If they do produc new locomotives they will be mad at Munci Indiana. good news for us foamers with a burning desire to see forgien power!
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
With a higher gear ratio enabling the unit to run at higher speeds this engine would make a great long distance passenger model. EMD locomotives load faster than GE locomotives making them quicker off the starting line and less likely to lose a lot of speed coming out of dips. If it turns out successful on the BNSF it may be preferred power on their intermodal trains where superior train velocity means everything.
XC Tower At the risk of sounding stupid (won't be the first or last), but do these units have four "B" trucks per unit or the same two "C" trucks as the GE's but with just a different unpowered axle? XC Tower
At the risk of sounding stupid (won't be the first or last), but do these units have four "B" trucks per unit or the same two "C" trucks as the GE's but with just a different unpowered axle?
XC Tower
Two trucks with three axles each, just like GE. Except on the GE locomotive it is the middle axle on each truck that is unpowered, while on the EMD it is the axle closest to the fuel tank.
a#1beau EMD will never -- repeat N-E-V-E-R -- regain its dominance as number 1 diesel locomotive builder again. GE has already sworn to this. In thirteen more years, GE will have been the market leader for as long as EMD ever was in all its history. Thank you, Roger Smith and all your early 80's GM cronies for the death of EMD as we once knew it.
EMD will never -- repeat N-E-V-E-R -- regain its dominance as number 1 diesel locomotive builder again. GE has already sworn to this. In thirteen more years, GE will have been the market leader for as long as EMD ever was in all its history. Thank you, Roger Smith and all your early 80's GM cronies for the death of EMD as we once knew it.
Oh, I don't know.... I remember when Brand X was Brand X for a reason. What goes around, comes around, they say. Nothing would surprise me.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Your math is a bit off. EMD was the market leader in the diesel locomotive market until the 1980's (Only being beat even then by a slight amount in 1983, 87, and 88 with EMD leading the rest of the decade and often by a substanial margin). Since then, EMD has came close to GE on at least a couple of occasions including being just a few units away a decade ago or so.
Generally 1989 seems to be viewed as when EMD's reign ended as market leader ended. That's 65 or so years of dominance with internal combusion rail power to GE's 24 or so years of dominance. And even if we just look at the introduction of the 567 at the end of the 1930's when EMC/EMD really hit the bigtime, that's a run of 50 years as the dominant leader in this marketplace.
EMD being a distant 2nd was at one time unthinkable. It's hardly a sure thing that GE's reign as market leader is permanent.
The efficiency of DC transmission is 85% and the same locomotive with AC will be about 94% so in high speed service where they burn a lot of fuel it will save a lot of money.
If I recall correctly, the initial order for C4s was 10 as well. So that number isn't surprising.
My surprise was more the apparent change in attitude about EMD in general. BNSF made it clear they had no use for EMD's DC products for over 15 years now. Clearly the move to all AC is changing that.
More than likely BNSF is testing these units in direct comparison with the GE C4 units. They will look at a number of factors to determine future orders. You can bet if the tractive effort, rail adhesion and fuel consumption are on par or superior with the GE C4 models, BNSF will be back for more.
On a side note I just had the chance to operate two of our new Norfolk Southern SD70ACe units on a loaded 60 car ethanol train. I was very impressed with their performance on this 8,000 ton train compared to running the same train with a couple of GE DC engines. I also appreciated that they had an isolated cab which made them as quiet as a GE on the inside, something our M-2 locos lack.
TBG
The Trains news piece made it sound like it was a copy of the GE concept. Interesting if accurate that they're not raising an axle.
That could mean savings, both in initial cost and maintenance expense over the years with a simpler truck arrangement (And possibly even easier conversion to CC units if desired in the future?).
For a road that is already experienced and like's EMD's AC products that has dropped the cash for 300 hundred examples of the comparable GE model to this new EMD concept over the past few years, I don't see anything to be puzzled about here. This looks more than worthy of exploration on the part of BNSF.
Let's hope it succeeds. EMD is still pretty far behind GE in orders. If I'm not mistaken, there are only about 1,500 of EMD's SD70ACe/M-2's rolling around out there worldwide while there are more ES44AC/C4/DC's than that just on BNSF's roster alone.
From the picture linked to in Loconotes, the bogies look to be the standard HT-CR or whatever the base designation is for the modern truck.
Also, from Tom Mack on loco notes
It has to do with the design of the EMD HTC and HTC-R truck. When the truck flexes under load (torque) you actually get better adhesion with the B1 design vs. A1A on this particular truck.Also, note that the wheel arrangement would be as stated in the Trains magazine article, B1-1B, not B1-B1 as stated in some earlier posts. This is becuase all the traction motors face inward toward the fuel tank on EMD C-C locomotives using the HTC and HTC-R trucks. So it is the inboard motor that is removed to create the B1 truck, and since the trucks mount in opposite directions at each end of the locomotive you get a B1-1B wheel arrangement.
The first SD70ACe-P4 has hit the road, EMD test locomotive 4223 has been photographed after being released from Muncie.
EMD did build some WDP-4GT46PA's with the B1-1B wheel arraignment in 2001 for the Indian Railways so they do have some experience with it.
Protecting EMD? What EMD: GM/EMD or Caterpillar/Progressive/EMD? Cat-P-EMD just reported hugely improved earnings.
The B1-1B does give me pause-time. Would any steam locomotive with an 042-240 arrangement been designed? The non-driving axles guiding ability would seem likely......Locomotive engr, not a mech engr.
Also, minutely, saving a little, .very little rail abrasion would probably occur with the inboad powered axles placement.
But what sense does that make?
EMD doesn't seem to be hurting for orders. Union Pacific, KCS, NS and Canadian National place orders with them. Why would BNSF feel the need to protect a second source for a source that doesn't appear to be struggling to generate orders.
To say nothing of the overseas and south american orders.
More likely they want to give EMD enough business so that they stay in business. The Class I carriers want some competition for their purchases and will make some 'mercy purchases' just to keep a company in business even though they may not be the preferred provider of the product.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
All the information I've seen says that the EMD system will not raise and lower the idler axle.
Also, as for not favoring GE over EMD. First I made it clear I was speaking of Non-AC units so Stack train power. BNSF has made it clear since the merger that it had not interest in EMD for this purpose.
Secondly, even ignoring this, BNSF currently rosters 2900+ Dash 9-44CW/ES44DC/AC4400CW/ES44AC. That doesn't include the 4 axle GE units or the Dash 8s.
More than 2200 of those are DC units. Dash 9s and ES44DCs.
They roster 1159 EMD SD70MAC/ACe/SD75s of those, many of the MACs are stored and only 102 of them are DC units regularly used on stack trains.
The facts simply do not show that BNSF doesn't favor GE. They absolutely favor GE.
And that makes it a big change that they would look to EMD for general freight power.
All I can think is that EMD has either changed pricing, they really really like their ACes or, and I find this most likely, They've always preferred EMD's AC units and now that they're going all AC, their preference for GE DC units falls away.
They'd still be raising an axle on each truck, just not the center axle. So I don't see what that has to do with the superiority of one truck design over another. I'm not an engineer so I won't venture to guess why they went with this design, but it's safe to assume it's being done because EMD feels like the axle closest to the fuel tank on each truck is the best choice to leave unpowered.
I think it's safe to assume the trucks will be similar to those that other SD70Ace's roll on, just with the necessary modifcations (Just like GE's C4 model). BNSF has only recieved SD75M's and SD75I's for EMD DC units.
BNSF has over 1000 SD70MAC's/SD70Ace's. And they're also pleased with GE's C4 project. Not a shock that they'd be curious enough to place an order for a comparable EMD model that is largely identical to their several hundred SD70Ace's already rolling around the system. If they're unhappy with their performance and decide to stick exclusively with GE's C4's for new orders, they can probably easily convert them into full fledged CC's without much trouble.
You typically see a big company like BNSF trying to keep the builders honest and encourage them to keep innovating. A small order for a new model utilizing a concept that intrigues BNSF that has a high degree of parts commonality with existing units on the roster isn't too big of a shock (10 units and 4 conversions isn't anything Earth shattering on a roster the size of BNSF's). Will be interesting to see if this leads to large orders on a road with 1700 or so C44-9W's, over 700 ES44DC's, and 300 C4's for the roles this design is intended to fill.
My trains subscription expired so I can't get to the newswire, but yesterday it was announced that EMD is making a new model of the 70ACe to compete with the GE C4 models.
The difference is that these models will use B1-1B trucks.
Anyone know why? is bogie engineer still around? I've anecdotally heard that it's because EMD's radial truck is so much better that they don't need to raise and lower that center axle, but that doesn't explain why a B1-1B makes sense vs. A1A. Plus, the Radial truck costs more, these could be the rigid truck.
I'm assuming that the bogie itself is no different than the current model. Is this true or is it a new bogie?
Also, BNSF bought these C4s to get off of DC locos in their non-drag trains aka stack and general freight. BNSF and it's predecessors haven't bought an EMD for this purpose since ATSF's SD75s have they? They've been GE only for all but Coal for over 15 years. I wonder what has changed to make them bring EMD back into this?
Maybe as simple as a cost issue? This change brings the cost down. Or maybe EMD is being more aggressive in pricing (which would dovetail nicely into the fight over salaries at the factory.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.