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?
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
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.
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...
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?
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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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!!
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!!
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.
ML
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.
Would be nice to hear Siemens' reply.
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.
rbandr wow !! the court can not tell the difference between truth and justice. me thinks science maybe a stretch for the courts.
wow !! the court can not tell the difference between truth and justice. me thinks science maybe a stretch for the courts.
What part of "Illinois" did you not recognize was implicit in the discussions?
Seriously: science will be less of a stretch, depending on how much money is behind the science that is expected to prevail... ;-}
... and how much is directly relevant to hard clauses in the specifications...
wow !! the court can not tell thre difference between truth and justice. me thinks science maybe a stretch for the courts.
PNWRMNM ... (EMD) designed to the specification that IDOT wrote, and when our offering is evaluated by the required Davis formula, it passes. The Siemens offfering does not meet the specifications and must be disqualified. Remember, the context is government contracting where you either meet the specification or you do not.
... (EMD) designed to the specification that IDOT wrote, and when our offering is evaluated by the required Davis formula, it passes. The Siemens offfering does not meet the specifications and must be disqualified. Remember, the context is government contracting where you either meet the specification or you do not.
As noted, this hinges on the Davis formula being an explicit test stated clearly in the specifications, and the speed involved being 'steady' 125 mph (not the 'boosted' rating, and not an average of up- and downgrade running). Do we have access to a copy of the specifications that can be put up here (no longer confidential since the contract was let?) or at least the relevant portions that show what compliance entails?
If I am Siemans I could argue that I have lots of experience with passenger trains in Europe, or whereever, and they all use this other formula.
That's not going to work well here. Siemens already has the 'smoking gun' of having referenced the Davis formula in their TTCI planning (I suspect with the idea that if they reach 125mph at any point on the loop, they can claim that a 'Davis formula' calculation from observed data yields... compliance with the paper specifications. I still get upset when somebody brings up the Australian variable keel from the America's Cup in '83. Gaming the specifications is an even older game than Grant Swing.
I would far rather have EMD's case than Siemens or IDOT's.
That is certainly true... but I suspect the outcome of this little scenario is not going to be 'disqualification of Siemens and award to EMD' -- it's going to be something like what just happened in California: they throw out the results, write all-new (and more sensible and relevant-to-Illinois-practice, one would hope) specs, and then re-issue the specification. There's a million-plus incentive per unit to ease what's required... even a little. And I expect that to have a great deal of effect on how IDOT and the other Illinois entities involved handle this situation. They may have been stupid, but they are also experts in gaming reality after the fact...
(I presume EMD by this point has a proposal together for a Spirit with a C175-16 in it, to match the approximate Siemens numbers 'just in case' the outcome isn't just reviewing and reversing the bid acceptance... ;-} )
Overmod I do strongly sympathize with EMD if, in fact, the contract has been given to Siemens when objective specifications were not met. I sympathize less strongly if this is a matter of interpretation, even if it is a matter of fact that the rated output hp of the Siemens locomotive is insufficient by 'generally-accepted engineering principles', as it were. But I think the decision will hinge mainly on legal, contract-interpretation principles, not an external demonstration of the sort that sometimes claims a bumblebee can't fly because mathematics proves it.
I do strongly sympathize with EMD if, in fact, the contract has been given to Siemens when objective specifications were not met. I sympathize less strongly if this is a matter of interpretation, even if it is a matter of fact that the rated output hp of the Siemens locomotive is insufficient by 'generally-accepted engineering principles', as it were. But I think the decision will hinge mainly on legal, contract-interpretation principles, not an external demonstration of the sort that sometimes claims a bumblebee can't fly because mathematics proves it.
I think we really agree.
As I understood you original post, IDOT's specification required 125 MPH with a "standard " consist of so many cars weighing so many tons. Proof that power was sufficient to attain the specified speed was to be by Davis formula calculation.
EMD's claim is that Siemans used a different formula that shows its offering capable of meeting the speed requirement BUT they did not used the formula that the specifications required. When evaluated by the required Davis formula, the Siemans offering fails. The math is straight forward and can be put on two placards for as detailed an explanation as the judge desires.
We (EMD) designed to the specification that IDOT wrote, and when our offering is evaluated by the required Davis formula, it passes. The Siemans offfering does not meet the specifications and must be disqualified. Remember, the context is government contracting where you either meet the specification or you do not.
If I am Seimans I could argue that I have lots of experience with passenger trains in Europe, or whereever, and they all use this other formula.
If I am IDOT the best I could do is keep my mouth shut because I am either inept, stupid, or corrupt.
I would far rather have EMD's case than Siemans or IDOT's.
Mac
PNWRMNMIt will be lots of fun to watch IDOT to defend itself on the basis of "we really did not mean what we said" or "we picked 125 MPH because we thought it sounded good" which is how I read your proposed defense.
I think you misunderstand my point. There is no question that IDOT has an uphill battle to prove their '125 mph' condition has been met; there is also no question that for the amount of money involved, they're probably going to find whatever loopholes, ambiguities, etc. they can.
I have not read the 'fine print' in the original material, so I do not know if the actual terms involve reaching a physical 125 mph or satisfying a given formulaic convention. EMD has already noted, perhaps tellingly, that Siemens carefully worded their statements about using the Davis formula at TTCI, even though they used a more 'lenient' spec in their proposal and other material, for some reason. That would seem to indicate some importance given to that particular formula in the contractual arrangements.
Unless, that is, the Court accepts such an argument when EMD makes it,,, and EMD will make it VERY persuasively. If it weren't for that Cat engine I would be rooting for them. As it is, I think they have right and truth on their side... as far as that goes in Illinois... ;-}
Overmod,
I disagree. All EMD has to prove is that the Seimans product does not meet the specifications.
Whether or not the specifications make sense is a whole other issue. If IDOT had looked at both bids, said, 'Oh my", and rebid the project at 120 MPH, while not perhaps entirely legal, EMD would have had the opportunity to redesign their offering and perhaps come in at a lower price.
It will be lots of fun to watch IDOT to defend itself on the basis of "we really did not mean what we said" or "we picked 125 MPH because we thought it sounded good" which is how I read your proposed defense.
I think Trains should assign Fred Frailey to the case for a feature article.
For EMD to win, they're going to have to get the court to accept that a 4mph disparity is sufficient to outweigh the other factors used by IDOT to make their decision ... in a situation where operation either at 121 or 125 mph won't be much of a reality for years. So it comes down to an exquisitely 'legal' exercise, either in strict interpretation of contract terms or 'intent of the framers' on the purpose of the 125mph contract spec.
Last I looked all the prospective IDOT corridor projects were still at 110 mph... can someone provide a link to where the higher sustained speed would be required? And if the '125 mph' is essentially political window-dressing, we return to whether Siemens getting to that speed downhill with a tailwind might not be 'adequate'... again considering that big savings in first cost, etc.
For EMD to win, they'll have to get the court to understand the physics.
Good luck with that!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
COOOO-KIEEEEE!!!
Seriously, though: The cylinder disparity is indeed "20%", between the QSK95 with 16 cylinders and the Caterpillar C175-20. For reference, here is the Cummins release on the QSK95 package from late last year.
The EMD proposal would have been the F 125 Spirit locomotive, as peddled to Metrolink, which uses the 20-cylinder Cat engine to make 4700 hp. Here is the Progress release on that locomotive design. (For anyone who is interested, here is a piece on the design of the C175 series engine.)
This would make any discussion of "710 engines" more than a little superfluous... and I have to confess that for full 125-mph service I wouldn't trust a 20-cylinder Cat as far as I could throw it just on Progress' word, especially if they propose to cycle it regularly up to the 1800 rpm that engine sees in 60Hz gensets just to make 'rated horsepower' during acceleration. Move over, Paxman Valenta!
... It does lead me to wonder, though, what the price (and weight) difference for a Siemens locomotive with the QSK120 instead of the QSK95 would involve... it couldn't possibly involve more than a million dollars per unit, could it? That may be why the EMD release seems to be going on so much about the 'unfair' 11,000-lb weight differential instead of the cost involved...
u know how much me love kookies and popcorn wid dis movies. yum yum?
rbandr displacement of energy is when ur company gets the contract illegally?
displacement of energy is when ur company gets the contract illegally?
No more so that when your hovercraft is full of eels and you want your tram to proceed to an estuary.
(Hey, it makes as much sense, and is a literary reference to boot! ;-})
Seriously -- this is not so much "illegal" as exploiting the technicalities of the contract as written. Personally I think 4 mph top-end speed 'deficit' might be worth the cost differential per locomotive. (Even if I had more faith that the Cat people weren't going to start tinkering with EMD passenger-locomotive design...) But if the issue is nonconformance to legal conditions, which does appear to be at least substantiable... well, you can start poppin' now...
Two questions. First, how is EMD getting 4,700HP out of this engine? Aren't their most powerful freight units with a 710, the SD70ACes, only 4,300HP?
Second, read this excerpt:
Overmod “Providing an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of cylinders required. In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the locomotive offered by EMD."
“Providing an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of cylinders required. In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the locomotive offered by EMD."
20% of a V-16 would be 3.2 cylinders, so that can't be right. Is Siemens using a V-12? If so, Siemens could just switch to an MTU V-16 and get the necessary HP, right?
Crank and Dave,
I agree, the response period must be long past. It would have to be for IDOT to award it to anyone.
Assuming EMD's claims are correct, then Siemans' offer was non-responsive and must be eliminated. If EMD was the only other responder, then the contract would go to EMD. Game over.
I am 99% confident that EMD would still have a valid claim if IDOT went back and rewrote the specifications to fit Siemans' offer. Will IDOT do that? Your guess is as good as mine.
PNWRMNM Dave, If Siemens did as you suggest they would be admitting that their original proposal was nonresponsive, which makes EMD's position all the stronger. They need to rely on The Chicago Way. Mac
Dave,
If Siemens did as you suggest they would be admitting that their original proposal was nonresponsive, which makes EMD's position all the stronger. They need to rely on The Chicago Way.
If you mean stone-walling, I doubt it will work in this case. Ditto payoffs or anything else. EMD has a good case, has access to the USA public, and is certain to win in any court fight.
Seimans can admit a mistake and keep the contract or the contract will be rebid. It might be rebid in any case.
Doesn't Seimens use Cummings prime movers? Adding a separate HEP unit should thus be easier than going to another supplier.
The deadline for submitting proposals is long pass so IDOT with this new information would have to toss out the Siemens plan. If IDOT now IDIOT, should have everybody submit new proposals either to the same rules or new rules that allow lower horsepower of which the other bidders should then be rework their proposals to cut their costs. If they allow rebidding at the original specifications, Siemens could substitute a MTU engine or even a CAT C175 engine. After all they only have to go to the nearest CAT dealer and order 35.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.