Trains.com

Progress Rail buying EMD

36081 views
117 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Sunday, June 6, 2010 10:36 AM

daveklepper

In Israel, the railroad seems completely sold on Alstom double-end streamlined diesel-electrics, with EMD prime movers, probably 710's.   Anyone know why?

 

Israel Railways has always favored EMD power for their Diesel traction. They rostered a variety of EMD G series export locomotives with 567/645 prime movers. so when they spec'd out their newest locomotives from Alstom it's not surprising they wanted EMD engines and electrical systems..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Sunday, June 6, 2010 7:15 AM

soilredneck
An earlier post stated that Cat left the class 8 truck market, and that is true, but maybe not all due to thier difficulty in meeting EPA emissions.  PACCAR (Peterbilt/Kenworth) entered the market with their own engine this year, and according to a trucking magazine I saw, PACCAR was 75% of  Cat's truck market.  Navistar also is selling a new engine of their own.(I am not impressed with their EGR approach, but time will tell.)  I drove for a fleet that switched to Cat to avoid buying  '07 compliant Cummins, and regretted every minute of it.  They have sinced switched back.  With their best customer selling their own engine, and the problems Cat had with the '07 engines, the decision to get out seems reasonable.

 

Cat is not entirely out of the class 8 market, everything from the head gasket down on International's Maxx Force 16 is Cat.  International actually does not want to build this engine, but the market still demands a big bore engine for the power hungry truckers.

The big reason, in my humble opinion, for Cat leaving the market was that they made the emissions control system too complex, as a small part failure could sideline the truck.  I work for a midsize trucking company, the '08's and '09's we bought were sent back after about a year, they were spending more time in the shop than on the highway.  Newest batch of trucks now have Cummins engines, and both shop and drivers are now very happy.

Now, back to topic, I don't see Cat dropping the 710 like a hot potato anytime soon.  The 265H motor has not been perfected for North American operations yet, and getting the Cat motors to work with EMD electrical controls will also take time.  As to which way Cat and Progress Rail decides to move in, it is really anyone's guess.  My best guess is that we will see a few new demonstrator models within a few years, testing, checking, and rechecking everything, until it will be ready for production. 

Randy Vos

"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings

"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, June 6, 2010 7:02 AM
GP40-2
Besides, why are you asking me for 710 emission data?
I'm not asking for emissions data. Emissions is only slightly related to complete combustion. The primary evil emission from a diesel is NOx which has absolutely nothing to do with complete combustion. I'm asking you for a plausible, fundamental. explanation why the 710 would have less complete combustion than a GE four stroke.

The H engine was developed for two reasons. One, because it looked the the industry was headed toward 6000 HP AC locomotives and a 20 cylinder 710 didn't look like it could do much more than the low 5000s. Second, because fundamentally, a two stroke can't match a four stroke in efficiency. Fuel efficiency was the name of the game in the 80s and 90s. GE always held a couple of a percent advantage over EMD.

Emissions regs changed the game.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, June 6, 2010 4:54 AM

In Israel, the railroad seems completely sold on Alstom double-end streamlined diesel-electrics, with EMD prime movers, probably 710's.   Anyone know why?

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 10:59 PM
oltmannd
GP40-2
The only posters who seemed like they even remotely knew anything about the topic pretty much stated the same issues with two cycle diesels that I have been saying all along.
Which is your less complete combustion claim? Are you backing away from that now? I didn't read a thing, nor do I know of any evidence that supports this claim of yours. You gotta show me something other than your opinion.
Nope, I'm not backing away from anything, including the 710 isn't going to be in production much longer for North American locomotive use. Besides, why are you asking me for 710 emission data? You should have access to the same EMD data I have. Or maybe you don't... Funny how EMD is never open with these things. I will say this however. I know for a fact that every top level EMD employee, both past and present, wished the H engine design was finalized (by that I mean all the bugs were worked out) before GM dumped them off to the investment groups. That way, when GM spun them off, they would have a product that could actually compete with GE. The H engine was not meant to be sold along side the 710, it was meant to totally replace it. That doesn't say much about the 710 when the very people who designed it couldn't wait to get rid of it. This thread has pretty much run its course until CAT reshapes EMD. Not much left to discuss at this point.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, June 5, 2010 10:25 PM
GP40-2
The only posters who seemed like they even remotely knew anything about the topic pretty much stated the same issues with two cycle diesels that I have been saying all along.
Which is your less complete combustion claim? Are you backing away from that now? I didn't read a thing, nor do I know of any evidence that supports this claim of yours. You gotta show me something other than your opinion.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 7:38 PM
YoHo1975

A bunch of Mechanical Engineers fighting like big horn sheep may be amusing, but there are facts to be had on this and it would be nice to see them. Posturing about who the better engineer is is useless.

Perhaps. But it is more amusing watching you guys argue over something you do not understand, and even if you did have the "facts", you would have no control over the outcome of this anyway. CAT's going to do what it wants to do with the 710 regardless what people on this or any other railfan forum think.

This whole topic reminds me when GM decided to sell EMD in the first place. Everyone in the industry who works with locomotives knew it was a done deal, but 1001 railfans chimed in that they "knew" that GM would never sell EMD. They went on and on for months posting the reasons why, only to find out that GM did indeed sell off EMD.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 6:34 PM

 Can someone give the actual emissions figures for the 710G3 T2 and the EVO?

 

A bunch of Mechanical Engineers fighting like big horn sheep may be amusing, but there are facts to be had on this and it would be nice to see them. Posturing about who the better engineer is is useless.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 6:22 PM
creepycrank
Alright you ME (Mechanical Engineer) wannabe's go to the "Eng-tips.com" website and go to engine and fuel engineering and then to "4-strokes obsolete?" and "transonic combustion" for todays thermo lesson...

LOL. I actually wasted 3 minutes of my life reading that thread over at Eng-tips.com. Some hard hitting science on that thread (not!). The only posters who seemed like they even remotely knew anything about the topic pretty much stated the same issues with two cycle diesels that I have been saying all along.

You can accept this or not (I really don't care either way): (1) The 2 cycle EMD will never match the emissions or fuel economy of a 4 cycle and (2) CAT is going to kill the 2 cycle in new locomotives in North America.

What are the railroads going to do? Absolutely nothing. GE sure isn't going to waste their time on a 2 cycle design, and the railroad aren't going to stop buying EMDs when CAT changes the engine over to a 4 cycle. What purpose would it serve them putting GE's only competitor out of business?They would rather have the option of buying some EMDs, even with a different engine, for no other reason than to keep GE honest.

You guys are also missing the possibility that when CAT does replace the 710, the final product may be as good as, or even exceed GE's performance. That's something the current EMD design can't do.

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Saturday, June 5, 2010 2:02 PM

The Butler
The idea of a loco starting, stopping, and changing speed all in no relation to the diesel engine's starting, stopping and changing speed would really mess with this trackside fan's mind. It would bring another unique dimension to the joys of railroads.  Just like watching MERTA's F40's stop and start with the engine speed never changing.  

If you thought watching an F40PH stop and start with it's constant engine speed was confusing, you can imagine what it was like getting used to running one of them.  Coming in to a station stop with the prime mover roaring away in the 8th notch took a while to get used to. Not only that, but we also had to adapt to having blended brakes at the same time.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 2:01 PM

 Yes, the GP15D and 20D have cat 3500 engines. EMD listed them in their catalog as:

3512
(EMD 12-170B15-T2)

3516
(EMD 16-170B20-T2)

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 5, 2010 1:56 PM

The GP15D and GP20D (sold only to CIT Leasing) were MPI locomotives marketed by EMD for the low end of the market.  Both models were equipped with Caterpillar engines.  I believe that the MP20C-3's sold to Pacific Harbor Line have Detroit Diesel/MTU engines.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, June 5, 2010 12:12 PM
creepycrank
Alright you ME (Mechanical Engineer) wannabe's go to the "Eng-tips.com" website and go to engine and fuel engineering and then to "4-strokes obsolete?" and "transonic combustion" for todays thermo lesson.
Thanks. Interesting site. The "4 stokes obsolete" thread was interesting. The "transonic combustion" less so.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 12:06 PM

creepycrank
Alright you ME (Mechanical Engineer) wannabe's go to the "Eng-tips.com" website and go to engine and fuel engineering and then to "4-strokes obsolete?" and "transonic combustion" for todays thermo lesson. For the rest of you about CAT's motive for spending all that money on EMD. CAT has tried to break into the locomotive market through MPI with the 5000MK and collaborating with EMD on low emission switchers- MP15D and MP20D I think without much success. That was before they bought Progress Rail. Since then PR has developed their own version of a genset locomotive and they rebuilt some SD50's as PR43C to test out CAT's C175 engine in actual rail service. If their plan is to eliminate the 710 engine they will have to build some demonstrators and run a full testing program for several years and then convince the railroads that they have a much better package than GE. there is an awkward problem with marine and industrial engines where CAT and EMD compete head to head. Maybe they will sell the 2 stroke business to MPI or someone but what was the purpose of buying EMD in the first place if it wasn't to get the 2 stroke market. To me it would make more sense if Rolls-Royce or Wartsila buys EMD. Rolls because they own Allison and can market a complete marine package with the Ulstine Z drive. Wartsila because they build 2 stroke engines and have experience in servicing EMD base load units in the Caribbean and other remote and primitive areas.

 

Good summation. Slight (and off topic) point though, I was under the impression that the EMD marketed MP15 and MP20 units were bult with Detroit Diesel(MTU) engines unlike the earlier MK1500D/MK2000D which had CAT 3500 series prime movers?...there may be exceptions as Wabtec has offered customers a choice of engines in units they have built recently..IIRC, there are MPI units operating with CAT, MTU, and Cummins engines out there...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • 22 posts
Posted by soilredneck on Saturday, June 5, 2010 12:02 PM

An earlier post stated that Cat left the class 8 truck market, and that is true, but maybe not all due to thier difficulty in meeting EPA emissions.  PACCAR (Peterbilt/Kenworth) entered the market with their own engine this year, and according to a trucking magazine I saw, PACCAR was 75% of  Cat's truck market.  Navistar also is selling a new engine of their own.(I am not impressed with their EGR approach, but time will tell.)  I drove for a fleet that switched to Cat to avoid buying  '07 compliant Cummins, and regretted every minute of it.  They have sinced switched back.  With their best customer selling their own engine, and the problems Cat had with the '07 engines, the decision to get out seems reasonable.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 11:29 AM

 Also, since there are competing statements about MaK's engine line, I looked it up, the Cat Marine site doesn't specifically say, but I did read in a brochure on the VM 43 C that it uses a modified Miller Cycle. And then Wikipedia tells me that the Miller Cycle is a 4 stroke engine concept.

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 5, 2010 11:21 AM

GP40-2
creepycrank
Let me address some of the misconceptions. EMD 710 has as complete combustion as anybody else...

No misconceptions on my part. I've worked with EMD and GE products for several decades now. The EMD 2 cycle can not, and will not have as complete combustion as a 4 cycle. Ever. With the current modifications, the EMD has good enough combustion to pass Tier 2, but it can't match the 4 cycle GEVO in emissions and fuel economy.

The only reason why the 710 is still around at all was due to GM's financial crisis coupled with the buying investments group's limited money for additional R&D with the 4 cycle H engine. If GM wouldn't have sold EMD, the 710 would have died years ago.

GM wasn't in a position to kill the 710, but CAT is, and will.

 

 

This may make sense from an ME perspective, but it ignores some of the other aspects of the 710 decision. GM and EMD didn't have the luxury of letting the H engine work itself out. Even if GM had had the money, Dropping the 710 would have essentially meant giving up on the entire market. Nobody wanted the H engine when they could buy a well known product from GE. Don't underestimate that power that over 30,000 2 stroke EMD engines in the field had on sales. Updating the 710 made sense.

The same issues are still around, perhaps even more so now with orders down. Switching to a new engine in the near to medium term would be a disaster.

 

As for emissions, does anyone have access to the emissions information? Everything I've heard is that the 710 outperforms GEVO on emissions though obviously 4 extra cylinders means not as good on fuel economy.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 429 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Saturday, June 5, 2010 10:37 AM
Alright you ME (Mechanical Engineer) wannabe's go to the "Eng-tips.com" website and go to engine and fuel engineering and then to "4-strokes obsolete?" and "transonic combustion" for todays thermo lesson. For the rest of you about CAT's motive for spending all that money on EMD. CAT has tried to break into the locomotive market through MPI with the 5000MK and collaborating with EMD on low emission switchers- MP15D and MP20D I think without much success. That was before they bought Progress Rail. Since then PR has developed their own version of a genset locomotive and they rebuilt some SD50's as PR43C to test out CAT's C175 engine in actual rail service. If their plan is to eliminate the 710 engine they will have to build some demonstrators and run a full testing program for several years and then convince the railroads that they have a much better package than GE. there is an awkward problem with marine and industrial engines where CAT and EMD compete head to head. Maybe they will sell the 2 stroke business to MPI or someone but what was the purpose of buying EMD in the first place if it wasn't to get the 2 stroke market. To me it would make more sense if Rolls-Royce or Wartsila buys EMD. Rolls because they own Allison and can market a complete marine package with the Ulstine Z drive. Wartsila because they build 2 stroke engines and have experience in servicing EMD base load units in the Caribbean and other remote and primitive areas.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, June 5, 2010 7:44 AM
GP40-2
The EMD 2 cycle can not, and will not have as complete combustion as a 4 cycle. Ever
I can understand it will not ever be as efficient as a 4 cycle since you aren't bottoming out the combustion stroke, but I don't understand the incomplete combustion statement.

I'm an ME, too and have done lots of tests over the years on the EMD and GE locos. My impression has always been that the EMD had more complete combustion since the stack ran measurably clearer at full load than the GE. A perfectly running FDL always has a slight brown haze the the exhaust. A perfectly running EMD will always be clear.

I suspect the completeness of combustion has more to do with the particulars of the head, piston and fuel injection and less with the 2 cycle vs 4 cycle. Also the GE is shooting double the juice into the same space each combustion stroke which, I would suspect, should lengthen the time to complete combustion.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Friday, June 4, 2010 11:00 PM
creepycrank
Let me address some of the misconceptions. EMD 710 has as complete combustion as anybody else...

No misconceptions on my part. I've worked with EMD and GE products for several decades now. The EMD 2 cycle can not, and will not have as complete combustion as a 4 cycle. Ever. With the current modifications, the EMD has good enough combustion to pass Tier 2, but it can't match the 4 cycle GEVO in emissions and fuel economy.

The only reason why the 710 is still around at all was due to GM's financial crisis coupled with the buying investments group's limited money for additional R&D with the 4 cycle H engine. If GM wouldn't have sold EMD, the 710 would have died years ago.

GM wasn't in a position to kill the 710, but CAT is, and will.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Friday, June 4, 2010 9:00 PM

 The EMD 710G engine will die when EMD feels that they can no longer economically upgrade the engine to meet tighter emissions standards, or when the railroads demand more power than EMD can produce with the motor. The 265H is waiting in the wings for that day. They cannot simply drop in the current Cat diesel and expect it to work properly. I would expect that the alternator, engine control systems, and especially cooling systems would all need to be reworked. Also in the previous trials with Cat diesels problems have been experienced due to the locomotive frame flexing which has stressed the crankshaft bearings leading to premature failure. All that can be solved, but it isn't trivial.

 The MaK 2-strokes survive because of the service they are used for, large ship motors without any reduction gearing to the propeller. A 4-stroke diesel has to run faster than the maximum speed for efficient propeller operation. Also I am fairly sure that the motors are direct reversing, i.e. when you need to back the ship the motor is stopped and then started such that it rotates in reverse, which is something a 2-stroke can do, but a 4-stroke cannot do.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: Southeast Missouri
  • 573 posts
Posted by The Butler on Friday, June 4, 2010 8:23 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

oltmannd
Paul_D_North_Jr
But rather than adding another battery system, why not just use the locomotive's main starting batteries instead as the 'buffer' between the variations in the exhaust turbine's output and the blower's power input needs ?  I think the main batteries would have plenty enough capacity to carry the blower for quite a while when the exhaust output is low, but a higher blower output is needed - just a supervisory circuit of some kind to ensure that they don't get drained too far would be needed, I would think.
Actually, I started thinking about turbo-compounding to get more of the exhaust energy turned into useful work. Then I thought about the single cylinder research engine where they can vary the temp and pressure of the air box any which way they want and I put the two together. I'm thinking the battery storage should also be available for propulsion since the turbo can make more power than the blower would need. (hopefully)

Is the next logical step to go to a hybrid arrangement ?  Replace the concrete ballast in the frame with a bunch of batteries a la submarines, so that the loco is basically running off the batteries.  Cycle the main diesel engine on at a maximum efficiency/ lowest pollution RPM 'sweet spot' to recharge them as needed.  Since the engine is then 'de-coupled' from having to directly drive the motors via the alternator - the batteries are an intermediate 'buffer' for the short-term or instantaneous loads* - the engine speed and other attributes can be carefully ramped up and down again without making too much smoke, turbo lag, fuel wastage, etc.  Or is this carrying the concept to its (il)logical end Wink

*It occurs to me that this might be one way to make GE's big locos into decently performing switchers, without their characteristic lag or delay when the throttle is opened, as compared with EMD's.  A purely electric transmission should respond pretty snappily to the throttle, and the diesel engine can then come on line to recharge the batteries whenever it winds up and gets around to it - meantime, the switching can continue apace, without having to wait on the engine to speed up, as is presently the case - which I understand is to minimize the pollution during the speed-up cycle anyway. 

- Paul North.  

The idea of a loco starting, stopping, and changing speed all in no relation to the diesel engine's starting, stopping and changing speed would really mess with this trackside fan's mind. Wink It would bring another unique dimension to the joys of railroads.  Just like watching METRA's F40's stop and start with the engine speed never changing.  

James


  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Friday, June 4, 2010 3:48 PM

oltmannd
Paul_D_North_Jr
But rather than adding another battery system, why not just use the locomotive's main starting batteries instead as the 'buffer' between the variations in the exhaust turbine's output and the blower's power input needs ?  I think the main batteries would have plenty enough capacity to carry the blower for quite a while when the exhaust output is low, but a higher blower output is needed - just a supervisory circuit of some kind to ensure that they don't get drained too far would be needed, I would think.
Actually, I started thinking about turbo-compounding to get more of the exhaust energy turned into useful work. Then I thought about the single cylinder research engine where they can vary the temp and pressure of the air box any which way they want and I put the two together. I'm thinking the battery storage should also be available for propulsion since the turbo can make more power than the blower would need. (hopefully)

Is the next logical step to go to a hybrid arrangement ?  Replace the concrete ballast in the frame with a bunch of batteries a la submarines, so that the loco is basically running off the batteries.  Cycle the main diesel engine on at a maximum efficiency/ lowest pollution RPM 'sweet spot' to recharge them as needed.  Since the engine is then 'de-coupled' from having to directly drive the motors via the alternator - the batteries are an intermediate 'buffer' for the short-term or instantaneous loads* - the engine speed and other attributes can be carefully ramped up and down again without making too much smoke, turbo lag, fuel wastage, etc.  Or is this carrying the concept to its (il)logical end Wink

*It occurs to me that this might be one way to make GE's big locos into decently performing switchers, without their characteristic lag or delay when the throttle is opened, as compared with EMD's.  A purely electric transmission should respond pretty snappily to the throttle, and the diesel engine can then come on line to recharge the batteries whenever it winds up and gets around to it - meantime, the switching can continue apace, without having to wait on the engine to speed up, as is presently the case - which I understand is to minimize the pollution during the speed-up cycle anyway. 

- Paul North.  

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, June 4, 2010 1:26 PM
If that is a misstatement about MaK, then I take full responsibility for spreading it. I'm just basing it on what is written here.
  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 429 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Friday, June 4, 2010 12:37 PM
I think everyone is confusing MAK with MAN. MAK makes 6 model medium speed engines all 4 stroke and way too heavy for rail service. MAN went on a buying spree and among the acquisitions was Burmeister and Wain, whose low speed engines are all 2 stroke cross head type. The conventional wisdom favors 4 stroke for reasons I can never discover. EMD's clutch driven turbo, the key to its success is unique to EMD (and the Polish built clone) and there doesn't seem to be design solution to the scavenging problem without looking like a copy.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, June 4, 2010 12:03 PM
Paul_D_North_Jr
But rather than adding another battery system, why not just use the locomotive's main starting batteries instead as the 'buffer' between the variations in the exhaust turbine's output and the blower's power input needs ?  I think the main batteries would have plenty enough capacity to carry the blower for quite a while when the exhaust output is low, but a higher blower output is needed - just a supervisory circuit of some kind to ensure that they don't get drained too far would be needed, I would think.
Actually, I started thinking about turbo-compounding to get more of the exhaust energy turned into useful work. Then I thought about the single cylinder research engine where they can vary the temp and pressure of the air box any which way they want and I put the two together. I'm thinking the battery storage should also be available for propulsion since the turbo can make more power than the blower would need. (hopefully)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, June 4, 2010 11:33 AM
GP40-2
Oh, and one other thing. CAT IS going to eventually dump the 710 motor for a 4 cycle for new North American locomotives. Not immediately, but it is going to happen. I told some of you guys 3 months before GM announced that it was dumping EMD that it was already a done deal. I'm telling you now that it is a done deal that CAT will replace the 710 with a 4 cycle in the future.
Why haven't they Dropped MaK's 2 stroke line? Why is EMD a different animal? And to clarify, I'm not saying it won't happen, It may, but everything seems to indicate that it doesn't NEED to happen. In the short term. 710 looks good on Tier 3 and maybe even Tier 4. Also, that discussion on engine and fuel engineering was interesting.
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, June 4, 2010 11:31 AM
GP40-2

You might not be a mechanical engineer, but I am. The unavoidable fact is that EMD's 2 cycle will NEVER have the complete combustion that a 4 cycle will have. Period. You can mitigate this up to a point, but after a certain threshold, you are not going to make the regulations. Poster edbenton knows EXACTLY what he is talking about.

I can't say if you're right or not, but other seemingly knowledgeable people are disagreeing with you here. I'd like to hear the engineering behind both sides. Also, Argonne seems to be seeing positive results on the Emissions front and I trust Argonne.
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Friday, June 4, 2010 11:12 AM

GP40-2
Oh, and one other thing. CAT IS going to eventually dump the 710 motor for a 4 cycle for new North American locomotives. Not immediately, but it is going to happen. I told some of you guys 3 months before GM announced that it was dumping EMD that it was already a done deal. I'm telling you now that it is a done deal that CAT will replace the 710 with a 4 cycle in the future.

And if GM had kept EMD they would have eventually replaced the 710 engine with something else, most likely a 4 cycle. They were planning on the SD89MAC with the 12 cylinder 265-H engine replacing the SD70 series in the catalog but the newer prime movers many issues nixed that and instead they further developed the 70 series and 710 engines.

The 710 series will be around at last through the Tier 3 period...

 

 

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 429 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Friday, June 4, 2010 10:35 AM
Let me address some of the misconceptions. EMD 710 has as complete combustion as anybody else otherwise it wouldn't pass Tier 2 for CO and PM emissions, Tier 3 with ultra low sulfur fuel. EMD's engineering philosophy has always been to use the KISS program - Keep It Simple Stupid. The result of the GP/SD 40 series. Competitive pressure for better fuel efficiency and more power from GE led to some refinements to the 645 engine for better or worse. The biggest difference was the turbo redesign using computer aided design. The most noticeable difference is the design of the compressor diffuser ring. Eventually to get the extra power reliably the 710 engine was developed. Turbo compounding and blow down turbos. EMD, I understand did try turbos without clutches on a New York Central order( how long ago was that) without sufficient data or much cooperation from the railroad. On locomotive line haul service EPA duty cycle you only get about 23% high enough load that turbo compounding would be worth the extra complication. It certainly would be useful for marine and peaking generator engines that run about 90% plus load factor. The most famous turbo compound engine was the Curtis-Wright 3350 used on Douglas DC7 and Lockheed Constellation airliners where the engine had a crankshaft driven supercharger and something called "blow down" turbine geared to the crankshaft. The purpose of this exercise was to extend the range of these aircraft so that they could safely fly the return trip from Europe to New York without making a refueling stop. At this time Detroit Diesel markets a engine with turbo compounding without giving any specific details but I think it has a conventional turbo with a blow down turbine added on. EMD engineers I know are skeptical that it would be worth the effort or at least until they deal with the exhaust manifold heat loss between the exhaust valve on the turbine inlet. About 30 years ago ABB tried to sell blow down turbines to use on ship engines so that at sea they could derive some if not all hotel power from this turbine driving a generator. The big cross head 2 stroke engines because they are directly reversible have electric motor driven blowers for scavenging to start up and for low speed maneuvering. Because of the long stroke they also have upper bore cylinder lubricators. To read up of engineering background there are some interesting threads at: ENG-TIPS discussion of "Is the 4 stroke obsolete" and "transonic combustion" http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=270676&page=1
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy