The SD70ACe-T4 – A Super Bad Omen? (w/ Photos) Is Siemens the Freight Power of the Future?

11428 views
66 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2005
  • 964 posts
Posted by Lyon_Wonder on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:45 PM

The IC sub-lettered Dash 9's have CN-specific teardrop windows which, as far as I know, were used only on CN's Dash 9s. Though I guess CN could have asked GE to apply CN-specific features into the IC Dash 9s if the order was still in the early stages.

 

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,467 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, March 22, 2018 6:47 AM

That sounds quite plausible.  The IC units are numbered in the same series as the other CN Dash-9's so I'm surprised that the sublettering was kept.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    November, 2015
  • 1,025 posts
Posted by ATSFGuy on Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:35 PM

What exactly is the problem with the SD70ACE-T4s?

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:41 PM
If you read the thread ATSFGuy, then you would see that there aren't any listed.
  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • 351 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, March 23, 2018 12:12 AM

There have been various teething troubles, as would be expected from any new design.  

The two CN was testing (EMDX 1605 and 1606) did well at first, until they were sent into bitter -40°C cold.  It quickly put them both out of commission.

A manifold cracked on one unit (I think it was part of the EGR intercooler that failed), shutting it down, and a sensor failed on the other one, making the computer falsely believe that the engine was cold, and limit power output accordingly.  

Are problems in cold weather limited to the SD70ACe-T4?  Of course not, but the failures soured CN on them, and the testing ended shortly after.  I am sure EMD has learned as much as possible from this, and has been trying to fix the root causes of those failures.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, April 01, 2018 1:21 AM
In relation to the midthread discussion on the F125, I noticed today while looking for something else, the EMD has achieved Tier 4 compliance for the marine version of the 710 (E23) using DEF. I'm unsure what the differences in the requirements are to know if this says anything for the 710's use in railroad applications where DEF would be acceptable.
  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 630 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Sunday, April 01, 2018 4:32 AM

The EMD 710 with 11.6 l/cyl. is according to EPA a Marine category 2 engine:
7 l < D < 15 l with less than 3,700 kW. The emission limit are the same as locomotive line-haul:

 

 
PM
NOx
HC
Marine           [g/kW-hr]
0.04
1.8
0.19
Marine            [g/hp-hr]
0.03
1.324
0.14
Locomotive    [g/hp-hr]
0.03
1.3
0.14

 

 

 

 

Marine limits are originally given in g/kW-hr therefore the small discrepancies.

As there are differences between line-haul and switch test cycles for locomotives there are possible differences between locomotive line-haul and marine test cycles.
Regards, Volker

 

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