Entropy MTU engines are not a great fit for locomotives, low oil sump capacity, for example SCT Logistics, those CSR Class units are laid up in storage at 3 years old because they're due for a rebuild at an extrodinary cost. So they're running EMD units. See if Cummins has better luck. High speed engines don't have a good track record in main line freight application.
MTU engines are not a great fit for locomotives, low oil sump capacity, for example SCT Logistics, those CSR Class units are laid up in storage at 3 years old because they're due for a rebuild at an extrodinary cost. So they're running EMD units. See if Cummins has better luck. High speed engines don't have a good track record in main line freight application.
As far as I know, the SCR rebuild had nothing to do with MTU engines, and everything to do with asbestos found inside the locomotives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSR_Ziyang_SDA1
These MTU engines are the default diesel engine in European locomotives, offering 2.4 MW in the 16-cylinder version and 3 MW in the 20-cylinder version (nearly the same as an EMD 710G-16 )
N.F.
M636CAfter the iron ore traffic they were purchased for ceased due to the fall in commodity prices the CSR class have not been used as much.
Makes perfect sense, new locos going into storage and run GT46C's
nfotis As far as I know, the SCR rebuild had nothing to do with MTU engines, and everything to do with asbestos found inside the locomotives:
In October 2013, the entire fleet was withdrawn from service and quarantined, after white asbestos was found in the engine area. This is despite the locomotives being certified as asbestos free.[14][15] By January 2014 remediation work had been carried out and most of the class was already back in service.[16]
Didn't care to touch on that, also the generator ends that CSR had to replace on these units. The asbestos issue was already handled.
Another question here is will the railroads be willing to go anywhere near something associated with the 265H, considering its past reputation and how conservative the Class I's tend to be. The MTU 4000 would be interesting to see on this side of the pond, but would face the same xenophobia. As hard worked as the HST's are, I imagine they come home to a shop every night and can be worked on, a far cry from what would be expected of them in a North American freight locomotive.
And to top it off, GE still doesn't have their tier 4 unit in production, only the test units running around. A few were demonstrating on CN this winter, and my employer's response was to order 25 export model ES44AC's shortly afterward (not tier 4 compliant so they can't operate stateside). Just another chapter in the tier 4 debacle.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
But which CSR units are withdrawn?
As I write, CSR003 is back in Horsham awaiting a train and CSR004 is in Port Adelaide on train 4102.
I check the ARTC reporting system which only shows lead units.
Around four of the fifteen SCT class GT46C-ACe units show up as lead units but they usually run in pairs or with a CSR trailing.
The SCTs have bigger traction motors (those used on SD70MAC units) and are often loaded to maximum capacity on east-west intermodals. The SCTs are 4300 hp compared to 4000 hp for the CSRs which might indicate why they are used on the longer and heavier hauls.
But there is nothing to indicate that the CSR class are "stored" as a group.
At least two of the ten are running right now.
M636C
groomer manMaybe someone should ask Bombardier. They claim there Ski-Doo snowmobiles beat the 4- strokes on both the emissions and fuel mileage
I don't think that snowmobiles use diesel engines.
CSSHEGEWISCH groomer man Maybe someone should ask Bombardier. They claim there Ski-Doo snowmobiles beat the 4- strokes on both the emissions and fuel mileage I don't think that snowmobiles use diesel engines.
groomer man Maybe someone should ask Bombardier. They claim there Ski-Doo snowmobiles beat the 4- strokes on both the emissions and fuel mileage
Currently no but as smaller and smaller diesel engines are becoming more common there are prototypes being built:
http://www.trucktrend.com/cool-trucks/0909dp-2005-polaris-fusion/
But to answer Groomerman's original point the railroads would prefer to continue buying EMD units with the 2 cycle 710 engine but EMD was not able to succesfully develop a Tier iv compliant emissions system for the engine series so 4 cycles will be the standard..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
After a quick skim through the October issue, I settled on the "Locomotives" section which illustrated two versions of the GE ET44 and an EMD test unit, #92.
I think it was at least implied that #92 was testing the EMD engine at the title of this thread, but it has a full cowl carbody which would be unusual, even for a test unit if a normal hood unit was intended.
I've heard that 92 is in fact testing the Caterpillar C175 intended for the F125 passenger locomotive. Certainly, that engine needs to be tested just as much as the freight locomotive engine.
That's the former SD89MAC prototype, isn't it?
Looking forward to seeing that picture. Classic Trains arrived today, but still waiting on the October issue of Trains.
Edit: Neat looking, bet a model railroader would love to tackle this project.
http://eyepilot13.deviantart.com/art/EMDX-92-0154-9-7-14-481564501
EMD also has EMDX 91 used for similar purposes. You're on the right track, no pun intended :)
That's the ugliest dang thing on rails since those D&H experimental water tube-boiler high-pressure steam locomotives?
I mean, c'mon people, there are certain permutations on the hood unit/road switcher arrangement that make sense.
The hood unit gives the crew a view along either the short hood or the long hood. The walkways along both hoods gave the crews access to the end platforms without needing to climb down from the locomotive, and the side doors on the long hood gave shop crews easier access to changing out "power assemblies" and the like.
Some roads operated them long-hood forward to offer, at least what was believed as, extra protection in a collision, either at a grade crossing or with another train. Other roads operated them short hood forward, with the manufacturers lowering the short hood to give a less restricted view in that direction. The ALCo RS-1 had a lowered short and long hood, giving better views in either direction.
"Cowl" units eliminated the walkways in each direction -- a crew member could walk through the engine compartment to go back, through the "nose" to get to the front platform through a nose door. At least the walk to the end platforms was now protected from the elements, but the sight backwards was obstructed. As this was important in the Canadian winter, Canadian roads used the "Draper taper" -- a notch in the cowl to provide a limited sightline backwards.
The "safety cab" kept the hood unit walkways back, but widened the "nose" to better protect the crew in a collision, requiring walking out a nose door to get to the front platform.
New Jersey Transit ordered some Franken-locomotives that kept the not-as-safe cab without the full width nose to the front but a full cowl to the back. Don't know what that was about apart from stitching together parts of different locomotives to meet a budget for a commuter agency.
This monster is the worst of all worlds. It is essentially a hood unit with a wide cab (safety cab) with this tent on at least one walkway to house the bulky smog-control gear?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
So it's a hood unit with an extra wide hood. I've seen worse..(and, most likely, you have too.)
It's a testbed. It is going to look strange. GE's Tier IV testbeds looked bad with their camelback too, but the final design cleaned up nicely. I suspect that this allows them to test the prime mover on a locomotive, and then road test units will appear soon. A cowl allows more adjustment without removing the hood over the prime mover, and the rest of the locomotive is what is left of the 265H testbeds/demonstrators.
Paul Milenkovic That's the ugliest dang thing on rails since those D&H experimental water tube-boiler high-pressure steam locomotives? I mean, c'mon people, there are certain permutations on the hood unit/road switcher arrangement that make sense. The hood unit gives the crew a view along either the short hood or the long hood. The walkways along both hoods gave the crews access to the end platforms without needing to climb down from the locomotive, and the side doors on the long hood gave shop crews easier access to changing out "power assemblies" and the like. Some roads operated them long-hood forward to offer, at least what was believed as, extra protection in a collision, either at a grade crossing or with another train. Other roads operated them short hood forward, with the manufacturers lowering the short hood to give a less restricted view in that direction. The ALCo RS-1 had a lowered short and long hood, giving better views in either direction. "Cowl" units eliminated the walkways in each direction -- a crew member could walk through the engine compartment to go back, through the "nose" to get to the front platform through a nose door. At least the walk to the end platforms was now protected from the elements, but the sight backwards was obstructed. As this was important in the Canadian winter, Canadian roads used the "Draper taper" -- a notch in the cowl to provide a limited sightline backwards. The "safety cab" kept the hood unit walkways back, but widened the "nose" to better protect the crew in a collision, requiring walking out a nose door to get to the front platform. New Jersey Transit ordered some Franken-locomotives that kept the not-as-safe cab without the full width nose to the front but a full cowl to the back. Don't know what that was about apart from stitching together parts of different locomotives to meet a budget for a commuter agency. This monster is the worst of all worlds. It is essentially a hood unit with a wide cab (safety cab) with this tent on at least one walkway to house the bulky smog-control gear?
Take a deep breath, and just read this post below. I think he has the right idea.
NorthWestIt's a testbed. It is going to look strange. GE's Tier IV testbeds looked bad with their camelback too, but the final design cleaned up nicely. I suspect that this allows them to test the prime mover on a locomotive, and then road test units will appear soon. A cowl allows more adjustment without removing the hood over the prime mover, and the rest of the locomotive is what is left of the 265H testbeds/demonstrators.
ML
This reminds me, any news from the C175 tests with NS?
I suppose that EMD testbed will be more public, or not?
The NS Dash 9 Website suggests that they have been or will be renumbered into a three digit group of prototypes including other genset locomotives.
This to me suggests that there may well be no more of them and they are freeing up the number group for other units.
So, I suppose that NS was not real impressed by this motor?
They've always been shop queens, and are usually one of the first stored and the last reactivated when a traffic downturn hits. Unfortunately, they are rather tight-lipped about what the problems are exactly.
http://www.progressrail.com/cda/files/4546813/7/PR43C.pdf
Thanks for the correction. This is about the same power per cylinder as the ALCo 251 motor in its latest incarnations, I guess...
nfotis Thanks for the correction. This is about the same power per cylinder as the ALCo 251 motor in its latest incarnations, I guess... N.F.
Not really; the 12 cylinder 251 was rated at about 2400 HP max for locomotive service while the C175-12 is rated at 3600 HP....
The PR43C use 16-cylinder engines, as shown in the PDF link above.
What with the extra equipment needed to go Tier IV, the oversized exhaust/muffler, and a need for additional space above the engine, EMD should pioneer the "Plate H" diesel locomotive. Just have to be sure it doesn't pull a train down a restricted-overhead rail line. The components of the oversized radiator, exhaust manifold, and a lot of other items to be placed "upstairs" won't be very heavy compared to, say, a large engine block. The components should be arranged to get the heaviest down to the frame deck while the larger, lighter-weight items (such as the muffler system) would be installed toward the top of the long hood. Just an idea...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.