BNSFwatcherI can't discern that from the photo. Wouldn't a brake cylinder, that activates on two wheel-sets, be a bit larger than the one that activates on only one?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I would still like to know how the air cylinders and their linkage unload an axle with many tons of weight on it works. A picture of the inner workings of the truck would be much appriciated
BNSFwatcherI can't discern that from the photo. Wouldn't a brake cylinder, that activates on two wheel-sets, be a bit larger than the one that activates on only one? Anyone got engineering drawings? BNSF 6609 came thru here a week ago. I was in the midst of my nap, so I missed it. I'll be on the lookout!
I can't discern that from the photo. Wouldn't a brake cylinder, that activates on two wheel-sets, be a bit larger than the one that activates on only one? Anyone got engineering drawings? BNSF 6609 came thru here a week ago. I was in the midst of my nap, so I missed it. I'll be on the lookout!
The GE trucks have always used two brakes cylinders for the three axles. It could be that each cylinder activates one axle and one brake shoe each on the middle axle.
It is interesting that the traction control lifting device does have two cylinders to do the job. That must indicate it requires more power to lift the axle that the same cylinder type does for brake service. They appear to be the same type of cylinder as the brake system uses, but someone will have to look closely at the unit to tell if that true.
CZ
If you look lower in the pic you can see the rigging to apply the shoes that are on the center axle. Think something simalar to the old Blomberg M truck one brake clyinder for both axles.
Nice photo. Thanks! Look closely and you will notice that there are two cylinders to raise/lower the middle/idler axle (on each side). No brake cylinders for it, just like the EMD E-units. Funny. When EMD built the DD40Xs, they had four brake cylinders, one for each axle/wheelset on both sides. Of course, they were all powered axles.
bubbajustin Just joining in on this thread. I believe that the BNSF owned (GE produced) ES44C4’s are in the A-1-A configuration. Like the Alco RSC-2’s were. They have a Dynamic Weight Management System that raises the center axel when the locomotive exceeds 15mph. And vise versa when it drops below 15mph. The locomotive other than this it the same as a normal EVO Same V-12 GEVO prime mover, alternator, motors, radiators etc. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Justin
Just joining in on this thread.
I believe that the BNSF owned (GE produced) ES44C4’s are in the A-1-A configuration. Like the Alco RSC-2’s were. They have a Dynamic Weight Management System that raises the center axel when the locomotive exceeds 15mph. And vise versa when it drops below 15mph. The locomotive other than this it the same as a normal EVO Same V-12 GEVO prime mover, alternator, motors, radiators etc.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Justin
It seems to be the center axle on the A-1-A configuration is raised slightly by that air activated cylinder that look like a brake cylinder removing about 25% of its load weight below below 12 mph to add weight to the other two axles. Above that certain speed, either 12 or 15mph ( I have read both numbers) , the center axle carries its full load. The extra traction feature only works if needed when starting or dropping below that speed if the computer needs to add traction. That was the explanation in the GE information. It might be an option for the operator to select the extra traction during the start up, but that is not known at this time. The unit is an AC model from what I read and looks like any other unit except for that linkage and extra cylinder on each side frame. There is a good picture on Railpictures of the unit.
Almost all of their other units on the BNSF have been DC models for general use. They do have some AC models for coal train service purchased more recently. Maybe someone can fill us in on those units.
The picture below shows the extra cylinder and linkage from Photobucket by Ryan Slaton
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
timzEver see the TE-vs-speed curve for a GP50, in the 1980 or 1984 Cyc? It's the usual hyperbola up to 62-63 mph, then it drops more sharply-- presumably because the AR15 (?) has reached its voltage limit. In other words, at 70 mph an SD50 should outpull a GP50 on level track (assuming the same 70:17 gearing on both).
If "Cyc" refers to something called the Locomotive Cyclopedia, I've heard of it; but I've never actually seen one. I just use a number of CSXT charts. The curve for a GP50 with an AR15 alternator does drop off at around 63 mph; and the curve for an SD50 with an AR11 alternator doesn't drop off until around 66 mph. But when I compare a curve for a GP60 with an AR17 alternator against a curve for an SD60 with an AR11 alternator, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the curves. Perhaps that reflects the difference between the AR17 and the AR15; but I really have no idea.
I did notice that the curves for the AC6000CW, AC4400CW, and ES44AC all continue to 75 mph.
JayPotterI wonder if there's a difference in speed rating because at high speeds four motors produce less counter-electromotive force than six motors produce?
Ever see the TE-vs-speed curve for a GP50, in the 1980 or 1984 Cyc? It's the usual hyperbola up to 62-63 mph, then it drops more sharply-- presumably because the AR15 (?) has reached its voltage limit. In other words, at 70 mph an SD50 should outpull a GP50 on level track (assuming the same 70:17 gearing on both).
carnej1During the initial testing phase of the prototype ES44ACs(original 6 motor model), GE tested them (on CSX I believe) with software changes that uprated the units to 5000 HP.
I'm unfamiliar with EVO testing on roads other than CSXT; however the only ES44ACs tested on CSXT before CSXT received its own units were pre-production units that GE had sent to UP. Two of them, 5695 and 5696, tested on CSXT between August and December 2004. They were rated for 4400 horsepower at the time; however GE indicated that the ES44AC could be uprated to 5000 horsepower. So I'm not surprised that some units were tested elsewhere at that horsepower.
JayPotter The ES44C4 and ES44AC use the same model traction motor. I suppose that some modifications might have been made within that particular model; however the 36K TE limit wouldn't necessarily indicate that. That limit, which is intended to prevent excessive mechanical stress, is software-imposed, just like the standard 30K limit. The reason counter emf came to mind is that I was once told -- and I think it was in a discussion related to the ES44C4 -- that one western railroad -- I don't recall which one -- which operated SD40s or SD40-2s in high-speed service had a practice of cutting out one traction motor on each truck in order to increase speed by reducing counter emf. Being more interested in tractive effort than speed, I didn't pay as much attention to that part of the discussion as I probably should have.
The ES44C4 and ES44AC use the same model traction motor. I suppose that some modifications might have been made within that particular model; however the 36K TE limit wouldn't necessarily indicate that. That limit, which is intended to prevent excessive mechanical stress, is software-imposed, just like the standard 30K limit.
The reason counter emf came to mind is that I was once told -- and I think it was in a discussion related to the ES44C4 -- that one western railroad -- I don't recall which one -- which operated SD40s or SD40-2s in high-speed service had a practice of cutting out one traction motor on each truck in order to increase speed by reducing counter emf. Being more interested in tractive effort than speed, I didn't pay as much attention to that part of the discussion as I probably should have.
During the initial testing phase of the prototype ES44ACs(original 6 motor model), GE tested them (on CSX I believe) with software changes that uprated the units to 5000 HP. IIRC, the traction motors had no problems with this. IIRC, they are the same model motors as used on the AC6000....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I hesitate to make this discussion any more complicated than it already is; but I think that the issue on CAZEPHYR's mind relates more to speed than to tractive effort. To me, he seems to be (1) wondering why the four-motor 4400-hp ES44C4, which has the same gearing as six-motor 4400-hp EVOs, has a maximum speed rating of 75 mph instead of the 70-mph rating that seems to be standard for six-motor EVOs and (2) attributing that difference to the fact that the ES44C4 has more per-motor horsepower.
I wonder if there's a difference in speed rating because at high speeds four motors produce less counter-electromotive force than six motors produce?
CAZEPHYR I think we are talking about two different types of pull on a train....
I think we are talking about two different types of pull on a train....
So how many different ways can a locomotive pull on a train? 2? 5? 18? 100?
CAZEPHYR Almost any diesel has the starting TE to start a large train today on level track, but to keep it rolling at 70mph or so requries higher HP per axle. The same 4400 HP for the C4 as the regular DC model increases that HP per axle for a four unit model by a large amount. The C4 has 1100 HP per axle compared to 750 HP per axle for a normal six axle unit. The larger amount of HP per axle gives the traction motor higher power at the upper limits in revs, which relates to speed.
Almost any diesel has the starting TE to start a large train today on level track, but to keep it rolling at 70mph or so requries higher HP per axle. The same 4400 HP for the C4 as the regular DC model increases that HP per axle for a four unit model by a large amount. The C4 has 1100 HP per axle compared to 750 HP per axle for a normal six axle unit. The larger amount of HP per axle gives the traction motor higher power at the upper limits in revs, which relates to speed.
What??? That is absurd. No more video games for you until you have completed your physics homework.
timzCAZEPHYRthe four traction motors on the C4 can use more HP and give a higher torque for those motors at speed than the same HP distributed over six motors.That thinking would apply at any speed, not just 60+ mph. Do you think an A1A-A1A outpulls a C-C at, say, 20 mph? CAZEPHYRGE believes this and so did the BNSFHopefully they're not that dumb. Has either of them ever claimed the A1A-A1A would outpull a C-C?
CAZEPHYRthe four traction motors on the C4 can use more HP and give a higher torque for those motors at speed than the same HP distributed over six motors.
CAZEPHYRGE believes this and so did the BNSF
timzCAZEPHYR The C4 has 1100 HP per axle compared to 750 HP per axle for a normal six axle unit. The larger amount of HP per axle gives the traction motor higher power at the upper limits in revs, which relates to speed.So at 70 mph an ES44C4 would pull even better if we cut out two of its four motors, giving it 2200 HP per axle?
CAZEPHYR The C4 has 1100 HP per axle compared to 750 HP per axle for a normal six axle unit. The larger amount of HP per axle gives the traction motor higher power at the upper limits in revs, which relates to speed.
The information below is from the GE page.
Press ReleaseGE Transportation Unveils New Evolution® Series LocomotiveU.S.-manufactured locomotive is GE’s latest ecomaginationSM product; Reduces fuelconsumption by 17% and emissions by 70% vs. existing DC locomotivesErie, Penn. (May 18, 2009) – GE Transportation, a unit of GE (NYSE: GE), announced today that it hasintroduced the newest line of fuel efficient and low emissions Evolution® Series locomotives, the ModelES44C4. The new model, which is part of GE’s ecomaginationSM environmental program, delivers acleaner, faster, safer and more reliable alternative to the aging North American fleet of DC-poweredlocomotives. GE is building the new locomotive at its Pennsylvania manufacturing plants in Erie andGrove City.“Railroads helped build this country, and this locomotive is proof that manufacturing and heavyindustry can deliver the innovation that will drive economic growth,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, Presidentand CEO of GE Transportation. “This latest Evolution Series locomotive is an industry breakthrough,delivering a modern and efficient AC locomotive that replaces the older, less fuel efficient and lessemissions friendly, DC-powered models. It also provides a direct replacement option for the current sixaxle, 4400 HP locomotives being delivered today.”Added Simonelli: “By introducing advanced technology that requires less maintenance, reduces fuelconsumption and lowers emissions, we are providing our North American customers with anopportunity to upgrade their aging fleet with better performance – both on the rails and for theenvironment.”The new Evolution Series locomotive delivers significant performance improvement over existing DCpoweredlocomotives in three key areas:· Better environmental performance – Compared to older DC locomotives, Model ES44C4 usesup to 17 percent less fuel and reduces emissions by approximately 70 percent. Six hundred ofGE's latest locomotives can displace up to 800 older locomotives, translating to an annualreduction of more than 70 million gallons of fuel – the equivalent of taking 115,000 cars off theroad for a year. The overall annual emissions reduction from this displacement is estimated tobe 48,000 tons of nitrous oxide; 1,500 tons of particulate matter; and 1.0 million tons of carbondioxide, a major greenhouse gas.· Advanced technology – Model ES44C4 delivers sophisticated traction control technology withits patented Dynamic Weight Management System that continuously monitors traction at theaxles and automatically adapts to maximize performance on heavy trains. This system –similar to traction control on an automobile – limits wheel slip at start up, on inclines and in2adverse weather conditions, ensuring optimum performance and less wasted energy.
In addition, this latest Evolution locomotive has a higher top speed than traditional DC-powered locomotives.
· Greater reliability – Older, DC heavy-haul locomotives currently require frequent andexpensive maintenance to keep them running, which translates to significant time off thetracks instead of hauling freight. GE’s new AC motors have fewer parts to maintain andeliminate the electrical problems that hamper DC motors. As a result, they are easier tomaintain and provide a higher level of reliability, which will allow the new ES44C4 to spendmore time on the rails instead of in the shop for maintenance and repairs. Ultimately, this newplatform could replace the older generation of DC-powered locomotives in hauling our nation’sfreight.BNSF road testBurlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is the launch customer for this new model, and recently tookdelivery of 25 locomotives. Chris Roberts, BNSF Vice President of Mechanical and Value Engineeringsaid, “We are putting these locomotives through rigorous testing to determine the benefits of this newAC alternative, and the early results have been positive.”Evolution Series LocomotiveThe Evolution Series Locomotive, launched in 2002 and introduced into revenue service in 2005,represents a $400 million investment by GE over eight years. GE Transportation recently celebratedthe delivery of its 3000th Evolution Locomotive, a milestone validating this leading global platform.The Evolution Series Locomotive is 5% more fuel efficient and generates 40% lower emissions thanprevious locomotives. It saves approximately 300,000 gallons of fuel over its lifetime. In addition, theEvolution Series Locomotive is more than 6% more fuel efficient than GE’s closest competitor in NorthAmerica as validated by a nationally recognized, independent research institute in March 2009.The Evolution Series Locomotive is one of GE’s most prominent ecomaginationSM products.Ecomagination is a GE-wide initiative to help meet customer demand for more energy-efficientproducts.Evolution Series Locomotives currently are operating in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil,China, Mongolia, Australia, Kazakhstan and Egypt. Approximately 17,000 GE locomotives are in use inmore than 50 countries around the world. GE Transportation’s Evolution Series success story serves asa powerful reminder that free trade and open markets worldwide sustain businesses and employmentopportunities in North America and beyond.About GE TransportationEstablished more than 100 years ago, GE Transportation, a unit of General Electric Company (NYSE:GE), is a global technology leader and supplier to the railroad, marine, drilling, and mining and windindustries. GE Transportation provides freight and passenger locomotives, signaling andcommunications systems, information technology solutions, marine engines, motorized drive systemsfor mining trucks and drills, high-quality replacement parts and value added services. GETransportation is headquartered in Erie, Penn., and employs approximately 10,000 employeesworldwide. For more information visit www.getransportation.com.
CAZEPHYRAlmost any diesel has the starting TE to start a large train today on level track, but to keep it rolling at 70mph or so requries higher HP per axle.
CSXT's AC6000CWs are currently rated at 6000 horsepower; and the prior horsepower reductions were unrelated to adhesion problems. The only CSXT AC6000CWs that weigh 420,000 pounds are the three pre-production units. The other 114 units weigh 432,000 pounds. I expect that if those units actually were slippery when starting trains -- or under other circumstances -- CSXT would solve that problem by updating their adhesion-management software. They are still operating with their original software, which is several versions older than the version being used on the ES44C4s.
CAZEPHYR JayPotter CAZEPHYRCompare these units to the GE 6000 HP units that the UP and CSX purchased. The 6000 HP units had 1000 HP available to each axle and that did not work out so well. What problems were caused by the AC6000CW''s 1000-hp/axle? The CSX has programmed many of their 6000 HP units back to 4400HP using software to reduce the HP. I am not aware if all have been reprogrammed, but it is a work in progress. The original plan was to use two of the 6000HP units in place of three to four older diesels units depending on the requirements of the train. I don't know all of the problems, but 6000HP seemed to cause more problems than it was worth. The weight of the 6000HP diesels was almost the same as the 4400HP models, about 420,000 lbs. This probably made them slippery when starting heavy trains. I read recently that ballast is being added to some of the CSX 4400 HP units for heavy train service. The 6000 EMD units that the Union Pacific leased were junked. The new motor for the EMD 6000 HP units seemed to be part of the problem and EMD wanted out of the railroad business so they never really perfected the 6000HP product. CZ
JayPotter CAZEPHYRCompare these units to the GE 6000 HP units that the UP and CSX purchased. The 6000 HP units had 1000 HP available to each axle and that did not work out so well. What problems were caused by the AC6000CW''s 1000-hp/axle?
CAZEPHYRCompare these units to the GE 6000 HP units that the UP and CSX purchased. The 6000 HP units had 1000 HP available to each axle and that did not work out so well.
What problems were caused by the AC6000CW''s 1000-hp/axle?
The CSX has programmed many of their 6000 HP units back to 4400HP using software to reduce the HP. I am not aware if all have been reprogrammed, but it is a work in progress. The original plan was to use two of the 6000HP units in place of three to four older diesels units depending on the requirements of the train. I don't know all of the problems, but 6000HP seemed to cause more problems than it was worth. The weight of the 6000HP diesels was almost the same as the 4400HP models, about 420,000 lbs. This probably made them slippery when starting heavy trains. I read recently that ballast is being added to some of the CSX 4400 HP units for heavy train service.
The 6000 EMD units that the Union Pacific leased were junked. The new motor for the EMD 6000 HP units seemed to be part of the problem and EMD wanted out of the railroad business so they never really perfected the 6000HP product.
I have read that a number of the derated AC60s have been "re-rated" to 6,000 HP when the new Gevo diesel engines were installed. Both GE and EMD are still actively building 6,000 HP prime movers for China (and Brazil in the case of GE). Maybe they can work the bugs out, maybe not...
The CSX has programmed many of their 6000 HP units back to 4400HP using software to reduce the HP. I am not aware if all have been reprogrammed, but it is a work in progress.
timz CAZEPHYRThe way I understand the deal is, the higher HP per axle equals higher HP at speed for stack trains.Think the A1A-A1As would pull even better if we removed another motor on each truck? Probably you'll agree there's no reason to expect the A1A-A1A to exceed 4400 hp at any speed-- right? So you're figuring the C-C can't produce 4400 hp at, say, 60 mph? Why not?
CAZEPHYRThe way I understand the deal is, the higher HP per axle equals higher HP at speed for stack trains.
Probably you'll agree there's no reason to expect the A1A-A1A to exceed 4400 hp at any speed-- right? So you're figuring the C-C can't produce 4400 hp at, say, 60 mph? Why not?
I think we are talking about two different types of pull on a train. The first being starting a heavy train and the second keeping it rolling at higher speeds above 60mph. The reason the old E units used two motors and generators for only four powered axles was to provide higher HP at speed to each traction motor. Both types of GE units have 4400 total HP available at any speed. The six axle traction motored units will pull out drawbars quicker than a four axle unit, no doubt.
It is only a theory that GE and the BNSF is trying and it might not be the correct solution to the BNSF Transcon trains.
oltmanndThe unloading mechanism is for those rare occasions when the train's a little heavier than they figured or one of the other locomotives in the consist is a bit sick. It give a little extra oomph - which may be the difference between getting over the hill or not.
Another ES44C4 feature that may help in this kind of situation is the ability of each of its traction motors to produce a maximum of 36,000 pounds of tractive effort, rail conditions permitting, as opposed to the 30,000-pound maximum that each motor on a standard ES44AC can produce.
Well, most male dogs (not counting silly poodles or stupid Chiahuahuas) lift an axle when they want to better distrubute their body weight. The jury, methinks, is still out on the ES44C4s. One came thru here the other day, but I didn't pick up the 6600 number on the scanner in time, ergo no photo. 6609 was leading a mixed lash-up with Dash 9-44CWs. I figured most of them would be down on the "Transcon", but they are up here, on the "Hi-Line", too. Also, there are two pistons, on each side of the truck to lift the idler axle.
Hays -- Shelby, MT
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.