomotives since electrics draw their power from a rather large outside source. If the engineer on an electric is drawing power based on a one-hour rating and doesn't reduce the draw, all sorts of interesting things (none of them good) will begin to happen.
The typical modern European electric locomotive has not much difference between one-hour rating (e.g. 6.4 MW) and continuous rating (around 6 MW in the previous case).
The locomotives reduce the power automatically in case the air cooled traction motors or the transformer starts overheating, the engineer has to do nothing on this case. These even reduce automatically the tractive effort when in multiple traction.
Typical tonnage for mountain routes reaches 1400-1600 metric tonnes in routes like Gotthard (with 2.8% grades), or 2000+ tonnes in flat routes like in Poland (siding length is the main limitation). Having lots of (electric) horsepower permits your freight train to run along stopping passenger trains during daylight.
As another example, look at this 3200 metric tonnes train in Lötschberg route, with four 5.6 MW 4-axle locomotives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY7UcVgt2nY
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.