The first 710 with EFI rolled out of the factory in 1993. That's almost 30 years ago. Certainly Good Ole is a valid descriptor for it. T1 was 20 years ago. Also Good Ole. The ACe is 18 years old.
I would love to know what changes had to be made to get DEF working on the 710, but it happened. And it happened in 2019. We talked about it
https://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/275466.aspx
Overmod's post in that thread in particular reiterates some things I've said:
Tier 4 with DEF is easy to implement on the 710. (Even easier to for Marine versions)
And
You remove all the stuff you had to do to get nox low in T2 and T3.
So, in fact there's a good likelyhood that the T4 710 is more like the "good ole" 710.
The question is what they had to do to achieve the corner cases.
YoHo1975 I'm actually not sure what the point of this sidetrack is? That the QSK requires different Maintence is a given. Is the point that somehow that maintence regime is a requirement to have effective T4 locomotives? Because again, EMD achieves T4 on the 710 using the same DEF and the engine is still the good ole 710.
To achieve Tier 4 you have to start with a prime mover with low NOx and high particulates with a regen circuit on the exhaust or a prime mover with low particulates and high NOx with selective catalytic reduction (DEF) on the exhaust. I'm not going to pretend to know what hoops the 710 had to go through to get to the point where DEF aftertreatment became an option. This isn't something you buy from Manny, Moe & Jack and bolt onto your locomotive.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
My Dad's 86 Country Squire Wagon had the 5.0 and computer controlled injection. Only 2 years newer.
F40PH fine, but F59s and P42s also use extensive computer controls as do modern 710 and EVO/FDL based Freight units. And those computers have changed the specs of the Prime movers considerably.
I'm actually not sure what the point of this sidetrack is? That the QSK requires different Maintence is a given. Is the point that somehow that maintence regime is a requirement to have effective T4 locomotives? Because again, EMD achieves T4 on the 710 using the same DEF and the engine is still the good ole 710.
Lynn and I just bought a 2022 Honda CR-V. It's really nice, but when I was listening to the finance person making her pitch (centered around the onboard computer) for the extended warranty, I started to wonder if I was buying a car that would spend more time being repaired than being driven.
BaltACDYou only had to go from your 1984 F150 to Ford's current F150 to make that comparison. And considering my 84 Dodge Daytona Trubo had a computer, although not as all encompassing as today's in what it was monitoring
D.Carleton BaltACD The comparison was clearly flawed when it named Lambroghini. To limit the comparison to supercars you need to name manufacturers that ONLY deal supercars in their commercial products. Ferrari, McLaren come to mind. Point taken. How's this: Comparing a legacy engine to a QSK95 is tantamount to comparing my old 1984 F150 (which boasted a Holley four barrel) with a brand new Tesla. In my old truck the on board diagnostics sat behind the steering wheel. Troubleshooting meant getting your face under the hood. Today's machines are computer driven with onboard diagnostic display and advanced troubleshooting means plugging into it with a laptop.
BaltACD The comparison was clearly flawed when it named Lambroghini. To limit the comparison to supercars you need to name manufacturers that ONLY deal supercars in their commercial products. Ferrari, McLaren come to mind.
Point taken. How's this: Comparing a legacy engine to a QSK95 is tantamount to comparing my old 1984 F150 (which boasted a Holley four barrel) with a brand new Tesla. In my old truck the on board diagnostics sat behind the steering wheel. Troubleshooting meant getting your face under the hood. Today's machines are computer driven with onboard diagnostic display and advanced troubleshooting means plugging into it with a laptop.
You only had to go from your 1984 F150 to Ford's current F150 to make that comparison. And considering my 84 Dodge Daytona Trubo had a computer, although not as all encompassing as today's in what it was monitoring.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe comparison was clearly flawed when it named Lambroghini. To limit the comparison to supercars you need to name manufacturers that ONLY deal supercars in their commercial products. Ferrari, McLaren come to mind.
SD70Dude D.Carleton The 567s, 539s and 251s I've worked on were bulletproof. The downside, especially on shortlines, was it led to skimping on maintenance. (You wait until the oil level is below the dipstick then break out the pneumatic pump and add a drum to the crankcase.) The QSK95 is so tight you won't get away that. How many miles/hours will a QSK95 go between oil changes? I suspect you also already know the answer for EMD, GE and ALCO locomotive engines.......
D.Carleton The 567s, 539s and 251s I've worked on were bulletproof. The downside, especially on shortlines, was it led to skimping on maintenance. (You wait until the oil level is below the dipstick then break out the pneumatic pump and add a drum to the crankcase.) The QSK95 is so tight you won't get away that.
The 567s, 539s and 251s I've worked on were bulletproof. The downside, especially on shortlines, was it led to skimping on maintenance. (You wait until the oil level is below the dipstick then break out the pneumatic pump and add a drum to the crankcase.) The QSK95 is so tight you won't get away that.
How many miles/hours will a QSK95 go between oil changes?
I suspect you also already know the answer for EMD, GE and ALCO locomotive engines.......
Obviously this flys in the face of standard railroad practice of 'just add oil and sample.' This is a different animal.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
YoHo1975 BaltACD YoHo1975 A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini. So I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make here. ... Not all Lamborghini's are tempermental super cars. But the comparison being made CLEARLY implies the supercars. Otherwise the comparison would be to John Deere.
BaltACD YoHo1975 A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini. So I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make here. ... Not all Lamborghini's are tempermental super cars. But the comparison being made CLEARLY implies the supercars. Otherwise the comparison would be to John Deere.
YoHo1975 A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini. So I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make here. ...
...
Not all Lamborghini's are tempermental super cars.
The comparison was clearly flawed when it named Lambroghini. To limit the comparison to supercars you need to name manufacturers that ONLY deal supercars in their commercial products. Ferrari, McLaren come to mind.
YoHo1975A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini.
BaltACD YoHo1975 A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini. So I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make here. ... Not all Lamborghini's are tempermental super cars.
But the comparison being made CLEARLY implies the supercars. Otherwise the comparison would be to John Deere.
Of course Jeremy Clarkson would find a way to get a Lambo on his farm.
Also, not all Fords are work trucks:
YoHo1975A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini. So I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make here. ...
I can't find fuel consumption data for the Siemens Charger locomotives or the Tier-IV 710, but here's some numbers for the QSK95 as a stationary generator. 207.8 g/kwh for 4309 brake HP in prime power service (varying electrical load).
https://www.cummins.com/sites/default/files/2019-06/QSK95G9.pdf
That's worse fuel economy than the Tier-III 16-710, and while it normally isn't fair to compare Tier-III and Tier-IV engines the railroads seem to be getting away with rebuilding older units to Tier-III or older standards.
A properly maintained old ford with the 302 or 460 is going to be way more reliable than any Lamborghini. So I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make here.
The point I'm trying to make, and that the pictures of the NS4800 bare out is that the advantages of the QSK95 DEF solution may not be AS great compared to the 710 DEF solution and that comparisons to the 1010j/EVO-T4 or even the 710 T4 experiement in UP 9500 are of little relevence, because their different exhaust systems force those engines to operate far less efficiently.
And so, pointing to an SD70ACe's(T3 or T4) radiator to make a claim about how a 710-DEF engine is configured is not useful
And the picture of the NS engine proves this. The radiator is much smaller.
YoHo1975For heaven's sake, this entire discussion is about DEF T4 solution.
Those aren't using DEF
For heaven's sake, this entire discussion is about DEF T4 solution.
Those radiators are explicit to the design of those engines. keeping temperatures in range to have the exhaust treatment work.
DEF allows the engine to run at higher temperatures. As mentioned earlier in this thread.
NS4800 has a smaller Radiator than the T3 4700.
WE don't have to wonder about it, it's so much smaller that it's undeniable.
YoHo1975 D.Carleton Yes, from the engine mounts to the top of the engine, including the four turbos and two wastegates, is about the same height as an EMD. However, the V16 QSK95 will fit in the same space as a V12 567. What about the Radiator though? The striking thing about the NS 4800 is the smaller Radiator. Your previous suggestion that you'd need to start with a T3 710 is ipsofacto in error, because so much of the difference is in the cooling. The T4 version needs less surface area on the radiator if nothing else. I've been curious on the radiators on both the charger and for that matter the F125 with the C175. Both engines have those large full side openings for radiator intake. (with internal lighting) I assumed that was because of the surface area requirements of the radiators.
D.Carleton Yes, from the engine mounts to the top of the engine, including the four turbos and two wastegates, is about the same height as an EMD. However, the V16 QSK95 will fit in the same space as a V12 567.
What about the Radiator though? The striking thing about the NS 4800 is the smaller Radiator. Your previous suggestion that you'd need to start with a T3 710 is ipsofacto in error, because so much of the difference is in the cooling. The T4 version needs less surface area on the radiator if nothing else.
I've been curious on the radiators on both the charger and for that matter the F125 with the C175. Both engines have those large full side openings for radiator intake. (with internal lighting) I assumed that was because of the surface area requirements of the radiators.
As for the assertion that Tier 4 locomotives need less cooling, look at the delta in size of the rads of an ES44 and an ET44. The ET44 cooler is larger for a reason.
One additional comment on why a railroad might prefer the EMD 710-T4 to the QSK is to refer back to the comment on the QSK Maintenance requirements.
Amtrak and regional passenger agencies have the ability to focus on their narrow stable of engines. The Large Freight railroads are going to struggle a lot more to maintain snowflakes in the motive power pool. It's one thing to have QSKs in yard service where the same crew takes care of them the same way every time. Having a small set of them lines up with dozens of 710s, FDLs and EVOs where the those 3 all have effectively the same requirements is a receipe for disaster.
One of the reasons that Alco's became less popular.
D.CarletonYes, from the engine mounts to the top of the engine, including the four turbos and two wastegates, is about the same height as an EMD. However, the V16 QSK95 will fit in the same space as a V12 567.
creepycrank https://dot.alaska.gov/procurement/docs/25-16-014-PIF_Project_70212_Main_Propulsion_Engines.pdf I didn't see anything about EMD's higher fuel consumption rate. Remember that EMD seems to have satisfied custermers at Massachuesetts steamship, New York Ferries, Washington State ferries as well as Alaska Ferries.
https://dot.alaska.gov/procurement/docs/25-16-014-PIF_Project_70212_Main_Propulsion_Engines.pdf I didn't see anything about EMD's higher fuel consumption rate. Remember that EMD seems to have satisfied custermers at Massachuesetts steamship, New York Ferries, Washington State ferries as well as Alaska Ferries.
https://dot.alaska.gov/procurement/docs/25-16-014-PIF_Project_70212_Main_Propulsion_Engines.pdf
I was referring to the chart on the third last page, page A-15 on the report or page 16 in a PDF viewer. The 710 is listed as burning 201 g/kwh, and the others range from 184 to 194. And of course the GE engine's data is a redacted black box.
SD70Dude From the marine world, here's a consultant's report comparing the EMD 710 with several other engines (unfortunately the GE data is redacted) for repowering an Alaska ferry. This report recommended the 710 despite its noticeably higher fuel consumption. https://dot.alaska.gov/procurement/docs/25-16-014-PIF_Project_70212_Main_Propulsion_Engines.pdf I didn't see anything about EMD's higher fuel consumption rate. Remember that EMD seems to have satisfied custermers at Massachuesetts steamship, New York Ferries, Washington State ferries as well as Alaska Ferries.
From the marine world, here's a consultant's report comparing the EMD 710 with several other engines (unfortunately the GE data is redacted) for repowering an Alaska ferry. This report recommended the 710 despite its noticeably higher fuel consumption.
M636CBut not with part of the crankcase and the whole oil pan sitting in the recess in the frame. So the relative heights should be measured from the mounting points on both engine types to the top of the engine. This will reduce any size advantage to the QSK95 due to its smaller overall height.
D.Carleton M636C The QSK95 is smaller than the EMD 16-710G3 in both dimensions and in displacement. However EMD engines have traditionally sat in a recess in the underframe, significantly increasing the space above the engine available for the aftertreatment equipment. The QSK95 appears to use a skid mounting that effectively increases the height of the QSK95 as compared to the 16-710G3 installed in its well. The QSK95 will mount directly onto the frames of an EMD.
M636C The QSK95 is smaller than the EMD 16-710G3 in both dimensions and in displacement. However EMD engines have traditionally sat in a recess in the underframe, significantly increasing the space above the engine available for the aftertreatment equipment. The QSK95 appears to use a skid mounting that effectively increases the height of the QSK95 as compared to the 16-710G3 installed in its well.
The QSK95 will mount directly onto the frames of an EMD.
But not with part of the crankcase and the whole oil pan sitting in the recess in the frame. So the relative heights should be measured from the mounting points on both engine types to the top of the engine. This will reduce any size advantage to the QSK95 due to its smaller overall height.
I was impressed by the ferry engine tabulation.
It was interesting that GE consider its engine operating costs to be commercial in confidence. Do we know if the GE engine uses aftertreatment in the marine version?
Peter
OvermodYou forgot afterteatment, a word I intend to use in future. Looks as if there is a sticky or defective R key on his keyboard...
Looks as if there is a sticky or defective R key on his keyboard...
You forgot afterteatment, a word I intend to use in future.
M636CThe QSK95 is smaller than the EMD 16-710G3 in both dimensions and in displacement. However EMD engines have traditionally sat in a recess in the underframe, significantly increasing the space above the engine available for the aftertreatment equipment. The QSK95 appears to use a skid mounting that effectively increases the height of the QSK95 as compared to the 16-710G3 installed in its well.
M636C I've proofread magazine articles for around 50 years, but nobody ever paid me for it....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.