It looks like Wabtec has found a replacement for the much hated Gensets in the form of their Tier 4 GEVO in 6 cylinder form.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/CC.BCC%20-%20GE-Wabtec%20ET23%20Switcher%20Approval%20Letter%20Dec%2012.23.20.pdf
Loconotes had a brief blurb about this. UP seems content with their SD40+Slug combos on the Roseville Hump, but it will be interesting to see if they bite. Or, Cal Northern and Sierra Northern might. Just thinking of the Sacramento area.
YoHo1975 It looks like Wabtec has found a replacement for the much hated Gensets in the form of their Tier 4 GEVO in 6 cylinder form. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/CC.BCC%20-%20GE-Wabtec%20ET23%20Switcher%20Approval%20Letter%20Dec%2012.23.20.pdf Loconotes had a brief blurb about this. UP seems content with their SD40+Slug combos on the Roseville Hump, but it will be interesting to see if they bite. Or, Cal Northern and Sierra Northern might. Just thinking of the Sacramento area.
This appears to be an updated model of the proposed ES23B GETS presented back in 2008 which would use a GEVO-6 as well.
Difference being that they are now looking to recycle genset frames.
Key here, also, is that there are a whole lot more GEVOs in service now, and there are relatively few differences between internal parts for a six and twelve (considering how the connecting rods and big-end 'master-rod' bearings are arranged).
I have to wonder whether cylinder-interruption technology could be implemented on these engines at idle speed...
YoHo1975Difference being that they are now looking to recycle genset frames
Found it! Here's a diagram of the original ES23B from the GE presentation back in 2008.
SD60MAC9500Found it! Here's a diagram of the original ES23B from the GE presentation back in 2008.
It occurs to me that some of the issue here ... including 're-recycling' frames that have been converted for multiengine genset use ... is that the packaging for the GEVO-6 requires the same carbody length as for the full 12-cylinder version, and a bit more hood height (the latter not critical in the drawing, but perhaps significant if the engine is to be Tier 4 final compliant without SCR). I'd expect much of the crankcase construction to be similar as well, if for no other reason than maximum parts commonality.
Many of the 'rebuilder' promotional material has stressed the nominal advantages of using high-speed engines (now usually 1800rpm designs), often shorter and lighter abd sharing parts and support with other markets, for the sorts of applications the genset locomotives were supposed to 'optimize'. It has generally seemed to me that having the Essl-like capability to scale actual combustion power is more valuable than running the larger engine at comparable 'turndown' -- but good engineering and marketing might overcome that. The greater question is the value in the 2300hp four-axle market in general ... and a number of these posts suggest the relative great utility of a GEVO-6 rebuild as 'slug mother' to a range of battery and other energy-storage approaches...
Has anyone looked into the increased gyroscopic effects of a higher speed engine going around curves ?
Consider that the Maybach engines used in the SP/D&RGW torque-converter drive locomotives in the early 1960's maxed out at 1585 RPM and apparently did not have tracking problems based on the hgher RPM.
Overmod It occurs to me that some of the issue here ... including 're-recycling' frames that have been converted for multiengine genset use ... is that the packaging for the GEVO-6 requires the same carbody length as for the full 12-cylinder version, and a bit more hood height (the latter not critical in the drawing, but perhaps significant if the engine is to be Tier 4 final compliant without SCR). I'd expect much of the crankcase construction to be similar as well, if for no other reason than maximum parts commonality. Many of the 'rebuilder' promotional material has stressed the nominal advantages of using high-speed engines (now usually 1800rpm designs), often shorter and lighter abd sharing parts and support with other markets, for the sorts of applications the genset locomotives were supposed to 'optimize'. It has generally seemed to me that having the Essl-like capability to scale actual combustion power is more valuable than running the larger engine at comparable 'turndown' -- but good engineering and marketing might overcome that. The greater question is the value in the 2300hp four-axle market in general ... and a number of these posts suggest the relative great utility of a GEVO-6 rebuild as 'slug mother' to a range of battery and other energy-storage approaches...
I agree, I have to wonder how they're going to quite fit this all in a tier 4 package on the 4 axle EMD and Uboat frames they would be getting.
As for the market for such a device. Well, prior to the last few years, There seemed to be a reasonably robust market for EMD rebuilds. It's hard to track since companies like NS did their own custom rebuilds, so even if they were effectively ECO upgrades, they weren't literally and so don't count the same. And of course BNSF and UP doing massive upgrades of their mid HP 645 and 710 based fleets.
The gensets pushed out a lot of switchers and older 4 axle power and were not well loved, so one has to presume they are needed to some extent.
But, is there value in that platform? Or is it just as easy to have some combination of High Speed Diesel at Tier 4 along with assorted remanufactuered 710 and 645 based platforms paired with battery power and/or slugs.
YoHo1975But, is there value in that platform? Or is it just as easy to have some combination of High Speed Diesel at Tier 4 along with assorted remanufactuered 710 and 645 based platforms paired with battery power and/or slugs.
The present markets for battery assistance are highly in favor of "two 4400hp road units sandwiching a battery/dual-mode-lite/road slug module -- with or without a full cab -- on the freight side, and a typical Charger or Spirit with the battery assistance module on the commuter, and perhaps passenger side. It is my opinion, which may be radically wrong, that once you have the hybrid battery, most of the objections to conventional 'truck engine' types of Tier 4 final or higher "genset" engines become much less, especially with regard to optimized PSR 'flat switching' performance (which I think is still not fully recognized by these battery switcher designers)... all these things making a fixed 2300hp maximum single power unit a bit large to be 'assisted charging' and a bit small for most other current road uses for which expensive new or extensively-rebuilt power would be purchased.
We might note that until more restrictive laws require prompt retirement or abolition of grandfathered 'tier 0' locomotives, or eliminate any chance of carbon credits or cap-and-trade nonsense being traded to keep such locomotives operational, it will still be cheaper in many ways to use things like deturboed 645s as the 'prime movers' for battery-assisted consists, and pass any obvious increased fuel consumption along to "customers".
Thirty years ago there was a popular market for ~2300hp road locomotives on many railroads. I get the impression very few of these are still used there, and in places where the physical railroad plant can't or doesn't handle six-motor power gracefully, locomotives with higher engine hp are preferred (there being little advantage in developing an eight-cylinder GEVO for this niche, and none at all in expanding the 6 to an inline-8). On the other hand, I see the most recent approval letters for Tier 4 from CARB are for 2400 and 2300hp respectively ... the latter being for a locomotive with GEVO-6 ... so it seems that's where three different builders interested enough in this space to file the necessary paperwork see the market in California as developing. The great marketing job that has to be made by WAB-whoever-has-the-locomotive-business is going to be to demonstrate that a hybrid eight-axle consist of 2300 engine hp (running at reasonably constant speed range, dividing output between charging/dual-mode power generation and traction) and capable battery is functionally equal at lower fuel burn and better emissions characteristics to a 12-cylinder road locomotive of generally flexible and fungible application nearly system-wide.
It can be done, I think. It would be fun to try. I wouldn't want to stake my family's well-being on making it a career priority, though...
blue streak 1 Has anyone looked into the increased gyroscopic effects of a higher speed engine going around curves ?
Interesting thought.
Guess they could always run two units joined at the tail :)
Formula 1 cars at one time had V-12's pushing 10k rpm or higher, with much faster turning rates than a locomotive. Could also bring up the UP Big Blows, where the shaft was probably turning in excess of 3,000 rpm.
The ratio of the weight of the rotating mass (the mass that is actually rotating, not including valves, pistons, etc.) to the total weight of the locomotive (or race-car and driver) would indicate that the gyroscopic force would be negligible. But obviously greater for the race-car than any locomotive.
Erik_MagFormula 1 cars at one time had V-12's pushing 10k rpm or higher, with much faster turning rates than a locomotive. Could also bring up the UP Big Blows, where the shaft was probably turning in excess of 3,000 rpm.
Back in the 3 liter days of F1 a number of engines were approaching 20K RPM.
There very few if any vehicles that change direction faster than F1 race cars - just watch them drive through the varios L-R-L or vice versa chicanes that have been placed in tracks to slow the cars down from the absolute speed potential through a following high speed turn.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.