... I went to Grand Rapids (via Chicago) over the weekend, and observed both some of the standing power on Michigan Amtrak services (from the bus) and the layover of the Pere Marquette at its little stub-end station.
These runs appear to be covered by SC-44 Chargers, and I saw several 'with the radiator-bay lights on' (which I presumed to be in service). I made the somewhat mistake of taking the discount bus, which encountered all sorts of delay, delay, delay, and by the time I got in circa 10:58 the Pere Marquette had arrived in enough time that it was shut down idling by the time I got over there. It idled happily all night (in what got to mid-30s temperatures), was tested and 'exercised' within 20 minutes of departure time, and happily (and very quietly!) backed up, reversed, and ran out of town 'on the advertised'.
Meanwhile, over at Metrolink ... they're not running all their locomotives yet, are they? Seems like every time someone says they are, we get a report on loconotes or somewhere that says they aren't.
In other recent news from loconotes, there is a perhaps interesting post regarding why the Cat 35xx series isn't exactly the charm in things like GP20Ds.
Cats are pretty demanding of regular maintenance, and when they didn't get it, they began having crankcase explosions. Really graphic ones that left engine internals on the walkways. One even blew up while being load tested. Special instructions were issued stating crews were not to be on the walkways when the units were in any throttle notch beyond Run 3. Replacement blocks were $150,000 so this got expensive really fast.
Are there similar observations for either QSK45s or the current batch of QSK95s in Chargers? Or for that matter in the enigmatic 1919?
The QSK95 is enjoying an excellent run in the SC-44/SCB-40 fleet. As an aside the QSK95 is nicknamed “the hedgehog.” Why? Because hedgehogs eat caterpillars.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
It has never ceased to amaze me that one after another, all these CAT engines that do great in on and off-road heavy equipment (notably large haul trucks) have met their match in the railroad industry. And this has happened over and over again going back to the 1980s.
The only CAT-engined locomotive I have ever been around is a GE 44-tonner with twin D342's, and I am not familiar at all with any modern CATs. What sort of "regular maintenance" would have prevented the crankcase explosions. Aren't those usually caused by fuel leaking into the oil sump?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Hmmmm, let me get this straight.
Herr Diesel's engine has been around in various forms since 1894, and CAT can't make one that doesn't self-destruct when applied to railroad useage?
Maybe someone can explain this in layman's terms.
Flintlock76Maybe someone can explain this in layman's terms.
Personally, I chalk much of it up, ultimately, to a kind of corporate arrogance. Their answer to the crankcase explosions is likely a sort of 'you were holding it wrong' -- if you maintained the engine as we told you, you'd have no problems.
Those who remember the factory instructions for maintaining the transmissions in the Krauss-Maffei Amerika-Loks will laugh a little at the difference between what the factory expects and what railroads are willing or even able to pay for.
OK, corporate arrogance, with possibly a little self-delusion thrown in?
If that's the case, they're not the first, and won't be the last.
By the way, there is one "You're holding it wrong" story I know of where the factory rep was justified in saying it.
In this case it was Paul Mauser himself, at a demonstration of the Mauser C96 "Broomhandle" semi-auto pistol where Kaiser Wilhelm II was in attendance.
When Kaiser Bill went to try the pistol himself Mauser stepped forward, said "Magistaet, you're holding it wrong," and then put his hands on the Kaiser's gun hand and corrected his grip.
Bill's entourage was agast and thought there'd be a royal explosion, but ol' Bill just said "Oh, really? Thank you!"
Kaiser Bill wasn't a bad man, just a foolish one.
In the OTR industry Cat engines are known to be a little more cantankerous than a Cummins especially after the EPA regulations for emissions hit. You see Cummins stayed with the KISS principal and Cat well decided to go with a different opinion with the ACERT system. Cat went with a double turbocharged design that both turbos are varible vane and interconnected along with the second one being after the Egr system. Then throw in a requirement for more maintenance than a standard railroad wants to do and your going to have issues.
Cummins with their QSX engine took everything that works great in their ISX line upsized the entire thing kept the injection system the same as what they were for decades added enough SCR and Def to make emissions and said let's go.
Around here a normal oil change interval is over 150k miles now on full synthetic oil or 1 time a year. We run nothing but the Cummins engine in our trucks including the Volvo's we have. That give you a clue what we think of the 2017 and forward engines. They finally solved the EGR issues on them so far not one of our 2017 or newer trucks has blown up. I wish I could say that about the DEF systems but at least some progress is being made. Caterpillar just fell behind on the engineering team and needs to catch up.
OvermodMeanwhile, over at Metrolink ... they're not running all their locomotives yet, are they? Seems like every time someone says they are, we get a report on loconotes or somewhere that says they aren't.
So, I have no interest in defending Caterpillar here, but the issues with the F125s are in the DEF system, not the C175 itself.
It will be interesting to see how the new EMD24s do. Or if EMD/Progress looks to doing a railroad version of the DEF'd 710.
YoHo1975So, I have no interest in defending Caterpillar here, but the issues with the F125s are in the DEF system, not the C175 itself.
That is correct, which is why I made this more an F125 vs. SC-44 thing initially. The issue is that it's Cat engineers who are responsible for fixing the issues with the motive power system, and it does not appear they are either willing or able to get that done within whatever constraints Metrolink is putting on them. (It is also my opinion that any emissions system that produces a nominal 100% derate of traction power when it has problems making its spec is a functional design mistake, regardless of whether there is some Federal or California program that mandates that...)
Meanwhile, the Cummins-powered units just pull trains without visible ado.
The 'other half' of the post was referring to legacy Cat-powered locomotives, and I intentionally left out the C175/C18 "repowers" in part since I have seen nothing regarding service difficulties with them.
It seems peculiar that there is so little apparent good experience with 35xx freight power, as I don't recall any particular horror stories about the engines in either the NJT ALP45s or the Canadian 'Exo' equivalent, and we certainly have a cohort of New Jersey Transit "lovers" who would surely have raised a cry about engine longevity if there had been a problem.
It's funny because in Europe, Cat is dominant with MTU second and Cummins just barely in the game for locomotives. In DMUs Cummins does better but their are more competitors.
While it is a different application, it's interesting to note that Cat's largest hydraulic mining shovel is Cummins powered.
Brian
Cat has been around a long time and in railroad use for 30 years for their large engines. Smaller engines were first used by railroads back in 30s. In many cases, they were used to repower a small loco that had some other make to start with. At work we had Cat 3206s that replaced Cummins 8.3s, Cummins N14, and Cat 3606. The 3606s were Cat's first stationary ones for that size and they did have a few problems at the start with fuel injectors. Cats normally had an injection pump and then injectors. 3606s used unit injectors like EMD used. Problem was, EMD had a cool down cycle where after the engine was stopped, the fuel pump was still run to cool the injectors down. Cats did not. Problem with injectors was solved when they added the cool down period. All of ours had the same oil change period. 1 year or 300 hours, whichever came first. Normally it was the 300 hours. Never saw a crankcase explosion with them. The Cummins 8.3s however ate their valves on a regular basis. At about 2500-3000 hours of use. That is why they were replaced with the Cat 3206s. The Cat 3606s were used to repower where we had Nordberg rotary engines built in 1955.
Greasemonkey While it is a different application, it's interesting to note that Cat's largest hydraulic mining shovel is Cummins powered. Brian
RONALD L VAN ATTA Greasemonkey While it is a different application, it's interesting to note that Cat's largest hydraulic mining shovel is Cummins powered. Brian Cummins engines are an option in that Hyd. shovel. Normally powered by two 16 cylinder Cat 3516B engines.
Cummins engines are an option in that Hyd. shovel. Normally powered by two 16 cylinder Cat 3516B engines.
That is incorrect, The only engines available in the 6090 are the Cummins QSK60. The 3516 was only ever put into two shovels, and that was a custom order. We own both of them.
Do notice puffs of black smoke from YouTube videos of the F125's in service while all I have seen of the Siemans is a clean stack.
Do hope Cat figures something out cuz to me the F is the better looking of the two ; but both look better than the GE P units.
Amazing how I have gotten used to those homely beasts; kudos to Amtrak for the Shamu and Northeast paint schemes make them less ugly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.