Baldwin vs EMD Prime Movers

[Erik_Mag]

There was talk about the extra weight of the Baldwin engines being "free ballast", but he problem is that finely machined metal such as engine parts typically cost a lot more for a given weight than unmachined metal.

[M636C]

creepycrank

First of all the 1500HP 567B engine only ran at 800 rpm. The 16-645-E3 developed 3000 hp (turbocharged) at 900 rpm for the same size engine frame and the 710 engine is the sane length but about an inch and a half taller because of the one inch longer stroke. Both the 645 and 710 operate at 900 rpm and I wonder if the 710 wears out faster than the 645 because of the higher piston speed. Most manufactures use an arbitrary limit of 2000 feet per second. The GE GEVO locomotive engines are faster than this (at 1050rpm) while the marine engine version is rated at 900 rpm. Probably because marine engine usually run at a higher load factor than locomotives.

 

It should be noted that the more recent 710 engines run at 950 rpm to produce 4300HP from the sixteen cylinder, (and a few in the Santa Fe SD75s ran at 1000 rpm to get 4500 HP as a test).

 

But the EMD engines have always been light for their power. The GE FDL-16 was about two tons heavier and the GEVO was about the same but became significantly heavier in the Tier 4 version which was longer, partly to provide larger bearings for the crankshaft. The eight cylinder Baldwin was probably heavier than both.

 

V-16 versions of the Baldwin engine capable of 4000HP were built under licence in Belgium and I think at least one was used in a locomotive.

 

Peter

[creepycrank]

First of all the 1500 567 engine only ran at 800 rpm. The 16- 645-E3 developed 3000 hp (turbochrged) for the same size engine frame and the 710 engine is the sane kenght but about an inch and a half taller because of the one inch longer stroke. Both the 645 and 710 operate at 900 rpm and I wonder if the 710 wheres out faster than the 645 because of the higher piston speed. Most manufactures use an arbitrary limit of 2000 feet per second. The GE GEVO locomotive engines are faster than this while the marine engine version is rated at 900 rpm. Probably because marine engine usually run at a higher load factor than locomotive.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

For openers, the De La Vergne engine had cylinder dimensions of 12.75" x 15.75" and operated at 625 RPM.  The 567 had 8.5" x 10" cylinders and operated at 950-1000 RPM.  Volumes have been written about maintenance and upkeep of De La Vergne engines, which were primarily a marine design adapted for locomotive use.

[VGN Jess]

First: Does anyone know how Baldwin got 1,600 HP out of an in-line 8 Cyl. engine (608SC) eg...Sharknoses, while at the same time EMD could only get 1,500 HP out of a 16 cyl engine (567), eg..F7/GP7? That really seems strange to me, ie...more HP with half the cylinders. Second: why didn't EMD "copy" whatever Baldwin did to also have a 1,500 HP 8 cyl. prime mover? It would seem that would halve it's engine costs.