I have consistently heard that GE's capital financing department out muscles EMD's and pretty much anyone else and I've consistently heard that this was a problem for EMD and a problem CAT can help solve.
It may not be true, but it has been reported through many sources. The finance rate is important. If you're talking about a 200 million dollar order for a hundred AC locomotives, you better believe that the capital available to the lender is a big deal.
TIER 1 THRU 4 HAS BEEN A BOON TO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MFG . COs. CUTS OUT THE AFTER MARKET GUYS. ENVIOMENT HAS OUT TRUMPED FUEL ECONEMY & PERFORMANCE. THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL CLOSE TO HOME BUT THEY WOULD RATHER SEND THE MONEY OUT OF THE COUNTRY. IM HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP. YEAR SURE.
ADDITIONAL EMD VERSUS GE HOW IS THE GEVO250 ENGINE DOING. ANY PROBLIMS. THE EMD ENGINE IS HARD TO BEAT. BUT IM ALL FOR COMPITION.
YoHo1975 I have consistently heard that GE's capital financing department out muscles EMD's and pretty much anyone else and I've consistently heard that this was a problem for EMD and a problem CAT can help solve.
Historically that was true. However, GE Capital got caught in the credit crisis; essentially they were borrowing short and lending long. When their ability to issue commercial paper evaporated, they were in deep trouble. The Washington Post of 6-29-09 reported that $74 billion of TARP funds went toward shoring up GE Capital.
I suspect these days GE Capital may be operated in a somewhat more prudent manner, thus leveling the playing field.
GP40-2 GM didn't start tanking until 2 years after it sold off EMD.
GM didn't start tanking until 2 years after it sold off EMD.
Unless you have an unusual definition of "tanking", that statement is false. See Wikipedia: "GM profits struggled from 1981-83 following the late 1970s and early 1980s recession " and "The decade of the 1990s began with an economic recession, taking its inevitable toll on the automotive industry, and throwing GM into some of its worst losses." The numbers are available on the web at Fortune magazine, including a $4.5 billion dollar loss reported in 1992 and a $23.5 billion loss reported in 1993.
The Fortune 500 data (which ranks companies by revenue, not profits) also helps put in context the other years in the 1981-2004 period: even when profits weren't negative, they were a small percentage of revenues relative to companies with revenues of similar size. In 2002, for example, GM's profit was 0.3% compared with 3% for Walmart, 8% for Exxon Mobil and almost 11% for GE. Even in years when GM didn't actually lose money, it was under pressure from Wall Street to raise that percentage, and GM management responded by reducing investments in non-automotive operations and by seeking to sell them.
Exactly... GM has not been a healthy company for some time.
As for GE Capital. I had read there were some shady dealings and goings on as well. Perhaps that will level the playing field, but in either case, having a management team that is interested both emotionally and financially in making Locomotives is going to do wonders for EMD.
The Notion that GM abandoned EMD, because they were somehow technically incapable of competing is ludicrous. Their engineers weren't dummies.
Paul_D_North_Jr And the one technical observation I can make: The 'duty cycle' of loads and changing between the various throttle settings has to be radically different between Over-The Road trucks - changing every minute or two, main line locomotives - changing maybe every hour or so, and marine and stationary applications - running hours, maybe even days, on the same setting. Wouldn't that affect the emissions compliance ability of an engine, as I understand that a lot of the problem occurs when the engine is not at equilibrium, but is either 'spooling up' to its maximum speed - think of ALCo's 'turbo lag' - or slowing down from same ? - Paul North.
And the one technical observation I can make: The 'duty cycle' of loads and changing between the various throttle settings has to be radically different between Over-The Road trucks - changing every minute or two, main line locomotives - changing maybe every hour or so, and marine and stationary applications - running hours, maybe even days, on the same setting. Wouldn't that affect the emissions compliance ability of an engine, as I understand that a lot of the problem occurs when the engine is not at equilibrium, but is either 'spooling up' to its maximum speed - think of ALCo's 'turbo lag' - or slowing down from same ?
- Paul North.
When running down the line, usually there are constant throttle modulations, to maintain speed over the territory. Some places are put it at Notch 8 and hammer along (especially when underpowered, I guess network speed doesn't matter to some outfits), but many lines require almost constant attention to notching up and down to keep the speed.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
I run both EMD SD70s and the GE Dash-9s and Evos. In my opinion I have to say the 2-cycle 710s sound smooth as butter compared to the 4-cycle GEs which sound like an old washing machine. I'm glad to see EMD making a comeback and finding a great partner to compete with the mega corporation of General Electric. If they really want to hit one out of the park they should submit opinions and recommendations from the engineers that run their products everyday about what makes a great locomotive.
See I want to know if the Test Results EMD is getting is Test Cell Data where they ae Steady RPM. Or are they varying the RPM constantly like what the Real World is like. See CAT Cummins and Detroit heck ALL the OTR boys thought they had the EPA crap figured out based on the TEST cells. Then they hit the REal world and were like OH CRAP we did not know that the THrottle was moving going down the road all the time or there is times were the engine maybe spinning 1400 RPM but only loaded up to 15% of max power. See the Real World makes the Test Cell look Stupid. So they started to have problems left and right. Were did they have issues with the EGR valves since they were having to open and close more often than the Engineers that designed the motors thought they should.
ED;
I'm sure that the CAT engines satisfied the EPA test procedure in order to be allowed to manufacture the engines in the first place. If your having problems now probably your not following the EPA / CAT owners manual. Remember the EPA bureaucrats are self appointed geniuses on how the world should work and your not. I suggest you take it up with your congressman.
The EPA load diagram for line haul locomotives is quite different than for switching cycle. For instance: for line haul you run in run 8 about 18% of the time; in switching its only not quite 1% and most of the running is at low power or at idle. The genset loco's take advantage of the switching cycle by using over rated engines very little at war-emergency-power and shut down at idle.
Counting announced orders for both builders but not yet built. North American market only;
GE - 184 locomotives
EMD - 150 locomotives
not all of these are for 2011 delivery.
Union Pacific has announced they will order 100 locomotives, but no builder breakdown has been announced. BNSF will certainly order something, but nothing is known yet.
Creepycrank in the OTR field the Detroit 60 Series Cummins ISX and CATs C-13 and 15 lines all had a B-50 service life of 1 million miles. That means you could expect 1 million miles BEFORE you should have to Overhaul 50% of the motors they Produced or even do a Major Repair. The others that failed 90% of the time was due to the Owner Not Maintaining the Engine.
Then EGR's were shoved down the OTR Truckers Throats and those same Engines went froma B-50 of 1 Million to 500K miles. We lost 50% of our Engine life with one added omponenant. Cats Acert which had Turbo OCmpoundeds on it was even Worse it was a B-50 of 400K These are Real World Numbers from Companys that run them day in day out. Why were they failing so bad the EGR Valves would break in the Open Position and then their Coolers would leak letting Coolant into the OIL what happens when you get Coolant in Motor Oil. With the Cats Acert even though it did not have EGR on it they would Blow the Second of the TUrbos and ingest parts of that into the Motro via the Cylinder Head. Why do you think Carriers like Schiender and Heartland Did not Order Trucks for Years they were waiting for all the Crap from the EPA to sort itself out then they replaced all their equipment at one time.
When that EGR Valve Breaks off in a Turboed motor all kinds of Havoc is Created it starts dumping more exhaust back into the motor than it supposed to and creates alot more soot loading in the Passages of the EGR Valves. Companies anymore are simply Disconnecting the EGR Valves since the fine is Cheaper than the REPIARS in OTR trucking. To replace an EGR Valve on an ISX it costs 3500 dollars in PARTS alone and takes 3 days to do it.. Now what happened to the Drivers that DC their EGR Valves the Engine went back to getting 7 MPG and became the Reliable things they were BEFORE EGR was FORCED ONTO THEM. All this from one system that some Tree Hugger in the EPA wanted on so he can feel good driving his Hybrid Priuis to work in.
ED,
it is fascinating reading your posts regarding the trucking industry and the way the motors were played with resulting in all kinds of havoc. It just goes to show us all that it always looks good on paper. It will be interesting to see what route the railroads take to meet the EPA standards.
In the above article you say that the trucks go back to 7 MPG when the EGR valve is removed. How many MPG did the trucks use before with the EGR valve being used? Also, if one gets twice the mileage, ie uses half the fuel does one also not reduce the pollution by 50%???? Some things just do not make sense, but then again I am not a engineer, just a consumer.
Thank you
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
With teh EGR in the OTR they were lucky to see 5 MPG when they are hooked up. Disconnect it and they Jump 2 MPG or More. I am going off of Drivers that I know that have done it Personally all O/O that have to pay their Fuel Costs all have ISX motors all pull Flatbeds and run Hard. Why do you think Schiender and Heartland bought so many trucks in 2003 2006 2010 they are trying to avoid the Next Gen o fEPA BS Heartland bought enough Prostars to REPLACE the entire fleet and PAID FOR THEM IN CASH. 3500 trucks at 100K each and paid for them all with Cash.
The EPA thinks what they are doing is perfect but there is not much Differance between any Diesel Motor all it is how big the sucker is and what your pumping into it. So the Larger it is if your Lose 37% Feul Economy like we did whent hey shove EGR on to the Motors and this is Real World not some Test cell crap since we also had the Test cell motors also before they are released. The 710 burns 210 gallon an hour at Notch 8 IIRC that will increase to 289 GPH. The GE EVO Motor at 200 GPH will be up to 275 GPH and all they did was add one system to it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.