SD80MAC rebuild program

8291 views
50 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,094 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 13, 2018 2:09 PM

Overmod
I suspect Don Oltmann has very detailed knowledge about many things 265H related.

None particularly.  Service experience with an engine design is really important.  EMD really rushed the 265H to production.  It began as a smaller bore and stroke 4 cylinder test engine squirrelled away in LaGrange.  When the push for 6000HP occurred, they scaled it up and ran with it.  (slight exageration, I'm sure - but the point is that there weren't any of them running around doing anything - and everything was new - a clean sheet of paper.)

Knowing what trouble can occur with modest changes to existing designs, I'd be really skeptical of trying more than a very small handful of a brand new design.

For example, when EMD went from 645E3 to 645F3, they raised the engine speed from 904 to 950.  Big deal, huh?  Ugh.  Headpot seat rings "unseating" all over the place.  A "proven" design pushed just a bit...Led to total redesign of crab studs and plates in the 710 engine.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,913 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, April 13, 2018 2:38 PM

Leo_Ames
I just meant that the fuel economy advantage of being able to be shut it down in cold weather isn't an advantage if shop personnel didn't correctly fill the cooling system with antifreeze and a freeze up occurs.

Gotcha.

Of course, it would immediately occur to me that you could still run the autostart a bit more frequently, or longer, with the water coolant, and that a considerable amount of the theoretical fuel saving over the course of a calendar year would still be available.  That should be something that could be calculated for a given usage profile.

The 'other shoe' in that, however, is that additional sensors might (and very probably would) have to be incorporated at 'key' points to trigger the more frequent start, and we know that it isn't the as-built integrity of that sort of system that determines its long-term effectiveness.

Don, do you remember the specific heat rejection in the H-block compared to the 710 equivalent at comparable rpm or fuel rate?

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,913 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, April 13, 2018 2:41 PM

oltmannd
For example, when EMD went from 645E3 to 645F3, they raised the engine speed from 904 to 950. Big deal, huh?

VERY big deal, looking at it from the perspective of an equivalent cyclic-rpm change on a reciprocating steam design.  That is a nontrivial change in inertial forces.  However, in my next breath I'd have to say I would NOT expect a primary result of the higher speed to be loosening of the power assemblies.

Can you tell us more of the mechanism of failure, and how the redesign addressed it?

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,480 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, April 13, 2018 4:14 PM
So does the 1010J retain the coolant requirement of the H Block?
  • Member since
    March, 2018
  • 10 posts
Posted by IAFarmer on Sunday, April 15, 2018 9:51 AM

My experience was limited, and almost 15 years ago, but I recall a lot of piping leaks where the they connected to the engine, I would assume those were predominantly related to vibration, the charge air coolers also always had streaks running down them where they had leaked, particurlarly where the two sections connected.  

  • Member since
    April, 2016
  • 671 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Monday, April 16, 2018 9:38 AM

Nope no antifreeze required just treated water like a normal EMD engine would have used.  

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,094 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 16, 2018 10:53 AM

Overmod

 

 
oltmannd
For example, when EMD went from 645E3 to 645F3, they raised the engine speed from 904 to 950. Big deal, huh?

 

VERY big deal, looking at it from the perspective of an equivalent cyclic-rpm change on a reciprocating steam design.  That is a nontrivial change in inertial forces.  However, in my next breath I'd have to say I would NOT expect a primary result of the higher speed to be loosening of the power assemblies.

Can you tell us more of the mechanism of failure, and how the redesign addressed it?

 

Yeah.  Forces up by speed squared...  Bronze head pot seat rings were getting "chafed" between head and top deck to the point they started leaking.  EMD replaced whole crab stud system with stronger bolts (rolled threads, smooth thread to neck transition) and crab plates replacing individual ones.

Also, added Viton seal to head pot seat ring....more of a band-aid.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,438 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 4:46 AM

Can you tell us more of the mechanism of failure, and how the redesign addressed it? 

 

Also, added Viton seal to head pot seat ring....more of a band-aid.

Presumably all of the 645F changes had been incorporated in the early 710G engines anyway and those engines were suitablr for the increased rpm of 950 from new....

The new 645F engines built by Morrison Knudsen (or was it Wabtech by then?) and General Electric had a number of design changes but presumably included the last EMD updates. I believe some castings replaced complex fabrications in the exhaust area of these non EMD 645F engines, as well.

Peter

 

  • Member since
    March, 2015
  • 141 posts
Posted by Entropy on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 9:22 PM

M636C

The new 645F engines built by Morrison Knudsen (or was it Wabtech by then?) and General Electric had a number of design changes but presumably included the last EMD updates. I believe some castings replaced complex fabrications in the exhaust area of these non EMD 645F engines, as well.

Peter 

Those crankcases came from Engine Systems (Latham, NY) which eventually became owned by GE. The crankcases were fabricated by Zgoda in Poland. Far as I know the only user of them is Metra in Chicago, IL. 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,913 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:23 PM

oltmannd
Yeah. Forces up by speed squared... Bronze head pot seat rings were getting "chafed" between head and top deck to the point they started leaking. EMD replaced whole crab stud system with stronger bolts (rolled threads, smooth thread to neck transition) and crab plates replacing individual ones. Also, added Viton seal to head pot seat ring....more of a band-aid.

This is coming back to me now.  But didn't EMD decide that they had best derate the engine to something like 930rpm at some point, officially?  When did they fix things definitively 'enough' to go back to full power?

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 800 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:16 PM

Overmod

This is coming back to me now.  But didn't EMD decide that they had best derate the engine to something like 930rpm at some point, officially?  When did they fix things definitively 'enough' to go back to full power?

I think the fixes and results may have varied from railroad to railroad, and some never did get their units running properly.

CN derated the SD50F's to 3200 HP fairly early on, but they continued to be shop queens right up until they were retired.  I am not sure if they were ever re-rated to the advertised 3600 HP.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,438 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:56 AM

Those crankcases came from Engine Systems (Latham, NY) which eventually became owned by GE. The crankcases were fabricated by Zgoda in Poland. Far as I know the only user of them is Metra in Chicago, IL. 

A group of locomotives started by Morrison Knudsen in Whyalla, South Australia about 1995 but completed by subcontractors in Adelaide, South Australia on behalf of NREC maybe ten years later had 16-645F3 engines, but I'm not sure whether they were new or reconditioned or even when the engines were supplied.

These started off using part of the frames of Alco DL 500G locomotives, but with the integral fuel tank removed and replaced by a new centre section designed for the EMD engine and alternator. They also kept the MLW-Dofasco trucks which were one of the best features of those Alcos.

At some time somebody decided to replace the original frame ends with stronger new frames which were deeper and it was found that the cowl roof was right on the loading gauge limit. The weight was too high and they appeared with large (and expensive) carbon fibre side panels.  The eighth locomotive frame didn't survive the move to Adelaide, probably being dropped on the way.

But they did enter service finally, although were declined by the customer who had asked for them to be completed. They have found a niche finally and all nine are now in grain traffic. These were rated at 3500 HP and had GE752 traction motors.

Peter

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,094 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:47 AM

Overmod

 

 
oltmannd
Yeah. Forces up by speed squared... Bronze head pot seat rings were getting "chafed" between head and top deck to the point they started leaking. EMD replaced whole crab stud system with stronger bolts (rolled threads, smooth thread to neck transition) and crab plates replacing individual ones. Also, added Viton seal to head pot seat ring....more of a band-aid.

 

This is coming back to me now.  But didn't EMD decide that they had best derate the engine to something like 930rpm at some point, officially?  When did they fix things definitively 'enough' to go back to full power?

 

This all occurred after my time in Mechanical, but I think it was the RRs that wanted a "get well" package for the SD50s - there were lots of other issues with them such as unreliable "Super Series" wheel creep system.

One of the fixes was derating the engine with a new speed schedule and 3300 HP output, I think.

NS threw in the towel on a bunch and basically rebuilt some to SD40-2 specs.  These are currently in helper service on Horseshoe Curve.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 892 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, April 19, 2018 3:48 PM

Entropy
M636C

The new 645F engines built by Morrison Knudsen (or was it Wabtech by then?) and General Electric had a number of design changes but presumably included the last EMD updates. I believe some castings replaced complex fabrications in the exhaust area of these non EMD 645F engines, as well.

Peter 

Those crankcases came from Engine Systems (Latham, NY) which eventually became owned by GE. The crankcases were fabricated by Zgoda in Poland. Far as I know the only user of them is Metra in Chicago, IL. 

No clue who built them but the MARC MP36s have the 16-645F3 engine.

 

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,480 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:31 PM
I was going to say, Metra was NOT the only purchaser of MP36PH locos. In fact, wasn't there a point where "GE" was the biggest parts suppliers for the 645 because of that purchase?
  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,438 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, April 19, 2018 9:21 PM

YoHo1975
I was going to say, Metra was NOT the only purchaser of MP36PH locos. In fact, wasn't there a point where "GE" was the biggest parts suppliers for the 645 because of that purchase?

 
There were only two customers for the MP40, 3 to sounder but 66 to GO Transit. GO Transit are the only customer for the MP54 twin Caterpillar version.
 
But 110 MP36 -3C and 27 MP36-3S (the latter all to Metra) were built for 10 Customers.
 
GE certainly sell more EMD spares than spares for the FDL engines, which until recently were almost never rebuilt and neither were their locomotives.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,177 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Friday, April 20, 2018 8:51 AM

M636C
There were only two customers for the MP40, 3 to sounder but 66 to GO Transit.

The MP40PH-3C locomotive used 16-710G3B engines not a 645.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 892 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, April 20, 2018 11:28 AM

M636C
There were only two customers for the MP40, 3 to sounder but 66 to GO Transit. GO Transit are the only customer for the MP54 twin Caterpillar version.

Not Cats, twin Cummins QSK60s. They can be quite touchy about those things.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,438 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, April 21, 2018 6:41 AM

D.Carleton

 

 
M636C
There were only two customers for the MP40, 3 to sounder but 66 to GO Transit. GO Transit are the only customer for the MP54 twin Caterpillar version.

 

Not Cats, twin Cummins QSK60s. They can be quite touchy about those things.

Indeed.

I was thinking of the New Jersey dual power units which have two 3512s.

The MP54ACs do have dual QSK60s.

Cat probably wouldn't supply Motive Power now they are direct competitors.

Peter

 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,438 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, April 21, 2018 6:46 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 
M636C
There were only two customers for the MP40, 3 to sounder but 66 to GO Transit.

 

The MP40PH-3C locomotive used 16-710G3B engines not a 645.
Regards, Volker

 
I mentioned the MP40 only to indicate that the 645F3B powered MP36 had sold to more customers and that more units had been built.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 1,700 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:44 PM

Does anyone know if any date has been announced for the SD80MAC rebuild progam to begin?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy