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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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., here is the notorious UP 3014 leading stacks on February 23:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/649393/
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!
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
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.)
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 …
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'.
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!
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
OvermodI'm not sure why a monocoque design would be necessary (or particularly appropriate) for the freight market in North America. I'd expect either a revised version of CECX 1919 (for the Cummins QSK powerplant family) or something along the lines of the 'testbed' applications of parts of the Charger structure to hood units. One of the main issues remains the desirability (or lack of same) in using excess DEF to permit the prime movers to operate at higher efficiency and still meet Tier 4 final and later standards.
A monocoque or in the case of the Charger a semi-monocoque design is chosen to save weight, about 20,000 lbs per unit but cost more to build.
A standard freight locomotive is ballasted to the allowed axle loads. It doesn't make sense to save weight in the construction and add as ballast.
We haven't seen any long time experiences with EGR in the GE ET44AC or EMD SD70ACe-T4 yet, so perhaps the railroads might perhaps reconcider.
On the other hand EPA will release a Tier 5 sometime and it wiil require the use of SCR.
In the final rule regarding the emission limits is discussed that locomotives would need SCR to comply to Tier 4. The manufacturers found a way around SCR.
From that perspective I'm not sure if it was a wise decision in the long term to go for solely EGR
Overmod And I don't see a reason why modern Siemens three-axle trucks couldn't be integrated under a monocoque structure,
As long as you get a semi-monocoque design within the axle load limits with two-axle trucks there is no need for three-axle trucks.
The European experience is that two-axle trucks track better than three-axle trucks at higher speeds therefore the use of B-trucks.
What I read about three-axle radial (steerable) trucks, the expierence is mixed so that in many cases the steering mechanism was disabled.Regards, Volker
CSSHEGEWISCH A six-axle North American freight version of the Charger would be breaking new ground for Siemens as their freight locomotive designs have been oriented to smaller European freight trains.
A six-axle North American freight version of the Charger would be breaking new ground for Siemens as their freight locomotive designs have been oriented to smaller European freight trains.
Considering the charger has a design limitation that only allows limited dynamic brake capacity as is, would that be a good idea?
CSSHEGEWISCHA six-axle North American freight version of the Charger would be breaking new ground for Siemens
I'm not sure why a monocoque design would be necessary (or particularly appropriate) for the freight market in North America. I'd expect either a revised version of CECX 1919 (for the Cummins QSK powerplant family) or something along the lines of the 'testbed' applications of parts of the Charger structure to hood units. One of the main issues remains the desirability (or lack of same) in using excess DEF to permit the prime movers to operate at higher efficiency and still meet Tier 4 final and later standards.
Three-axle trucks: you really don't have to look beyond 'Flexi-Float' to figure out what Siemens could do for a locomotive in any North American freight speed range. (Or, really, any prospective high-speed freight operation in a passenger corridor, were a good business model for one demonstrated). And I don't see a reason why modern Siemens three-axle trucks couldn't be integrated under a monocoque structure, with only nominal extension of the structure as currently made (there appears to be considerable overhang with long truck wheelbase in the passenger versions) for what might need to be larger fuel tanks.
Siemens will have to build a 6 axle version of its charger. That would be the only way to get the weight on track per loco 4400 HP to take full advantage of all that tractive effort.
YoHo1975 (2-12):
The thedieselshop.us UP roster is a loose one that is free. I don’t have the will or the money to subscribe to every facet of railroading websites. It sounds like the loconotes website (of unknown extension) is accurate, but I’m not sure how it could be in light of the process you described, which process suggests the outfit doesn’t need contributors, which in turn suggests a contradictory situation …Maybe more information is needed to clear up the confusion.
It is understandable that Progress Rail would now do manufacturing in the U.S., at Muncie, but given the ever extending time to complete the orders for F125’s and SD70ACe-T4’s, one has to wonder if Progress Rail tried some things that didn’t work as expected and those things now are dilemmas for them. Of course, it is a good time, I suppose, for Progress Rail to unscramble nightmare problems because the industry is not too interested anyway in new power with all the power in storage among railroads. Should be interesting to see what finally happens in the months to come.
I cannot rationalize that UP roster list versus the loconotes list of delivered units. Therefore I assume it is wrong and I wouldn't trust it. For example, the Builder dates are nonsensical and they don't give a delivery date. Similarly, a lot of those units that rrpicturearchives has are not considered delivered to UP yet. I recommend ignoring such websites and sticking with Loconotes. If there is a definitive source, that's it. For example, 3018, 3019, and 3026 were just delivered. and SD70ACe-T4C 9090 was delivered in January. Which isn't listed even though that site was updated in February. I'd dump that site as a source.
Muncie just started to Ramp up T4 production, they were building T4C units. So I would imagine things will continue apace.
The Euros have never understood the US freight locomotive business - equipment that runs 24/7/365. E.G. Krause-Maffei
Was by the commuter agency Metrolink's South Perris end-of-the line layover terminal in Perris, CA on Saturday, February 10, 2018 and NO new Progress Rail F125’s were present, presumable meaning the problems with the new units still persists.
Also, thedieselshop.us webpages for the UP roster info and rrpicturearchives.net still shows the 100 SD70ACe-T4’s as NOT delivered into the 3060’s and beyond, so like the F125’s the SD70ACe-T4 problems must linger on.
http://thedieselshop.us/UP.HTML
http://rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?mid=1536
How many years will the order for 100 UP units take to be delivered? For the 40 Metrolink units?
To cover all the bases, it has to be wondered if UP has contacted Siemens for any freight power proposals … Now wouldn’t that shake up the freight power industry in magnitude 8.0 earthquake fashion?
When I was in Arizona last Monday, January 15, 2018, for the “Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates” thread, a westbound went by in Picacho with a tail end DPU SD70ACe-T4, UP 3021.
So, it seems they are getting around system wide now more and more, and being utilized in a number of services.
That above photo appears oddly composed, but there is a reason for it that will be explained in the Sunset Route thread tomorrow.
It seems that ALL new locomotive models seem to have various teething problems. They do get fixed as they come up.
UP had stopped delivery and restarted it last spring as has been reported. There is no longer anything delaying delivery that I'm aware of. They are also building T4C units so it's only 100 T4s, but I think an equal number of SD70ACe T3s.
Pictures on the internet are not sufficient data, because there isn't an equal number of photographers in each area.
Example, 3012 has 20 pictures, but a large portion of those pictures are of it on the Southbound Coast Starlight. So yeah, it was in Coal service later in the year, but It was in Eugene to lead that Coast Starlight, because I5 Corridor.
Going through the pictures it feels a lot more like they're working their way west and it may very well be that UP is going to try them out in a lot of different work, or local power desks bogart them cause NEW. Also a lot of Roster shots in Mx and Muncie and then in Proviso which is the first stop after Muncie.
YoHo1975 (1-2):
The “general knowledge” idea came from the heavy coal train photos that have been at some photo sites. Perhaps the SD70ACe-T4’s are getting around more now, and that will be reflected at those photo sites soon, if not already.
kgbw49 (1-2):
The website rrpicturearchives.net suggests under 60 have been delivered after all this time, AS IF some bugs have been encountered.
Bugs have plagued the delivery of Metrolink’s F125 deliveries, SCAX Nos. 903-942.
http://rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?mid=848&Page=2
Yoho1975, it does make total sense that the bulk of SD70ACe-T4 units are being used in the I5 corridor. I did not post the picture links to agree or disagree with anyone. With a total of, I believe, 100 on the UP roster right now, it is certainly possible and logical that the lion's share of them operate in and out of CA, for sure, for the reasons you mentioned. And it also makes sense that some of the units are being put through their paces in other service by UP so they can ascertain whether or not those units are as reliable as the original 1,000+ SD70Ms that UP ordered 15-17 odd years ago, and whether or not they are worth another order. I am guessing that both you and K.P. are right to some degree.
It is interesting to see those units being used very often in lead positions, probably to get crew input as to how they like them in the various uses.
All of us are probably keeping our fingers crossed that the SD70ACe-T4 does pass all of its "tests" with flying colors and becomes a viable, effective option for all North American railroads over time. Time will certainly tell!
I live in Roseville, There are fewer SD70ACe-T4s than there are GEVO-T4s and I5 trains don't always stop for service in Roseville, but we do see them regularly coming down from Redding.
The statement that the bulk of T4s are running out of Hinkle is generally true. That doesn't mean they won't wander the system. Certainly the pictures of them on the Yuma Subdivision implies that West Colton Dispatched them a different direction. I don't know if the T4s are Captive service...or maybe only some of them are. The way some GEVOs are captive service as helpers over "the hill."
What does General knowledge mean in this case? I don't recall seeing such news on Loconotes for instance, though I may have missed it.
A smattering of recent T4 pictures follows.
SD70ACe-T4 units in coal service:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/638085/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/637841/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/637811/
SD70ACe-T4 units in intermodal service:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/642768/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/641368/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/638831/
SD70ACe-T4 units in merchandise service:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/639734/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/640684/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/638315/
It has been rather general knowledge that the SD70ACe-T4’s are in coal train service, and is supported by photo sites. Some have been photographed in various other locations, however, including non-UP trackage such as in Florida, New York, etc.
K.P.’s office overlooks from a distance the I-5 Corridor line, specifically, UP’s Mojave Sub in the High Desert of Southern California. I have yet to see an SD70ACe-T4 from the window. One was in Cajon Pass, UP 3012.
That UP 3012 floated around out of West Colton Yard in the Colton, CA area for some time, then I saw a photo of it in the Powder River Basin, which is consistent with the general understanding they are in coal service.
ATSFGuy Well then in regards to the Metrolink F125, CAT better admit the tier 4 diesel engine needs to be redesigned or they're going to be in a heap of trouble regarding the F125 model.
Well then in regards to the Metrolink F125, CAT better admit the tier 4 diesel engine needs to be redesigned or they're going to be in a heap of trouble regarding the F125 model.
Redesigned because?
Ugh, the presumptive nature of the initial post is kinda surprising. First of all, since when are the SD70 T4s operating out of Powder River? If that is true is would be a MAJOR change in the power assignments. UP has been assigning most Tier 4 units to maintenance out of Hinkle and they operate the I5 Corridor. This is because of the Agreement with CARB. They want their best Emissions units in California.
As for that local, It was probably the power on hand. and West Colton didn't need to send it back north yet. Like I said, the GE and EMD Tier 4s tend to dominate between West Colton and Hinkle. Not that they don't go elsewhere, but that's where UP tends to congregate them.
On the 29th, I saw what was probably the San Jose Turn operating with an SD59MX, an SD70M and a ES45ACCTE. That train NEVER rates GEs. It is held down by 59MX/60M/70M. But one of the pretty Tier 3 GEs was running behind the 2 EMDs. Why? is it an ominous sign for GE? NO, OF COURSE NOT. It was the power the power desk had to give that train.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.