second part video
https://youtu.be/1cbf8SgY8Jw?si=aq2iKyOmUETGP6N6
It seems like some of the issues have been adressed and the units are running as a pair.
https://youtu.be/z8m-vAVNDl0
M636C Here is a locomotive generally similar to the Bowen Rail units: ProgressRail | EMD® GT46AC I saw no references to the number of inverters on the appropriate entry on the Progress Rail webpage. As I said above, if you can find any written Progress Rail reference to the standard gauge GT46C ACe GenII having an inverter per axle, I would be pleased to see it. Peter
Here is a locomotive generally similar to the Bowen Rail units:
ProgressRail | EMD® GT46AC
I saw no references to the number of inverters on the appropriate entry on the Progress Rail webpage.
As I said above, if you can find any written Progress Rail reference to the standard gauge GT46C ACe GenII having an inverter per axle, I would be pleased to see it.
Peter
Except the for the cab, the rest is identical to the Model in your link, which means Bowen Rail does not have the GT46C-ACe Gen 3.....
I don't actually believe that the Gen 3 is actually a real model.
As for the Gen 2, I can show you pictures of 9 cables running from the Inverters to the rear bogie, relocated batteries, relocated compressor, etc, & the hood is shorter than Gen 1 & allows for a skinny walkway around the back.
Progress Rail shows a picture of a Gen 1 LDP in their brochure for the Gen 2, so what good is "any written Progress Rail reference" when you can see an actual real GWB which is a Gen 2.
Tubby Lunchbox.
Tubby Lunchbox M636C The difference between Gen II and Gen III was, in fact, the use of six inverters in the Gen III and two in the Gen II. I was told that the Gen II cabinet didn't fit in the restricted clearances of the narrow gauge locomotive body, so an existing design of six inverter cabinet which did fit was used (since it was already in production for another customer). OK: So now you are saying GEN 2 has TWO Inverters, the same as a GEN 1, contrary to what you previously said & what Progress Rail says. If you actually took the time to look at a GEN 2, It is very clear to see THREE inverters up front where there is ONE in the GEN 1. The Inverters seen at the front of the GEN 2 LOOK IDENTICAL to THREE of the SIX stacked up at the front of Bowen Rail's GEN 3. So where else in the world can I see a GT46C-ACe GEN 3, same as Bowen Rail has, given Progress Rail sold them elsewhere first? Tubby Lunchbox.
M636C The difference between Gen II and Gen III was, in fact, the use of six inverters in the Gen III and two in the Gen II. I was told that the Gen II cabinet didn't fit in the restricted clearances of the narrow gauge locomotive body, so an existing design of six inverter cabinet which did fit was used (since it was already in production for another customer). OK: So now you are saying GEN 2 has TWO Inverters, the same as a GEN 1, contrary to what you previously said & what Progress Rail says.
If you actually took the time to look at a GEN 2, It is very clear to see THREE inverters up front where there is ONE in the GEN 1. The Inverters seen at the front of the GEN 2 LOOK IDENTICAL to THREE of the SIX stacked up at the front of Bowen Rail's GEN 3. So where else in the world can I see a GT46C-ACe GEN 3, same as Bowen Rail has, given Progress Rail sold them elsewhere first? Tubby Lunchbox.
I don't believe I have ever said that the GT46C ACe Gen II had six three phase inverters. It has two three phase inverters each made up of three single phase devices, each of which is large enough to have a separate cover on the body side. I've never seen any written reference by Progress Rail indicating that the GT46C ACe has an inverter for each axle, but if you have one, please post it or a link to it.
I repeated the details that Progress supplied to me and which they approved when I sent it to them for checking.
M636C The difference between Gen II and Gen III was, in fact, the use of six inverters in the Gen III and two in the Gen II. I was told that the Gen II cabinet didn't fit in the restricted clearances of the narrow gauge locomotive body, so an existing design of six inverter cabinet which did fit was used (since it was already in production for another customer).
I checked the Breyer book, and there was no shop name on the price tag.
For any Norman Friedman fans who are about to tell me off, the original plans of the Lexington as a Battlecruiser appear on page 103 on "U.S. Cruisers". I did looke for this but it was hidden at the end of a chapter entiled "The General Board's Scouts 1903-1921". Nobody would confuse Lexington in any of its forms with an "Omaha" class. Friedman also indicates that there was one boiler in each of the sixteen boiler rooms, which was something I wanted to know.
I think the bookshop was north and west of the SP Depot and I think it had rail books as well. In fact it was my boss, a Royal Australian Navy Supply Commander, who found the book and told me I needed it.
For some reason, the book on cruisers brought the second world war to mind.
Here in Australia, we celebrated the anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea each year, at least during the 1950s. My school had a special assembly and at least one time "Three Cheers for the Red White and Blue" was played. I don't think we had an American flag to fly.... These days I don't think anyone notices.
Tubby Lunchbox M636C The inforfation came from a Progress Rail engineer at an AUSRAIL exhibition. I wrote this up in an article and submitted the text to Progress and it was approved. Which engineer approved their website's story? GEN 2's aka GWB's have 3 seperate covers, pretty much the same inverters(or inverter covers) seen Bowen Rail's. I'd also like to know the difference between the GEN 2 & Bowen Rail's 'GEN 3' other than rearranged inverters, the extended SD70 Style tail & the ugly cab. Tubby Lunchbox.
M636C The inforfation came from a Progress Rail engineer at an AUSRAIL exhibition. I wrote this up in an article and submitted the text to Progress and it was approved.
The inforfation came from a Progress Rail engineer at an AUSRAIL exhibition.
I wrote this up in an article and submitted the text to Progress and it was approved.
Which engineer approved their website's story?
GEN 2's aka GWB's have 3 seperate covers, pretty much the same inverters(or inverter covers) seen Bowen Rail's.
I'd also like to know the difference between the GEN 2 & Bowen Rail's 'GEN 3' other than rearranged inverters, the extended SD70 Style tail & the ugly cab.
The article was in a print magazine, like the one on whose website we are posting.
I didn't use the name of the engineer in the article and I'm not sure he would want it publicized. I don't know who approved the text, since it was passed "up the line" within Progress. But it was not approved casually by a single person. I had to wait for some days before I got approval to publish.
The difference between Gen II and Gen III was, in fact, the use of six inverters in the Gen III and two in the Gen II. I was told that the Gen II cabinet didn't fit in the restricted clearances of the narrow gauge locomotive body, so an existing design of six inverter cabinet which did fit was used (since it was already in production for another customer). The main difference between the Gen I and Gen II GT46C ACe units is that the smaller size of the inverters allow both inverters to be located in the forward cabinet and this allows the addition of a walkway at the rear of the unit.
All this information was provided and approved by Progress Rail.
If you can provide me with official Progress Rail documentation that corrects any of this I'd be pleased to get it. It is hard to get technical data from either Progress or Wabtec these days.
M636C I picked up the copy of Breyer in 1982 in San Francisco, quite near the SP Depot at Third and Townsend. I was filling time between flights, and the SP Depot seemed like a good idea at the time.
I picked up the copy of Breyer in 1982 in San Francisco, quite near the SP Depot at Third and Townsend. I was filling time between flights, and the SP Depot seemed like a good idea at the time.
At first thought, I was wondering if the bookstore was the sames as the one where I bought Kratville's book on UP Streamliners and a couple of books on battleships (ca. 1977-78). ISTR the stores name a Bonanza Books, but it was on Market street and thus not particularly close to Third and Townsend. My only experience with the SP depot occurred in 1973 to catch a train to Burlingame. Return trip was via Greyhound and a ride on a PCC to the Transbay Transit Center.
I knew I'd seen a good plan of the Lexington machinery spaces somewhere and I checked my standard references, Norman Fiedman's U.S. Battleships and U.S. Aircraft Carriers but to my surprise it wasn't in either.
The next likely place was Siegfried Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905 to 1970, which had been translated from the original German. and sure enough, there it was on page 237, side elevation and plan of the final Battlecruiser design.
There were sixteen boiler rooms, eight each side of the two large turbine rooms. Forward were four centreline spaces indicated as engine rooms. Aft was space, probably switchgear, followed byanother engine room. Either side of this were two spaces for the outer propulsion motors and aft either side of the centreline were spaces for the inner propulsion motors. These spaces took up about three quarters of the ship's length, and there wasn't much space fore or aft given the narrowing of the ends of this ship designed for speed.
I picked up the copy of Breyer in 1982 in San Francisco, quite near the SP Depot at Third and Townsend. I was filling time between flights, and the SP Depot seemed like a good idea at the time. The book was on remainder for $12.98 and might hve been the best value for money ever. All illustrations are line drawings to a constant scale (and the Lexington, of course only just fits the page...).
There was pretty good coverage of the New Mexico installation in the General Electric Review and with The Electric Journal covering the Westinghouse installation. Note that the CV2 and CV3 installations were much larger than the BB's.
Erik_MagI would have liked to have seen the machinery space of the Lexington and Saratoga (CV2 and CV3) to see the turbo-electric drives with 40,000HP per shaft. The generating plant for those ships would have made for a good sized central station plant 100 years ago.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.php
A different 'take' on this would be the Bowes (Thomas D.) tugboat drive... something that was early on adapted to rail use.
M636C I believe the Royal Navy Type 42 Destroyer uses two motors of around 100 tonnes each for propulsion, producing around 25000 HP or more each. I understand that these are fifteen phase motors, in order to get the highest possible power to weight and volume figures. So that would require at least fifteen separate devices to form each inverter.
I believe the Royal Navy Type 42 Destroyer uses two motors of around 100 tonnes each for propulsion, producing around 25000 HP or more each. I understand that these are fifteen phase motors, in order to get the highest possible power to weight and volume figures. So that would require at least fifteen separate devices to form each inverter.
My first thought would be more on the order of 15 pole pairs raher than 15 phases, but having 15 phases could greatly reduce the switching frequency of the individual phase modules. Getting visions of a 100 tonne stepper motor. Interesting.
Updated reply: It occurred to me that the "15 phases" may refer to a 15 level inverter. That is a multitude of power supply rails at different voltages and related switches to a sine wave to be approximated by 15 steps in voltage as opposed to the two or three in the simplest inverter configurations. With the latter, the standard approach to get a reasonable approximation to sine wave is use pulse width modulation, with a switching rate many times higher than the fundamental frequency and also either requiring a substantial filter or wiring the motor to handle substantial current and voltages at the switchig frequency. With a 15 level inverter, the output would have lower current or voltage harmonics with no filter. End of update.
I would have liked to have seen the machinery space of the Lexington and Saratoga (CV2 and CV3) to see the turbo-electric drives with 40,000HP per shaft. The generating plant for those ships would have made for a good sized central station plant 100 years ago.
bogie_engineer Siemens and then EMD always referred to them as "phase modules" rather than calling them inverters. The combination of three phase modules were called the inverter.
Siemens and then EMD always referred to them as "phase modules" rather than calling them inverters. The combination of three phase modules were called the inverter.
I did consider using the word "devices" rather than "inverter". Of course, if the output is required to be three phase current, three devices are needed to make up an "inverter".
Makes sense, with the inverter supplying power to three motors, the individual phase modules must have been large. With the low maximum switching possible with GTO thyristors, there isn't as much of a need for a very low inductance connection on the DC link between the modules.
Automotive inverters are trending towards having all six of the IGBTs or FETs in one package.
BDA Also did someone quote the 430 KN at 23 km/h ? That sounds slightly fast and low for something that has a starting tractive effort of 600 Kn .
Also did someone quote the 430 KN at 23 km/h ? That sounds slightly fast and low for something that has a starting tractive effort of 600 Kn .
That can't be true, the GT42CU-AC's do 460kn starting & continuous. The same inverters & traction motors in Siemens Electric Locos do 450kn starting & continuous.
BDA Bully for you . I remember looking at the first two taking shape at the then Gonads BMD . Quite a few of us took them brand new out of the BMD shops for their first shake down runs to Telarah .
Bully for you .
I remember looking at the first two taking shape at the then Gonads BMD . Quite a few of us took them brand new out of the BMD shops for their first shake down runs to Telarah .
What do you mean by "Bully for you" & "Gonads BMD" ??
I've driven them too!! But only 22 meters at a time.... Been up & down the tracks in them riding with Doug Smiley & Co doing one of those 'pull-pull' tests. Do you happen to remember the name of the lanky, Electrical Engineer or the Texan?
Cheers,
"The locomotive I described with the three separate inverters, one for each phase"
That sounds more like three half bridges which is the typical way to make a three phase inverter. A single phase inverter is composed of two half bridges thus makinga full bridge. Going from GTO Thyristors to IGBTs greatly simplified inverter design, but the lower current capacity of the IGBTs pretty much dictated the use of separate inverters fior each traction motor. Based on publicly available data, locomotive sized SiCFETs are still a bit in the future. SiCFET inverters could be small enough to enable mounting directly on the motor.
That is likely a Gen One, Progress Rail's website shows pictures of LDP Class aka GT46C-ACe Gen One as Gen Two's, so do you believe who you were talking to on the phone, or their Website? On SG Lines, Everything except GWB Class are Gen One.
I wrote this up in an article and submitted the text to Progress and it was approved. The locomotive I was describing was a GWB. The GWB has two inverters, one above the other at the front of the locomotive. GWAs have two separate inverters, one at each end of the locomotive.
The locomotive I described with the three separate inverters, one for each phase, at each end was a 4100 under construction at EDI Maryborough (when the road was still public and you could walk up to a new loco under construction.) The GT46C ACe Gen I have similar inverters but of higher capacity. When the covers are fitted, you can't see the three separate inverters.
On the GWB, you can see that there are three separate inverters because the covers are a different design.
I remember looking at the first two taking shape at the then Gonads BMD . Quite a few of us took them brand new out of the BMD shops for their first shake down runs to Telarah . I mentioned pinions as being an early issue rather than the traction motors themselves .
12 710s , I never lunched one but a couple of my work mates did . I don't recall DLs having the issue .
I didn't ever see an LDP with run through ECP cables , If they had the extra cables why would you bother removing them ?
And yes I've had Siemens inverters die . Early one morning I was leaving Port Hedland and the middle unit , a 90MAC-H , spat an inverter . Isolated it and continued on .
M636C I am assured by Progress Rail that the GT46C-ACe Gen II has two Mitsubishi inverters, one per truck.
M636C However these inverters consist each of three separate devices, each device producing a single phase of the three phase inverter supply. I first observed this on an Aurizon 4100 (GT42CU-ACe) under construction at EDI Maryborough, where when the cover plate was removed on the forward Mitsubishi inverter, the three separate devices could be clearly seen.
BDA NRs use oil filled gear cases .
BDA "Fun" fact , LDPs are at Intermodal because they don't have ECP like most/all northern coal units do .
BDAThe win would have been a standard gauge railway from Carmichael to port built to US domestic standards.
While that would be appropriate in a case like the Weipa/Comalco rail system (where it is totally detached from any other network, therefore not requiring inter-operability, or disruption to local lines), in this case A: there was resistance to their initial plan of a SG link to the Port (rejected, resulting in a requirement to connect to the existing network); and B: there was substantial political resistance to Adani's proposal, both on the mine approval, and to the mining industry as a whole from the State Government.
As such, the preferred option would have been for them to funnel their traffic through the existing Newlands system (justifying the Business Case), electrify their end, then agree to a hook and tow arrangement without buying their own dedicated locomotives.
Probably too late now but could Progress have used larger diametre traction motors and wheelsets ?
And or could shorter traction motor gearing help their situation ?
I did read a long time ago about the SD60MAC testing and how they could get down on their knees (very low speeds) for reasonably long periods of time . I was under the impression that AC traction motors are a lot less temperature sensitive than the DC versions .
I'm curious to see if UGL will continue offering FDL powered C44ACis after the Evo 12 powered version starts production .
I have a pic somewhere of the 5 series traction motors for the first one . I'm guessing performance will be similar to te C44ACis .
BriabaBoodu I'm surprised the experts here haven't chimed in on the numerous issues that BRC is having with the locos. From having to now run 3 locomotives per trains instead of 2 due to traction motor overheating and running trains with in excess of 20 wagons on the back not loaded. Lots of issues with this class and the outlook from an engineering perspective isn't good. Let alone the die hard EMD railfan point of view.
I'm surprised the experts here haven't chimed in on the numerous issues that BRC is having with the locos. From having to now run 3 locomotives per trains instead of 2 due to traction motor overheating and running trains with in excess of 20 wagons on the back not loaded. Lots of issues with this class and the outlook from an engineering perspective isn't good. Let alone the die hard EMD railfan point of view.
As I understand it the problem is that the motors are just too small. I don't think heating is a problem for the AC motors, just that the tractive effort is too small. Motors of the same general type are used in the electric locomotives used in coal traffic, but it is possible that two electric locomotives might not be able to haul these trains between Collinsville and Pring. The Collinsville line is much older than the Goonyella lines which were built for heavy coal traffic, although the grade in question has been rebuilt with a better alignment.
I think that one of the reasons for using the higher powered diesel locomotives was to increase the speed of diesel hauled trains, particularly on electrified lines Magnetic Rail (the former One Rail) do use these units on electrified lines, where there is concern that diesel hauled trains slow the electrically hauled trains and reduce the overall throughput.
The problem for Bowen Rail is easily solved, by adding an additional locomotive to each train, as they are already doing.
To take up BDA's point about the height of Australian Domestic locomotives, I have photos of two pairs of the C44ACi units operating as yard switchers in Rio Tinto'sCape Lambert yard. While they aren't as tall as the ore cars, they did a good job switching when there was a shortage of locomotives. They were not actually coupled to Dash 9s or ES44s in normal operation.
I realise I missed BDA's joke earlier about the Danish MZ3s (JT30C type) being "grey imports". In fact, only one (1437) was painted silver-grey in Denmark, the remainder arriving in faded DSB black with red ends.
Despite the disappointment with the Bowen Rail units, it appears that Progress Rail is outselling UGL, the Wabtec licensee by maybe two to one this year, if the latest unconfirmed developments are correct. QUBE have 12 Progress and 5 UGL units on order now.
The win would have been a standard gauge railway from Carmichael to port built to US domestic standards . Naturally this would have US domestic type locomotives and the associated loading gauge . It's amusing to think of an SD70ACe standing next to say a 2300 . I have pics somewhere of a CW44-9 coupled to a CF44 (Aus built C44ACi) dwarfing it . The 2300 is so much smaller again .
Eastern Australia badly needed to see what a REAL freight railway looks like , and especially Queensland where the loading gauge is tiny by comparison .
If what I read is true many lines in QLD struggle to take locos of even less than 90 tonnes gross . Some parts of Australia are really badly done by ...
The sooner they electrify the Newlands System (and the Carmichael), the better.
They weren't far off the loadings required on this line when they did the last Cost Benefit Analysis.
The unfortunate aspect might be that Adani invested in it's own locos - doesn't help when the State Government was putting so many roadblocks in their way.
It could easily have been a win/win situation, and possibly have been run on a hook and tow basis...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.