With the Siemens Charger locomotive on its way, is it safe to say they will be replacing the P40dc's? Or is it to supplement the Genesis roster?
Please stop asking these wacky questions.
The Siemens Charger is purpose-designed for 125 mph trains. It has nothing in common with anything a P40 (or any other Genesis locomotive) would pull. Even with a Cummins QSK (instead of the lame Caterpillar C175 in the EMD Spirit) I have my doubts that high-speed diesel prime movers would have a happy future in 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger services, even 110 mph services.
So you don't think they'll be successful?
We'll see how reliable they are. They will displace locomotives from corridor services, but these will simply enter the national LD pool (where they will likely be needed due to the inevitable wreck attrition). The P40DCs will not disappear.
zkr123 So you don't think they'll be successful?
My personal opinion is that the market for 125 mph service is not the same as it was for the HSTs in Britain. The diesel services are more likely to thrive at 110 mph, and HSR in most American corridors where higher speed is warranted is likely to use a higher peak speed, probably above 150 mph, which I think will only be achievable with full electrification (or turbine power).
I'll be delighted to see AAF or IDOT succeed with their 125 mph peak trains, but I have grave doubts that the expenses will prove justified (over what the 110 mph or much faster alternatives will offer)
Wizlish Even with a Cummins QSK (instead of the lame Caterpillar C175 in the EMD Spirit)
Even with a Cummins QSK (instead of the lame Caterpillar C175 in the EMD Spirit)
Lame? huh, please elaborate.
EntropyLame? huh, please elaborate.
Leaving aside that 'Caterpillar' and 'success' have not been particularly associated in the field of large diesel locomotive prime movers for decades...
C175 makes a fine constant-speed stationary genset engine ... if you can overlook the emergent speed-stability problems when the engine is at full operating temperature that supposedly make it impossible to synchronize them to line frequency effectively. Makes a fine truck engine in the 797, if you overlook the bearing longevity issues ... which I think are related to precisely the kind of power excursions that will be likely in HSR service. I know of no railroad that's going to be happy with mandatory 250-hour oil changes, especially when they were promised much longer intervals, or having to 'watch' the results of frequent oil tests to catch the momentary 'spike' and then mildly higher levels of bearing metal that correspond to the incipient damage.
I trust that the problems with local dealers being clueless on locomotive support, with reported 6- to 10-week response times, have been corrected. I suspect that any 1800-rpm engine making that many hp at that peak piston speed is likely to have trouble in a locomotive environment, particularly in a light monococque structure operating at high speed. I would certainly like to be wrong, and I hope I am wrong on all counts. But so far I have seen little contradictory evidence.
I do have to chuckle a bit at Caterpillar claiming credit for the 'over 70,000 rail engines' that EMD has produced.
We're drifting off of the original topic, but in past experience the OP hasn't cared much about where these threads end up.
I think that the Vossloh UKLights (Class 68) will be an excellent preview of how the F125 will perform, as they are somewhat similar in mechanical arrangment (and as an aside, Vossloh is building the F125 body shells). I haven't been able to dig up any reliability data on the 68s.
Wizlish Leaving aside that 'Caterpillar' and 'success' have not been particularly associated in the field of large diesel locomotive prime movers for decades...
There's truth to that, however over many of those projects SD-CAT and MK5000, CAT wasn't in control and was left to a 3rd party to validate the installation, did things like mate a 3612 engine, ran it at 900 rpm with an AR10 gen end, the 3612 wasn't designed to make full power at 900 and thus was a failure. As for the PR43C; it hasn't shown to be a success, but niether have gen sets overall.
However I would say the 3512/3516 has had some success in rail, GP20D/GP15 built 15 years ago by MPI still in use today. Via rail repowers, PHL repowers, MK1200G.
Still Cummins hasn't had anything to show for in rail other than gensets.
Wizlish C175 makes a fine constant-speed stationary genset engine ... if you can overlook the emergent speed-stability problems when the engine is at full operating temperature that supposedly make it impossible to synchronize them to line frequency effectively.
Wizlish Makes a fine truck engine in the 797, if you overlook the bearing longevity issues ... which I think are related to precisely the kind of power excursions that will be likely in HSR service.
Makes a fine truck engine in the 797, if you overlook the bearing longevity issues ... which I think are related to precisely the kind of power excursions that will be likely in HSR service.
Wizlish I know of no railroad that's going to be happy with mandatory 250-hour oil changes, especially when they were promised much longer intervals, or having to 'watch' the results of frequent oil tests to catch the momentary 'spike' and then mildly higher levels of bearing metal that correspond to the incipient damage.
I know of no railroad that's going to be happy with mandatory 250-hour oil changes, especially when they were promised much longer intervals, or having to 'watch' the results of frequent oil tests to catch the momentary 'spike' and then mildly higher levels of bearing metal that correspond to the incipient damage.
I got ahold of a C175 Locomotive O&M Manual says oil sample every 250 hr and 1000 hr oil and filter replacement. Valve Adjustment every 4000 hr. I'd agree most high speed engines O&M does state 250 or 500 hr oil changes, as what happens in the field is only a liablity to the manufacture so how is it adventagous for ie MTU to advocate extended oil change. It would only work to their benefit to state 250 hour oil changes.
I do agree high speed diesels have an uphill battle in the rail business, we'll see who has the better product between Cummins and CAT within the next few years. Luckily for CAT they have over 1000 C175 engines in the field, that can't be said for the QSK95.
[/quote]
Entropy,
While I hate to correct someone who is obviously 'in the business', I believe that there are more QSK 95's out in the field than were mentioned within this thread.
Of singular note is a re-engined (if not outright re-manufactured) SD90MAC rated at 4000 hp operating on the Indiana Rail Road.There is also an ongoing program to remanufacture WP&Y GE 'shovelnoses' with 1500 HP Cummins. Several were done by the firm in Tacoma purchased by PR-and the rest (along with the 90MAC) were done by a newer firm located in the PNW. The name escapes me at this moment.
Additionally, Motive Power is supplying a group of new builds to a road down under, also with QSK's.
It wouldn't surprise me if both the new EMD and Siemens locos ultimately end up under contract maintenance, as Siemens has done with the new electrics.
CPM500
PS:FWIW, I don't see Amtrak investing any money in the P40DC fleet. Some have been sold off-with others in storage. Among other factors, MFI and DC motors are both obsolete technology in the passenger rail world.
EntropyStill Cummins hasn't had anything to show for in rail other than gensets.
That's true in the United States. And I'd have thought there would be published results from CECX 1919 long before now. Those results would have a direct bearing on the likely viability of the QSK in the Charger (which was the original subject of the thread) particularly if the engine is expected to be in 'overboost' or whatever they call it to reach nominal 125 mph speed with a train.
Wizlish C175 makes a fine constant-speed stationary genset engine ... if you can overlook the emergent speed-stability problems when the engine is at full operating temperature that supposedly make it impossible to synchronize them to line frequency effectively. So basically you're saying they can't hold 1800 rpm / 60.0Hz ? 9/10 i've seen this occur due to govenor issue. Not specifically on C175.
So basically you're saying they can't hold 1800 rpm / 60.0Hz ? 9/10 i've seen this occur due to govenor issue. Not specifically on C175.
This actually appears to be an emergent problem with C175s, in the last couple of months. I haven't figured out whether the 'problem' engines had ADEM or ACERT, but apparently when they warm up and come out of loop their stability goes out. In all fairness, this problem would have nothing whatsoever to do with locomotive performance (except perhaps if the frequency of the HEP system were determined by the traction alternator, which is unlikely). What I worry is that considering all the work Cat has put into designing the C175, this and the bearing problem are problems that shouldn't be happening.
Likewise the PR43C was what I considered a fair test of the C175 in general railroad service, and the problems I've heard about it were not related to the 'genset' operation at either horsepower extreme with the little C18 cut in. (HAVE there been any problems with the C18 in this service? I'd be prepared to bet there were comparatively few...) If that is wrong, and it may very well be wrong since I'm not privy to the detail of NS testing, I'd appreciate any details you can provide.
Yes, I expect Cat to address the bearing issue with professional skill. What I'm concerned about is whether the problem is analogous to the cavitation issues in the 6000 hp 'marine-derived' medium-speed Deutz (GE) and 265-H (EMD) -- a materials- or physics-related problem that might not have a cost-effective solution short of extensive redesign. Instantaneous shock to the engine's bearings is one of the great hazards of railroad service (compared to, say, what mine trucks endure), and what I see (from what I've read) is that the things causing the bearing damage were transient events that were difficult to recognize if not identified at the time they happened, but that caused cumulative damage that was difficult to detect if you didn't know what to look for ... but that could progress to more severe damage with little predictability or advance warning. I'm concerned that even a couple of incidents of that kind would give the C175 a bad rep as a railroad powerplant, and as you mentioned at the outset the railroad folks may not be willing or able to do the careful timed maintenance checking to catch the problem.
Has the bearing redesign resulted in the advised interval for sampling being backed off from 125 hours? (I would expect it would.) If it has not, it might be prudent for Cat to apply the shorter sampling to the railroad engines, at least until it's certain that the railroad environment isn't producing more severe stress to the crank bearings.
I'm concerned that 'current' railroad practice with lube oil and changes, particularly on EMD 2-strokes, might carry over to use on the new high-speed engines. If I recall correctly one of the issues with the Krauss-Maffei Amerika-Loks had to do with more stringent lube-oil changes than railroads wanted to see.
CPM500PS:FWIW, I don't see Amtrak investing any money in the P40DC fleet. Some have been sold off-with others in storage. Among other factors, MFI and DC motors are both obsolete technology in the passenger rail world
I concur; the only way I see any being rebuilt is if enough P42DCs are retired from wreck damage. Even among the units sold, only one NJT unit (4801) is in service, and NJT has been trying to get rid of them for a while.
CPM500 Of singular note is a re-engined (if not outright re-manufactured) SD90MAC rated at 4000 hp operating on the Indiana Rail Road.
Of singular note is a re-engined (if not outright re-manufactured) SD90MAC rated at 4000 hp operating on the Indiana Rail Road.
They should have them be reserve units, and sell the Dash-8's to Alaska Railroad.
ML
Wizlish This actually appears to be an emergent problem with C175s, in the last couple of months. I haven't figured out whether the 'problem' engines had ADEM or ACERT, but apparently when they warm up and come out of loop their stability goes out. In all fairness, this problem would have nothing whatsoever to do with locomotive performance (except perhaps if the frequency of the HEP system were determined by the traction alternator, which is unlikely).
This actually appears to be an emergent problem with C175s, in the last couple of months. I haven't figured out whether the 'problem' engines had ADEM or ACERT, but apparently when they warm up and come out of loop their stability goes out. In all fairness, this problem would have nothing whatsoever to do with locomotive performance (except perhaps if the frequency of the HEP system were determined by the traction alternator, which is unlikely).
ACERT is a description for Caterpillar Advanced Combustion Emission Reduction Technology. It was first applied in 2004 to meet Tier III, basically adding cross flow cylinder head, EGR, twin turbochargers, multiple injections on each compression stroke, and the ADEM - Advanced Diesel Engine Management, fancy name for an engine computer, within that you have A3,A4,A5 version ADEM.
CAT has adopted the ACERT name across the board, when you have ACERT engine, will also have an ADEM. 3500C engines don't recieve ACERT labeling though they do employ EUI injection and ADEM. So with ACERT you have both ACERT and an ADEM engine ECM.
Far as the C18 is concerned, its a heavy duty industrial engine, typically used as a HEP in rail application, I don't believe the issue was with the C18 in the PR43C.
EntropyWhat happened to the GO Transit Cummins repower?
647 seems to have dropped into a black hole. I presume it's still in Boise, as there would be some excitement if from no other source than Cummins PR when the locomotive goes into actual service or testing on the Kitchener line.
I ASSume the other 10 locomotives will be awaiting the result of testing to make sure there are no 'gotchas'.
These engines are interesting for having two QSK-60s for something like 5400 nominal hp. At that rating, I'd assume one or both prime movers would be supplying the HEP, rather than retaining the ACERT C27 that I think GO was using on the 710-engined MP-40s.
Who knows the current situation here?
I see this 90MAC is on the rails, havn't heard news from INRR on it so far. What happend to the GO transit Cummins repower?
Pictures of CEFX 1919 for reference: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=205697
What is odd is that it has the rear headlight, but not the front.
NorthWest Pictures of CEFX 1919 for reference: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=205697 What is odd is that it has the rear headlight, but not the front.
The CECX 1919 SD90MAC-H repower/rebuild has not been placed into service on the Indiana Railroad yet. The photos of it on the net show it while it was in-transit to Brookville Equipment Company in Pennsylvania where it is being completed before being placed into service and delivered to INRD. The lack of headlights on inoperable and incomplete locomotive is irrelevant to how well it may or may not perform in service once testing begins.
Bryan JonesThe CECX 1919 SD90MAC-H repower/rebuild has not been placed into service on the Indiana Railroad yet. .. The lack of headlights on [an] inoperable and incomplete locomotive is irrelevant to how well it may or may not perform in service once testing begins.
Praise the Lord, we have somebody who knows what's up with this locomotive, and why it has taken so absurdly long for it to be put into service. I await full details.
Bryan Jones The CECX 1919 SD90MAC-H repower/rebuild has not been placed into service on the Indiana Railroad yet. The photos of it on the net show it while it was in-transit to Brookville Equipment Company in Pennsylvania where it is being completed before being placed into service and delivered to INRD. The lack of headlights on inoperable and incomplete locomotive is irrelevant to how well it may or may not perform in service once testing begins.
Who did the original conversion, and why was it moved to Brookville incomplete?
One thing I noticed but didn't comment on was that the new radiators appear to have eliminated the EMD dynamic brakes from the rear end of CECX 1919 and I wondered what had replaced them? There are some vents that might be associated with dynamic brakes forward of the engine....
M636C
There is some info on the conversion here - http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/cummins-unveils-qsk95-tier-4-engine-indr-is-first-customer.html?channel=57
M636C Who did the original conversion, and why was it moved to Brookville incomplete?
Found out Sygnet the shop in Olympia, WA closed, moved the loco 1919 to Brookvale to be completed.
Wonder what happend to the Peru Rail order Sygnet had?
Something bad has happened to Sygnet financially, perhaps sometime after the Vectorpoint Ventures investment. Their CEO was making statements to the rail press as recently as late June of last year, but now barely mentions the company on his LinkedIn page. Web site is down without comment, and they set the cagy 'robots.txt' flag so I can find no archived versions of the site on the Wayback Machine. Someone who knows more about the 'ways' of Internet lore might be more capable.
A number of sources indicate the locomotive went to Brookville on some sort of subcontract, e.g. 'to be wired', and delivery required the 'last mile' road to become six-axle certified (how long that might have taken, I don't know).
I suspect there is an interesting story here; perhaps someone better 'connected' can tell it.
The patent for the technology behind the locomotive is interesting:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8935019
I'm suprised Cummins would partner with Sygnet for this then Brookville (?) I believe this was a Cummins project, CMI does have an exclusive relationship with NRE for one, secondly they could've had Siemens shop build this.
I'm not aware of the status of the Siemens Charger factory, it may not be setup for a "repower" but the NRE/VMV shop is. Weird.
I do recall Sygnet and their website.
The whole idea of containerised power units being somehow cheaper than fitting an engine to a locomotive struck me as wishful thinking.
I think Cummins formed an alliance with Sygnet when they had no links with the real locomotive industry, so before Siemens became a partner.
The SD90MAC was one of the few available units and that it had Siemens traction equipment was fortuitous.
It seems fairly clear that the CECX 1919 locomotive did not have any form of container fitted and the radiators were fitted into the existing structure.
But I'm hardly surprised that Sygnet didn't produce a complete locomotive, particularly given that the original concept was little more than an engine swap and ended up with a completely new unit above the frame.
i have had one of the CFCLA CM's put a rod thru the block on me so their reliability is still suspect
The p40's may be going out of style on Amtrak but a rebuilt p40 may stick around.
From what I've seen, railroads do like locomotives that require less service, and when they get a locomotive that requires a lot of service they usually fix it in some way.
the finest example I know are the Indiana and Ohio sd40's.
some of these engines began life in the 70's as 20 cylinder sd45's for the Southern Pacific, who rebuilt them with the 16 cylinder engine, making them an sd40 in all reality.
So if there is a problem with the p40's they will probably get it fixed with a repowering.
amtrak has used repowered engines before, remember Dewitt GP's from the Penn central, the alco RS3's given 567 blocks?
The P40DCs never really had any problems. They simply got caught up in Amtrak's purchase of too many locomotives when a service expansion failed to happen. The P42DCs were more powerful, and so the P40DCs were mothballed when they were only a few years old. Except for some rebuilds, they've languished in Beech Grove since.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.