Ironeagle2006 ...Their Heavy Mining Trucks already are aroun 4-5K HP use an AC Drive System and run 24/7 except for Scheduled Maintance and in all types of Weather.
...Their Heavy Mining Trucks already are aroun 4-5K HP use an AC Drive System and run 24/7 except for Scheduled Maintance and in all types of Weather.
The engineering requirements for a locomotive's electrical system are a whole different ball of wax than what's needed for a mining truck. If it was that easy, CAT would have done it by now.
Fuel vaporization is the answer. I'm sure most are unfamiliar with this process. No need for non-sense exhaust after-treatment hardware, throw all that; EGR, DEF, DPF garbage out the window. Emissions reduction mandates, another fluke for dummies to pay more money to operate. For as long as man has been burning hydrocarbons, now its an issue? It was never an issue in the first place! Nobody see's the sublimity of the situation. So keep believing in that horse hockey know as greenhouse gases, and other money scam's.
GP40-2 Ironeagle2006 ...Their Heavy Mining Trucks already are aroun 4-5K HP use an AC Drive System and run 24/7 except for Scheduled Maintance and in all types of Weather. The engineering requirements for a locomotive's electrical system are a whole different ball of wax than what's needed for a mining truck. If it was that easy, CAT would have done it by now.
That may well be true but anyone who think's CAT is just playing in the locomotive market and will be reluctant to make a massice R&D investment underestimates them...
I also question the implication that diesel electric systems for offroad applications are not applicable to the rail industry: If that is the case that why is Siemens (who suppiled the AC traction components for all of EMD's AC locomotives up until relatively recently) a market leader in both business segments?
I do realize however, Caterpillar is a newcomer to designing and building AC traction systems in house so they are having to play catch up with GE.
As far as the emission control systems go, I realized that there might be an issue with the non -urea system when Navstar recently announced that they are stopping production of their OTR engines (using a similiar non-additive based system) and the company is having huge financial issues because of it(interestingly the Navstar engines are based on CAT's discontinued OTR engine line, but NOT so the emissions control system which was NAVSTAR's own design)..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
GP40-2 I wonder who knew a year ago that EMD's taxpayer funded (wasted) "research" on EGR only 2 cycle Tier 4 wasn't going to fly...Oh yea, me. LOL. Time for CAT to get that new 4 cycle locomotive engine they have been working on ready for production, complete with the Pig Pee tanks.
I wonder who knew a year ago that EMD's taxpayer funded (wasted) "research" on EGR only 2 cycle Tier 4 wasn't going to fly...Oh yea, me. LOL.
Time for CAT to get that new 4 cycle locomotive engine they have been working on ready for production, complete with the Pig Pee tanks.
Its not actually 'pig pee' but i think you said that in jest anyway
carnej1 As far as the emission control systems go, I realized that there might be an issue with the non -urea system when Navstar recently announced that they are stopping production of their OTR engines (using a similiar non-additive based system) and the company is having huge financial issues because of it(interestingly the Navstar engines are based on CAT's discontinued OTR engine line, but NOT so the emissions control system which was NAVSTAR's own design)..
If I remember correctly from the reports, the only MaxxForce engine to be based on a Cat engine is the MaxxForce 15, the block is based off of Cat's C-15, everything else is Navistar.
Based on the rumbling I have been hearing, Navistar seems to be having more warranty issues with the MaxxForce engines then the other manufacturers, but all the makers have had sharp increases in warranty claims.
Was a news item in the October Trains that EMD's new demonstrators have one inverter per axle, matching GE's system......
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
CPM500
Interesting comments about EMD.
The web site below has pictures of the SD59MX and the 9900 special version around Roseville and on the mainline.
CZ
http://s806.photobucket.com/albums/yy345/Trainsforyou/UP%20SD59MX%20Diesels/?albumview=slideshow
rvos1979 Being an OTR driver with one of the new DPF + DEF trucks, allow me to throw in my nickel's worth: Considering that the last manufacturer of truck engines has admitted that they cannot meet emissions with EGR alone, and is adding DEF to their MaxxForce engine line, that should give the locomotive builders an idea of what they are getting into if they are trying to meet Tier 4. My 2012 Kenworth with the Cummins engine has exceeded my expectations so far, mainly in the area of fuel economy, getting about 1MPG better compared to the previous generations. DEF has not been as much of an issue as I thought it was going to be, I fill the tank about once a week, it lasts about 3000 miles. After reading the engine operator's manual, though, I do have to pay attention where I decide to do a parked regeneration of the DPF, as I have an asphalt burner exhaust (yep, the exhaust gets hot enough during a regen to actually set fire to asphalt). Getting back to Locomotives, should be interesting to see what the life cycle of the DPF on these engines are, and the costs of repair and replacement, both in time and money. The railroads may find out that in the long run, the costs of setting up DEF fueling at all refueling points on the system may outweigh the costs of constantly changing out coked up EGR valves and plugged DPFs. Cummins may wind up getting a chunk of the locomotive market yet, one of it's bigger advantages is that it manufactures their own DPFs and DEF catalysts for its engines in house, rather than contracted out. My company has hauled a few loads of these, the racks they are strapped down to are heavier than the parts themselves......
Being an OTR driver with one of the new DPF + DEF trucks, allow me to throw in my nickel's worth:
Considering that the last manufacturer of truck engines has admitted that they cannot meet emissions with EGR alone, and is adding DEF to their MaxxForce engine line, that should give the locomotive builders an idea of what they are getting into if they are trying to meet Tier 4. My 2012 Kenworth with the Cummins engine has exceeded my expectations so far, mainly in the area of fuel economy, getting about 1MPG better compared to the previous generations. DEF has not been as much of an issue as I thought it was going to be, I fill the tank about once a week, it lasts about 3000 miles. After reading the engine operator's manual, though, I do have to pay attention where I decide to do a parked regeneration of the DPF, as I have an asphalt burner exhaust (yep, the exhaust gets hot enough during a regen to actually set fire to asphalt).
Getting back to Locomotives, should be interesting to see what the life cycle of the DPF on these engines are, and the costs of repair and replacement, both in time and money. The railroads may find out that in the long run, the costs of setting up DEF fueling at all refueling points on the system may outweigh the costs of constantly changing out coked up EGR valves and plugged DPFs.
Cummins may wind up getting a chunk of the locomotive market yet, one of it's bigger advantages is that it manufactures their own DPFs and DEF catalysts for its engines in house, rather than contracted out. My company has hauled a few loads of these, the racks they are strapped down to are heavier than the parts themselves......
Thanks for the input. How much more has this new 2012 truck cost with the changes over the previous model? I was wondering what the extra cost was and if this is going to be sufficient to meet the new Tier regulations for trucks.
CAZEPHYR Thanks for the input. How much more has this new 2012 truck cost with the changes over the previous model? I was wondering what the extra cost was and if this is going to be sufficient to meet the new Tier regulations for trucks. CZ
CZ: I don't know what the difference between the 2007 and 2010 emission models was, but on the day I received my truck, I had a chat with the president of the company I drive for. He told me I was driving a $130,000 tractor, I promptly said 'ouch!!'..........
The bottom line is this: GE has a technical solution for Tier IV that they can sell to the railroads immediately. Apparently, EMD does not...
Ironeagle2006 I am an O/O so I would be able to Answer that Question for you. I last bought a New Truck in 2001 and I keep them for about 11 Years I paid 110K Plus FET of 4% for a Fully Loaded W900L with a 86 Studio Sleeper VIT interior with a 550 Cat and all the Bells and Whistles I could get on her. I just Ordered her Replacement 2 Weeks ago and about had a Heart Attack when I got the Price I ordered a T660 need to save on Fuel with a Truck Payment and a Cummins ISX as CAT is out of the OTR industry 86 inch Sleeper with all the Bells and Whistles is now going to set me back close to 170 Grand plus my FET if I had gotten a Freightliner Glider Kit with a Pre Emmisions Motor in it I would have saved 60K and also since it is considered a Reman Unit there is NO FET on it. So for the Privilage of running Certain States like NY CA NJ and others I have to pay 60K more for my Truck and Pray like hell the Engine and other Emissions stuff is Reliable on it.
I am an O/O so I would be able to Answer that Question for you. I last bought a New Truck in 2001 and I keep them for about 11 Years I paid 110K Plus FET of 4% for a Fully Loaded W900L with a 86 Studio Sleeper VIT interior with a 550 Cat and all the Bells and Whistles I could get on her. I just Ordered her Replacement 2 Weeks ago and about had a Heart Attack when I got the Price I ordered a T660 need to save on Fuel with a Truck Payment and a Cummins ISX as CAT is out of the OTR industry 86 inch Sleeper with all the Bells and Whistles is now going to set me back close to 170 Grand plus my FET if I had gotten a Freightliner Glider Kit with a Pre Emmisions Motor in it I would have saved 60K and also since it is considered a Reman Unit there is NO FET on it.
So for the Privilage of running Certain States like NY CA NJ and others I have to pay 60K more for my Truck and Pray like hell the Engine and other Emissions stuff is Reliable on it.
Ouch!!! I knew that the cost would be expensive but that cost has to make your profit smaller.
That is a big increase even with the normal inflation!!
What is next? He has mandated the new EPA rules to increase the car mileage to 54.5 in just a few years and that will eliminate the rest of the home town cars and possibly trucks also. Do the long haul trucks have to meet any mileage numbers? Good luck with the new truck!
CPM500 The bottom line is this: GE has a technical solution for Tier IV that they can sell to the railroads immediately. Apparently, EMD does not...
The GE was announced but I have not read anything about it being approved or tested. Is it ready for marketing to sell it??? I noticed it has a small hump on its back also! Sort of a mini camel.
CZ: We do have new GHG (GreenHouse Gas) emission rules that take effect in 2014 and 2017 (I think), where they want the fuel economy bumped up. What I had heard was that they want to make the Smart Way volunteer program mandatory. I know Freightliner had an experimental rig running around that was getting 10mpg loaded, not sure about any other truck maker getting that right now.....
Ironeagle: So far, with my T700, I'm averaging 7 to 7.5 mpg loaded, I have 120,000 on the meter now, no issues with the powertrain at all. The rest of the truck, not so good, have a few things I need to have fixed by Kenworth (and they still can't figure out how I'm breaking the dust covers off the rear drive axle shocks every 25,000 miles!)....
Oh, and don't spec the composite drums, they warp badly......
Randy
Interesting about the mileage. I knew it was around 7 or so but if I remember correctly, that figure would have to increase a lot to meet the new standards for future years. 10 mpg would be extremely good for the trucks today, but I would guess that experimental rig getting 10 is advertising better days rather than real mileage. Under perfect conditions on flat land at 50 maybe. I did not realize they were using composite drums on the drivers and front wheels also?
The railroads have the same problem with getting fuel mileage since they are using run 6 unless the dispatcher allows the Z train to go faster. I hear them asking on the scanner if they have permission to go faster or do they have to stay in the conserve fuel mode.
I watched the 9900 today come into the yard with two other units and you can hear the motor noise over the exhaust of that unit. That unit really does not make exhaust noise and that system must cut back on HP also.
CZ. CAFE fuel regs.
The current CAFE requirements will not hurt the domestic automakers and the technology to meet the 35mpg fleet average already exists. These regulations are good for the industry and they also create engineering jobs. It is very likely that if we had the current 35 MPG CAFE regs in place in 2006 that GM and Chrysler would not have needed the bailouts because consumers wouldn't have have purchased more efficient foreign cars when the price of gas hit $4.00 a gallon in 2006.
Please do not listen to the scare tactics because the people spreading those rumors do not understand the technology, the finer points of the regulations or the auto industry. You can be assured that pickups and large cars are not going to disappear but they will get much more fuel efficient. Ford and Chrysler make most of their profit from the sale of pickups so they aren't going away, ever.
The regulations also do not affect vehicles already on the road so don't believe the lies that the government will confiscate your pickups and older cars.
The proposed 50+MPG CAFE regulations don't take effect until 2025, if they take effect at all.
Many of the foreign automakers don't meet the current regs and those cars are still for sale in the US because the automaker simply passes on the gas guzzler tax to the consumers that they happily pay to own a Porsche, Ferrari, Rolls or Lamborghini.
IronEagle. Class 7-8 trucks are different than street cars. I assume that you had to pass a smog test for the year of production, but evidently that isn't enough for CARB. California emission regs are weird.
Ive been out of the heavy truck industry for a few years but I did spend some time working for Volvo doing production engineering on their vocational trucks.
7.9 MPG for a W900L is doing quite well, especially with a large Cat. Congratulations on your new T660.
The amount of hoopla surrounding the introduction of 2015 indicates (to me, at least) that GE will be taking orders on the design.
When (if) the design was still in the test mule stage, it would not have been publicized.
The UP 9900's were completed last year...and received no publicity until recently. This says something...
The forthcoming fleet of 30 GE demos (probably for validation testing) also speaks volumes...
CPM500 The amount of hoopla surrounding the introduction of 2015 indicates (to me, at least) that GE will be taking orders on the design. When (if) the design was still in the test mule stage, it would not have been publicized. The UP 9900's were completed last year...and received no publicity until recently. This says something... The forthcoming fleet of 30 GE demos (probably for validation testing) also speaks volumes...
True, the GE design is probably firmed up and will be tested on railroads prior to 2015. The 9900 is a rebuild of the SD60M units so they can be used for local service in California, at least for now. The 9900 received the 12 cylinder 710 motor with heavy duty cooling along with the computer controls to validate this exhaust scrubber type of design. This unit has been running the Redding local for the past three weeks now along with two other standard SD59MX rebuilds.
It will be interesting to find out if a 4 stroke motor will be installed in another test unit by EMD to meet the new regulations for 2015. There is one SD70Ace being retrofitted also from what I have read.
The SD59MXs have been coming out over the past year, 9900 was not among them..or at least, not as a Tier 4 test bed. That is a new development and that is why they just started with the hoopla.
The EMD ECO rebuilds themselves have gotten press as well, but they aren't new, so they get less press.
YoHo1975 The SD59MXs have been coming out over the past year, 9900 was not among them..or at least, not as a Tier 4 test bed. That is a new development and that is why they just started with the hoopla. The EMD ECO rebuilds themselves have gotten press as well, but they aren't new, so they get less press. All 25 seem to be an experiment with the 9900 being modified with a special scrub type exhaust. It will be on display this weekend at Sacramento for the 150 anniversary party at the CSRM along with a tunnel motor several F units and the 844. I don't believe the 844 will pass the Tier anything but we certainly like it.
This is the press release they presented with the 9900 viewing.
Union Pacific Railroad investing $20 million to test emissions-reducing locomotive technology
Union Pacific Railroad is investing $20 million to test new technology designed to reduce diesel emissions from freight locomotives in California. A series of 25 experimental locomotives will be based in two Union Pacific rail yards in California as part of a rigorous test of emissions-reducing technologies.
The investment represents Union Pacific’s latest effort to further reduce emissions and move closer to the U.S. EPA’s Tier 4 locomotive emissions standards for new locomotives starting in 2015. The experimental locomotives are intermediate line-haul units, with an operating range of approximately 200 miles, and will be used exclusively in California.
“The testing and analysis of these locomotives is part of an ongoing initiative at Union Pacific to develop and use technology in pursuit of emissions reductions,” said Mike Iden, Union Pacific general director, car and locomotive engineering. “This effort is emblematic of our continued commitment to provide environmentally responsible freight transportation.”
One locomotive in this series of 25 will be based in Roseville to test the combined use of exhaust gas recirculation, diesel oxidation catalyst and diesel particulate filtering. In testing the combined benefits of these three technologies on one freight locomotive, this Union Pacific unit is the closest an Electro-Motive Diesel locomotive has come to achieving Tier 4 standards. The move toward Tier 4 is made up of a 45 percent reduction in the oxides of nitrogen emissions compared to the current Tier 2 standard and an 85 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions based on preliminary analysis. Union Pacific and the California Air Resources Board will jointly analyze the emissions reductions capability of this locomotive over the next 18 months.
Nine of the experimental units fitted with the EGR technology are based in the Colton area and will be tested through operations in the southern California region.
The remaining 15 experimental units will work out of Roseville for operations in northern California. These locomotives have the capability to be retrofitted with EGR and other emissions reduction technologies as testing progresses. The Proposition 1B – Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program is partially funding this set of locomotives.
Testing on all 25 locomotives is scheduled to last through 2014.
In partnering with EMD to develop these experimental locomotives, Union Pacific continues working to upgrade and improve the fuel-efficiency of its locomotive fleet. Since 2000, Union Pacific has invested approximately $6.56 billion to purchase locomotives that meet the EPA’s updated emissions guidelines and an additional $200 million to upgrade older locomotives in the fleet to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency. That’s nearly 3,800 new, fuel-efficient locomotives in all. These purchases allow Union Pacific to retire older, less-efficient locomotives, thus improving overall fleet fuel economy and reducing Union Pacific’s emissions rate.
I was actually told by a Roseville employee that additional units are already down in Colton, but I'm confused as to what this group of 25 is. The SD59MX isn't experimental and at least initially they came out of EMD "stock." Is 9900 part of a new set of 25 units? Or are they retrofitting all of the 59MXs with experimental equipment?
I think that this project is mostly to humor CARB. All the equipment being evaluated is provided by various vendors trying to sell their product. EMD's participation is probably only to provide drawings so that the equipment will fit and to observe the results. UP probably feels that CARB will require that all locomotives no matter how old will will have to meet the latest emission requirements. I would like to see how this would work on a really worn out GP38.
YoHo1975 I was actually told by a Roseville employee that additional units are already down in Colton, but I'm confused as to what this group of 25 is. The SD59MX isn't experimental and at least initially they came out of EMD "stock." Is 9900 part of a new set of 25 units? Or are they retrofitting all of the 59MXs with experimental equipment?
The 9900 is one of the twenty five SD60M models that were modified by EMD for the Union Pacific with new computer controlled 710 motors. They also got new radiators with increased capacity and new crash resistant fuel tanks along with other modifications. They are now called SD59MX models since the 710 motor has 3200 HP and is a twelve cylinder version. The 9900 was selected for the special scubber type exhaust set up to test the experimental set up and is labeled as experimental. Who knows what the results are at this time.
It may be a public relations move but the rebuilt units are used for local runs on the FRC and the Redding Local here in Northern California.
CAZEPHYR YoHo1975 I was actually told by a Roseville employee that additional units are already down in Colton, but I'm confused as to what this group of 25 is. The SD59MX isn't experimental and at least initially they came out of EMD "stock." Is 9900 part of a new set of 25 units? Or are they retrofitting all of the 59MXs with experimental equipment? The 9900 is one of the twenty five SD60M models that were modified by EMD for the Union Pacific with new computer controlled 710 motors. They also got new radiators with increased capacity and new crash resistant fuel tanks along with other modifications. They are now called SD59MX models since the 710 motor has 3200 HP and is a twelve cylinder version. The 9900 was selected for the special scubber type exhaust set up to test the experimental set up and is labeled as experimental. Who knows what the results are at this time. It may be a public relations move but the rebuilt units are used for local runs on the FRC and the Redding Local here in Northern California. CZ
Thanks, but I know what an SD59MX is, you didn't answer the question AT ALL.
The Press release talks about 25 experimental units. What are those units?
The SD59MX order consists of 24 not in any way experimental EMD SD32ECO units. Those ARE NOT EXPERIMENTAL. The 9900 is the ONLY EXPERIMENTAL UNIT.
So, is the press release being factious or are more experimental units coming?
The EGR piping on these things severely compromises power assembly access.
Presumably, since the EGR can be installed later, it can also be removed later if it doesn't work out. Since without the EGR it's just a standard Tier 2 V12 710 under the hood.
Does anyone know if the ECO kit can be set up for Tier 3 the way the SD70 16-710s can?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.