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
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
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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......
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
EMD at least designed the 265 (and the 1010) themselves and it has still a number of FDL features not in the GEVO.
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......
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.
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
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.
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 Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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 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.
Poor EMD guy couldn't speak into the microphone consistently.
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.
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.
ML
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?
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?
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
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.
GDRMCo They've not changed the name of the locomotive tho, a 4-stroke SD70? Never...
They've not changed the name of the locomotive tho, a 4-stroke SD70? Never...
In the name "SD-70ACe-T4," "T4" is short for Tier-4 (final or "B") Emissions
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.