oltmannd It's why Conrail decided against the 6000 HP AC units and settled for a 20-645 engined SD80MAC. Even those had some teething problems - mostly with the electronic fuel injection (which was new to rail applications at the time). But, 29 of the 30 SD80MACs are still pulling freight 20 years later... The 6000 HP beasts?
It's why Conrail decided against the 6000 HP AC units and settled for a 20-645 engined SD80MAC. Even those had some teething problems - mostly with the electronic fuel injection (which was new to rail applications at the time).
But, 29 of the 30 SD80MACs are still pulling freight 20 years later... The 6000 HP beasts?
Perhaps SD80MACs with 20-710G3A engines?
These engines have since been built for South America (SD80ACe) and India (WDG-5) and may have a long future in India particularly.
EMD did try to get the 710 to meet Tier 4 requirements because that's what the customer wanted.
However the GEVO was a new engine to meet Tier 2 and now everybody has one (or a few). There were a lot of problems, including a complete redesign of the turbocharger relatively recently.
If EMD and CAT support a new engine the big roads will support it because they don't want GE to have a monopoly and the new EMD engine will work, even if there are a few early problems.
After all if it is based on the 265H which has at least 300 units running in China right now (ten times the number of SD80MACs) it will be based on some real experience in service.
M636C
LensCapOn Just a question based on the basic conservatism of the industry. Assuming Cat/EMD do a good job on their new 4-stroke, how long would it be before it is trusted? It’s not like EMD has a long history of 4-stokes, or Cat has a long history of successful rail powering’s. Plus the cost of engine failure is at a kill the market level so who would buy much on spec? How many years before even a really good engine would be trusted?
Years. In the past, when EMD and GE made evolutionary changes to existing engines, there has been trouble. Fixable stuff, but still trouble that caused wailing and gnashing of teeth. New engines are very scary.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Buslist Rail Express (a UK fan magazine) is reporting in their latest issue that the EU is backing off on their Tier IV emission standards as there is no railway sized diesel that can meet those standards and fit within the UK clearance envelop. Interesting!
Rail Express (a UK fan magazine) is reporting in their latest issue that the EU is backing off on their Tier IV emission standards as there is no railway sized diesel that can meet those standards and fit within the UK clearance envelop. Interesting!
IIRC,The GE GEVO engine (the only locomotive engine at the moment with a Tier IV complaint Exhaust Gas Re-circulation system that works) is too big to fit within a locomotive envelope that will accomodate the loading gauge in the UK and much of Western Europe.
There are certainly diesel engines on the market that meet Tier IV that would fit in a UK/Europe sized loco but they all use SCR/Urea based exhaust treatment. A good example is the Cat C175 family of engines, which power the Vossloh built Class 68 locomotives being delivered to UK operator Direct Rail services. A Tier IV version of that same engine will be in the new EMD F125 commuter locomotive being built for the US market.
So perhaps the EU realizes that SCR is not an optimal system for many types of rail operatorions and they want to wait until EGR is a more mature technology.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
ML
Probably too early, but does anyone have a guess on horsepower? I'd suspect they'd try to match GE's 4400?
TO UP MACHINEST I HAVE BEEN AN EMD MECHANIC FOR MANY YEARS I LIKE WHAT I SEE IN THE GEVO ENGINE BUT HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO TALK WITH ANY BODY WHO HAS WORKED ON THE GEVO. ALWAYS WILLING TO LISTEN HERBYDG@AOL.COM
I'd love to find some good technical data on the 265 engine or "H-engine". I'm a diesel mechanic and recently became a locomotive machinist. From what little I've been ale to gather the "H-engine" is very similar to GE engines. Do you know of any good sources of information?
CPM 500
M636C Overmod LensCapOn Could someone cover the basics of the operating history of the 265H? All I ever heard is that there were engine problems in use with the SD90MAC, and that they were a reason for their limited use. We had at least one fairly detailed thread on the problems back around 2002-2003, but I'm not able to look up the specific reference from here. The principal issue I remember with the 265H was cavitation, due to ultrasonic vibrations induced at some points in the crankcase at high power levels. Something very similar was reported for the modified Deutz engine design GE was using. I don't have access to the specific information -- but I suspect Will Davis and Peter (M636C) know where to find and display it. I'm afraid that the 265H and HDL are a bit of a mystery to me... There was a contemporary issue of "Rail News" magazine at the time of the introduction of the 6000 HP engines that gave more details than I've seen elsewhere. Sadly, I couldn't find my copy when I last looked. This was before the difficulties emerged, of course. One thing I recall was that the "Rail News" article suggested that the EMD engine was enlarged in bore and stroke to match the power output of the GE/Deutz competitor and that the earlier EMD version was known as the 854 (if I recall correctly) on a cubic inch displacement basis, and that engine was expected to deliver 5000 HP from a V-16. If all that was true, and the enlargement occured late in the process, developmental difficulties could well be expected with the enlarged engine. On the other hand, I recall seeing references to the GE HDL indicating that GE were unhappy with the structure of the crankcase as designed by Deutz, suggesting that the casting thicknesses were inadequate. This was one of the things changed in the development of the GEVO engine. Certainly, the BHP Billiton AC 6000s had a very distinctive sound when fitted with the HDL which was absent when they were converted to 16 cylinder GEVO engines. The HDL had a hollow or resonant sound such that you could identify them by the sound before they came into view. This sound could well be associated with cavitation in the jacket water spaces. Cavitation makes its presence felt by erosion of the metal on the wet side of the cylinder liners around the combustion spaces at the top of the cylinder. Altering the frequency of vibration by stiffening up the engine structure and maybe the liner itself could eliminate cavitation. I assume this worked for the GEVO and may have worked for the 265H, assuming EMD used the same techniques as GE. Most of the 16-265H engines built are used in the JT56C locomotives in China. It appears that many, maybe most of these engines use Chinese crankcase castings and the last of the three hundred or so may have been entirely Chinese built. EMD never licenced construction of the two stroke engines to my knowledge, possibly because of specialised materials and processes involved, but the 265H must have been more conventional in this respect. But I assume that the problems experienced in the earlier US built 265H engines had been cleared up in the late production Chinese engines and these changes would be incorporated in the new Tier 4 engine. M636C emd should follow the GEVO DESIGN HAVE A COMPLET POWER PACK BUT ONLY WATER SHOULD BE IN THE POWER PACK. ONLY OIL COOLING IN THE BLOCK. CAM SEGMENTS PR CYL IS GOOD. WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE CAST BLOCK OVER FABRICATED BLOCK. MAKE AS REPAIR FRIENDLY AS POSIBLE REBUILDIBLE. CHANGING ENGINE DESIGN EVERY FEW YEARS IS TERIBLE. ANY UPGRADES SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE RETROACTIVE AS THE DETROIT ENGINES WERE.
Overmod LensCapOn Could someone cover the basics of the operating history of the 265H? All I ever heard is that there were engine problems in use with the SD90MAC, and that they were a reason for their limited use. We had at least one fairly detailed thread on the problems back around 2002-2003, but I'm not able to look up the specific reference from here. The principal issue I remember with the 265H was cavitation, due to ultrasonic vibrations induced at some points in the crankcase at high power levels. Something very similar was reported for the modified Deutz engine design GE was using. I don't have access to the specific information -- but I suspect Will Davis and Peter (M636C) know where to find and display it.
LensCapOn Could someone cover the basics of the operating history of the 265H? All I ever heard is that there were engine problems in use with the SD90MAC, and that they were a reason for their limited use.
We had at least one fairly detailed thread on the problems back around 2002-2003, but I'm not able to look up the specific reference from here.
The principal issue I remember with the 265H was cavitation, due to ultrasonic vibrations induced at some points in the crankcase at high power levels. Something very similar was reported for the modified Deutz engine design GE was using. I don't have access to the specific information -- but I suspect Will Davis and Peter (M636C) know where to find and display it.
I'm afraid that the 265H and HDL are a bit of a mystery to me...
There was a contemporary issue of "Rail News" magazine at the time of the introduction of the 6000 HP engines that gave more details than I've seen elsewhere. Sadly, I couldn't find my copy when I last looked. This was before the difficulties emerged, of course. One thing I recall was that the "Rail News" article suggested that the EMD engine was enlarged in bore and stroke to match the power output of the GE/Deutz competitor and that the earlier EMD version was known as the 854 (if I recall correctly) on a cubic inch displacement basis, and that engine was expected to deliver 5000 HP from a V-16. If all that was true, and the enlargement occured late in the process, developmental difficulties could well be expected with the enlarged engine.
On the other hand, I recall seeing references to the GE HDL indicating that GE were unhappy with the structure of the crankcase as designed by Deutz, suggesting that the casting thicknesses were inadequate. This was one of the things changed in the development of the GEVO engine.
Certainly, the BHP Billiton AC 6000s had a very distinctive sound when fitted with the HDL which was absent when they were converted to 16 cylinder GEVO engines. The HDL had a hollow or resonant sound such that you could identify them by the sound before they came into view. This sound could well be associated with cavitation in the jacket water spaces. Cavitation makes its presence felt by erosion of the metal on the wet side of the cylinder liners around the combustion spaces at the top of the cylinder.
Altering the frequency of vibration by stiffening up the engine structure and maybe the liner itself could eliminate cavitation. I assume this worked for the GEVO and may have worked for the 265H, assuming EMD used the same techniques as GE.
Most of the 16-265H engines built are used in the JT56C locomotives in China. It appears that many, maybe most of these engines use Chinese crankcase castings and the last of the three hundred or so may have been entirely Chinese built. EMD never licenced construction of the two stroke engines to my knowledge, possibly because of specialised materials and processes involved, but the 265H must have been more conventional in this respect. But I assume that the problems experienced in the earlier US built 265H engines had been cleared up in the late production Chinese engines and these changes would be incorporated in the new Tier 4 engine.
M636C emd should follow the GEVO DESIGN HAVE A COMPLET POWER PACK
BUT ONLY WATER SHOULD BE IN THE POWER PACK. ONLY OIL COOLING IN THE BLOCK. CAM SEGMENTS PR CYL IS GOOD. WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE CAST BLOCK OVER FABRICATED BLOCK. MAKE AS REPAIR FRIENDLY AS POSIBLE REBUILDIBLE. CHANGING ENGINE DESIGN EVERY FEW YEARS IS TERIBLE. ANY UPGRADES SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE RETROACTIVE AS THE DETROIT ENGINES WERE.
LensCapOnCould someone cover the basics of the operating history of the 265H? All I ever heard is that there were engine problems in use with the SD90MAC, and that they were a reason for their limited use.
LensCapOn Could someone cover the basics of the operating history of the 265H? All I ever heard is that there were engine problems in use with the SD90MAC, and that they were a reason for their limited use. Can someone say what was failing and why? Then there is the question of what would be changed in an improved version to eliminate them. I seem to remember at the time of Caterpillar’s purchase of EMD there were features on EMD’s skill with 2-strokes and their confidence in meeting future fuel and emission standards. Guess that wasn’t so. I also note they don’t seem to be trying to shove a cat 3612 into an SD. Guess they can’t fix the old broken crank issue.
The CAT 3612 has been replaced in the catalog by the C280 series engine which is an evolved 3600 (think GE HDL to GEVO). There is a Tier IV compliant version but, like the C175 that Cat/Progress/EMD is going to use in their new commuter locomotives, the system uses SCR(i.e urea) which the railroad industry is saying it does not want in locomotive applications.
The 265H was part of EMD's previous research into Exhaust Gas Recirculation technology so it is the logical starting point for a 710 replacement (whether or not the railroads will be happy with it remains to be seen).
Text of Title 40 Part 1033: Control of Emissions from Locomotives
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=914e5125a27c447773834b4203f48082&node=pt40.33.1033&rgn=div5
I wouldn't take anything presented b y EMD ]within the pages of TRAINS as gospel. CAT/PR/EMD has made few official statements on the business in the manner prescribed by corporate governance rules. By comparison...
If you look at GE's official statements or press releases, there is always some boilerplate at the end-something to the effect that "This is a forward looking statement..." and so on. In a word...a disclaimer.
CPM500 The 265 H was designed with jerk pumps and nozzles-which are concealed under the rocker covers. Control was via EMDEC. I wonder if the new engine will be equipped with common rail fuel injection. The photo gives no clue. On the H, the segmented camshaft is located high in the middle of the vee-which complicates access compared to the 710. At the onset of 265H production, the cast block was supplied by CAT. With that said...
The 265 H was designed with jerk pumps and nozzles-which are concealed under the rocker covers. Control was via EMDEC. I wonder if the new engine will be equipped with common rail fuel injection. The photo gives no clue.
On the H, the segmented camshaft is located high in the middle of the vee-which complicates access compared to the 710.
At the onset of 265H production, the cast block was supplied by CAT. With that said...
It is a long time since I've seen any details of the 265H but unit injectors seemed correct.
I'm advised that the only way of meeting Tier 4 NOx emission standards is to use common rail injection. The technique is to use multiple small injections per stroke which keeps the peak temperature low enough to avoid NOx formation. This also reduces the peak stresses in the cylinder while maintaining a mean effective pressure.
The illustration in Trains shows an angled rectangular projection from the cylinder head cover which might enclose electronic injection control and might indicate the location of the common rail feed.
The reference to Tier 4 Credit reads "for every Tier 4 Credit User locomotive built in a calendar year a locomotive to Tier 4 standards must also be constructed". I read that as meaning the matching Tier 4 unit must be constructed in the same calendar year.
There are no Emissions Credits covering EPA Emissions Standards. However EMD can continue to build locomotives like the GP20C-ECO. CP is said to be very satisfied with the GP20C-ECOs and after further testing the SD30C-ECO locomotives. There are only 10 more options on the GP20C-ECO, but there are potentially several hundred SD30C-ECO candidates.
Will their emission credits allow them to build any US locomotives next year? I'm assuming no, since this month's issue makes it sound like GE will have to produce at least one domestic Tier IV locomotive next year for every emission credit Tier 3 example produced for US customers next year.
Will that still be able to be applied by EMD (They've also built up some emission credits) when they do have a Tier IV solution, allowing possibly a few more SD70ACe orders the year when its successor enters production?
We can also count on M636C for some good insight in these types of subjects
Additional thoughts-
It appears that Ainsworth and company made a rather large blunder in delaying development efforts towards a Tier IV engine. Appears that CAT has asserted their control of EMD...and the ainsworth crew may getr kicked to the curb. There is little experience in their collective background that equips them to manage EMD. It is a mystery to me why CAT was not aware of that fact.
If EMD had been prepared for Tier IV and had managed to obtain say, 20 % of the one thousand GE Tier IV locos on order, I would guess that the revenue might have been in the neighborhood of 600 million dollars-exclusive of renewal parts support, customer training and other services.
The PR obsession with cost cutting-and ignoring the possibilities for growth-has come to bite them on the you-know-what.
CPM500
The exhaust beyond the turbocharger looks as though a diesel particulate filter may be incorporated in the muffler arrangement.
Are you describing the picture of a V12 on page 16 of the Dec 2014 Trains magazine?
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Appears to be a revision of the 265H. No surprise there...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.