20 cylinder vs. 16 cylinder prime movers

[Wizlish]

carnej1

one submarine class I am very familiar with has three 90 degree V-18 engines arranged abreast.

He probably means the Kockup 'Collins' class.  These are Hedamora (Swedish) engines, and if I am not mistaken there were at least two types of locomotives that had their engines installed.

I'd be interested to hear technical details of these engines (and the T45 locomotive).  They may have had problems but nothing like the woes of the 338s!

[M636C]

Wizlish wrote the following post 4 hours ago:

 

carnej1

one submarine class I am very familiar with has three 90 degree V-18 engines arranged abreast.

 

 

He probably means the Kockums 'Collins' class.  These are Hedemora (Swedish) engines, and if I am not mistaken there were at least two types of locomotives that had their engines installed.

I'd be interested to hear technical details of these engines (and the T45 locomotive).  They may have had problems but nothing like the woes of the 338s!

I shall be very careful what I say here since I am on my work terminal...

 

All of the Collins were built by the Australian Submarine Corporation to a Kockums design. Kockums made the hull sections for "Collins" which were welded together in Adelaide. We weren't impressed with the Swedish welding and particularly not their flexible hoses.

 

After a lot of work the Collins are now operating very well but like all submarines they are not cheap to build or operate. The RAN has a very close relationship with the USN on many aspects of submarine equipment.

 

While Hedemora was a Swedish company, it became an Australian company after they were unable to fund the reworking of the 18 cylinder engines.

 

The engines in the Swedish locomotives were V-12s with smaller bore than the Submarine engines. The last survivor was the spare locomotive to two G-12s at the Sydvaranger Iron Ore Mine in very northern Norway. The G-12s were pretty reliable so the T-45 didn't get used much.

 

M636C

[noemdfan]

Nope.  664 Cubic Inches per cylinder.

[VGN Jess]

TIMZ: Then why wouldn't EMD have used the GE displacement metrics and really had a powerful engine?

[M636C]

noemdfan

Nope.  664 Cubic Inches per cylinder.

 

This is a clear answer...

I seem to have missed the question, however....

 

M636C

[M636C]

carnej1

 

The U.S.Navy does not have any diesel submarines. The last one, Bonefish, had 3 Fairbanks engines 

 That's true but FM opposed piston engines were the standard auxilary power for U.S Nuclear submarines up until quite recently and the older boats still have them installed..

 

I think the more recent boats use CAT 3516 engines....

Certainly there is a shock qualified CAT 3516 available and we replaced the Detroit 16-149s in our FFG-7s with Cat 3516s. I'm told the crews like them and they reliably produce their rated power.

M636C

[M636C]

VGN Jess

TIMZ: Then why wouldn't EMD have used the GE displacement metrics and really had a powerful engine?

 

Engine dimensions are basically an historical legacy....

 

In the early 1930s, Winton, then a GM subsidiary developed the 201 engine which was an 8" x 10" engine with a 60 degree vee angle and in line versions. This was developed into the 201A which launched the EMC, later EMD locomotive range.

 

It was realised that the 201A wasn't up to the job and a much more complex design, the 567, 8.5" x 10" with a 45 degree vee angle was developed, being installed from 1939 onward.

 

The engine was developed and modified, the biggest changes being the 567B which introduced more or less the current design of crankcase and the 567C which introduced the fully water jacketed cylinder liner.

 

In 1966 the cylinder bore was increased to 9-1/16" making the displacement 645 cubic inches. Later the stroke was increased from ten inches to eleven inches, giving a displacement of 710 cubic inches, which now looks like as far as it will go.

 

The reason for this progression of dimensions and displacements was to maintain a production line of engines while introducing progressive improvements.

 

By comparison, GE had a single engine, which started off in around 1951 as the Cooper-Bessemer FVL (and an in line version the FWL used in 70 ton switchers) and briefly appeared in export locomotives rated at 1800 HP for the V-16 before appearing as the GE FDL at 2400 HP and, on release of the U25, 2500HP for the V16. The same basic engine was rated at 4400 HP in its final USA domestic locomotives.

 

When the horsepower race intervened GE went to Deutz MWM in Germany and took their model 632 which  was 250mm x 320mm and available as inline and 45 degree vee engines. The HDL and the major variations of the GEVO that have followed have all been the same bore and stroke, although the latest engines in the ET series locomotives are basically a new design with a longer engine than the Tier 3 versions.

 

So in both cases, EMD and GE became locked into engine dimensions that were difficult to change while keeping production under way.

 

The customers were really only interested in the power at the wheel rims and the fuel consumption, and since both were able to provide 4300 to 4400HP reliably at competitive fuel consumption, there was no reason to change, until the Tier 4 requirements led to a complete redesign of the GEVO and the new EMD 1010.

 

M636C

[carnej1]

Wizlish

 

 

carnej1

one submarine class I am very familiar with has three 90 degree V-18 engines arranged abreast.

 

 

He probably means the Kockup 'Collins' class.  These are Hedamora (Swedish) engines, and if I am not mistaken there were at least two types of locomotives that had their engines installed.

I'd be interested to hear technical details of these engines (and the T45 locomotive).  They may have had problems but nothing like the woes of the 338s!

 

I admit I'm late to correct this out but I did not type the above comment, it was a quote from another poster included in one of my replies..

I would ask that people be careful when quoting to ensure that they are not inadvertently attaching my name to someone else's comment (I try to do likewise)..

Thanks.

[VGN Jess]

That's a great explanation; thank you. I will wonder no more. :)

[M636C]

carnej1 wrote the following post 6 hours ago:

 

Wizlish

 

 

carnej1

one submarine class I am very familiar with has three 90 degree V-18 engines arranged abreast.

 

 

He probably means the Kockup 'Collins' class.  These are Hedamora (Swedish) engines, and if I am not mistaken there were at least two types of locomotives that had their engines installed.

I'd be interested to hear technical details of these engines (and the T45 locomotive).  They may have had problems but nothing like the woes of the 338s!

 

 

 

 

I admit I'm late to correct this out but I did not type the above comment, it was a quote from another poster included in one of my replies..

I would ask that people be careful when quoting to ensure that they are not inadvertently attaching my name to someone else's comment (I try to do likewise)..

Thanks.

Indeed the original quote was mine...

 

In a recent post I correctly quoted you but the original poster's name disappeared from the "boxed" quote through no action of mine.

 

I assumed that in that case, it was still clear that you posted the "outer" quote referring to the unidentified "inner" quote.

 

All of this has come about because the changes to the forum show the text as displayed when quoting. Previously and on other fora, control codes were displayed that made it easer to ensure that everything was correctly attributed.

 

In my case on this machine running IE 8, I have to cut and paste the whole quotation because the "quote" button doesn't work.

 

But I for one do try to keep the poster's name in quotes, not always with success.

 

M636C

[carnej1]

M636C

carnej1 wrote the following post 6 hours ago:

 

Wizlish

 

 

carnej1

one submarine class I am very familiar with has three 90 degree V-18 engines arranged abreast.

 

 

He probably means the Kockup 'Collins' class.  These are Hedamora (Swedish) engines, and if I am not mistaken there were at least two types of locomotives that had their engines installed.

I'd be interested to hear technical details of these engines (and the T45 locomotive).  They may have had problems but nothing like the woes of the 338s!

 

 

 

 

I admit I'm late to correct this out but I did not type the above comment, it was a quote from another poster included in one of my replies..

I would ask that people be careful when quoting to ensure that they are not inadvertently attaching my name to someone else's comment (I try to do likewise)..

Thanks.

Indeed the original quote was mine...

 

In a recent post I correctly quoted you but the original poster's name disappeared from the "boxed" quote through no action of mine.

 

I assumed that in that case, it was still clear that you posted the "outer" quote referring to the unidentified "inner" quote.

 

All of this has come about because the changes to the forum show the text as displayed when quoting. Previously and on other fora, control codes were displayed that made it easer to ensure that everything was correctly attributed.

 

In my case on this machine running IE 8, I have to cut and paste the whole quotation because the "quote" button doesn't work.

 

But I for one do try to keep the poster's name in quotes, not always with success.

 

M636C

 

 No problem.

Ironically I posted my complaint on the same day that I quoted a poster on another thread on this forum without doing my due dilligence; his original post was from two years ago and thus was outdated information but had been a valid observation when he first posted it..