SD.70 MACe

[stantaras]

What's with all the hoppla over this new class?
Is it a quantum leap in locomotive evolution?

How is it being billed as the future when G.E has basically the same thing and theirs is being road tested as we speak.?

Does any one know if the 70 e has the i cab[isolated version]?
[%-)]

[Anonymous]

There are no plans to offer the SD70ACe with the isolated-cab option. EMD feels that the relocation of the electrical cabinet suffices. Having ridden the SD70ACe at speed at full load, it struck me as quiet and vibration-free.

It would be silly to give a summarized version of the the article here--that's why it's the length it is. Why not read it when your copy arrives on Monday, or visit your retail outlet today, and from that draw your own conclusions? Suffice it to say that are striking differences in the approach GE took to get to the EV44AC and EMD to the SD70ACe.

EMD is also road testing, but rather than on a Class I, it's doing it at the Pueblo Test Track. It's an interesting question which is the "better" approach; obviously, if EMD wanted to do Class I tests, it could do that, and if GE wanted to do Test Track tests, it could do that.

Time will tell which approach finds better market acceptance.

[Anonymous]

It's a very nice Locomtoive unlike the GE GEVO PELASE

[kenneo]

Santaras ---- The extra simple answer is that the Feds have new emissions rules comming up that current locomotives can't meet. The "e"'s are GEs and EMDs answers.

But as Mark says, it ain't that simple! Not by any way. So, I get to wait for the magazine, too. (drat) The good part of that is, however, we will be informed about what really is going on.

One of the things that I suspect we will hear is that every locomotive that EMD and GE now build will be out of the catalogue. We have had some interesting discussions about 6000 HP locomotives, 5000 HP locomotives, 20 cyl vs 16 cyl, and so on, and I think we will see the reasons why the builders have not worked harder on the super high HP locomotives harder than they have. Simply, I suspect that they won't be permitted to sell them in the US due to the new standards.

[stantaras]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

There are no plans to offer the SD70ACe with the isolated-cab option. EMD feels that the relocation of the electrical cabinet suffices. Having ridden the SD70ACe at speed at full load, it struck me as quiet and vibration-free.

It would be silly to give a summarized version of the the article here--that's why it's the length it is. Why not read it when your copy arrives on Monday, or visit your retail outlet today, and from that draw your own conclusions? Suffice it to say that are striking differences in the approach GE took to get to the EV44AC and EMD to the SD70ACe.

EMD is also road testing, but rather than on a Class I, it's doing it at the Pueblo Test Track. It's an interesting question which is the "better" approach; obviously, if EMD wanted to do Class I tests, it could do that, and if GE wanted to do Test Track tests, it could do that.

Time will tell which approach finds better market acceptance.

I Have already received my Febuary copy ,it arrived Jan 3 up here in Canada and read the arcticle.

Thanks to the wife for it was an Christmas present subcription for a year.[read Jan edition Christmas day!]

Still,I think G.E and EMD are offering a very similar product.
Thanks for the reply ,none other from the Editor himself.

[Anonymous]

Mr.Hamphill, you stated that EMD is only testing their SD-70ACe at Pueblo. I am confused. According to Railpace magazine the on-going order of SD-70AC's are SD-70ACe type units with the flaired radiators,4300HP, the latest high tech adheshion system, modular design etc. At the moment there are from 10-15 units on the ground. Railpace also said CSX has placed an order for 20 SD-70ACe for 2nd quarter delivery. CSX and EMD are testing these units on the Boston line-over the Berkshire mountains.
My question to you Mr. Hamphill is CTC Magazine reported that BNSF placed an order with EMD for 100 SD-70AC's to be delivered in 2004. Is this true? If it is, will EMD ship out SD-70ACe type units like they are doing with the current CSX order . T-time, Winter Haven , Fl.

[Anonymous]

t-time:

I think what you're saying is that you've read reports that SD70ACe's are being built right now. There are not. SD70MACs with flared radiators are not, repeat, not, SD70ACe's, in spite of what anyone might tell you. The SD70ACe is a radically different design than the SD70MAC and would be very difficult to visually confuse the two, if you study them just a little bit.

As of Monday, December 30, there have been no orders placed for SD70ACe's that EMD will confirm. EMD will let us know the day they have an order and can make that fact public. They won't even hint until then, and wisely so -- would you want to give your competitor the news that a deal is in the offing? Not hardly.

I've heard reports that CSX may take the last of its current SD70MAC order as SD70ACe's, and that BNSF may get some too, but EMD will neither confirm nor deny that. I'm not even going to be a pest and ask them, because they're not going to tell me anything until the deal is closed. We'll report as soon as we know something accurate and truthful, but we're not in the business of speculation, guesswork, or being wrong. (That's sometimes more FUN, I admit, but when you do that it tends to close doors.)

The SD70ACe, according to EMD, will not go into production until well into 2004. To summarize, the only SD70ACe's that exist today are the four prototype units, which as far as I know are all still at the Pueblo Test Track.

santaras: Isn't it amazing that copies of the magazine get to Canada before the U.S.! That's because here, USPS holds for tonnage.

Yes, EMD and GE ARE offering a very similar product. That's what happens as technology matures -- it converges. The good news is that you probably can't go far wrong buying either one. The bad news is that it actually makes your job much harder. How, if you're the builder, do you convince the railroad that your product is measurably better? And how, if you're the mechanical officer, do you convince your board of directors that you bought the right one? And how, if you're that mechanical officer and you admit that there isn't much difference between the two, do you propose to justify your salary -- or even your job's existence?

It's always more fun when technology is moving rapidly, at least from my point of view. That's when people can take big risks and get big rewards, and have big failures, too.

I would not, despite all that, say that EMD and GE are building the same product. There are significant differences between the two -- albeit subtle differences -- but when you're buying a thousand locomotives here and a thousand there, subtleties add up. One key difference is that, to summarize, EMD substantially redesigned everything in the locomotive EXCEPT the engine, and GE substantially redesigned ONLY the engine. That, in my mind, presents a railroad with a sharply drawn choice. EMD had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I'm looking forward to hearing GE's reasons.

Eric: EMD says the H engine can be made to meet Tier 2.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Eric: EMD says the H engine can be made to meet Tier 2.

So, the 90-MAC is a go and the others, which I understand to all be 710's, are not? I would think, then, that we would see a 16-H putting out 6000 and a 12-H putting out about 4000. I remember reading somewhere that EMD has built testbeds of 12-H engines and the held up, and EMD was going to proceed with field trials and start planning for production and the 16-H was still beating itself to death. This was the middle of Summer 2003.

I had made the assumption that the H engine was what EMD was going to use to meet the Tier 2 Standards. I couldn't feature them designing a new engine from scratch and then junking it unless it failed to meet Tier 2. I am given to understand that 2-cycle diesels can't be made to meet the standards at a cost that anyone will buy them for. That means, to me, then, that the 710 is dead when Tier 2 takes effect.

I think GE made their announcement when they did for stock price purposes. I track GE and Wall Street made happy noises about the new locomotive and their stock price immediately went up. I hear the locomotive still isn't ready for prime time, but that is how they announced it - ready to save the American ecology NOW.

[Anonymous]

Eric: I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify from my end:

1. the 710G absolutely meets Tier 2, and with very minor changes, too.
2. the 265H can meet Tier 2, too.
3. EMD chose the 710G for the SD70ACe because that's what customers wanted
4. the H is not out of production, or a dead end, either. If you want one, you can buy one.

[Anonymous]

Would someone refresh us on the new Tier 2 standards please? It is not necessary to give every jot and tittle but just the major things would be nice.

The new standard applies only to new locos, correct?

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill

Eric: I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify from my end:

1. the 710G absolutely meets Tier 2, and with very minor changes, too.
2. the 265H can meet Tier 2, too.
3. EMD chose the 710G for the SD70ACe because that's what customers wanted
4. the H is not out of production, or a dead end, either. If you want one, you can buy one.

1. OK! I didn't know that. I'm sure GM's stockholders were glad to hear that! Saves a big chunk of bucks. I haven't kept up on the 710s and Hs.

2. I figured the H engine would. I am not up to speed on model designations for some of these engines --- H-engine; I understand there are 2 models (?), a 12 cyl and 16 cyl? What would be each's designation. ---the 710G would be the 4300 HP 16cyl ---What is the 20-710 SD80 engine designation? Does it meet Tier 2? I presume not?

3. I thought the EMD e-engine was an H- model.

4. I didn't mean to imply either. Just that EMD was having a bit of trouble with it and that I couldn't feature them going ahead with development and/or production if it couldn't meet the standard.

[Anonymous]

Eric: EMD engines use a simple designation system:

1. the first two one or two digits are the number of cylinders: 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20. All are V type. This is followed by a dash
2. the three-digit number after the dash is the displacement of each cylinder in cubic inches: 567, 645, 710; or the bore in mm, 265 (this is a 1010 cu in cylinder)
3. the first letter after those numbers is the crankcase (A, B, C, D, E, F, or G) design or block (H) design; the higher the letter, the more recent the design
3. the next number is the basic turbocharger design: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, increasing over time
4. a letter after the turbocharger indicates a modification: for instance, early SD40-2s came with a 16-645E3, later models came with a 16-645E3B

So: A, B, C, D series crankcases -- all 567 cu in displacement per cylinder, though you can stick a 645 assembly into a B, C, and D block. Dunno if you can do that with the A -- never have seen one! A BC block is a B block partially modified to C standards to get rid of some of the internal water leak problems with the C. BCs were VERY common; most railroads modified their B blocks during overhauls. 16-645Cs and BCs aren't uncommon either, but you can't get 2000 horse out of them unless you're willing to install bigger radiators and accept the fact that they will fly apart more often.
E, F series crankcases: all 645 cu in displacement -- same bore as 567, but longer stroke.
G series crankcase: 710 cu in displacement. Same bore as a 567, stroked out even farther.
H series crankcase: the 265 indicates its bore in mm; it displaces 1010 cu in. This is EMD's only 4-stroke.

B series crankcases: GP7, F7, F3, SD7
C series crankcases: GP9, F9, SD9
D series crankcases: GP18, GP20, GP30, GP35, SD18, SD24, SD35
E series crankcases: GP38, GP39, GP40, SD38, SD39, SD40, SD45, dash-2 versions
F series crankcases: GP49, GP50, SD50
G series crankcases: GP60, SD60, SD70, SD70MAC, SD80, SD70ACe
H series blocks: SD90MAC

A crankcase is welded together from steel shapes with some castings and forgings; a block is cast iron. Oddly, the block is much cheaper. They're hard to fix when a rod comes through the side, but they're cheap enough you just throw them out. Someone with a lot more expertise than I could describe the pros and cons of each.

So, the 20 cylinder engine in a SD80MAC is a 20-710G7B. Yes, you could make a 20-710 meet Tier 2. If you wanted. I don't know if any of the 710 blocks already existing can economically be made compatible with Tier 2.

Now, on to Tier 2:
Tier 0 applies to new or remanufactured locomotives from 1973-December 31, 2000
Tier 1 applies to the same, January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004
Tier 2 applies to the same, January 1, 2005 to ?
There's a Tier 3 coming at some future date, but we'll probably have to have zero-sulfur diesel fuel to make that feasible. The regulation is not yet fully written and is in discussion between EPA and the manufacturers.

Each tier reduces emissions more than the last.

The major pollutant this is intended to address is NOx emissions -- railroad locomotives emit 5% of them nationwide. Tier 2 is expected to eliminate 60% of locomotive NOx and 50% of locomotive particulate emissions compared to the 1995 baseline level, by 2040. EPA estimates lifetime costs per unit (initial cost, maintenance, fuel economy loss, etc.) of $252,000, or 0.2% of total freight revenue for 1995.

Don't ask me how you actually go about making an engine do this -- there are lots of ways to do it, and it's beyond my expertise to describe it.

If you have lots of spare time on your hands, you can read all the pertinent regulations at

http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/locomotv.htm

[Anonymous]

Mark [:)]

Thanks for the standards. [;)]

So older locos are exempt from the standards until overhauled, correct?

Any ideas on how to make an older loco meet the newer standards, anyone?

[Mookie]

The Mookie's eyes are glazed over again!

[kenneo]

Mark -------- WOW. That's a whole magazine article [wow]

Do I make a correct assumption that the 12-567's used in the E's (7-8-9) and SW's 1,000 to 1,200 HP is the "B" crank case? HP being a function of governor settings?

Now, all of these short lines that have 567's, what is considered to be remanufacturing and what is considered as rebuild, or backshopped, heavy maint.? Repair and replace of wornout parts in kind should be normal maintenance. How much work can be done on all of those 567's before a new locomotive is required? In short, what is the economic viability of these engines so beloved by our short (line) brothers.

Is 0% sulfur fuel economically viable?

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

The Mookie's eyes are glazed over again!

My dear, retract head into (auto)mobile or home, thaw gently, and it will all be OK. [:D][:D][:D][}:)]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Mark -------- WOW. That's a whole magazine article [wow]

Do I make a correct assumption that the 12-567's used in the E's (7-8-9) and SW's 1,000 to 1,200 HP is the "B" crank case? HP being a function of governor settings?

Now, all of these short lines that have 567's, what is considered to be remanufacturing and what is considered as rebuild, or backshopped, heavy maint.? Repair and replace of wornout parts in kind should be normal maintenance. How much work can be done on all of those 567's before a new locomotive is required? In short, what is the economic viability of these engines so beloved by our short (line) brothers.

Is 0% sulfur fuel economically viable?

I guess that will be the big question...what is the legalese that constitutes a reman? x% of original parts replaced or replacement of any components from list A (chinese menu)[:)]

[Anonymous]

Eric: HP is a function of RPM, which, yes, is a governor setting:

B series 800 rpm maximum governed speed
C series 835 rpm maximum governed speed

6-567B 600 hp SW1
8-567B 800 hp SW8
12-567B 1000 hp NW2, SW7, E7
16-567B 1350 hp F2
16-567B 1500 hp F3, F7, GP7, SD7

6-567C 600 hp never offered in a locomotive that I know of, only stationary apps.
8-567C 900 hp SW900
12-567C 1200 hp: SW9, SW1200, E8, E9
16-567C 1750 hp: F9, GP9, SD9

A BC engine is identical in performance to a B engine but has the C liners. There's also an AC engine, which is the A crankcase with C liners. I never saw one, but the EMD unit exchange catalog lists them. And lastly a 645C or a 645BC, which is the 645 liners in a C or BC block, at the old horsepower rating. You could also put a D liner in the C block; the Rio Grande liked that because it had bigger ports and ran better in the thin air of high altitudes.

Some railroads knocked back the C engines to 800 rpm to increase longevity -- a machinist told me that at 800 rpm the C engine ran forever, but at 835 rpm they tended to come apart too often.

Beyond this starts myriad variations. My 1982 unit exchange catalog lists, for instance, 59 different models of governors: that's why more than one person in the shops will tell you that EMD stands for "Every Model Different."

As for what's rebuilt and what's remanufactured, it's basically whether you're recapitalizing the unit or not. As far as I understand the regulations, you can fix a 567 forever and never have to upgrade. But it won't matter because the 567 is vanishing very quickly because it's so much cheaper to buy a used 645-engined locomotive than to fix the 567. You can go buy a good running SD40-2 for less money than it will cost you to rebuild a GP9 -- I've seen the former offered with good wheels under it for $60,000! Ten years ago the same SD40-2 was $350,000. That's what happens when railroads buy a zillion SD70Ms and C44-9Ws. So now you throw out the GP9 as soon as the wheels get thin. Forget a heavy repair to the engine.

You got me if 0% sulfur fuel is economically viable.

[dharmon]

Mark, and Eric...

I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than....well I don't know. Please continue[:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Mark, and Eric...

I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than....well I don't know. Please continue[:)]

Amen, brother Amen. [;)]

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Mark, and Eric...

I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than....well I don't know. Please continue[:)]

Amen, brother Amen. [;)]

[bow] [wow] Gentlemen, I have, well, thank you. I don't know how to say this without looking like a sop and a jerk, so --thanks.

Mark deserves the most credit - he has the answers and the connections that collect those answers. Which is just one reason why he is the Editor.

Inserting sock.

[Anonymous]

Good stuff to read. Thanks for the info. [:)]

[Anonymous]

Thanks, guys! Especially thanks, Mark, for your time and patience!

Best regards from frosty Croatia,
Oliver

[Anonymous]

No, YOU -- all of you -- deserve the credit. You could have made this into a forum of cheap shots, one-upmanship, and mean criticism, the sort of mischief that has ruined many a forum. This has remained a good group of people -- people who are polite, helpful, practical, have a sense of humor, and don't take themselves too seriously. I've noticed when someone goes off the edge, the rest of you gently take that person to task, not by belittling them, but by kidding them a little, or sympathizing with them. Now that's class.

All I do is remember a few conversations I've had, check my declining memory by looking into the files, and answer some very good questions. I've learned more than anything else how much I do NOT know. It's fun, and it's fun talking to all of you and reading your messages.

mwh

[daveklepper]

Second time I'm downloading this stuff as text because it is so interesting. I really appreciate the info on EMD engines and hope to find the same details on GE some day. Thanks a million.

[Anonymous]

I agree about the text thing. Just picked up the article today and read it. I have to be honest, I found out more information on this thread than in the article. Most of what the article had was already available via the web. Which isn't bad, but I guess I was just looking for a bit more after reading how good the article was. Don't get me wrong, I'll be reviewing the article for some time and it is a good article.

I just wonder if in today's world, every once in a while an article could go 'techie' or extreme detail. Maybe too much of a narrow minded view and not for the general public. Also, I'm sure it depends on the type of article and amount of focus. (No, I'm not a publisher and do not have much of an idea what a target audience would be allowed to accept.)

Anyway, keep the info coming...
[:)]

[Anonymous]

All I say is that it's better than anything that ever left the old, borken-down Erie plant of GE's. The Evalution Series of GE is the world's ugliest engine series, thanks to the EPA.

[Anonymous]

All I say is that it's better than anything that ever left the old, broken-down Erie plant of GE's. The Evolution Series of GE is the world's ugliest engine series, thanks to the EPA. I wish Alco still made engines[sigh].

[Anonymous]

Dear McDeo:

There is indeed a lot of information in this thread. But none of it directly pertains to the SD70ACe, or it merely reiterates the article. Moreover, all of the technical info I've put in this thread has been previously published at least a dozen times in Trains, the Diesel Spotters Guides, or other sources. (I didn't have to go far to look it up.) So none of this info made it into the article because it (1) isn't about the SD70ACe at all, and (2) it would have been a disservice to the thousands of readers who have already paid for it.

I would have loved to have had more technical information about the SD70ACe in the article. It was not possible as EMD refused for competitive reasons to go on the record with any more than what is there--as I said in the article. Just to get as close to the locomotive as I got, I had to agree to not disclose technical details I saw in passing, take no close-up photos, or copy their technical sales information. They also did not directly answer many of my questions.

Our other choice would have been to have no article at all. And, literally hundreds of readers have written us asking about the specific questions the article sought to answer (the market share questions), and, as you surmise, some readers don't want all the technical info. But I would have still put it in had it been available. I think the technical information is important and meaningful. I expect that once the locomotive is in production (it's still prototype), that the technical info you seek will become available. I don't think we can fault EMD for not making this public at this time.

EMD is not unique in this. GE has been less forthcoming lately. The two builders are locked into a bitter struggle, and neither see competitive advantage in telling the other about what they do.

I was very pleased and surprised to get as much as we did from EMD, because for over 20 years now, the two builders (and now most of the railroads, and most of the suppliers) have determined they will no longer talk to the media about anything substantive. This is a huge problem for those of us in the technical and business media. We ascribe it to the fundamental shift in America from "business to advance the public good" to "business to advance the bottom line." If you are in business to make America a better place, you absolutely want to give people like me complete access to your operations, because my article will help prove your point. If you are in business to make money, you do not want to give people like me access to your operations, because my article might give your secrets away to your competitor.

Regardless, I would always rather hear from a reader who says he wants more info than a reader who says we gave them too much, because it gives us the opportunity to do something new in the next issue.

With very rare exception (we do overlook some things), the reason something important is not in an article is (1) whoever possesses that information has decided not to make it available to us (2) we've already published that information many times (3) we don't have the financial resources to go get it (4) most readers don't want it. We do nothing haphazard, and articles of this nature are thought out among the entire staff, along with the experts who advise us, long before we begin typing.

[Anonymous]

as far as 567 engines are concerned, I work on a short line that has five of them in just about all configurations. We have two F-7A's one with a B one with a BC, a GP-7 with a BC, an SD-9 with a C, and an old NW-2 with an A. The NW-2 will probably never run, but the other four are all operational, and as long as one of them doesn't throw a rod through the block, they will run forever. These engines are fairly easy to maintain, two men being able to rebuild a power assembly without a crane in one day. That includes removal and installation.