Why have we not seen any SD80ACe's built for American rails?
Simple-EMD has not received any orders from American customers.
CPM-500
I think what you are really asking is why haven't any of the Big Class 1 railroads in North America have ordered any of that model?
At the moment the industry seems to have standardized on 4300-4400 HP AC drive locomotives as standard. Part of that preference may be problems that occurred with higher horsepower units, particularly the 6000 HP SD90MAC-H.
I do note that conrail seemed quite happy with their small fleet of SD80MAC's and both CSX and NS are operating the units they inherited from Big Blue..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 I do note that conrail seemed quite happy with their small fleet of SD80MAC's and both CSX and NS are operating the units they inherited from Big Blue..
Operating and being happy enough to order more are two different thing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The 80 makes the same tractive effort as the 70. The 600 additional hp of the 80 makes for a minor increase in balance speed. In the view of many who make the buying decision, not worth the additional extra buy-in or additional maintenance costs.
CR bought the 80's for the B&A line, a practice which CSX did not replicate.
CPM500
The main reason is lack of demand, not technical problems. The SD80ACe has been successful in service.
There is a very small market for locomotives over 4400 HP, because of:
-The possibility of shutting down a line if you lose a unit. (Losing half versus a third of the horsepower.)
-Limits of rail-wheel adhesion making the extra horsepower largely useless.
CSX has replaced the engines in their AC6000CWs with GEVO-16s and appears to be happy with them (at least not angry enough to retire them), but besides this and NS' SD80MACs, the market is rather limited.
If you want more, look here.
So, why are 6000 HP units used in China?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul,
The 6000 hp 265H power plant is not even Tier 2 compliant. This is why EMD went the an upgraded version of the 710 power plant that is Tier 2 compliant and is upgradeable to Tier 4. The GE FDH(6000 hp) and the FDL(4400 hp in a V16 format are not compliant) GE invested millions in the GEVO program to have an EPA compliant power plant for US production.
China could really care less if the pollute their citizens....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
if u needed to move freight and passengers for I billion people u would not stand 4 tree huggers either!!
Paul Milenkovic So, why are 6000 HP units used in China?
Because China feels they can get the benefit of 6000 hp in their applications.
Fact: The 265 H engine was designed to eventually meet all future emissions requirements. It stumbled in the railroad market, but is still offered in the marine market.
Fact: The GE HDL was also designed for future emissions compliance. NO engine program is initiated without giving a great deal of weight to emissions requirements.
Fact: Two stroke cycle engines, either gas or diesel, are on their way out in the marketplace. One of the former stalwarts of the transit bus industry, the DD 71 series engine is long gone. There are no new 2-stroke dirt bikes being sold today. Most of the new lawn garden equipment hitting the stores is 4 stroke-cycle. I believe California has banned the sale of 2-stroke L&G stuff.
Fact: The emissions of two stroke engines are very hard to clean up, because (simple explanation) it is part of their essential nature to consume lube oil.
Fact: The FDL and 710 have antecedents dating back to the Pre-WWII era. The designs were mature many moons ago.
Where is the Tier IV EMD locomotive ? If it does exist, that would be news to many of us.
IIRC, the GEVO is heavily based in the HDL?
Did EMD have any success with getting the exhaust recirculation to work?
EMD has 3 Tier 4 engines working on a short line, and GE has 5-7 Tier 4 engines out on class 1 lines right now. GE re-engineered the FDH design to attack emissions issues, and to free themselves from the joint partnership of the design with their German partner. The 265 & FDH were designed and in locomotive before the EPA went after railroad locomotives. Don not try to equate a 2 stroke diesel design with a 2 stroke gas power plant that you have to mix the lube oil into the fuel!
Of course you may not be aware of the Evinrude 2 stroke marine outboards. Somehow they made it work as well!
NorthWest The main reason is lack of demand, not technical problems. The SD80ACe has been successful in service. There is a very small market for locomotives over 4400 HP, because of: -The possibility of shutting down a line if you lose a unit. (Losing half versus a third of the horsepower.) -Limits of rail-wheel adhesion making the extra horsepower largely useless. CSX has replaced the engines in their AC6000CWs with GEVO-16s and appears to be happy with them (at least not angry enough to retire them), but besides this and NS' SD80MACs, the market is rather limited. If you want more, look here.
Actually there may be technical problems with getting a 710-20 emissions qualified for use in the US. The cooling system would probably not be sufficient to meet Tier III let alone Tier IV.
carnej1Actually there may be technical problems with getting a 710-20 emissions qualified for use in the US. The cooling system would probably not be sufficient to meet Tier III let alone Tier IV.
The 20 cylinder can use the exact same emissions reduction strategies as the 16 cyl, i.e., split cooling, Miller Cycle, etc.
On a different note:
I spoke to a source (outside my industry) who is well plugged into the railfan grapevine. The obvious places for the Tier IV EMD have been vetted-TTC, TAG RR, etc. Wonder where they could be hiding ?
Final thought-and then I'm DONE. Many of my peers find these railfan boards to be a great source of humor-and a complete waste of time. I have come to agree.
CPM500 Final thought-and then I'm DONE. Many of my peers find these railfan boards to be a great source of humor-and a complete waste of time. I have come to agree. CPM500
I asked a simple question: Why is there a use for 6000 HP single-engine single-unit Diesels in China, and from the same manufacturers, but not in the U.S.? I received a non-answer, answer -- something about conditions being different in China. Of course conditions are different in China.
You don't have an answer to my question, and you criticize this and other railfan boards? I suppose in your wisdom and industry inside knowledge, my question does not merit an answer because only industry insiders deserve to know any of these things?
It could be just that it is designed for lesser loading gauge countries and wouldn't be accepted here.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The 6000hp diesels in China are used solo, they were bought to run larger trains behind a single loco. Same reason India now has a 20-710 powered 5000hp AC loco of their own. Neither have to meet EPA emissions standards.
ML
CPM500,
Thank you for your valuable comments. We need people who work in the industry to help us stay rooted in reality. If you must go, you are free to do so, but you will be missed.
CPM500It is irrelevant how the oil gets into the 2-stroke combustion process. What is relevant is that the oil is combusted and the by-products end up in the exhaust.
Perhaps a better way to express this is that the oil is PARTIALLY combusted, and the by-products wind up as 'hydrocarbons' in the exhaust.
One of the great developments in getting HC (and by extension, sooting and nanoparticle generation) down in compression-ignition engines is to go to higher and higher injection pressures and smaller final-orifice dimensions (and, to an extent, better orifice profile and finish). That results in more finely atomized fuel, and hence better combination with the charge oxygen. This is NOT available to the lube oil coming into the combustion chamber, which is at best mixed by charge-air motion.
I'd like to see jrbernier reference the short line that is testing the EMD Tier IV locomotives, and perhaps provide some specific technical information on the methods used to achieve Tier IV spec on them (this was confidently said to be cost-effectively impossible a decade ago).
I have to wonder whether electrostatic charge on the oil droplets in the scavenge air might assist with better conduction of the stray oil -- you would need dielectric coatings on the combustion chamber and much of the tracting to get this to work, but there was quite a bit of experimentation at Princeton on doing this for lean-burn with carburetors. I have to wonder whether additives in the lube oil intended to preclude oxidation would act as 'anti-promoters' for combustion... and if an increased percentage of a promoter like methylal might overcome such an effect.
OvermodI'd like to see jrbernier reference the short line that is testing the EMD Tier IV locomotives
Railway Age in September of last year...
The Alabama Tennessee River Railway has 4 EMD's
GE - GECX 2015
EMD - UP 8394
My understanding is that none of these have been certified for Tier 4(takes effect next year), but EMD and GE are both working on system to avoid Urea mess that truckers are putting up with.
Overmod CPM500It is irrelevant how the oil gets into the 2-stroke combustion process. What is relevant is that the oil is combusted and the by-products end up in the exhaust. Perhaps a better way to express this is that the oil is PARTIALLY combusted, and the by-products wind up as 'hydrocarbons' in the exhaust.
With respect to the relative oil consumption of two-stroke engines, far be it for me with work experience at a major North American manufacturer of automobiles to challenge anyone referencing their work in the railroad industry . . . but . . .
The two-stroke engine in my gasoline string trimmer and in my chain saw runs a "dry" crankcase. These engine admit the carbureted fuel, a gas-oil mix, into the crankcase, where the downward stroke of the piston pressurizes it until the "scavenging ports" are uncovered when the piston reaches bottom. At that time, that gas-oil fuel misted into air is blown into the cylinder by crankcase pressure, and exhaust gas is blow out the exhaust ports that are open at the same time.
The engine burns both gas and lube oil because that is the only way to get lube oil on the engine parts -- crankshaft, rod, piston. Also, unburnt gas and lube oil goes out the exhaust, and some exhaust gas stays in the cylinder because the scavenging is not perfect. I have a newer, "green" string trimmer, but after a morning of yardwork with the thing, my work clothes reek of chopped weed and raw fuel.
The two-stroke Diesel does not use the crankcase for scavenging. The EMD engines (567, 645, 710) use a Roots blower for the non-turbo engines, a turbine blower for the turbocharged engines, where that turbine blower is has a gear train and overrunning clutch arrangement to get enough scavenging at low engine speeds
No lube oil is mixed with the fuel as it wouldn't do any good -- the fuel oil is injected at the top of the piston stroke and burns on contact with the hot, compressed air. Yes, the scavenging is not perfect, so some fresh air goes out the exhaust and some exhaust gas stays behind in the cylinder, but there is no carbureted fuel mist going out the exhaust as in my string trimmer.
The lube oil in the two-stroke Diesel is applied to the cylinder walls the same way as in a four-stroke Diesel, so there is no reason for a two-stroke Diesel to consume more lube oil than a four-stroke engine apart from historical or legacy differences in the lubrication systems of the EMD (two-stroke) and GE (FDL) four-stroke designs.
It may be the EMDs use more lube oil, and a two-stroke Diesel may be harder to control emissions owing to the uncontrolled recycling of exhaust gas from imperfect scavenging, but both the two-stroke and four-stroke Diesel cycles inject their oil fuel into the hot, compressed air charge, and none of these engines mist the fuel with air before it is burned, and none of these engines mist the lube oil into the air charge as in my string trimmer.
CPM500 carnej1Actually there may be technical problems with getting a 710-20 emissions qualified for use in the US. The cooling system would probably not be sufficient to meet Tier III let alone Tier IV. The 20 cylinder can use the exact same emissions reduction strategies as the 16 cyl, i.e., split cooling, Miller Cycle, etc. On a different note: The EPA set their sights on what they call 'off road vehicles' (including locos) many, many years before the regulations actually hit the Federal Register. Look it up !! California has been regulating on-road vehicle emissions since the 1960's. Much of the current environment regulations had their genesis in California. Look it up !! Both EMD & GE were aware of the aforementioned points. That is how companies whose sales measure in the billions work. THEY MANAGE RISK. The HDL and 265H were designed based on the knowledge of this risk-and a whole host of other factors. The specific oil consumption of two-stroke-cycle diesel engines, no matter how one measures it, is greater than four-stroke cycle engine of the same config. and hp. A by-product of this is the fact that GE oil change intervals are much closer together than EMD. Why ? Because on an EMD, oil gets past the ring belt and into the combustion cycle...and into the by-products of combustion. EMD has effectively mitigated this built-in disadvantage of the 2 stroke over a number of years. But the disadvantage still exists. It is irrelevant how the oil gets into the 2-stroke combustion process. What is relevant is that the oil is combusted and the by-products end up in the exhaust. I spoke to a source (outside my industry) who is well plugged into the railfan grapevine. The obvious places for the Tier IV EMD have been vetted-TTC, TAG RR, etc. Wonder where they could be hiding ? Final thought-and then I'm DONE. Many of my peers find these railfan boards to be a great source of humor-and a complete waste of time. I have come to agree. CPM500
Are you certain that a split cooling system that would allow a 20 cylinder 710 engine to be Tier IV compliant would fit onto the standard length SD80/90 frame? Or would it have to be a longer, heavier locomotive?
I ask this because several other forum members have stated that GE's ES58AC unit using the GEVO 16 engine would not be able to meet Tier IV due to cooling system constraints. I am under the impression that GE's Tier IV ES44's have ACE6000CW size radiators.
Paul Milenkovic Overmod CPM500It is irrelevant how the oil gets into the 2-stroke combustion process. What is relevant is that the oil is combusted and the by-products end up in the exhaust. Perhaps a better way to express this is that the oil is PARTIALLY combusted, and the by-products wind up as 'hydrocarbons' in the exhaust. The two-stroke engine in my gasoline string trimmer and in my chain saw runs a "dry" crankcase...
The two-stroke engine in my gasoline string trimmer and in my chain saw runs a "dry" crankcase...
Stop right there. We are not talking about little two-stroke spark-ignition engines; an EMD two-stroke diesel is a completely different engine using a vastly different set of mechanical principles. While there are some applications for mixing an improved 'lubricant' in with the fuel, that's done for better injector performance (as with Stanadyne) and not to lubricate pathetic reed valves or ensure an oily film keeps being deposited on wear surfaces in the absence of proper pressure lubrication.
The two-stroke Diesel does not use the crankcase for scavenging.
This is technically true, but if you look at a proper exploded view of one of the EMD engines (see for example here, from the tugboat enthusiasts, you will see that the scavenge air passes very close to the crankcase, and any minor leaks between the cylinder liners and crankcase space will admit some vaporized lube oil -- CIRCUMSTANTIALLY -- to the scavenge port area. This may be magnified if there is any blowby pressurizing the crankcase space, etc.
... Yes, the scavenging is not perfect, so some fresh air goes out the exhaust and some exhaust gas stays behind in the cylinder, but there is no carbureted fuel mist going out the exhaust as in my string trimmer.
There are some of the same issues with trapped lube oil in scavenged two-strokes that there are on piston-valve steam locomotives, where the rings pass over the bridges but expand slightly into the port spaces. There are, in fact, reasons why a two-stroke engine may use more oil, or pass more oil, than a four-stroke effective equivalent. We are NOT talking about great quantities of lube oil, and its presence is circumstantial only... but it is habitual enough, and significant enough, to keep the engine out of Tier IV compliance in a wide number of circumstances. That was the only claim being made, not that there was some weird large amount of lube oil necessarily involved with a GM two-stroke engine of any sort.
... a two-stroke Diesel may be harder to control emissions owing to the uncontrolled recycling of exhaust gas from imperfect scavenging
This imperfect imitation of EGR was what I thought was the primary emissions problem on EMD engines, including what I thought was a fair amount of unburned diesel fuel due to premature quench. Perhaps you are conflating use of the term 'diesel oil' with the fuel (cf. the way early diesels were called 'oil engines'), but I rather doubt you'd confuse the two.
floridad if u needed to move freight and passengers for I billion people u would not stand 4 tree huggers either!!
this the same reason the morris kunudson 5000 hp cat diesel engines were never replicated. the only reason companies make a product is if there are orders on the books from a customer who is willing to pay them. the mk5000. worked just fine. no teck problems other than no one, I. E. railroads did not order any. the emd 90's were designed to take a 20 cylinder diesel engine in that frame. to date no one has stepped up with the cash accept overseas. why did Baldwin stop building any locomotives. simply because there were no longer any orders. they were number one for over one hundred years.
floridad this the same reason the morris kunudson 5000 hp cat diesel engines were never replicated. the only reason companies make a product is if there are orders on the books from a customer who is willing to pay them. the mk5000. worked just fine. no teck problems other than no one, I. E. railroads did not order any. the emd 90's were designed to take a 20 cylinder diesel engine in that frame. to date no one has stepped up with the cash accept overseas. why did Baldwin stop building any locomotives. simply because there were no longer any orders. they were number one for over one hundred years.
The MK5000 program mostly fell victim to the fact that MK Rail got into financial trouble (unrelated to the MK5000C).
However I wouldn't say there were no technical problems as the units were down-rated to 4500 HP when leased to the Utah railroad and eventually rebuilt with the Wabtec version of the 16-645 engine...
I'm not sure of they were rebuilt solely for unreliability or not, being parts orphans probably had a lot to do with it.
I rest my case. no orders is big financial trouble. I know as I worked thru temp agency in boise plant. nughtin but da facts mam
Were not the big MK's rebuilt after the cranks broke on their big Cat engines?
Seem to remember reading that somewhere.
And a story this morning, 2/13/14, reporting that severe pollution has made the Chinese capital of Beijing "barely suitable" for living.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.