BuslistDwightbranch, This locomotive was to be powered by a Caterpillar C175 series engine.
Thanks, that makes sense. Not using a 710 would remove a lot of the appeal of an EMD unit versus the Siemens unit, which is a low-RPM engine with known reliability. EMD units aren't currently known for their overall workmanship.
Would be nice to hear Siemens' reply.
http://www.dot.il.gov/procurement/PRIIA%20Locomotive%20Spec%20305-005%20Rev%20A%20-%202012jul10.pdf
There's a lot of specs and testing. Page 118 has Davis parameters.
please pass the popcorn. and the BS repellant. the electric motive division of the general motors corperation has set the standard for reliability from the days of the first up diesel streamlined passenger trains out of Kansas city. if u are going 2 rewrite history at least try to make the fiction better than reality!!
floridad please pass the popcorn. and the BS repellant. the electric motive division of the general motors corperation has set the standard for reliability from the days of the first up diesel streamlined passenger trains out of Kansas city. if u are going 2 rewrite history at least try to make the fiction better than reality!!
I can only report what I have heard, and I have heard differently about EMD units since the 90s. For example, in this thread is this:
As a locomotive engineer for 15 years and an Alco safarist for 35 years I must say that the GE gevos are awesome great locomotives, reliable pullers for climbing hills in adverse conditions. That said the ac drive versions are true dogs on a fast mainline which will lose 40 mph in a mile but will lock in at 25 mph and slow no more as they climb the hill where dc motors will just keep falling down to the minimum of 14mph for most engines. Of course the dc version won't lose 40 mph in a mile of grade and are more likely to maintain trackspeed on the former NYC StLouis line and Monon where I run. Todays EMDs are such pathetic junk that I cringe when I come to work and have my usual UPRR SD70s. They are noisy droning slipomatics that will let you down and make you work for every hill just to get home."
Others here have commented on things like the panels in the cab falling off, etc UP has withdrawn almost all of their SD9043MAC from service from frame cracks at under 20 years old. I don't have first hand experience, but I think the opinion above is common. Even a guy with the handle EMD#1 who used to post here said that ES44s are the best unit on the market now.
Evidently your little world of know it all knowledge doesn't contain any actual statements by road crews who work on late model EMDs (no longer owned by GM, unless we've all made that up too?). Plenty of complaints about the build quality of new EMDs vs those of old. Also word going round that the RR you own stock in is also going to rid itself of it's SD70M-2s due to dissatisfaction with the product, guess they aren't all they're cracked up to be?
ML
In 2005, GM sold EMD to Greenbriar Equity Group LLC and Berkshire Partners LLC, which formed Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc., to facilitate the purchase. On August 2, 2010, Progress Rail Services Corporation completed the purchase of Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. from Greenbriar, Berkshire, et al. making Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Progress Rail Services Corporation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The suit sounds like it is a part of the "Lawyer's Full Employment Act" and will keep several armies of lawyers employed for several years.
GDRMCo Evidently your little world of know it all knowledge doesn't contain any actual statements by road crews who work on late model EMDs (no longer owned by GM, unless we've all made that up too?). Plenty of complaints about the build quality of new EMDs vs those of old. Also word going round that the RR you own stock in is also going to rid itself of it's SD70M-2s due to dissatisfaction with the product, guess they aren't all they're cracked up to be?
CN is also having troubles with our M-2 fleet, they are burning out traction motors like crazy. A software patch to drop the load on the motors at slow speeds was developed, but this only created more problems due to CN's habit of running over-tonnage trains which crawl up hills at 10 mph or less, so when the load is dropped the train stalls. The word is that they will be derated to 3600 HP if the problems continue, and CN is not going to buy any more EMD's until the build quality improves, only GE's. On that note, all 65 ES44ACs are on the property and we are negotiating with GE for an order of between 40 and 70 more to be delivered starting in late summer or fall.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Jim200 http://www.dot.il.gov/procurement/PRIIA%20Locomotive%20Spec%20305-005%20Rev%20A%20-%202012jul10.pdf There's a lot of specs and testing. Page 118 has Davis parameters.
The unfortunate news for Siemens starts in the executive summary, where it clearly states the performance expectation is a SUSTAINED 125 mph. This is perhaps slightly fudged in section 1.4.6.3 which calls for 'a sustained speed of up to 125 mph." There is a reference that says 'design speed' (of the train consist, I believe) is "the maximum possible operating speed of the car" (section 2.19) but this isn't relevant to whether that speed is sustained.
The use of the Davis formula is specified, but only with respect to performance simulations. The bad news for Siemens actually starts with a clause that "the contractor shall ensure the propulsion equipment used is capable of meeting all performance requirements" (one, of course, being the sustained 125 mph). And where it really bares its teeth is in 19.3.8 (p.226) where it states that a condition of ACCEPTANCE of the locomotive is that it be able to sustain the 125 mph on actual test.
What it looks like to me is that the contract would not be voided, or re-awarded to EMD, solely on the results of formula calculation -- no matter how well-grounded in fact the calculation might be. On the other hand, when (not really if) the Siemens locomotive fails to sustain 125 mph in testing, the client seems to have the right to reject the locomotive (and all following examples built to the same design, presumably). What happens then is not clearly defined as far as I can see; presumably Siemens would be given some leeway (without payment) to get the design to where it could pass the sustained test (I think, from other details involving testing, 'sustained' means three continuous minutes or more), but they specifically can't use their 'boosting' to achieve the continuous speed, and I doubt they'd be able to get away with shoehorning a QSK78 in there after the fact...
A repeated statement is that the testing applies to a 300-to-500-mile 'route' of the client's choice. I don't think this will help Siemens unless there is part of this route where the test train can reach or exceed 125 mph for at least the three minutes or whatever -- and even then, it's a stretch to apply the definition only to that favorable case, and not to reasonably level sections.
But look for the action to come when the first locomotive has been built, and is submitted for testing, and not in response to the letter EMD has written...
Use of a speed formula for simulations is certainly an important component in design, but the final performance evaluation will not occur until the engine is field tested. Additionally there are many specs on reliability and maintenance intervals which judging by the comments above on actual EMD (or whatever name they go by now) locomotives would not be met.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
SD70M-2DudeCN is also having troubles with our M-2 fleet, they are burning out traction motors like crazy. A software patch to drop the load on the motors at slow speeds was developed, but this only created more problems due to CN's habit of running over-tonnage trains which crawl up hills at 10 mph or less, so when the load is dropped the train stalls.
By doing this, CN is pushing the short time rating on the traction motors. Why?
OvermodBut look for the action to come when the first locomotive has been built, and is submitted for testing, and not in response to the letter EMD has written...
Which means that it's game-over for EMD. Once the first locomotive is built and the others are under construction, it's almost all sunk cost for Siemens and IDOT would have a lot of leverage. I suspect Siemens and IDOT would wheel and deal. IDOT could wind up with extra locomotives, cash back, or Siemens would built compliant locomotives a couple years out, taking and reselling the non-compliant ones later. But, I don't see a way that EMD wins anything.
I can't see a court argument over the balance speed from using the Davis equation going anywhere - especially if the difference is only 4 mph. Train resistance from the Davis equation just isn't that precise, particularly since we don't the the real-world drag air resistance of a currently non-existent locomotive on a non-existent train.
Also, It is entirely possible that the Siemens locomotive could gain the required 4 mph (if that's what it turns out to be) by monkeying with the aerodynamics of the locomotive.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I am speeking strickly historically. do u want the only other passenger engine to be a german company. is America suffering from 2 many jobs right now. at least some of the lawyers will have jobs after college. AMERICA GOT TO THE MOON WITH MORE THAN JUST WILL POWEWER. some americans actually worked here.
If construction has not actually started, the game may not be over for EMD. But one way the game would be over, is for Siemens to state: "While we reject the EMD analyis, we are taking measures to insure that the delivere horsepower of the locomotives we will supply you will be increased by 6% (or whatever) over that stated in our proposal to insure a safety factor that all performance speciifcations will be met or exceededk regardless of test conditions. We will advise you shortly as to what specific measures we will implement toward this result."
That is what I would do if I were Siemens.
But I too would be happier with an all-USA product.
rbandr I am speeking strickly historically. do u want the only other passenger engine to be a german company.
I am speeking strickly historically. do u want the only other passenger engine to be a german company.
And your definition of Vossloh AG (look up the EMD Spirit locomotive reference if you wonder why they are important) is not German? (This relevant also to Dave Klepper: exactly what 'all-American product" were you referring to? it's certainly not the EMD passenger locomotive involved in this matter...)
AMERICA GOT TO THE MOON WITH MORE THAN JUST WILL POWEWER.
Including a largely German contingent of design engineers. Just about everything American before that point blew up. So it is an even poorer example than your previous attempt... Just sayin'...
(And the German engineers could spell in English, too. There has to be some irony in that... ;-} )
wow. u r now the spelling police. the germans lost the war. we gave them a place to blow up rockets in florida. I know cause I was there. Robert goddards rockets flew quite well thank u it is an eurpean consortium to be assembled here. who helps our economy more. boeing or air bus?
Overmod AMERICA GOT TO THE MOON WITH MORE THAN JUST WILL POWEWER. Including a largely German contingent of design engineers. Just about everything American before that point blew up. So it is an even poorer example than your previous attempt... Just sayin'...
A bit OT, but couldn't resist...
While Von Braun and his team scattered through the US aerospace industry did make very important contributions, one being keeping large liquid fueled rockets from blowing up, the majority of the work was done by domestic talent. Examples include guidance systems by Draper, gimballed engines from Rocketdyne, liquid hydrogen technology from various programs and the biggest contributor was the experience from the Navajo, Atlas, Titan and Minuteman programs.
OTOH, the Siemens entry does have a fair amount of domestic content.
- Erik
erikemWhile Von Braun and his team scattered through the US aerospace industry did make very important contributions, one being keeping large liquid fueled rockets from blowing up, the majority of the work was done by domestic talent. Examples include guidance systems by Draper, gimballed engines from Rocketdyne, liquid hydrogen technology from various programs and the biggest contributor was the experience from the Navajo, Atlas, Titan and Minuteman programs.
I was not at all serious about the inability of the United States to build sophisticated rocket hardware... or to understand the technology. I've been associated with it. I just couldn't resist that comment about 'going to the moon' while simultaneously slamming the Germans.
Goddard's actual contribution to rocketry as practiced for heavy-lift purposes is very slight, in my opinion, especially by comparison with what was being done contemporarily in Europe. Little motors running comparatively low Isp, with very little sophistication in guiding or control. There are -- as erikem notes -- far better examples of American practice, for example MX-774 and Polaris (for two very different fuel technologies), and no real need now that the Cold War is won to have to prove the USA was 'first' with liquid-fueled rockets. (Which had limited battlefield viability, the same way that Jughead was inferior to the dry devices... ask why the quid-pro-quo for Cuba, getting rid of the Jupiter-Cs, was not exactly fought by our foreign-policy establishment -- and aren't exactly happy if fueled with hypergolic propellants and hit with wrenches...)
I don't have to be the spelling police; all I have to point out is that von Braun's team did not need spelling assistance even though English was decidedly not their native tongue. I keep my opinion of poor or lackadaisical spelling and grammar largely to myself, except to note that all too often badly-mistaken thinking and badly-mistaken spelling seem to go uncannily hand in hand.
Back on the actual topic: I have not seen a breakdown of approximately 'how much' of the EMD/Vossloh content is actually foreign-sourced vs. the percentage for the Siemens locomotive -- although I have to wonder whether Siemens, as a foreign company, might make more extensive use of domestic suppliers or contract manufacturers for the components, just for the sake of 'politics' (of course, both locomotives are assembled here with our labor).
The point that could have been made about 'foreign-company' participation, if snarkiness had not been the apparent dominant intent, is where the profit from the locomotive-building is re-invested. It is not as simple as knowing that Siemens profits might 'go to a German company' while EMD's profits go to Progress/Caterpillar. Some of the Vossloh contribution is surely on a substantial cost-plus basis, and not just commoditized according to the sort of absolute factor-cost cutting that typifies, say, WalMart or that guy at Volkswagen a couple of decades ago. So there is some of the profit going nominally overseas... be interesting to calculate just how much for each of the two, and decide from that which is effectively 'more American' where it counts...
As a regular user of a 55-year-old Leica camera, I probably should not push the all-USA locomotive concept, and should apologize, especially since it has been pointed out EMD does use some parts of overseas origine in their locomotives. My main hope is that the locomotive as received is well-worth the funds paid for it, and thus my suggestion to Siemens..
Having an American name on something doesn't mean it has more American components in it or is any better for American workers. For example, if you drive a Chevy Malibu, Cadillac XTS etc. you are actually driving an Opel Vectra, designed in Germany, the engine comes from Mexico, the transmission from Brazil etc.There is no such thing as an "American", German etc. finished good these days, only primary goods such as timber, crops etc. are wholly produced in one country. Part of the reason GM kept Opel, their German subsidiary, after their bankruptcy is that Opel designers are responsible for much of GM's US car content. The Siemens diesel will actually be put together in California with parts produced all over the world if they win this contract, and apparently the main component is a Cummins diesel. If the thing were coming from a low-wage country like China you might have a point, but German workers are actually paid considerably more than American workers. I actually think GE might have offered a better unit than either of these two, but that is a whole new can of worms.
NorthWest SD70M-2DudeCN is also having troubles with our M-2 fleet, they are burning out traction motors like crazy. A software patch to drop the load on the motors at slow speeds was developed, but this only created more problems due to CN's habit of running over-tonnage trains which crawl up hills at 10 mph or less, so when the load is dropped the train stalls. By doing this, CN is pushing the short time rating on the traction motors. Why?
Because CN's operating philosophy is to take 2 or 3 locomotives and load them down to 0.5 HPT and then send it out onto the mainline (optimum asset utilization at its best). The "hills" I speak of are no steeper than 0.5%, this is the ruling grade both ways from Winnipeg to Vancouver & Prince Rupert. Both manufacturer's locomotives are having problems and getting worn out, but the GEs have tougher traction motors i guess. Also the M-2's have an outdated, mediocre and complex computer system which causes the lion's share of their problems.
not complaining I am mearly noticning. it is still nice when everyone pulls together. the load is always lighter!
daveklepper As a regular user of a 55-year-old Leica camera,
As a regular user of a 55-year-old Leica camera,
Where do you get this thing called "film" that goes into that camera?
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 Milenkovic Where do you get this thing called "film" that goes into that camera?
blue streak 1 Paul Milenkovic Where do you get this thing called "film" that goes into that camera? In Chicago there is a used camera store that has just about any film you can imagine. ++ any camera you can imagine From Union station go east on Adams to first EL line ( State ST ? ) go south about a block and is on west side of Street. Only camera store in downtown Chicago. Sorry don't remember name.
Central Camera 250 S. Wabash. That's under the L (the first L tracks are above Wells) one block east of State St. just south of Adams, about one mile east of Union Station.
SD70M-2DudeBecause CN's operating philosophy is to take 2 or 3 locomotives and load them down to 0.5 HPT and then send it out onto the mainline (optimum asset utilization at its best). The "hills" I speak of are no steeper than 0.5%, this is the ruling grade both ways from Winnipeg to Vancouver & Prince Rupert. Both manufacturer's locomotives are having problems and getting worn out, but the GEs have tougher traction motors i guess. Also the M-2's have an outdated, mediocre and complex computer system which causes the lion's share of their problems.
Thanks, I had forgotten about the relative flatness of CN's Rocky Mountain lines. I was questioning how often plugging a main occurred, and whether or not the costs associated with that were more than adding power.
0.5 HPT, interesting.
Kodak negative color film and Fuji negative color film in regular 35mm cartridges are available in Jerusalem camera stores.
NorthWest SD70M-2DudeBecause CN's operating philosophy is to take 2 or 3 locomotives and load them down to 0.5 HPT and then send it out onto the mainline (optimum asset utilization at its best). The "hills" I speak of are no steeper than 0.5%, this is the ruling grade both ways from Winnipeg to Vancouver & Prince Rupert. Both manufacturer's locomotives are having problems and getting worn out, but the GEs have tougher traction motors i guess. Also the M-2's have an outdated, mediocre and complex computer system which causes the lion's share of their problems. Thanks, I had forgotten about the relative flatness of CN's Rocky Mountain lines. I was questioning how often plugging a main occurred, and whether or not the costs associated with that were more than adding power. 0.5 HPT, interesting.
Usually the trains do make it over the road, stalled trains aren't a chronic daily problem, but every week or two one will stall on the worst choke point in a given area. It's not always a locomotive failure either, it can be a knuckle, drawbar or the dectector tripping on a low-hanging hose. The more common problem is when the line is congested and the dispatcher lets a coal drag out ahead of a couple Speeds and the Canadian. The major problem from an operations point of view is not solely the underpowered trains, but the combination of that and the lack of double track, so those well-powered hotshots can't run around the slow drag freights.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.