BOB WITHORN September 2015 issue of Railway Age on page 36 is a Progress Rail Services advertizement for an SD70ACe-T4 locomotive featuring an EMD 12 cylinder 1010 engine, AC traction, etc, etc. What gives? Guess I've been in a fog or something, thought they were way behind GE?
September 2015 issue of Railway Age on page 36 is a Progress Rail Services advertizement for an SD70ACe-T4 locomotive featuring an EMD 12 cylinder 1010 engine, AC traction, etc, etc. What gives? Guess I've been in a fog or something, thought they were way behind GE?
They are. GE is delivering production T4 engines to multiple carriers as we speak.
EMD is projecting 2017 for their T4 locomotive deliveries.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
First I had heard that the new engine was going to be the 1010. Interesting.
ML
NorthWest First I had heard that the new engine was going to be the 1010. Interesting.
I'm not surprised that they are marketing the 265-H derivative with a new engine series name.
After all, GE chose to name their HDL evolved engine the GEVO series rather than an calling it an "HDL plus" or whatever..
After all both the HDL and 265 series engines were not widely accepted by the railroad industry, at least in North America.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
They've not changed the name of the locomotive tho, a 4-stroke SD70? Never...
GDRMCo They've not changed the name of the locomotive tho, a 4-stroke SD70? Never...
A continuation of EMD's campaign to befuddle railfans; after all the SD75 model was superceded by SD70 variants with the same power rating...I agree though, it really should be an SD89Ace except what if they rated the engine at 4300 HP rather than 4500? Would that make it an SD88?
I'm not either, I am just interested in whether or not the 1010 represents the cylinder displacement in the new prime mover.
Regarding designation, EMD sort of put themselves in a tight spot. 80 and 90 series models were built, and they probably don't want to go to the 100 series, so 70 it stays.
Yes, 1010 is the (metric dimensions for inch volumetrics - thanks, Peter!) cylinder displacement. Give me some time and I'll look up the bore and stroke for you (but someone who knows the tech blindfolded will beat me to it).
Yes, 1010 is the (metric) cylinder displacement. Give me some time and I'll look up the bore and stroke for you (but someone who knows the tech blindfolded will beat me to it).
My recollection is that the 265 was 265 bore (of course) by 300 stroke
That gives 16543 cubic centimetres = 1009.51 cubic inches....
So it is a 265 in one respect...
M636C
Thanks, guys, for the information.
But, But, Does CAT know anything about 4-Stroke engines?
/s
GDRMCoIt'd be rated at 4500hp....
Is there a source for that?
I ask because the GEVO engine could technically have had a 4500 HP rating (the 16 cylinder version is rated between 5800-6000 HP depending on settings) but GE rated it at 4400 HP.
Also there seem to be a few questions on this thread about whether ot not the 1010 is a "clean sheet of paper" desing but industry sources like "Railway Age" have clearly reported that it is derived from the 265H engine.
Of course the GE GEVO has significant improvements compared the earlier HDL it was developed from, enough thet the manufacturer marketed it as a new engine line. So it makes sense that EMD is persuing a similiar strategy with the 1010.
Does anyone know what the SD70ACe-T4 locomotive will look like? Will it look likethe non tier 4 SD70ACe's or will it be completly different?
carnej1whether ot not the 1010 is a "clean sheet of paper" desing
caldreamer Does anyone know what the SD70ACe-T4 locomotive will look like? Will it look likethe non tier 4 SD70ACe's or will it be completly different?
Only an insider might have an idea at this time, but I'd say it's safe to assume that it will have a family resemblance to what they were producing before Tier 4.
I expect the same cab, same trucks, same aux cab and inverter box, same fuel tank, and modified radiator and long hood.
That was what I was thinking. Very similar to lwhat the GE Gevo's and the T4's are. Very similar, bu not exactly the same.
According to insiders it'll have a new wide cab, the 4th (well 5th) new wide cab on an EMD since the first SD70.
Also, all CAT makes for the most part are 4-stroke engines....
carnej1 whether ot not the 1010 is a "clean sheet of paper" design
Is everyone agreed it's 265 mm bore and 300 mm stroke? Was the 265 the same?
deleted
timz M636C GEVO is 270 x 320 250 by 320, you mean?
M636C GEVO is 270 x 320
250 by 320, you mean?
Indeed I did... Post edited to remove typo...
The photo shown in TRAINS is a 'test mule.'
There's no such thing as a 'wide cab'.
bcrnfan There's no such thing as a 'wide cab'.
There is when compared to a narrow cab.
BaltACD BOB WITHORN September 2015 issue of Railway Age on page 36 is a Progress Rail Services advertizement for an SD70ACe-T4 locomotive featuring an EMD 12 cylinder 1010 engine, AC traction, etc, etc. What gives? Guess I've been in a fog or something, thought they were way behind GE? They are. GE is delivering production T4 engines to multiple carriers as we speak. EMD is projecting 2017 for their T4 locomotive deliveries. Yes, and the prototype they're fielding this year is based on the four-cycle 265H engine, not the aged 710.
Presumably the "1010" is the reworked 265H, based on experience with 300 JT56ACe's in China. Has the same displacement.
First SD70ACe-T4 now exists and is on its way to Minneapolis for the RSIA show. Unfortuneately the locomotive is tarped so no good photographs until the show opens. Routing is NS from Muncie to Chicago, then BNSF to Minneapolis. The large exhibits were on display at BNSF's Northtown Yard in previous shows.
As I think I mentioned earlier, the cylinder heads and the intake ducts look a bit like the C175, which is itself the first big CAT engine with cross flow heads. So the "rework" does appear to make use of years of CAT development of four stroke engines, as well as EMD's experience with locomotive engines and the 265 itself.
GDRMCo According to insiders it'll have a new wide cab, the 4th (well 5th) new wide cab on an EMD since the first SD70.
I'm thinking they'll keep the current wide nose, but rake the windshield area of the cab like the SD70M/MAC. Alot of crews can't stand the current ACe cab even with the isolated option. They should've called the new locomotive,SD45ACe Since it will be rated at 4500HP.
Just found this. Here's the newest EMD ad from the 10/15 issue of RailwayAge.
Here's the link it's on page 56.
I guess EMD's keeping the SD70ACe name for marketing reasons, even though a SD70ACe-T4 has about as much in common with a 710-powered SD70ACe as an ES44AC has with an AC44CW.
I'm sure we'll get a better look in a few hours, but I was able to grab a couple of shots of 1501 here in Minneapolis sans tarp last night: https://flic.kr/p/yst52K
Thank you!
It is really strange that EMD is going back to teardrop windshields. As I recall many of the railroads became sick of finding replacements. The cab is similar to the meter gauge SD70ACes demonstrators built in Brazil. The radiator appears to be a modified SD80ACe radiator, but I can't quite count the radiator fans.
The teardrop windshields really do make a difference in the crew's visibility, especially when the engineer is watching for the conductor to get on or off. Hopefully they've redesigined the cab a bit too, the phase II cab sucks with a tiny desk and nowhere to store all the paperwork. Then again, as long as it's a whispercab I can probably live with whatever else they've thrown in there.
I'm also curious about how it sounds, IIRC the 265 sounded similar to a GEVO with quite a pronounced chugging, which being a 4-stroke makes perfect sense.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Thanks Ottergoose for the pics. I figured that's what the cab would be like.
Here's the official intro from EMD / Progress Rail:
Thanks again for posting the promo. Hmm the castings on the HTCR have took on a European look?! Looks like the exhaust is routed toward the front of the unit. Lets see how this unit performs in tunnels.
SD70ACe-T4 brochure
Interesting that the brochure only talks of 'Individual Axle Control' so presumably this is the end for the traditional 'per truck' EMD traction control.
Also it refers to 'bogies' not 'trucks' - curious for a home-market locomotive brochure.
ottergoose Here's the official intro from EMD / Progress Rail:
3 mins 42 seconds of all the buzz words you can apply.
SD70ACe-T4 reveal is online today (4 Oct 2015) on Progress Rail's Youtube channel.
EMD/CAT have a lot riding on this.
I like the new cab on the vision thing.
Some of those workers look like they could lose a few pounds (to keep my healthcare costs down)
Good luck to them. (since I like seeing more than just GE's...)
The new cab is growing on me the more I look at it. Hopefully the units are reliable and sucessful.
The fabricated instead of cast radial truck does still look strange to my eye.
Thereis a brief, but pretty clear, view of the 1010 engine a couple of minutes in.
According to a post to LocoNotes, this locomotive won't have the Whispercab, but the engine and generator will be resiliently mounted. May be interesting to see how that works out.
That is how GE has done it in their locomotives. There has been concern with isolated cabs breaking off of the locomotive frame in crashes, and this is no doubt an attempt to fix this.
owlsroost Interesting that the brochure only talks of 'Individual Axle Control' so presumably this is the end for the traditional 'per truck' EMD traction control. Also it refers to 'bogies' not 'trucks' - curious for a home-market locomotive brochure.
EMD has been working on going to an inverter for each traction motor system similiar to General Electric's for several years now.
They built 4 demonstrators so equipped called SD70acE-P6s which were bought by Canadian National and then an order of SD70ACe-P4s (with 4 rather than 6 traction motors in 1-B three axle trucks) for BNSF.
I like the return of the angled windshields.
BaltACD ottergoose Here's the official intro from EMD / Progress Rail: 3 mins 42 seconds of all the buzz words you can apply.
Wait! It's not a locomotive, it's a "business solution"!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The SD70ACE-T4's cab with the teardrop windows reminds of UP's late phase SD70Ms, which too combined a SD70ACE-style nose with teardrop windows.
Lyon_Wonder I guess EMD's keeping the SD70ACe name for marketing reasons, even though a SD70ACe-T4 has about as much in common with a 710-powered SD70ACe as an ES44AC has with an AC44CW.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
The model designation may not be that much of an issue if the owning railroad numbers them in a different series from its other SD70 iterations.
If the company mechanical personnel are looking at the manufacturers model identification of a locomotive to plan their work they area in the wrong line of work. Follow the company's own identification, not the manufacturers. My carrier has 20 years worth of GE AC's that have been recieved in different batches over the years - I am certain each batch received has different details that require different service techniques from their predecessors.
BaltACD If the company mechanical personnel are looking at the manufacturers model identification of a locomotive to plan their work they area in the wrong line of work.
If the company mechanical personnel are looking at the manufacturers model identification of a locomotive to plan their work they area in the wrong line of work.
Per the EMD factsheet on the model posted in another reply in this thread the locomotive's power available for traction is 4400 HP. So it's 100 HP less than he SD89MAC (undoubtedly due to engine settings to meet Tier IV) but 100 HP More than the SD70ACe/SD70M-2.
So should the model number SD88Acet-4 or SD71xxxxx?????????? Proof of Cat/Progress/EMD's insidious plot to confuse us poor railfans...
I wonder, will the 'new' engine fit inside existing 710G-equipped locomotives as an upgrade?
For a start, this is a 12-cylinder engine, while the equivalent 710G was 16-cylinder. And I suspect that the engine block will be taller.
N.F.
Likely not, but then again it might if they sell a version of it without all the Tier 4 appliances.
Looks as if EMD rushed their tier 4 unit. GE will still be the leader as it's unit requires no exhaust aftertreament. EMD's unit does have a diesel particulate filter. The three turbochargers, compared to GE's twin turbo setup, will see how that turns out in the overall maintenance of the unit. EMD's unit will require somewhat higher maintenance cost, and a slight fuel loss compared to GE's unit. Plus those fabricated trucks while used in lighter axle loadings, could be a problem in heavy haul service. I don't see those welds holding up for long. Thats just my observation, facts will tell us later.
Wait, when did the GEVO lose the DPF unit?
Here a link to GE's transportation website YoHo1975. Yes there's no DPF on the GE's tier 4. Now the first prototype released in 2012 I believe had DPF, but due to continued r&d at GE they were able to optimize internal temperature and firing pressure at which most particulates wouldn't form. Hence they were able to meet the PM requirements of tier 4 emissions without DPF.
The fabricated trucks will hold up just fine, ask nearly every railroad outside the US running high axle loads on fabricated trucks....LKABs IOREs for one.
SD60MAC9500 Here a link to GE's transportation website YoHo1975. Yes there's no DPF on the GE's tier 4. Now the first prototype released in 2012 I believe had DPF, but due to continued r&d at GE they were able to optimize internal temperature and firing pressure at which most particulates wouldn't form, hence they were able to meet the PM requirements of tier 4 emissions.
Here a link to GE's transportation website YoHo1975. Yes there's no DPF on the GE's tier 4. Now the first prototype released in 2012 I believe had DPF, but due to continued r&d at GE they were able to optimize internal temperature and firing pressure at which most particulates wouldn't form, hence they were able to meet the PM requirements of tier 4 emissions.
M636CHowever it was drawn to my attention that to achieve the particulate standard without a filter that ultra-low sulphur fuel is required. This is specified in the GE documentation. I would guess that such fuel would command a premium price and that might have influenced EMD's choice to go with or without a filter (always assuming that's what it is...)
I believe production cost for commercial ULSD is 4 to 5 cents higher per gallon, and even if profit margins for the fuel 'as marketed' were higher, the cost would be passed along as a surcharge or even constitute a little 'profit center' as the runaway price increases a couple of years ago did.
It was my understanding the ULSD was mandated for locomotives either in 2010 or 2012, but certainly by now.
It is likepulling teeth to get a straight answer about how ULSD actually reduces nanoparticulates. In at least one respect itprobably hampers this -- its lubricosity is lower in the precise fuel injectors needed for high-pressure pilot injection, leading to a need for relatively expensive additives. Of course in the days of diesel oxidation catalysts, the fuel sulfur was selectively oxidized to SO2 or SO3 (remember acid rain?) but this is something different. Out of a wide range of sources that did little more than make claims or handwave, I found a couple of references indicating that sulfur interfered with promotion of NO to NO2 in the plume, and NO2 being highly oxidative was critical in reducing nanoparticulates 'quickly enough' to matter. I am not quite sure this is accurate chemistry..
Something that might be of interest is that a considerable amount of the nanoparticulates originate in crankcase emissions rather than exhaust. Conventional filtration in the absence of PCV does not filter much of this out, and it seems to me that about the only practical approach here is (as with PCV) to 'pyrolyze' the crankcase emissions by passing them in with the charge air (it remains to see if they would have promoting effect; I can't find references that say unequivocally that investigators have looked for that).
I still find it amazing that no one seems to be commenting on how close everyone (specifically including Progress/EMD) came to meeting Tier 4 Final NOx standards without SCR-urea ... no more than 1 or 2 tenths of a percent! Why there was no organized lobbying or effort to emend what Istrongly suspect were politically-chosen target numbers, I can't say -- an analogy was the imposition of 55 mph as a 'national speed limit' when trucks were proven to be more efficient at around 62.5 mph ... the very logical thing at the time being to implement a nice round "100 kph" number (yes, I know it ought to be km/h) and kill two birds with one stone.
[quote user="BOB WITHORN"]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQQ-p_eXDKM
GDRMCo The fabricated trucks will hold up just fine, ask nearly every railroad outside the US running high axle loads on fabricated trucks....LKABs IOREs for one.
Yeah true. The IORE units are the heaviest in Europe I believe at 180,000 KG (396,000 lbs). We'll see though in service. I wish EMD took more of an approach to testing units like GE. Get a large group of pre-production units in the field a year prior to work out most teething problems before production.
SD60MAC9500Looks as if EMD rushed their tier 4 unit. GE will still be the leader as it's unit requires no exhaust aftertreament. EMD's unit does have a diesel particulate filter. The three turbochargers, compared to GE's twin turbo setup, will see how that turns out in the overall maintenance of the unit. EMD's unit will require somewhat higher maintenance cost, and a slight fuel loss compared to GE's unit.
This is not the final product, which EMD apparently expects to have on the road in the third quarter of 2016. The locomotive is a testbed similar to the GE blue units (I am blanking on their designation now) and will undoubtably see many changes during the year or so these are in road testing. The final product may be very different.
Nfotis....
Why would the new engine be considered an upgrade ? If not for the EPA, most railroads would have continued to purchase 710 powered locomotives.
Clearly 1501 won't be the only prototype, just the first publically revealed.
Having got my copy of Locomotive 2015 on Friday, I noticed a photo of a blue GE prototype numbered 2041.
While a bit off topic for this thread, how many of these GE prototypes are there and what are their numbers (in order to compare with the EMD prototypes when we know more about them.)
I think that there are 23, numbered 2021-2043. GE apparently designated them as ES44A6s, though that may just be a rumor. It will be interesting to see what will eventually happen to them. Some are still on the road.
GDRMCoThe GE Demos are ES44A6 on the builders plate, what the A6 bit means I have no idea.
I suspect 6 AC traction motors, as opposed to 4.
In the name "SD-70ACe-T4," "T4" is short for Tier-4 (final or "B") Emissions
Wizlish I still find it amazing that no one seems to be commenting on how close everyone (specifically including Progress/EMD) came to meeting Tier 4 Final NOx standards without SCR-urea ... no more than 1 or 2 tenths of a percent! Why there was no organized lobbying or effort to emend what Istrongly suspect were politically-chosen target numbers, I can't say -- an analogy was the imposition of 55 mph as a 'national speed limit' when trucks were proven to be more efficient at around 62.5 mph ... the very logical thing at the time being to implement a nice round "100 kph" number (yes, I know it ought to be km/h) and kill two birds with one stone.
It does bring up a question of whether anyone in the appropriate regulatory agencies thought about the tradeoffs involved with emissions reductions rather than just assuming that locomotive sales would not be affected by the price increase and increased operating cost associated with Tier 4. I suspect a Tier 3.5 would have resulted in lower emissions overall as there would be less of a disincentive to buy new locomotives to replace old Tier 0 units.
I did have a bit of an awakening with respect to NOx regulations. The water heater sprung a major leak a few weeks back, did a bit of on-line research into water heaters and saw a note about not being in an area that required ultra-low NOx water heaters. Just hope the ultra-low NOx technology doesn't result in what happened with low NOx burners on furnaces. There were a number of house fires attributed to the NOx control design, though don't remember any reports of fatalities.
- Erik
NorthWest SD60MAC9500 Looks as if EMD rushed their tier 4 unit. GE will still be the leader as it's unit requires no exhaust aftertreament. EMD's unit does have a diesel particulate filter. The three turbochargers, compared to GE's twin turbo setup, will see how that turns out in the overall maintenance of the unit. EMD's unit will require somewhat higher maintenance cost, and a slight fuel loss compared to GE's unit. This is not the final product, which EMD apparently expects to have on the road in the third quarter of 2016. The locomotive is a testbed similar to the GE blue units (I am blanking on their designation now) and will undoubtably see many changes during the year or so these are in road testing. The final product may be very different.
SD60MAC9500 Looks as if EMD rushed their tier 4 unit. GE will still be the leader as it's unit requires no exhaust aftertreament. EMD's unit does have a diesel particulate filter. The three turbochargers, compared to GE's twin turbo setup, will see how that turns out in the overall maintenance of the unit. EMD's unit will require somewhat higher maintenance cost, and a slight fuel loss compared to GE's unit.
There may be some incremental changes, but you're pretty much looking at the final product.
EMD may find a way to eliminate DPF as well if road testing proves it is possible. We shall see what happens.
Walk through article:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/trade-shows/take-a-tour-of-emds-sd70ace-t4.html?channel=492&Itemid=502
NorthWest EMD may find a way to eliminate DPF as well if road testing proves it is possible. We shall see what happens. Walk through article: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/trade-shows/take-a-tour-of-emds-sd70ace-t4.html?channel=492&Itemid=502
I hope they do...even if they don't. It's a small penalty if they can't find a solution to eliminate the DPF. GE will always have that slight edge requiring no aftertreatment at all. EMD needs a renaissance. Whether this happens under Progress Rail remains to be seen. I noticed Wizlish in the earlier post commented about crankcase emissions, and what he said's true. Majority of particulate develops in the crankcase. Perhaps GE took notice of this, and developed a way to "pyrolyze" the PM. Hence, with the additon of other internal improvments requiring no DPF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUsg2s0vcAA
BILLY HUNTER https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUsg2s0vcAA BOB WITHORN September 2015 issue of Railway Age on page 36 is a Progress Rail Services advertizement for an SD70ACe-T4 locomotive featuring an EMD 12 cylinder 1010 engine, AC traction, etc, etc. What gives? Guess I've been in a fog or something, thought they were way behind GE?
Poor EMD guy couldn't speak into the microphone consistantly.
Yes they are behind GE - GE's production locomotives are currently being delivered to the carriers and are actively pulling tonnage. EMD is still in the testing stage.
Poor EMD guy couldn't speak into the microphone consistently.
I' d say they were at the demonstration stage rather than testing. Showing 1501 would be an invitation for roads to ask for a few locomotives to try, and maybe reserve some production places for 2017. The same as GE were when the blue units appeared. They are still testing. but it will be testing on the road, which GE are still doing. Realistically they are a year or so behind GE in getting locomotives for sale.
But there is a lot of new design in both units and either could be more successful technically, we just need to wait and see. GE have redesigned their EVO engine again and EMD have an in house design engine with a lot of Caterpillar input.
I notice that the cab appeared first on the demonstrator eight axle units in Brazil, as illustrated in a couple of issues of Trains recently.
I think Swenson was one of the EMD engineers I met on the first road trials of the Australian GT46C-ACe some years ago in Victoria.
EMD had said that the first production models will not be out until the fourth quarter of 2016. Just like GE, they will be sending the demonstrators on the road to test for tier 4 compliance and pulling ability on all types of trains in all possible terrain conditions. GE's tier 4 units had some early teething problems which they worked out. I expect the same may be true for the EMD units once they start pulling trains. U expect to see them on the road by years end.
Having read through the details on the GE website, it seems that while GE superficially appear to be making fewer changes to their Tier 4 locomotive compared to EMD, who have an engine with a new designation, the changes to the GE are pretty dramatic...
New engine crankcase, 8" longer and 7000 lb heavier. New crankshaft with larger bearings. New Power Assemblies with relocated injectors. New two stage turbochargers.
If that was an Alco it would have a new designation. Nearly as many changes as from a 244 to a 251....
Of course there are substantial changes from the 265 to the 1010, maybe more than in the GE engine, but EMD admit they are making a major change, since their previous engine was the 710G.
This is the second set of major changes that GE have made to the engine since it was called the HDL. I wondered if the GEVO was less susceptible to fatigue cracking in the crankcase compared to the FDL. If the Tier 4 GEVO is substantially heavier and bigger, I guess the answer to the question for the previous GEVO engine version was "no, not less susceptible".
I wonder if EMD have addressed this problem in the 1010. The 265s in the USA didn't run long enough to give fatigue problems in the crankcase...
EMD at least designed the 265 (and the 1010) themselves and it has still a number of FDL features not in the GEVO.
M636C EMD at least designed the 265 (and the 1010) themselves and it has still a number of FDL features not in the GEVO. M636C
I'm confused?
What features does the 1010 engine share with the GE FDL (other than being a 4 cycle medium speed engine)?
Also as far as EMD designing the 265 and 1010 themselves are you referring to GE's partnership with Deutz? That partnership was dissolved before the GEVO was introduced.
Many would argue that Cat/Progress/EMD is a diffferent entity than GM/EMD. Cat seems to have had a lot of input in the 1010 design process. You can refer to earlier posts in the thread where the point was made that the 1010 draws on Cat C280 series engine technology as well as the design of the 265H......
SD60MAC9500 NorthWest SD60MAC9500 Looks as if EMD rushed their tier 4 unit. GE will still be the leader as it's unit requires no exhaust aftertreament. EMD's unit does have a diesel particulate filter. The three turbochargers, compared to GE's twin turbo setup, will see how that turns out in the overall maintenance of the unit. EMD's unit will require somewhat higher maintenance cost, and a slight fuel loss compared to GE's unit. This is not the final product, which EMD apparently expects to have on the road in the third quarter of 2016. The locomotive is a testbed similar to the GE blue units (I am blanking on their designation now) and will undoubtably see many changes during the year or so these are in road testing. The final product may be very different. There may be some incremental changes, but you're pretty much looking at the final product.
Uh, why would you believe this?
It's the first prototype unit just like GE's prototype units were prototypes.
The idea that this is final product makes zero sense based on the literature put out and history.
erikem Wizlish I still find it amazing that no one seems to be commenting on how close everyone (specifically including Progress/EMD) came to meeting Tier 4 Final NOx standards without SCR-urea ... no more than 1 or 2 tenths of a percent! Why there was no organized lobbying or effort to emend what Istrongly suspect were politically-chosen target numbers, I can't say -- an analogy was the imposition of 55 mph as a 'national speed limit' when trucks were proven to be more efficient at around 62.5 mph ... the very logical thing at the time being to implement a nice round "100 kph" number (yes, I know it ought to be km/h) and kill two birds with one stone. It does bring up a question of whether anyone in the appropriate regulatory agencies thought about the tradeoffs involved with emissions reductions rather than just assuming that locomotive sales would not be affected by the price increase and increased operating cost associated with Tier 4. I suspect a Tier 3.5 would have resulted in lower emissions overall as there would be less of a disincentive to buy new locomotives to replace old Tier 0 units. I did have a bit of an awakening with respect to NOx regulations. The water heater sprung a major leak a few weeks back, did a bit of on-line research into water heaters and saw a note about not being in an area that required ultra-low NOx water heaters. Just hope the ultra-low NOx technology doesn't result in what happened with low NOx burners on furnaces. There were a number of house fires attributed to the NOx control design, though don't remember any reports of fatalities. - Erik
If by Tier 3.5 you mean the emissions achieved by UP 9900, the SD59MX with the full after treatment, I'm not sure, given how finicky I'm told it is, that it would be a bonanza.
I do have to wonder, and I've pondered before. I've been told in other threads that EMD got close with 710 and that on the other hand, the trials and tribulations with GM, then independence, the Cat really undermined R&D's focus.
If we could go back in time and give R&D stability, and maybe some slightly relaxed standards, where could the 710 have gone...or, if they had iterated to a new 2 cycle design.
An academic question obviously, but a curious one. If they got so close on a decades old design in a horrible work environment...
I have watched the 9900 since it started running out of Roseville when it was newly rebuilt. It ended up around the shop much of the time so the results might be OK but it seems to require a lot of maintenance.
It normally runs to Redding and return or to the Bay area and returns. The Union Pacific has not release any data to the general public as far as I am aware and it is still in a test mode. I got to attend the so called coming out display for the unit at Roseville and each cylinder has two canisters to filter the exhaust. Those probably need cleaning or replacing fairly often. Just my thoughts watching from the sidelines.
carnej1 M636C EMD at least designed the 265 (and the 1010) themselves and it has still a number of FDL features not in the GEVO. M636C I'm confused? What features does the 1010 engine share with the GE FDL (other than being a 4 cycle medium speed engine)? Also as far as EMD designing the 265 and 1010 themselves are you referring to GE's partnership with Deutz? That partnership was dissolved before the GEVO was introduced. Many would argue that Cat/Progress/EMD is a diffferent entity than GM/EMD. Cat seems to have had a lot of input in the 1010 design process. You can refer to earlier posts in the thread where the point was made that the 1010 draws on Cat C280 series engine technology as well as the design of the 265H......
M636 may be too modest to mention it, but some of the discussion of crossflow heads on locomotive prime movers can be found here, to start.
YoHo1975 SD60MAC9500 NorthWest SD60MAC9500 Looks as if EMD rushed their tier 4 unit. GE will still be the leader as it's unit requires no exhaust aftertreament. EMD's unit does have a diesel particulate filter. The three turbochargers, compared to GE's twin turbo setup, will see how that turns out in the overall maintenance of the unit. EMD's unit will require somewhat higher maintenance cost, and a slight fuel loss compared to GE's unit. This is not the final product, which EMD apparently expects to have on the road in the third quarter of 2016. The locomotive is a testbed similar to the GE blue units (I am blanking on their designation now) and will undoubtably see many changes during the year or so these are in road testing. The final product may be very different. There may be some incremental changes, but you're pretty much looking at the final product. Uh, why would you believe this? It's the first prototype unit just like GE's prototype units were prototypes. The idea that this is final product makes zero sense based on the literature put out and history.
I never said this was the final product. I stated you're pretty much looking at the final product. Pretty much, which means approximate or close too.
Wizlish M636 may be too modest to mention it, but some of the discussion of crossflow heads on locomotive prime movers can be found here, to start.
Why would the rake window return? Why did the tear drop window go away in the first place?
EMD really needs a shot in the arm, maybe UP will order errrrr.........lease 2,000 of these like they did the SD70Ms.
EMD say the teardrop window returned for improved visibility. It went away as a cost saving measure on the SD90MACII and SD70ACe (It may have been the same size as GE front cab windows allowing a single size to be held in stock). While the later cab was different, it wasn't much liked by anybody. Raking the cab windows increased space in the cab for equipment forward of the crew. The New cab is very similar to the final SD70MAC cab with the raised central door. Possibly something that was a familiar EMD feature was thought to be reassuring on a loco with major changes like the SD70ACe-T4.
FYI:
The T4 is a 'clean sheet of paper' design. Underframe is all new, as is the control system, starting system...and a long list of other items.
There are a number of locos being constructed for a formal test program. Additionally, there is a second group being built as 'demonstrators.'
Caterpillar was the design lead on the 1010 engine. The first GEVO engine design was created utilizing the services of an outside consultant.
CPM500
When you say Caterpillar, are you using that as an umbrella term for all the owned subs? Or do you literally mean Caterpillar R&D as opposed to EMD R&D? Because all indications to now were that EMD R&D lead.
And on the GEVO. When you say first GEVO engine design, are you referring to the HDL on which the GEVO is based which was designed by Duetz, or do you mean that the redesign used an outside consultant?
Question 1: Caterpillar Large Engine Group.EMD staffing has been lean since the days of private equity ownership.
Question 2: The GEVO engine that debuted in 2005.
CPM500Question 1: Caterpillar Large Engine Group.
Is that the same thing as Tana Utley's "Large Power Systems (& Growth Markets)"? I can't find any references for a 'Large Engine Group' (and I thought the 'Large Engine Center' was the facility in Lafayette).
While Caterpillar may have had the design lead, it is clear that the basic 1010 engine was developed from the EMD 265 and not any Caterpillar engine. As I've said, it shares features with the C175 which was iself a fairly radical development of the 3500 series. While the engine may be a Caterpillar developed from an older EMD design, its designation is purely EMD, presumably to reassure customers. The designation in the Caterpillar series would be C265....
Presumably the outside consultant on the first GEVO was anybody except Deutz. It seemed to adopt a few FDL features with the redesign of the crankcase, but that might be my imagination... The engine was effectively little more than a strengthened HDL (although the GEVO-16 sounded quite different to the HDL-16....)
The current GEVO is still based on the early GEVO, but has a new crankshaft with larger main bearings making the whole crankcase longer with increased spacing between the cylinder bores. I'd be surprised if much was interchangeable between the GEVO models, maybe the pistons themselves and the connecting rods....
I'd expect the earlier locomotives to be test units and the later ones to be demonstrators, but once they are working as desired, they could all be demonstrators.
M636C CPM500 wrote the following post 9 hours ago: FYI: The T4 is a 'clean sheet of paper' design. Underframe is all new, as is the control system, starting system...and a long list of other items. There are a number of locos being constructed for a formal test program. Additionally, there is a second group being built as 'demonstrators.' Caterpillar was the design lead on the 1010 engine. The first GEVO engine design was created utilizing the services of an outside consultant. MY COMMENTS IN BOLD CPM500 While Caterpillar may have had the design lead, it is clear that the basic 1010 engine was developed from the EMD 265 and not any Caterpillar engine. As I've said, it shares features with the C175 which was iself a fairly radical development of the 3500 series. While the engine may be a Caterpillar developed from an older EMD design, its designation is purely EMD, presumably to reassure customers. The designation in the Caterpillar series would be C265.... I am aware that the 1010 is based on the 265. Not only that-the 265 engine block was supplied by CAT so many years ago. In fact, the first pour of the block became the basis of the prototype 265 engine. Accordingly, they have some degree of familiarity with the engine. I'll take you at your word re: C175 design features worked into the 1010, as I am not familiar with the C175. Presumably the outside consultant on the first GEVO was anybody except Deutz. It seemed to adopt a few FDL features with the redesign of the crankcase, but that might be my imagination... The engine was effectively little more than a strengthened HDL (although the GEVO-16 sounded quite different to the HDL-16....) The consultant was AVL List of Austria. The current GEVO is still based on the early GEVO, but has a new crankshaft with larger main bearings making the whole crankcase longer with increased spacing between the cylinder bores. I'd be surprised if much was interchangeable between the GEVO models, maybe the pistons themselves and the connecting rods.... I'd expect the earlier locomotives to be test units and the later ones to be demonstrators, but once they are working as desired, they could all be demonstrators. The formal test program will be executed on a railroad easily accessed by PR/EMD personnel. This is a continuation of past practice. The demos will go to past large-scale EMD customers. M636C
MY COMMENTS IN BOLD
I am aware that the 1010 is based on the 265. Not only that-the 265 engine block was supplied by CAT so many years ago. In fact, the first pour of the block became the basis of the prototype 265 engine. Accordingly, they have some degree of familiarity with the engine. I'll take you at your word re: C175 design features worked into the 1010, as I am not familiar with the C175.
The consultant was AVL List of Austria.
The formal test program will be executed on a railroad easily accessed by PR/EMD personnel. This is a continuation of past practice. The demos will go to past large-scale EMD customers.
YoHo1975does EMD even have it's own Engine R&D anymore?
Yes.
The 710 engine is a direct descendant of the original 567 U deck engine of 1938. The main feature of that engine is that it is in a "V" configuration. The exhaust risers come from each bank and rise up to the central exhaust manifold. In an early redesign the "V" was plated over the stiffen the crankcase. This resulted in the volume becoming part of the cooling system with the exhaust risers running through the water jacket. On the 710 they are about 18 inches long. I was told that the exhaust passing through this loses about 100 degrees to the water by the time it gets to the exhaust manifold. This is not a problem on the blower engines but it robs the turbo of needed energy. In 2011 EMD was confident that they could meet tier 4 on the results of single cylinder test engine but they may have left out this factor. I think that they also thought that a lot of these outfits that have sprung up with wonder exhaust cleaning gadgets would work.
One thing that CAT is good at is they produce the lowest cost engines per horsepower. EMD engines are expensive but the parts are cheap, whereas CAT engines are cheap but the parts are expensive. The C175 sales brochure made a point that the cylinder head was designed in such a way the exhaust passage was very short to minimize exhaust heat loss on the way to the turbo and I'm sure that the 1010 engine is similar. The heat balance for non turbo diesels (from a WW 2 submarine manual) that 33% of the heat energy is the power output, 32% goes up the exhaust, 22% goes into the cooling system and 13%. The turbo takes energy from exhaust and puts it into the power column.
The two stroke engine would require a complete redesign starting with a crankcase more like that of the Cleveland Diesel 278A. The 1010 engine is as I see it the produce and engine for the locomotive market and a spark ignited version should be easier to design as is the latest fashion.. ( Yes there is a spark ignited version of a 645 blower engine that runs on methane but its a messy installation.
As far as marine versions of the 719 is concerned fhey don't have to be tier 4 until next year and has a lot of orders. Since marine installation have a riding mechanic and plenty of room above the engine a scrubber would suffice
Have to wonder if the locomotive pictured is anything other than a showpiece for display. Haven't seen the slightest evidence of it running so far.
Entropy YoHo1975 does EMD even have it's own Engine R&D anymore? Yes.
YoHo1975 does EMD even have it's own Engine R&D anymore?
So, EMD has a seperate engine R&D, but the 265H was initially a Cat design and the updated 1010 also came out of Cat? IF this is true, what is EMD engine R&D working on?
I mean, they've been producing 265H engines all along which means SOMEONE has been assigned to them from R&D right? Argonne had a 1 Cylinder 265 as well.
Creepycrank, thanks for the explanation on the 567-710 exhaust.
That's the kind of detail I was hoping for.
Out of curiosity, would there have been value to staying with a green field 2 Cycle presuming that exhaust cooling is the primary barrier to Tier 4, versus 4 Cycle for locomotive applications?
EMD #1501:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d2/3/3/1/5331.1444051594.jpg
YoHo1975So, EMD has a separate engine R&D, but the 265H was initially a Cat design and the updated 1010 also came out of Cat? IF this is true, what is EMD engine R&D working on?
For some reason I remember that one Caterpillar contribution to the EMD H-engine was in the design and fabrication of the cast crankcase. EMD's in-house design expertise was of course in fabricated structures. (If I'm not mistaken, the relatively thin-wall and complex casting turned out to be a rich source of cavitation points during peak-load operation.)
I did not get to see the early promotional material on the H-engine,and much of it is apparently 'gone', but I thought EMD claimed much of the engine design was their's ... before the problems started, and market demand didn't.
YoHo1975 Entropy YoHo1975 does EMD even have it's own Engine R&D anymore? Yes. So, EMD has a seperate engine R&D, but the 265H was initially a Cat design and the updated 1010 also came out of Cat? IF this is true, what is EMD engine R&D working on?
265H I don't believe was originally a Caterpillar design, the actual H engine design dates back to I believe started around 1984 and was originally the 854 engine (or 854H) by time a functioning prototype was run (1990ish?), when it came time to create a production 6000hp engine, the original design was sized up to 1010ci with crankshaft and pistons bore size 265mm in the mid 1990s.
Source: Railway Gazette 4/98
EMD began investigating the advantages of four-stroke engines in 1984, eventually building two prototype 16-cylinder '854H' engines rated at 4500hp. After recognising the need for a 6000hp engine, EMD searched world-wide for existing designs. Nothing suitable could be found to meet the tough locomotive performance and reliability standards required. EMD then decided to develop the engine itself - a process that was accomplished in only 18 months from design concept to first prototype.
YoHo1975Out of curiosity, would there have been value to staying with a green field 2 Cycle presuming that exhaust cooling is the primary barrier to Tier 4, versus 4 Cycle for locomotive applications?
First of all the new T4 locomotive I think is being designed to be cheaper than GE's for the first time in history which I think is really behind GE's decision to buy a plant in Texas. The 710 engine is expensive to build but in high load factor service such as marine propulsion, peaking generators, and emergency generators long service life and high reliability are of primary importance. According to the EPA line haul locomotives only run at run 8 for 19% of the time with rest split evenly except a large percentage in idle. Off shore and river marine units (voyage time between New Orleans and St. Louis is about 23 days) normally run at 95% load factor.
A high stress part on a 4 stroke diesel is the piston pin. It gets hit twice as hard half as often as a similar size 2 stroke. A while back on another forum there was a discussion about a 10,000 KW base load engine in Kenya where they had to replace the piston pins due to fatigue cracking. They thought they should have been replaced under warranty but there wasn't anything materially wrong they just needed to buy 2 more gen sets to reduce the load to 80%.
CAT may not like it but between EMD and CAT they have most of the marine market. In locomotives I think that its the purchasing agents and bean counters who have the last say. Maintenance costs come out of another pocket.
YoHo1975So is the 1010 update a product of Cat R&D or EMD R&D with Cat support?
While I have no means of answering that, I would recommend looking at October 2015 issue of Trains magazine which shows an SD90MAC demo unit running what is presumably a test engine, said the location is EMD La Grange, IL.
YoHo1975 So is the 1010 update a product of Cat R&D or EMD R&D with Cat support?
I was under the impression that the October issue illustrated an SD90 test unit running a CAT 20-C175 engine....
EMD had two test mules, one was converted from the SD89MAC prototype and the other from one of the two SD90MAC-H prototypes. One was set up to test the 20-cyl. C175 diesel for the F125 passenger locomotive, will the other mule tested the 1010J engine.
Indeed there were at least two test units...
But the one illustrated in October with its full width body and distinctive radiator arrangement could only be testing the C175 and not the 1010.... There would be no reason to test a 1010 with that radiator layout, particularly since the radiators on 1501 look a lot like those that would have come with an SD 90 as a test unit. Just because you can't see the engine, doesn't mean that you don't know what it is...
But to return to the question that started this part of the thread. Presumably EMD R&D designed the test layout for the 20-C175 as well as that for the 1010 and actually carried out the tests, with suitable support from CAT R&D. EMD would have a better idea of what they want the CAT C175 to do in a locomotive than CAT who build a standard engine to be used in a variety of applications.
I think the photo caption in Trains October implied that the photo showed a 1010 which was odd because they had previously illustrated a 1010 on test in another test unit in an earlier magazine and they should have realised that that illustration did not show a 1010 on test.
But if EMD R&D are testing a standard CAT engine in a railroad application, as well as testing an engine derived from an EMD in house design with CAT assistance, there is probably plenty for them to do for both engine designs.
I'd imagine GE diesel engine R&D have been pretty busy with the "new GEVO" that isn't much like the "old GEVO" for the last couple of years and they might be busy for some time to come. It seems to me that GE's new engine is just as risky as EMD's new engine, even if GE are a year ahead.
GE's new locomotive looks a lot like their previous unit, but it is different. Not fitting through coal car dumpers is just one of the problems.
I'd say EMD R&D will have to work hard to ensure the T4 units run as intended, and they might be able to learn from GE who are further down the track, but not yet perhaps at the finish line...
M636C beaulieu wrote the following post an hour ago: EMD had two test mules, one was converted from the SD89MAC prototype and the other from one of the two SD90MAC-H prototypes. One was set up to test the 20-cyl. C175 diesel for the F125 passenger locomotive, will the other mule tested the 1010J engine. Indeed there were at least two test units... But the one illustrated in October with its full width body and distinctive radiator arrangement could only be testing the C175 and not the 1010.... There would be no reason to test a 1010 with that radiator layout, particularly since the radiators on 1501 look a lot like those that would have come with an SD 90 as a test unit. Just because you can't see the engine, doesn't mean that you don't know what it is... M636C
Saw this on another site.
.
Very interesting. DOC is much less troublesome to maintain that DPF (EMD's 'Tier 3.5' SD59MX had DPF and DOC IIRC. I wonder if some of the test data in the brochure came from this unit?). The brochure is dated 2012, so this product has been around for a while. I haven't heard of anyone using it though. It seems to be designed to have need least amount of modifications possible.
I imagine that EMD will be using the same unit to preserve their famed backwards compatability.
NorthWest I imagine that EMD will be using the same unit to preserve their famed backwards compatability.
According to a FB poster, there are already multiple copies of the new locomotive.
The first are already going to Pueblo, CO for testing:
https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12299141_10205085318639839_5190447289790209676_n.jpg?oh=c69ac49960aefbc4a9bd9f8e7bb0491e&oe=56DFD9CF
EntropyYou're implying that 710 engine DOC will be retained on Tier 4? If so, negative.
I concur. It was my understanding that DOC added to rather than reduced NOx emissions. Since NOx was the 'sticking point' for EMD tier 4 final compliance, why would an oxidation catalyst become a requirement now?
The "GE" HDL Series Prime Mover was built by Deutz
noemdfan The "GE" HDL Series Prime Mover was built by Deutz
The 6-15-93 HDL agreement was between GE and Moteren-Werke Mannheim AG, a subsidiary of Deutz AG. Moteren-Werke was to design the engine; and GE was to manufacture it. Deutz's direct involvement was to guarantee the performance of Moteren-Werke.
There's a rumor that UP's going to order 66 SD70ACe-T4s, even though testing of demostrators has just started.
Don't know if it's true or not.
http://www.locophotos.com/Read.php?ThreadID=32892
It has been reported on another forum that EMD SD70ACe-T4 demos 1501 and 1504 are on the move from Muncie to LaGrange, IL for testing. EMDX 1501 is the locomotive displayed at Railway Interchange in Minneapolis and is in the new EMD demo paint scheme. EMDX 1504 is the first of two locomotives intended for demonstration and testing on the Union Pacific and is in the Union Pacific paint scheme, but with EMD lettering.
I have also heard that UP has ordered 66 SD70ACe-T4 locomotives for delivery in the second half of 2016.
beaulieu It has been reported on another forum that EMD SD70ACe-T4 demos 1501 and 1504 are on the move from Muncie to LaGrange, IL for testing. EMDX 1501 is the locomotive displayed at Railway Interchange in Minneapolis and is in the new EMD demo paint scheme. EMDX 1504 is the first of two locomotives intended for demonstration and testing on the Union Pacific and is in the Union Pacific paint scheme, but with EMD lettering. I have also heard that UP has ordered 66 SD70ACe-T4 locomotives for delivery in the second half of 2016.
Class 1's, at this point in time, will provide 'token' orders to EMD, if for no other reason than to keep EMD in business and not give GE a monopoly. Once the orders are received on property, the real world testing will begin, comparing the overall economics of each brand.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.