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.
ML
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"]
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=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.)
M636C
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
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
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?
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......
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.