EntropyConsidering the charger has a design limitation that only allows limited dynamic brake capacity as is, would that be a good idea?
If there will come a Siemens freight locomotive for the American market it won't be based on the Charger. Components might come from the Charger but it will have a standard frame, hoods, cab but not a semi-monocoque.
Dynamic brake capacity would not be a problem either.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRWhat I read about three-axle radial (steerable) trucks, the experience is mixed so that in many cases the steering mechanism was disabled.
Certainly the implementation of radial steering in a C truck is important; I'm still not particularly convinced that the "GE" version with all those outside levers actually does what it's supposed to ... even after having looked at the patent and built some kinematic models.
Theoretically a three-axle steerable truck can have zero effective fixed wheelbase and still exhibit geometrically-correct radial geometry, something that none of the two-axle steerables I've seen have been able to do without active assistance. What tends to happen (in my opinion) is that very-low-mass axles allow the leading axle to guide a two-axle bogie frame well into high-speed-optimized curves, where the bogie frame is constrained in yaw by proper secondary-suspension design (e.g. those very long external springs) and hence the trailing-axle geometry is not impaired from likewise reasonable lateral accommodation. While I think you could get this kind of action from a three-axle truck with the virtual pivot over the center axle, you implicitly have to arrange the center axle to float laterally, over a range that might extend to several inches, and this is (again in my opinion) difficult to arrange passively; naturally any arrangement that mechanically conjugates movement of the leading axle with motion at the trailing axle is NOT going to help high-speed accommodation, and if there is measurable yaw control of the bogie/truck frame you may induce trailing-wheel wear in the same process that reduces it at the leading axle. You may note that even with increased wear problems documented since at least 1995, EMD continues to offer predominantly steerable HTCR trucks on domestic production (and I don't remember a North American Class I ordering an EMD product without them since Conrail days - which is not to say there may not have been some).
I would be tempted to note that high speed and nose-suspended motors aren't really associated in the first place, in discussing the application of radial steering to powered three-axle trucks, but that would open a different can of worms!
ATSFGuyWell then in regards to the Metrolink F125, CAT better admit the tier 4 diesel engine needs to be redesigned
I don't think there is anything in the 'engine' that needs to be redesigned -- and I speak as not the greatest fan of Cat anything on locomotives -- but there are certainly some issues regarding the implementation of the SCR system that go beyond those I've seen stated.
I do think they made the right choice, once SCR was deemed necessary, to use 'more' DEF to allow the engine to operate under the best possible performance conditions without things like obligate EGR to 'partially mitigate' NOx that would be addressed anyway by the greater SCR use. At any rate that's the same thing I would have done in their shoes. The question at Metrolink appears to be that some aspects of the DEF delivery system are inadequate, and perhaps more ominously that Cat/Progress after all these months doesn't seem to have an adequate fix. This may still be problems in the control logic related to political provisions in the emission-systems control (e.g., complete inability to run the engine with inadequate 'perceived' DEF-system delivery) but it's been an awfully long time without any third-party confirmations of what the actual problems are.
Almost certainly months longer than anything rationally related to the transfer system from DEF storage to the 'day tank'.
The Sound … and a SD70ACe-T4 Playing Games
For those interested, I was northbound on Cajon Blvd. by the Blue Cut area of Cajon Pass today in Southern California, and came upon a UP eastbound. I finely caught up to the head-end at a parking spot adjacent CP CAJON, and for the first time heard the prime mover in Run 8. (All the other times they were downhill.)
GE four-strokes have a chug beat, whereas SD70M (and others) two strokes have a high speed wind to them. The new SD70ACe-T4 had kind of a distinctive three stoke sound! Never heard anything like that before!
So, having missed photographing the unique sounding unit, Summit was visited. After a long time with camera in hand, and three westbound trains passing, the effort was given up. NO PICTURES AGAIN! It was found to be parked at the inaccessible location of CP SILVERWOOD for an unknown reason. I guess the unit, UP 3014, was determined not to let any photos be taken of it …
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
K. P. Harrier GE four-strokes have a chug beat, whereas SD70M (and others) two strokes have a high speed wind to them. The new SD70ACe-T4 had kind of a distinctive three stoke sound! Never heard anything like that before!
I find the Tier-IV units of both builders to sound quite similar (although I've only heard a live SD70ACe-T4 once, and it left me seeing visions of giant vacuum cleaners), which makes sense as they are both powered by large V12 4-stroke engines with EGR.
The GE chug has been muffled, and a whole lot of whooshing added over top.
It is a shame that the jet-like shriek and roar of the GM 2-stroke has been silenced.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
K.P., here is the notorious UP 3014 leading stacks on February 23:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/649393/
kgbw49 (2-24):
Yah, that’s the guy (UP 3014)!
That engine sure wouldn’t cooperate for me! I wonder if that railpictures.net photographer later that day had to bribe the SD70ACe-T4 to get that picture. (Ha ha)
K.P.
SD70Dude K. P. Harrier GE four-strokes have a chug beat, whereas SD70M (and others) two strokes have a high speed wind to them. The new SD70ACe-T4 had kind of a distinctive three stoke sound! Never heard anything like that before! I find the Tier-IV units of both builders to sound quite similar (although I've only heard a live SD70ACe-T4 once, and it left me seeing visions of giant vacuum cleaners), which makes sense as they are both powered by large V12 4-stroke engines with EGR. The GE chug has been muffled, and a whole lot of whooshing added over top. It is a shame that the jet-like shriek and roar of the GM 2-stroke has been silenced.
K. P. Harrier
What a shame indeed. I remember arriving to CUS and walking past the two F40s on the head end sounding like two Pratt & Witney JT80s than two locomotives. Pretty impressive sight and sound in the darkness of Chicago Union.
Turbos muffle the exhaust sound somewhat then they had to add exhaust mufflers about 15 years ago. In time they be completely silent like cars they they can add Lionel Train Sounds or something. The engineer can selectwhat hewants his train to sound like.
FDL and 251 engines sounded remarkably similar, not too surprising when you consider that they had the same bore and stroke.
For really quiet power, you need a straight electric locomotive.
CSSHEGEWISCH FDL and 251 engines sounded remarkably similar, not too surprising when you consider that they had the same bore and stroke. For really quiet power, you need a straight electric locomotive.
What is wrong with this SD70ACE doing this???Nothing.The ge locomotives are so overrated to begin with.It is time for the the Justice Department to step in & break up ge locomotives since they already have a monopoly on the diesel locomotive business to begin with?All this negative is designed to drive locomotive business away from EMD & to ge.I mean what else could it be about?What is Caterpillar doing in this business to begin with?????I mean how the heck long does Caterpillar plan to remain #2 to that other company that has a total monopoly on this locomotive business?Yes we now can acknowledge that this other company has a total monopoly.Why isn t there any 200 locomotive orders coming into Muncie?Why aren t the majority of diesel locomotives on American rails EMD?Thats constitutes a monopoly.Live near a Norfolk Southern line that is literally drunk with these cookie cutter D9-44CWs.Love seeing any SD70s that come thru no matter how old they are.
For those who may be puzzled by some of that last post, it's referring to the original KP post about a SD70ACe-T4 (not a plain unit) which might have been 'demoted' to local train duty due to some difficulty with its Tier 4 compliance equipment; the implicit 'parallel' with Metrolink Spirit problems being raised (and, I think, being reasonably dismissed on the facts as being associated with putative 265/1010 concerns in subsequent earlier posts).
I have seen little actual substantiation since then that EMD T4s are failing or requiring special derating or assignment to restricted duty. And this is the proper thread where such data would appear if observed.
Perhaps someone could explain to me why GE ... which is already strongly considering spinning off the locomotive division or divesting the whole of the current Transportation division ... should be the subject of Federal antimonopoly proceedings. I get the strong impression that bait is being pulled across my nose, when it would be far better to discuss objectively why GE's approach worked where EMD's came so close but ultimately didn't. Yes, I think a big piece of that involved Cat/Progress excuses for engineering management, but that isn't nearly as much a proper subject here as the suitability of current EMD freight-power T4 implementation, both in service and as a marketable prospect for new sales, would be. Especially when the very large number of last-minute rebuilds to get around new purchase of T4-compliant power, and uncertainty over the actual need especially for obligate-SCR implementations remains in play with the "new" EPA, make the need for expensive but less reliable NO emissions reduction far less of an effective priority...
YoHo1975. The F125 then doesn't help, because it reinforces preconceived notions of EMD quality and Cat suitability to purpose. Even though the problems with the F125 are entirely independent of the 1010J and the T4 locomotive is runs in
So far the problem the F125 are independent from the Cat C175-20 too.They were within the SCR-system and before the non-complience with FRA regulations.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRSo far the problem the F125 are independent from the Cat C175-20 too.
The problem there is that I don't recall any United States EMD/Progress design apart from the Spirit that showcases the full Tier 4 optimization of the C175 at any number of cylinders. Any of these would have obligate use of DEF for the full amelioration of NO engine emissions, with the CR increased and EGR almost certainly absent to increase thermal efficiency and reduce particulates. I would have to wonder if the peculiar combination of high-rate feeding problems and programming mistakes at the root of the F125's evident woes would be present on any C175-engines locomotive of comparably high power output to be 'market competitive'.
I would like to think railroad purchasers could do a better job of distinguishing SCR issues for 265/1010s from those of high-speed passenger locomotives. The question is whether Progress EMD just pretends the issue will go away with a little routine tweaking ... as the months go by, and it doesn't.
For clarities sake, there is not SCR on the SD70ACe-T4 1010J.
For the F125, who makes the SCR system? EMD? It's not EMD's engine right? IF it isn't EMD's SCR subsystem, that might possibly explain the foot dragging. EMD is merely hearding the cats in that case.
I have to imagine EMD is far more impacted by their woes over the past few decades than the comparitively small order of Cat engined F125s.
YoHo1975I have to imagine EMD is far more impacted by their woes over the past few decades than the comparatively small order of Cat engined F125s.
In my opinion, the whole GM and then Berkshire debacle has incredibly little to do with the actual Tier 4 final issue that whacked Progress over the head. You may recall that they came within something like 0.2 % of making the nominal NOx standard (and my recollection at the time was that this was at the extremes of cycle testing, not a weighted average, but I might have misinterpreted the results as I did not fully examine the test methodology). I thought then, and still do, that considering both the absolute amount of NO emissions from these engines and the reduced propensity for subsequent atmospheric/environmental conversion to NO2, it would make far better sense to slip that arbitrarily-generated NOx spec enough to allow the EMD EGR-only approach to qualify. Instead Progress/EMD has had their profitability slammed and the 'alternative' programs and approaches related to EMD power have put many times more NO into the atmosphere.
Have we got a cumulative online graph or similar metric that shows the progress (no pun intended) of the 100-unit T4 order referenced in the original post? To my knowledge there is no technical issue with the Tier 4 system at present that would either hold them out of service or cause UP to refuse further deliveries. Please advise if there is, with details if you have them.
I frankly don't understand why even now there is no coherent discussion of the DEF issues on the F-125. Whether or not this originated in some supplier or specification error has long been immaterial: Progress has had its engineers working on this for many months, long past the time I or perhaps anyone in a position of authority at, say, Metrolink is prepared to wait before ceasing to accept an 'it's proprietary but we're fixing it' kind of excuse. That in no way, shape or form is a 'historical' EMD problem. It's a Muncie problem and Muncie for whatever reason not only seems to keep fumbling the ball but then trying the equivalent of pretending to conceal the ball under players' shirts to stave off refs calling the play dead.
I liked the pun about 'herding cats'.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I am still waiting for detailed service accounts and operational lessons-learned so far for CECX 1919, which is now approaching technical obsolescence in a number of respects.
I am not really expecting anything out of Metrolink to kick the can down the road -- I think they are in something of a quandary because they can't get out of the computer immobilizing the locomotive when it 'illegally starts polluting' and for some nebulously undisclosed reason Progress can't fix the parts of the system that are supposed to prevent the illegal polluting. You, me, and the consultant behind the tree know this can't be a day-tank pumping problem, or an objective level-sensing problem since millimeters-wavelength sensors that are 'ammonia-hard' have been OTS since the early Eighties. Why there is no pushback on the opportunity cost of the investment, either from Metrolink or its riding public or don Progress with its backlog of unaccepted units ... and why the yellow press hasn't leaped on this multifaceted failure with fangs gleefully bared ... gets more interesting to consider with each passing week.
Perhaps they think that ignorance CAN be fostered until someone figures out how the horse can at least lip-sync. All I can really say is that I will be glad to read the eventual tech account of the problems and how they were solved.
Ship's pool bet: It will be an issue connected with re-optimization of thermal efficiency connected with perhaps greatly increased DEF feed requirements. Perhaps outstripping the capability of some part of the 265-gallon 'compromise' setup incorporated in this order of locomotives, perhaps excessive heat transfer from other components. I would think sensors except it ought to be simple to fix any given subsystem in the time that has elapsed...
OvermodI frankly don't understand why even now there is no coherent discussion of the DEF issues on the F-125. Whether or not this originated in some supplier or specification error has long been immaterial: Progress has had its engineers working on this for many months, long past the time I or perhaps anyone in a position of authority at, say, Metrolink is prepared to wait before ceasing to accept an 'it's proprietary but we're fixing it' kind of excuse.
According to the minutes of Metrolink Board meetings the SCR problem is solved. #908 had 21 runs after necessary modifications without failure (minutes 02/09/2018).
There were two failures: failure of "gating solenoids" to open thereby restricting urea flow to day tank, and "loss of prime" preventing transfer pump frum pumping DEF to day tank. (minutes of 12/08/2017)
OvermodYou may recall that they came within something like 0.2 % of making the nominal NOx standard ........... I thought then, ....., it would make far better sense to slip that arbitrarily-generated NOx spec enough to allow the EMD EGR-only approach to qualify. Instead Progress/EMD has had their profitability slammed and the 'alternative' programs and approaches related to EMD power have put many times more NO into the atmosphere.
We had this argument before. It might have been better for the environment. EPA set the NOx limits expecting the manufacturers to use SCR. Read the EPA's 1998 final rule making.
EMD started testing the 710 using EGR for the off-road NOx limit of 3.0 g/bhp-hr and succeded. From Railway Gazette International December 2015 "Tier 4 locomotives take to the tracks":
‘The 710 loved it’, recalls Lenz. But the euphoria was short lived. ‘The EPA came out with 1·3 g/bhp-h for Tier 4, not the 3·0 we were hoping for.’ Not to be defeated, the engineers looked at adding more EGR and installing giantparticulate matter filters on existing locomotives. Using a pair of borrowed Union Pacific SD70ACes fitted with large roof boxes for emissions testing, Lenz saysEMD successfully got the 710 engine up to Tier 4 requirements. But whilethe tests were successful, the resulting design was too heavy, too cumbersomeand not cost competitive enough to be marketable. In particular, the fuel economywas worse than for Tier 3.You can't change law just to help one company so far into the design process.
GE sent the first Tier 4 locomotices for field testing in 2013. I difference to EMD had realized early that the FDL was at its limits and designed the Gevo for Tier 2.
OvermodIn my opinion, the whole GM and then Berkshire debacle has incredibly little to do with the actual Tier 4 final issue that whacked Progress over the head.
I think it has a lot to do with the GM and Berkshire. GE Transportation had a parent company willing to provide technical expertise and money while EMD lacked both.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRAccording to the minutes of Metrolink Board meetings the SCR problem is solved. #908 had 21 runs after necessary modifications without failure (minutes 02/09/2018).
Is this not the same 908 that failed on the demonstration train after a similar run of tests 'without failure'?
And does that not imply that all the remaining units on the property would have been remediated and running by now? I have not seen any posting that indicates they have...
Even in this worthless age of poor customer service, I find it hard to believe that it took all these months to find and address those two issues.
Wait, the failure was in November right? And the root cause early december minutes and the 21 runs without fail prior to the early February meeting. Is that really "months and months?"
Two units started revenue test service in the week of October 12, 2017. The minutes of the November 17, 2017 Board meeting contains the information about urea feed problems for the first time. The failure of #907 in Newhall was on November 18, 2017.Regards, Volker
So less than 2 months from first test service to failure to root cause (as reported to the board in early December) and then 2 months later they had a fix and 21 runs in?
That seems pretty reasonable. Sounds like we, and Trains just weren't on the ball with what's been going on.
Here is 3031 leading in Atlanta.
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/652088/
I think the coal downturn more than anything may be as good a reason as there is as to why few new locomotive orders of any type have been forthcoming. Look at the 3 miles of stored locomotives in Arizona.
Those approximately 200 units (3 miles divided by 80 feet per unit) at 3 per train could pull approximately 67 unit coal trains. That is a lot of power waiting for a chance to run.
Granted many are older units but the newer displaced units from coal service are what pushed those units in to storage.
To venture off topic and reply to previous posts in this thread.
CN for some reason had to honour a locomotive order when it took over the IC. That is why you see IC 2697-2726. The only difference from the rest of the CN Dash 9s is that the IC ones were delivered with air conditioning.
From what I have noticed, it is only the Tier 4 and Tier 3 Credit units that are registered under US (GTW, CC, WC, IC) ownership.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.