Hi I am a Loco Driver (Engineer) with BHPBilliton in the Pilbara region of Australia and was wondering whether anyone has heard or knows when the 13 new SD70ACE'S we are expecting over here have left Canada yet and what date,thanks in advance.
I have had it confirmed internally that these 13 new SD70ACE'S will arrive this Sunday the 11th of Jan,we dont tend to hear about these things till the last minute almost.They should be running out on track by the end of the month or early Feb i would imagine.
Hi,
I have always been curious to get information about locomotives from people that operate them. How do the AC6000CW's and SD70ACe perform on the railroad? Also why do they get EMD engines rather then GE's? Very curious.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
The AC6000CW's go ok,I believe they have all been fitted with new engines,Tier2 compliant I think.One of the problems we have with them is the Inverters,which can get flooded with water from torrential rainfall and sometimes render the locomotive a failure.Overall though these Locos are my favourite.As for the SD70ACE's,they have proven reliable considering the extreme heat we operate in up here,and have probably proven correct the decision to go for these locos over what GE had available at the time.I dont know for sure though I believe 3 factors were in play regarding ordering the SD70ACE,these locos were available for order to BHPBillitons schedule,they are Tier2 compliant and so more environment freindly and thus fuel efficient and their tractive effort I believe was better than the the GE AC Traction package available at the time which was the AC4400 as the Evolution series was not available at the time to meet BHPBillitons order schedule and its tractive is less than the SD70ACE I believe,plus the SD70ACE was a proven package.
Thank you,
I appreciate your reply. I find it fascinating reading and speaking to people that have experience with working on the railways. It is also interesting that they decided to go with EMD, specially considering how GE is outselling EMD over here in America.
The starting and countinuous tractive effort of both EMD and GE's products are comparable to each other. Also the EMD SD70ACe as well as GE's ES44AC went into regular production at the same time, so had the railroad wanted to order GE units they would have had the option to order either the newly introduced ES44AC or the older AC4400CW. Likewise they could have ordered he older SD70MAC from EMD rather than the SD70ACe.
Bryan Jones
Bryan Jones The starting and countinuous tractive effort of both EMD and GE's products are comparable to each other. Also the EMD SD70ACe as well as GE's ES44AC went into regular production at the same time, so had the railroad wanted to order GE units they would have had the option to order either the newly introduced ES44AC or the older AC4400CW. Likewise they could have ordered he older SD70MAC from EMD rather than the SD70ACe. Bryan Jones
There appears to be a difference between the SD70ACe and the ES44DC regarding operation in in the consistent high temperatures of the Pilbara.
BHP Billiton have successfully run ex BNSF SD70ACe units in normal service, but Rio Tinto purchased special ES44DCi units with longer AC6000 frames and larger radiators for their operation.
Rio Tinto aren't known for spending money on a special design if a standard unit would do the job (hence the DC units in a service where AC units might be normal).
Rio obtained a number of Dash 9s after the ES44 was introduced, so I think Pilbaraman is right.
GE did not have a design suitable for the Pilbara available when BHP Billiton ordered the SD70ACe.
I don't know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does, and BHP Billiton were able to take advantage by buying off the shelf locomotives.
M636C
PilbaramanOverall though these Locos are my favourite.
If I'm interpreting your message accurately, why are the AC6000CWs your favorite?
Thank you.
M636C There appears to be a difference between the SD70ACe and the ES44DC regarding operation in in the consistent high temperatures of the Pilbara. I don't know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does.
I don't know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does.
Perhaps the temperatures are high enough to increase the DC traction motors' susceptibility to overheating.
JayPotter M636C There appears to be a difference between the SD70ACe and the ES44DC regarding operation in in the consistent high temperatures of the Pilbara. I don't know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does. Perhaps the temperatures are high enough to increase the DC traction motors' susceptibility to overheating.
I don't think that is the problem.
The ES44DCi has much bigger radiators but the same traction motors (and blowers, as far as I know) as the Dash 9s. So the problem with heat is with the diesel engine, not with the electrical system.
Of course, trains with only DC locomotives on the BHP Billiton system sometimes have to stop on the grades to cool their motors, (even in mid-winter) and it is clear why they have gone for AC traction locomotives.
The GE V250 engine must be more temperature sensitive than than the EMD 710G3 or even the GE FDL (V228).
To answer one question,the AC6000 is my favourite loco because its the most powerful Loco i have driven or operated,I like the cab layout and control stand setup and 6073 was my leading loco on My first train by myself on the BHPB system,a 300 plus car train too.Now to go back to the tractive effort for a ES44AC=166,000 Pounds for 738 Kns,a SD70ACE=157,000 Pounds for 698 Kns,so there is an advantage there to GE.I just am not sure that what was available when BHPB ordered the SD70ACE in 2004 as in a fuel efficient Next Gen Locomotive and proven would include the ES44AC.I found that BNSF ordered 30 pre-production ES44AC Locos in 2003-2004,but it looks like most of the orders for these locos have been since 2006,all i found approx 1900 ES44AC's have been ordered and approx 850 SD70ACE's,maybe that says something,hey maybe the BHPB order came down to Price.
my understanding was that an EMD cost more
That might be the case for locomotives for use in the USA, but if you take into account a longer frame, the bigger radiators and the extra radiator fan required by the GE to work in the Pilbara, and the extra time to design it and slot it into production, the standard EMD might actually be cheaper.
M636C I don't know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does.
This discussion is becoming confusing to me, so I decided to try to clarify something.
When you mentioned that the SD70ACe "operates better" than the ES44DC, what did you mean by "operates better"?
My reason for asking is that I've always understood that AC-traction units cost more than comparable DC-traction units and that when railroads decide to pay the increased cost of AC-traction units, that decision is generally based on the expectation that an AC-traction unit will outperform a comparable DC-traction unit.
So to me, it seems natural that an SD70ACe would "operate better" than an ES44DC.
And that leaves me wondering if, when you say "operate better", you're referring to something different than the usual performance differentials (for instance, tractive-effort levels) between AC-traction units and DC-traction units.
JayPotter M636C I don't know why the standard SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC but it obviously does. This discussion is becoming confusing to me, so I decided to try to clarify something. When you mentioned that the SD70ACe "operates better" than the ES44DC, what did you mean by "operates better"? My reason for asking is that I've always understood that AC-traction units cost more than comparable DC-traction units and that when railroads decide to pay the increased cost of AC-traction units, that decision is generally based on the expectation that an AC-traction unit will outperform a comparable DC-traction unit. So to me, it seems natural that an SD70ACe would "operate better" than an ES44DC. And that leaves me wondering if, when you say "operate better", you're referring to something different than the usual performance differentials (for instance, tractive-effort levels) between AC-traction units and DC-traction units.
The difference I am concerned with is solely related to the diesel engine and the cooling system.
There are no SD70M-2s or ES44ACs operating in the Pilbara, but I assume that an SD70M-2 could operate with a standard radiator and that an ES44AC would require the longer frame larger radiator and extra radiator fan.
It seems that, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, that the GE engine is more temperature sensitive than the EMD, or the EMD cooling system has more reserve capacity.
The reason that there are no ES44ACs is that Rio Tinto has always trusted the DC system despite having steeper grades than the BHP Billiton system. BHPB were unhappy with the early performance of the AC6000 units, but have re-engined all of them with 16V250 engines, but that influenced the selection of EMDs.
Even the Pilbara AC6000s had bigger radiators than the US units.
Generally, it appears that the EMD engine was relatively easily adapted to Tier 2 requirements, and EMD allude to this on their website. GE preferred to go with a new design, although they have certified the FDM / V228 engine (the marine equivalent of the locomotive FDL) to Tier 2.
My assumption is that the GEVO / V250 requires more accurate control of temperature to allow the emission requirements to be met.
M636C The difference I am concerned with is solely related to the diesel engine and the cooling system. There are no SD70M-2s or ES44ACs operating in the Pilbara, but I assume that an SD70M-2 could operate with a standard radiator and that an ES44AC would require the longer frame larger radiator and extra radiator fan. It seems that, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, that the GE engine is more temperature sensitive than the EMD, or the EMD cooling system has more reserve capacity.
Are we dealing with a comparison between EMD Tier 2 units (regardless of specific model) and GE Tier 2 units (regardless of specific model)? My reason for asking is that we've apparently shifted from discussing the SD70ACe and ES44DC to discussing the SD70M-2 and ES44AC.
If you are making this more general comparison, are you saying that one of the manufacturers has a more effectively designed cooling system than the other manufacturer has?
I think that the reason this discussion keeps confusing me is that I'm used to dealing with design differences in relation to performance differences. In other words, if one of the manufacturers has designed a better cooling system, I would expect that the other manufacturer's locomotives would derate themselves more quickly and frequently than the first manufacturer's locomotives would derate themselves. If that -- or some other design-related problem -- has been occurring, I would be interested in learning about it.
GMS-AUInteresting to see the SD70ACE's are referred to as ex BNSF. I believe the first orders were BHPB specs and while the last batch were from a BNSF order, I believe they never turned a wheel in revenue service for BNSF. BNSF for whatever reason allowed BHPB to take loco's out of BNSF's current build. Something that happens in other industries as well and would obviously be a benefit to both parties. GMS-AU
The reason the locomotives are regarded as ex BNSF is that they were delivered in the BNSF base coat of orange with silver trucks rather than the BHPB TerraCotta and grey and their builders numbers are in the BNSF order series. They will probably remain in orange for quite some time and look quite distinctive.
There have been a number of batches of SD70ACe at BHPB. LC stands for low clearance but the actual height reduction is only an inch or so.
4300 to 4313 were the original group of SD70 ACe/LC. 4300 was used for spare parts.
4314 to 4323 were fitted with isolated cabs, model SD70ACe/LC.
4324 to 4333 were the orange standard SD70ACe, with isolated cabs.
4334 to 4347 are currently being unloaded in Port Hedland and are SD70ACe/LC with isolated cabs.
4348 to 4355 are on order and will be standard SD70ACe with isolated cabs (from a USA order).
JayPotter Are we dealing with a comparison between EMD Tier 2 units (regardless of specific model) and GE Tier 2 units (regardless of specific model)? My reason for asking is that we've apparently shifted from discussing the SD70ACe and ES44DC to discussing the SD70M-2 and ES44AC. If you are making this more general comparison, are you saying that one of the manufacturers has a more effectively designed cooling system than the other manufacturer has? I think that the reason this discussion keeps confusing me is that I'm used to dealing with design differences in relation to performance differences. In other words, if one of the manufacturers has designed a better cooling system, I would expect that the other manufacturer's locomotives would derate themselves more quickly and frequently than the first manufacturer's locomotives would derate themselves. If that -- or some other design-related problem -- has been occurring, I would be interested in learning about it.
I'm just talking about Tier 2 engines from both manufacturers.
The GE Dash 9s used in the Pilbara were relatively standard, with standard radiators for the FDL engine. There were additional air vents for the radiator and the engine intake to assist in the high temperatures.
The AC6000 had slightly larger radiators than the US version for the HDL engine. These have been refitted with GEVO (16V250) engines retaining water cooled intercoolers with the same radiators.
What is now Rio Tinto continued to buy Dash 9s well after the ES series were introduced in the USA, and it appears that this was at least partly because GE had not completed design work on a version of the ES44 suitable for use in the sustained high temperatures in the Pilbara. The very last Dash 9s were delivered to Fortescue Metals, a new operator just before the first ES44DCi units were delivered to Rio Tinto in 2007.
My thoughts are that there is an inherent advantage in the EMD engine in meeting emission requirements.
The EMD Power Products brochure says:
"So how did we do it? Common Rail fuel injection, adding another turbocharger, new electronic controls? No none of these were required. EMD 710 engine series achieved Tier 2 EPA certification with only minor setting changes and subtle internal component changes to already proven components."
It is possible that the more consistent airflow in the EMD engine, where the blower runs at all engine speeds rather than just in notches seven and eight in a four stroke turbocharged engine, makes control of emissions easier, and avoids the need for such close control of temperature as is required in the four stroke GE engine.
Looking at the GE marine brochure, it can be seen that they are still offering the FDM (as the V228) as well as the GEVO (as the V250). This might be due to the fact that with water to water heat exchangers for both intercooler and jacket water cooling, closer control of temperature is available with the older FDM design that allows it to meet Tier 2 requirements.
Apart from the Rio locomotives, no GEVO engines have been installed in Australian locomotives yet. This might be due to the difficulty of desiging an air to air intercooler or possibly a large enough radiator to fit the much more restricted loading gauge on the Australian national network. There are a number of new units being built with FDL16 engines right now. There would be both weight and fuel economy advantages from using the GEVO engine, even though the Tier 2 emission requirements don't apply in Australia.
I hope this is clearer for you.
M636C I hope this is clearer for you.
Yes, thanks, I think that I understand your approach.
When you said that the "SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC" you were referring to your belief that there is "an inherent advantage in the EMD engine in meeting emission requirements". In other words, your focus is on the issue of how particular prime movers are designed to limit emissions; and I take regulatory compliance as a given and focus on the issue of the ability of particular locomotives to move traffic.
JayPotter Yes, thanks, I think that I understand your approach. When you said that the "SD70ACe operates better in high temperatures than an ES44DC" you were referring to your belief that there is "an inherent advantage in the EMD engine in meeting emission requirements". In other words, your focus is on the issue of how particular prime movers are designed to limit emissions; and I take regulatory compliance as a given and focus on the issue of the ability of particular locomotives to move traffic.
An interesting aspect of all this is that there is no requirement to meet Tier 2 emission requirements anywhere in Australia, let alone in the remote areas such as the Pilbara.
So I also assume that the close control of temperature is required not only to maintain the appropriate emission standards (which are optional) but to maintain the benefit of the low fuel consumption figures that are the only real advantage of the ES44DCi over the Dash 9 for Rio Tinto.
Certainly, the SD70ACe seems to maintain its low fuel consumption figures in the high temperatures.
GMS-AUHow has EMC achieved the low clearance? Obviously a few things like the horns placed lower on the body similar to the Erie Lackawanna 45's, but it seems the entire loco is lower. Is the wheel diameter smaller, as it seems to be the only way, as the spring travel still appears the same. It seems the simplest way and wouldn't harm its tractive effort either. GMS
I have the drawings of both types and I've looked at the two types coupled nose to nose and tail to tail and there is almost nothing to see between the two types.
The drawings suggest that the radiator is lower by a couple of inches on the LC but the cab is much the same, the only saving being the moving of the illuminated numbers to the nose from above the cab windows, again a couple of inches at the most.
The wheels are quoted at the same diameter. Reducing the diameter would affect the coupler height after a while, which wouldn't help much. In fact the standard locomotives had their wheels machined as a precaution before they were put into traffic, but it seems this was not necessary, They were said to have lost five years wear in the machining.
One of the big factors on sales to US railroads is price, that is a different issue on export. Maybe someone could comment on the fact I heard that the GEs have a tendency to overheat in the heat in the Pilbara reigon.
M636C4300 was used for spare parts.
Why would they do that with a brand new locomotive that cost in excess of two million dollars that has never turned a mile for them? Seems like a rather expensive way to maintain their fleet and includes some major components that are likely to never be of any use.
I would think that ordering extra computers, radiator cores, a spare turbocharger, and even a spare engine and so on would've been the way to go. Now they're stuck with things like a carbody, frame, cab along with payng for everything to be needlessly be assembled, hundreds of feet of wiring to be laid, pipe fitting, etc. And they're still going to have to purchase spare parts from La Grange.
Even things like the fuel tank and trucks very well might never be needed. And I wonder if even the windshield could be used. With automobile windshields, there's no way to remove one intact due to how they're installed.
They even paid for a full paint job on it. I'm sure there's good reason for it like lag time and costs but it still seems hard to believe this was the best way to go about having some spare components on hand.
Leo_Ames M636C4300 was used for spare parts. Why would they do that with a brand new locomotive that cost in excess of two million dollars that has never turned a mile for them? Seems like a rather expensive way to maintain their fleet and includes some major components that are likely to never be of any use. I would think that ordering extra computers, radiator cores, a spare turbocharger, and even a spare engine and so on would've been the way to go. Now they're stuck with things like a carbody, frame, cab along with payng for everything to be needlessly be assembled, hundreds of feet of wiring to be laid, pipe fitting, etc. And they're still going to have to purchase spare parts from La Grange. Even things like the fuel tank and trucks very well might never be needed. And I wonder if even the windshield could be used. With automobile windshields, there's no way to remove one intact due to how they're installed. They even paid for a full paint job on it. I'm sure there's good reason for it like lag time and costs but it still seems hard to believe this was the best way to go about having some spare components on hand.
Not necessarily a direct analogy, however, I have read that a $30K car, purchased as 'spare parts' would cost approx $150K
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Not only built it and painted it, but shipped it half way around the world, commissioned it, test operated it to see that it was in full working order, and then stripped it for parts.
I spoke to EMD's agents about this order and I was told that it was definitely cheaper to buy the locomotive and strip it rather than purchase all the major spares required, spare engine, spare alternator, spare inverters and so on. Anyone who has bought spare automobile parts will understand how the prices are much higher than the component parts used to build the vehicle.
The number of major spares required by BHP Billiton would be greater than required by most USA roads. At the time these were the only SD70ACes in that hemisphere. Port Hedland is on the North coast of Western Australia, about 2500 kilometres from the nearest city (Perth) from where technical assistance could be sought.
BHPB had demanded very high availability from EMD (which was achieved) but to guarantee that availability, EMD insisted that BHP Billiton buy a larger than usual number of major spares that would allow interchange of failed components without undue delay while they were shipped from the USA.
There are more than 100 SD70ACe units in service with BHPB now and more than 20 by the adjacent FMG system. The other big operator, Rio Tinto is all GE, Dash9-44CWs and ES44DCis.
mmm1000 One of the big factors on sales to US railroads is price, that is a different issue on export. Maybe someone could comment on the fact I heard that the GEs have a tendency to overheat in the heat in the Pilbara reigon.
Even in the extreme conditions in the Pilbara, the Dash9-44CWs operate quite reliably and have done so since 1994. However, many minor changes were made to increase the airflow through the radiators (which were the standard USA type) and through the electrical equipment racks, by adding air vents in appropriate locations.
On the other hand the ES44DCi units have full AC6000 size radiators with two cooling fans rather than the one fan and smaller radiators on a standard ES44DC. The ES44DCi is on an AC6000 frame, about three feet longer.
So the locomotives don't overheat in service but special provisions have been made to keep them cool.
But the SD70ACe units in the Pilbara do not have any special provision for additional cooling.
BaltACDNot necessarily a direct analogy, however, I have read that a $30K car, purchased as 'spare parts' would cost approx $150K
I'm sure parts cost played a role in it. But what happens when a member of the fleet requires a component off of it after a failure and they then have no replacement? They're still stuck ordering from EMD or an aftermarket supplier.
I suppose it was done with an eye towards major components that were rebuild-able so they could get a locomotive rolling faster rather than waiting for the original component like a turbocharger to be rebuilt. [Edit: Judging by the next post after yours, that looks to have been the reason behind this.]
M636CBHPB had demanded very high availability from EMD (which was achieved) but to guarantee that availability, EMD insisted that BHP Billiton buy a larger than usual number of major spares that would allow interchange of failed components without undue delay while they were shipped from the USA.
If EMD insisted, why didn't they lower the cost of the components themselves so they could be purchased individually at reasonable prices and not only save BHP money but probably increase their own profit margin on it as well? Instead, an entire locomotive was constructed and paid for to accomplish it.
Since EMD apparently forced them to have spares for major components to help ensure that their availability rate could be maintained and not be ruined by the time it costs to ship to Australia, it would hardly present a problem that BHP got a lower rate on items like traction motors than the book price for them was.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.