Three GT46C ACe, the smaller and lighter standard gauge variant, were recently hauled to Norfolk VA for shipment to Australia. These are thought to be similar to the three built as demonstrators but delivered directly to One Rail. The new locomotives are said to be numbered GWB 104 to 106 in sequence.
But more have been ordered, CBH in Western Australia have ordered seven (they have only five standard gauge locomotives so far) QUBE have ordered twelve and and SSR, known for locomotives over 70 years old, have ordered two, giving them a total of four of this type. These units all meet Tier 3 emissions requirements.
24 units is a large group of orders for Australia and brings the total of this type to around one hundred, counting both versions.
Certainly Progress seems to have a continuing business in new export locomotives.
Peter
I can direct you to videos of the GWB's. The T3 emmisions is a non-event & have a 'Fuel Economy' aka T0 on the fly switch. I would expect if these are used on Inland Rail to Acacia Ridge that they would be in T0 mode West of Toowoomba & T3 mode entering Toowoomba & descending in to the Scienec Rim. As you would know, EMD built a T4 Loco, but it requires SCR. Additionally, Progress Rail offer T4 710 EMD's built 'In the Same Footprint' donkeys for boats.
Cheers,
Tubby Lunchbox.
If you mean the SD70ACe-T4 then no , no SCR .
Tier 4 on the water with a 710 is here . It's not surprising with unlimited cold water for charge air cooling .
I'm not sure how you can switch from Tier 0 to Tier 3 emissions output . I have seen T2 PA and comprerssion ratio figures stenciled on the side of a rebuilt LDPs crank case . I would have to look but I think I remember CR and charge cooling differences between T2 and T3 710s . I think it's a bit more involved than ECU settings .
Also the specs I saw for T2 and T3 16-710s showed 4300 and 4500 hp outputs . I think the SD9043MACs were also 4300 and possibly Tier 0 .
I have an SD70ACe operators manual somewhere , I'll check it out .
While of course the statement is true in general, the current marine version of the 710, which Caterpillar call the "E230" uses exhaust aftertreatment. The last engine I know about that could meet emission requirements in the marine version was the GE FDM, the marine version of the FDl., sometimes called the V228. This could meet tier 2 in the marine version, but GE never tried to meet tier 2 with the FDL in locomotives.
The same aftertreatment is available for the 710 engine in railroad use and is featured in NS 4800
NS Diesel Locomotive Roster - EMD/NS GP34ECO No. 4800 (nsdash9.com)
Comparing this GP34ECO with the tier 3 GP33ECO is is clear how much more cooling is needed to meet emissions requirements without aftertreatment, even less stringent requirements.
I'm surprised that there were no posts to the thread for three months then two a couple of days apart.
I am also sceptical that emissons conformity can be "switched" from Tier 3 to Tier 0 in a simple manner. Only the state of New South Wales so far requires any emissions conformity, and the same requirements apply across the whole state. So it is unlikely that the emissions performance would be changed in Toowoomba, when the train is heading towards the border of the only state requiring emissions conformity.
The win is obviously performance consumption and emissions improvements .
I believe this wasn't too difficult to achieve going as far as Tier 3 . Common rail injection and large capacity water/air intercooling were probably the most obvious differences - along with software changes .
It would be interesting to know what was achieved with the Dash 9/AC44C6M rebuilds FMG has in Australia . Blind Fredy knows a 7FDL-V16 doesn't need anything like AC6000 radiators just to keep the coolant temperature reasonable even in 50 deg C temperatures . I'd say a lot of that cooling capacity goes into intercooling and with the right tuning the humble FDL should be cleaner and more economical than their current Dash 9s .
BDA The win is obviously performance consumption and emissions improvements . I believe this wasn't too difficult to achieve going as far as Tier 3 . Common rail injection and large capacity water/air intercooling were probably the most obvious differences - along with software changes . It would be interesting to know what was achieved with the Dash 9/AC44C6M rebuilds FMG has in Australia . Blind Fredy knows a 7FDL-V16 doesn't need anything like AC6000 radiators just to keep the coolant temperature reasonable even in 50 deg C temperatures . I'd say a lot of that cooling capacity goes into intercooling and with the right tuning the humble FDL should be cleaner and more economical than their current Dash 9s .
I did speak to a Wabtec engineer about this. They are claiming better fuel economy in the new rebuilds. But in the conversion to AC, the space used for the oil cooler in the Pilbara Dash 9 units (in the "hump" between the air intake and the dynamic brakes) was required for the extra (third) dynamic brake fan and resistor unit needed on AC locomotives.
This means a greater cooling load on the main radiator, although, as you say maybe not enough to justify the AC 6000 radiator. Of course the AC 6000 radiator is still in production for the the ES44ACi which is still being built if in small numbers. So it is available for use in Dash9 AC conversions, even if a slightly smaller radiator might work.
I feel sure that if the Dash9 conversions met Tier 2 standards, we would be told this by Wabtec, so I assume the result is still somewhere between Tier 1 and Tier 2.
BDA If you mean the SD70ACe-T4 then no , no SCR . Tier 4 on the water with a 710 is here . It's not surprising with unlimited cold water for charge air cooling . I'm not sure how you can switch from Tier 0 to Tier 3 emissions output . I have seen T2 PA and comprerssion ratio figures stenciled on the side of a rebuilt LDPs crank case . I would have to look but I think I remember CR and charge cooling differences between T2 and T3 710s . I think it's a bit more involved than ECU settings . Also the specs I saw for T2 and T3 16-710s showed 4300 and 4500 hp outputs . I think the SD9043MACs were also 4300 and possibly Tier 0 . I have an SD70ACe operators manual somewhere , I'll check it out .
T4 have th 1010j engine
BDAIf you mean the SD70ACe-T4 then no , no SCR.....Tier 4 on the water with a 710 is here.
T0, T2 & T4 710 Info here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/final_report_emd_tier_4_pm_aftertreatment_upgrade_83112_final_v1_rem.pdf
It's ten years old. 710-T4 Boat motors use SCR stacked up on a lowered auxillary rack to get the same footprint.
It's the end of the road for our beloved 710's & 7FDL's because they are a 70+ year old design. They run at 2 atm of boost, the Cummins QSK for example runs at 5 atm, has turbos blowing into aftercoolers blowing into turbo blowing in to aftercoolers with EGR which is also cooled. Look at a 3300BHP CM Class Loco & it has the same or even more radiator capacity than 4500 BHP GT46C-ACe & C44aci & C44acHi.
Also note that with the upgraded 2009+ 16-7FDL, the BSFC at the 4500BHP setting is worse than the 4250BHP setting seen in Cv40-9i & C40aci Goninans & even with lower intake temperatures seen on the the C44aci.
Yes , and that's why nobody wants them .
The answer has been to update "used power" to the best cost/performance/reliability levels possible .
I rate Tier 4 emissions regs as a failure in the US . Tier 3 is far more practical and achievable in the real world . The then EMD and GE at great cost proved that Tier 4 without DEF can be done and effectively killed their own manufacturing businesses off by doing just that . So effectively T2/T3 is what appears to be running around over there - in new paint if not new steel .
I've said before, and I'll say again:
There was an intentional trend from Tier 3 onward to make the NOx standard require SCR/DEF. That becomes annoyingly obvious if you look at the specific ways that EMD failed to meet certification on the required test cycle, and by how much. This with an ongoing refusal to note that reaction of NO/NO2 with HC is what produces the issues in photochemical smog... and the amount of emitted HC from most combustion sources is small and getting smaller.
The big point being missed is that, once you go to SCR/DEF at all, you can go right back to compression ratios over 22:1 and compound turbocharging, get enormously greater thermal efficiency out of the powerplant (translating into reduced fuel burn and hence lower net emissions) and eliminate any ridiculous EGR, DPF, or other kludge that 'used to have to be used' to reduce the 'emissions'. I expect Tier 5 to be specific about effectively mandating SCR/DEF, together with specific requirements for earlier locomotives to be rebuilt to require it. At that point, expect better recognition of the silver linings in this, ahem, reduced-opacity cloud...
I see cross posting above that at least confused me, so I want to reiterate what was already said.
1: The 1010J does NOT use After treatment to reach T4.
2: The 710 reaches T4 with Aftertreatment.
2a: this has been accomplished both in marine use AND in locomotive us. See Norfolk Southern unit.
So, the 710G is a T4 engine in the year of the lord 2023.
I predict that Diesel T4 Freight locomotives are going to move to SCR, because as noted the specification from the EPA really intended that to be the solution and the existing designs have not had success.
But I also predict that Battery/Battery Hybrid/Hydrogen based units are going to dominate NEW unit sales in the relatively near future.
Not replacing existing rebuild efforts, but in addition to it.
How long before the regulators start cracking down on the loophole of 'rebuilds'?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
M636C I am also sceptical that emissons conformity can be "switched" from Tier 3 to Tier 0 in a simple manner. Only the state of New South Wales so far requires any emissions conformity, and the same requirements apply across the whole state. So it is unlikely that the emissions performance would be changed in Toowoomba, when the train is heading towards the border of the only state requiring emissions conformity.
For EMD, T0 to T2 is a just a change in injection timing, after the T0+ PA's are in. T3 is turning the EGR On.
Have you seen how many smoking wrecks run around the NSW Country Side? It pretty obvious that the rules only apply to DEL's running around Sydney.
Overmod I've said before, and I'll say again: There was an intentional trend from Tier 3 onward to make the NOx standard require SCR/DEF. That becomes annoyingly obvious if you look at the specific ways that EMD failed to meet certification on the required test cycle, and by how much. This with an ongoing refusal to note that reaction of NO/NO2 with HC is what produces the issues in photochemical smog... and the amount of emitted HC from most combustion sources is small and getting smaller. The big point being missed is that, once you go to SCR/DEF at all, you can go right back to compression ratios over 22:1 and compound turbocharging, get enormously greater thermal efficiency out of the powerplant (translating into reduced fuel burn and hence lower net emissions) and eliminate any ridiculous EGR, DPF, or other kludge that 'used to have to be used' to reduce the 'emissions'. I expect Tier 5 to be specific about effectively mandating SCR/DEF, together with specific requirements for earlier locomotives to be rebuilt to require it. At that point, expect better recognition of the silver linings in this, ahem, reduced-opacity cloud...
You need EGR to get the chemistry right.
You need SCR if you can't be bothered building a decent engine.
It's hard to fit extra turbos & aftercooling in a Truck, so SCR is used.
EMD & GE have done nothing to their ancient engines except spend the least amount of money possible. It's really sad.
EGR doesn't do anything about the 'chemistry'; it's a (somewhat defectively conceived) adaptation of FGR in continuous combustion. The idea is to use unreactive spent gas (here, richened in CO2 and (if hot enough) steam from the water of combustion) to replace some of the atmospheric nitrogen that would produce NO during charge combustion. The nominally 'free' recirculated inert gas expands by absorbing combustion heat and everything looks great...
... until you recognize that combustion and induction in IC engines isn't the smooth, well-controlled, Orsat-regulated thing you get with, say, a low-turndown Benson boiler.
The point of 'proper' SCR is that you can undo all the progressive kludges that have been applied to compression-ignition engines 'over the years' to make them less polluting. With SCR there is no concern (other than higher metered flow of DEF) that the CR is higher, the peak combustion temperature greater, the MEP from pilot and modulated ignition better suited to engine operation... and perhaps most importantly, generation of nanoparticulates due to leanout later in expansion -- that sub-2.5PM that is actually a major prospective health hazard where soot and tiny NOx are not -- can be controlled. (An idiot DPF, a device that serves no useful purpose on a properly-regulated compression-ignition engine, cannot possibly deal with this size or character of PM).
Yeah, DEF IS this elegant solution here.
And T0+ to T2 and T3 at minimum require vastly different cooling.
Easiest with the most to gain and least grief .
NR is 4020 Hp , C43s an C44s are around 43 and 4400 Hp .
Pretty sure all up to and including T3 710s don't have EGR .
The cooling changes you mean are all charge air cooling related not water jacket . There is a reason why SD70ACe has greater overall cooling capacity than 70MAC . It's the same deal going from Dash 9/AC4400 to ES44 and on to ET44 .
Seperate circuit water to air intercooling . From memory the EMDs have two water pumps on the engine , not sure with EVO GEs . We should have our first two in January so I'll get to see then .
BDA NR is 4020 Hp , C43s an C44s are around 43 and 4400 Hp .
NR's have 3000kw NETT POWER written on the builder's plates, 4250BHP same as the C40aci, that is why NR's flog 81/G Class, they only have 3300BHP E3B's(with woeful BSFC's)
C43aci is the same as C44aci, UGL went from rounded Nett figures to the traditional Gross BHP, hence C44aci have Bryce/Lucas injection, 4400BHP & Post 2009 C44aci have new cams, Bosch injection & 4500BHP. That's where the extra 100 Nett HP comes from on the 2010+ models. Also, anything rebuilt after 2009 gets the same upgrades. Additionally, while the intake air IS COOLER in the 4500BHP models, the BSFC is poorer than 4250BHP setting. I would suspect the 4400BHP setting to be best, but they needed the extra 100hp to match or beat the opposition up Cowan Bank.
Tubby Lunchbox
To return to the sunject of Progress Rail Locomotives, 17 more GT46C ACe gen II have been ordered by Manildra, a large grain milling organisation that buys grain and produces flour and starch.
Manildra have a number of locomotives used for switching, the largest being two DL500G 2000 HP boxcabs. These are their first units for line haulage. They are also buying 222 grain wagons 60 flour wagons and 103 3TEU container wagons, all 100 tonne gross mass. These wagons will be fitted with ECP brakes. 70 existing flour wagons will be reterofitted with ECP brakes. The new wagons will have automatic parking brakes. Trains will be worked with wired distributed power.
While UGL/Wabtech locomotives have been built in larger numbers recently, Progress would appear to be winning more orders this year.
Can you find and post technical details (and perhaps supplier information) about the parking-brake system they're using? Presumably it runs off the 220V ECP line.
Sadly all I know so far are the words in a brief press release.
I will ask the operators when I see them, but we may hae to wait until the first vehicle actually appears.
Here is a quick look at a GWB Spec GEN 2 GT46C-ACe by DDT - GWB106 walk Gunningbland NSW. Wed 22nd Mar 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDtZAZQhnUQ
Observations:
• 0.24: Tare 123,430kg, Gross 134,00kg - A big weight reduction, 10,570kg left for fuel.
• 0.25: ECP/LOCOTROL Equip where Lead battery was.
• 0.33: Triple 2nd Gen IGBT Inverters for rear bogie.
• 0.34: Squirrel cage Blower hump finally gone, Screen door gone too.
• 1.24: Compressor/Dryer/Expressor moved from behind fuel tank. Also, 9 cables from inverters connect to rear bogie.
• 1.48: Larger intake for new, internally located Compressor/Dryer/Expressor.
• 1.52: Batteries moved from the floor behind both sides of cab & are NiCad instead of Lead Acid Gel. On Gen 1's This is where the rear inverter lived.
• 1.54: The hood end is shorter & a walkway added.
• Generally the Highest Quality Paint & Parts seen externally compared to other companies GT46C-ACe's as these were ordered before Aurizon bought GWA.
I am only interested in HP for traction figures , parasitic lossess for auxiliaries is variable . CV"40"-9i , C40-9 , you do understand what 40 means don't you .
And yes it's no surprise that these do better than JT26Cs in the Cullerins .
And yes I do know Dough Smiley , worked with him a few times .
Sorry for the late reply...
Tubby Lunchbox It's the end of the road for our beloved 710's & 7FDL's because they are a 70+ year old design. They run at 2 atm of boost, the Cummins QSK for example runs at 5 atm, has turbos blowing into aftercoolers intercoolers blowing into turbo blowing in to aftercoolers with EGR which is also cooled.
It's the end of the road for our beloved 710's & 7FDL's because they are a 70+ year old design. They run at 2 atm of boost, the Cummins QSK for example runs at 5 atm, has turbos blowing into aftercoolers intercoolers blowing into turbo blowing in to aftercoolers with EGR which is also cooled.
The aftercooler/intercooler comes from large aircraft piston engines where two stage supercharging was relatively common. The intercoolers were between the compressor stages and the aftercooler was after the last compressor.
In the automotive field, it distressingly common to see aftercoolers referred to as intercoolers, so it is a bit of novelty to see the opposite. I remember being pleasantly suprised to read that the Cummins engine in my 1991 1/2 Dodge PU was equipped with an aftercooler.
GM's 3.0l 6 cyl Duramax peaks out at ~40 PSI boost (~2.7 atm) and puts out almost as much power as a 2005 6.6l V8 Duramax. Back in the 1970's, tractor pull engines were commonly built with multi-stage turbochargers, though they were probably Tier -4 with respect to emissions.
Erik_MagBack in the 1970's, tractor pull engines were commonly built with multi-stage turbochargers, though they were probably Tier -4 with respect to emissions.
Ford built a small diesel with twins and thorough application of ceramic and other barrier coatings, which produced upward of 83mpg on test. That couldn't be achieved with exhaust hazing, let alone rolling coal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.