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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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
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.
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.
ML
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.
Wait, when did the GEVO lose the DPF unit?
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.
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.
GDRMCoIt'd be rated at 4500hp....
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 Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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.
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.
BaltACD ottergoose Here's the official intro from EMD / Progress Rail: 3 mins 42 seconds of all the buzz words you can apply.
ottergoose Here's the official intro from EMD / Progress Rail:
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/)
I like the return of the angled windshields.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
SD70ACe-T4 reveal is online today (4 Oct 2015) on Progress Rail's Youtube channel.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.