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 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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.