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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
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.
noemdfan The "GE" HDL Series Prime Mover was built by Deutz
The "GE" HDL Series Prime Mover was built by Deutz
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?
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
N.F.
NorthWest I imagine that EMD will be using the same unit to preserve their famed backwards compatability.
I imagine that EMD will be using the same unit to preserve their famed backwards compatability.
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.
.
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
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.
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...
YoHo1975 So 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.
I was under the impression that the October issue illustrated an SD90 test unit running a CAT 20-C175 engine....
YoHo1975So is the 1010 update a product of Cat R&D or EMD R&D with Cat support?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
EMD #1501:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d2/3/3/1/5331.1444051594.jpg
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?
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.
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
YoHo1975does EMD even have it's own Engine R&D anymore?
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.