Trains.com

Upgrading SD9043MAC to meet Tier 3 emissions

13267 views
56 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:56 PM

YoHo1975

 

OK, I know that a few years ago on this forum, there was a breakdown of most of the parts of an EMD engine designation, so I'm clearly forgetting something, but I THOUGHT that the G in 710G was the crankcase revision and the numeral after was a reference to the Turbo Charger and that the A,B, or C after that were also part of the Turbo Charger. So 3A,3B and 3C all refer to different turbo chargers.

those T2 engines were new units in the late 2000s. Well after the G3C had been introduced.  

My understanding is that the number indicates the type of turbocharger...

This started with the 567D egine, where:

567D1 was a blower engine of 1800 HP....

567D2 was a turbo engine of 2000 HP....

567D3 was a turbo engine of 2400 HP....

After this, every railroad turbo engine regardless of rating was an xxx Alpha 3 eg 710G3

Marine engines were 710G7, the only other turbo number I know.

The subsequent suffix letters were introduced to 645E3 railroad engines.

Turbochargers varied by engine size, of course and these were known as E16, E12, E8 and so on.

With the introduction of the 645F engine which ran at 950 rpm instead of 900 rpm for the 645E engine (which continued in production alongside the 645F), modified engines type 645E3B and 645E3C were introduced incorporating 645F engine features. About this time, the so-called knuckle gudgeon pins were introduced where the pins were figure 8 shape giving a "dip" in the top where lubricating oil was retained. I think this came with the 645E3C.

As I indicated above, the suffix letters have always moved right, A to B to C...

I don't have any explanation for a 12-710G3A -T2 for example....

except that EMD may have used an older G3A engine shell and rebuilt it with the Tier 2 features specifically for rebuilding older locomotives as a means of keeping the cost down.

When the 567C was introduced, some new locomotives were built with 567BC engines, where the C series power assemblies were installed in B series crankcases. This process became common for rebuilding locomotives in the 1960s and later, but these BC engines were installed in 1954. This may have been to use up an excess of 16-567B crankcases on hand at the time.

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,697 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, June 5, 2016 1:00 AM

So, I cross posted the question about the engine designations to the loconotes yahoo group (as some of you saw. :) I got an email from Trains.com user RME who apparently can't log in right now, but wanted to pose the following question:

 

"I’d appreciate it if you would post to the Trains thread and explicitly raise the question that was just made about the 8-567CR being a reverse-rotation marine engine instead of just a ‘firing order’ revision — both, it seems to me, would require about the same level of physical changes, while keeping the physical camshaft the same, but with very different configurations e.g. of the cams."

 

Worthwhile question R would seem to be an indication of reverse rotation in marine engines? thoughts?

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,697 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, June 5, 2016 1:18 AM

M636C

 

 

My understanding is that the number indicates the type of turbocharger...

This started with the 567D egine, where:

567D1 was a blower engine of 1800 HP....

567D2 was a turbo engine of 2000 HP....

567D3 was a turbo engine of 2400 HP....

After this, every railroad turbo engine regardless of rating was an xxx Alpha 3 eg 710G3

Marine engines were 710G7, the only other turbo number I know.

The subsequent suffix letters were introduced to 645E3 railroad engines.

Turbochargers varied by engine size, of course and these were known as E16, E12, E8 and so on.

With the introduction of the 645F engine which ran at 950 rpm instead of 900 rpm for the 645E engine (which continued in production alongside the 645F), modified engines type 645E3B and 645E3C were introduced incorporating 645F engine features. About this time, the so-called knuckle gudgeon pins were introduced where the pins were figure 8 shape giving a "dip" in the top where lubricating oil was retained. I think this came with the 645E3C.

As I indicated above, the suffix letters have always moved right, A to B to C...

I don't have any explanation for a 12-710G3A -T2 for example....

except that EMD may have used an older G3A engine shell and rebuilt it with the Tier 2 features specifically for rebuilding older locomotives as a means of keeping the cost down.

When the 567C was introduced, some new locomotives were built with 567BC engines, where the C series power assemblies were installed in B series crankcases. This process became common for rebuilding locomotives in the 1960s and later, but these BC engines were installed in 1954. This may have been to use up an excess of 16-567B crankcases on hand at the time.

M636C

 

 

As I recall, in the 567 days, there was some changes in the crank that made transferring assemblies between A,B and C cranks difficult. A in particular could not mount B or C assemblies. As I recall and this is from memory, there's some sort of shim needed to get a C assembly in a B case. That's why the BC designation.

 

That's from memory though of reading about it. I have no practical experience.

 

As for the engine designation. I can't speak to that from knowledge, but if we take the release dates via Wikipedia as being reasonably accurate, then EMD has released various versions of G3A/G3B/G3C engines throughout the life of the product line.

 

Now, the Wikipedia article could be in horrible error. For instance, it states that the ECO V12 is a 12-710G3B-T2 while EMD states it's a 12-710G3A-T2, but it shows some versions of the G3B coming out after the G3C was introduced.

 

Also, it seems rather odd to me that you'd have crankcase designation/Turbo/more crankcase.

 

Of perhaps interest to this thread, I note that the 710 wikipedia article states that the NS SD70M-2s that were rated at 4000HP had 16-710G3B-T2 engines while all other ACes and M-2s have 16-710G3C-T2 at 4300-4500HP.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, June 5, 2016 7:07 AM

The Wikipedia article has a number of errors:

 For a start The CIE 201, which was involved in my anecdote regarding broken crankshafts, is shown as having a 12N-710 G3B engine introduced in 1998 which would be a good trick since the locomotives were introduced in 1994 and I have my own photos of them from a visit in 1996. They definitely have 12-710G3A engines.

With a lot of work, that Wikipedia list could be corrected and become useful but I don't plan to do it any time soon.

M636C

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, June 5, 2016 7:13 AM

YoHo1975

So, I cross posted the question about the engine designations to the loconotes yahoo group (as some of you saw. :) I got an email from Trains.com user RME who apparently can't log in right now, but wanted to pose the following question:

 

"I’d appreciate it if you would post to the Trains thread and explicitly raise the question that was just made about the 8-567CR being a reverse-rotation marine engine instead of just a ‘firing order’ revision — both, it seems to me, would require about the same level of physical changes, while keeping the physical camshaft the same, but with very different configurations e.g. of the cams."

 

Worthwhile question R would seem to be an indication of reverse rotation in marine engines? thoughts?

 

 

I've had trouble posting too....

The R in 567CR was definitely used as an indication of a revised firing order in G8 locomotives built from about 1959.

It could have been used in a different context in marine engines.

M636C

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,966 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, June 5, 2016 7:37 AM

YoHo1975
As I recall, in the 567 days, there was some changes in the crank that made transferring assemblies between A,B and C cranks difficult. A in particular could not mount B or C assemblies. As I recall and this is from memory, there's some sort of shim needed to get a C assembly in a B case. That's why the BC designation.

This would be interesting.  I'd always heard the difference was in the cooling-water arrangements, in other words in the crankCASE, not the crankSHAFT arrangements, the specific change being to provide a water manifold instead of elastomer seals in the deck area on the C case.  This could be retrofitted to the earlier cases which would give you the water improvements but not the other improvements in a C engine, and when this was performed it was denoted with the BC designation (for a B case).  According to Preston Cook (who certainly would know!) there was also such a thing as an AC engine (but there were relatively few of them compared to BC).

With respect to the 8-567CR, a question was raised by a poster on LocoNotes as to whether the R might stand for 'reverse rotation' (as in some marine engines).   I'd seen an appended R used on boat diesels, specifically 8-71 Detroits; I'm pretty sure this was for "reverse rotation" and not "right-hand rotation" as a common 'slang' term for a reversed Detroit is "left hand" -- but that term implies the engine actually has clockwise (right) rotation viewed from the flywheel end.  (The actual "official" Detroit indication is via the engine code number and not any suffix like -R.) 

Personally, I think M636C is right on what the R in 8-567CR means: my understanding on this came via Allen Hazen, who noted over a decade ago:

"On a substantive matter [related to discussion of the Alco V8 251, which also had 'issues']... It occurs to me that, if I had remembered, I would have known that EMD had problems with the 8-567. The 8-567C had vibration problems not experienced with other 567C models, and (??2 or 3 years into 567C production??) the firing order of the cylinders was revised. Engines with the revised firing order were known as 567CR. (There is a 567C maintenance manual among the operator's manuals on George Elwood's "Fallen Flags" railphoto website, listing the old and new firing orders.)"

 

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Sunday, June 5, 2016 8:33 AM

FYI:

The penultimate reference for the parts contained within a given engine or locomotive is the Parts Book. The ultimate reference is the EMD SAP system-although sometimes inquiries must be directed to Customer Engineering for proper resolution.

As a locomotive engine is set up for CCW (left hand) rotation, the letter 'R' would appear to imply revised firing order-not direction of rotation. A sample model designation from EMD Marine Application Data is as follows: L-12-645E7.

Some of the marine designations are as follows: E5 (marine engine turbocharged w/o strainer housing),E6 (marine engine blower equipped with strainer housing), E7 (marine engine turbocharged with strainer housing).

The letters 'B' or 'C' refer to 'New Generation Fuel Economy Engine' (EMD parlance).

The letter 'F'-as in 645F implies 'heavy block.'

I note the 12-645E3 (railroad engine, turbocharger equipped) engine as applied to the GP39 was capable of 'rough running'...with at least two gross failures on the relatively new RDG GP-39-2 fleet that were conveyed to the D&H.

The LIRR DE/DM fleet has the 12N-710G3B-EC (which are equiped with EMDEC), which  were the first of this engine model applied to domestic production.

CPM500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, June 5, 2016 7:18 PM

I hadn't come across the EC suffix before, although I had of course found ES on the Clyde Engineering GT46C and JT42C locomotives.

If EMDEC is the feature, "EC" might be understood as "Electronic Control".

Electronic Fuel Injection seems to be the feature that gets the "ES" suffix, and assuming this comes with EMDEC ES might stand for "Electronic Systems".

To get back to the Wikipedia site, it shows maximum rpm of 900 for those engines where it is specified. For whatever reason, EMD seem to show this as 904, although I can't imagine there is a discernable difference (something to do with digital control, perhaps?)

The Wikipedia site doesn't show any engines running at 950 rpm, although the SD75 and SD70ACe engines all do run at 950 rpm.

If the 4000 HP NS SD70M-2 locomotives really are 710G3B and not 710G3C, perhaps that is the difference between G3b and G3C engines. Maybe all G3C engines run at 950 rpm and all G3B engines run at 904 rpm.

The Wikipedia site confuses export ratings in BHP with domestic ratings in HP.

A 12-710G3B-ES is good for 3030 HP input, 3200 BHP.

All the Australian GT-46C units (all 24 of them to three customers) with 16-710G3B-ES engines are rated at 3830 HP, which I understood was the maximum rating of the AR-11 alternator. The 35 GT-46CWM have both 16-710G3A engines (Canadian built units) and 16-710G3B-ES engines (last four built in Australia).

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,697 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, June 5, 2016 10:39 PM

M636C

The Wikipedia article has a number of errors:

 For a start The CIE 201, which was involved in my anecdote regarding broken crankshafts, is shown as having a 12N-710 G3B engine introduced in 1998 which would be a good trick since the locomotives were introduced in 1994 and I have my own photos of them from a visit in 1996. They definitely have 12-710G3A engines.

With a lot of work, that Wikipedia list could be corrected and become useful but I don't plan to do it any time soon.

M636C

 

Clarification on Dates, I took the dates to be strictly in reference to the prime mover, not the locomotive reference. So for example the CIE 201 came out in 1994, perhaps those units had 12-710G3B engines while in 1998, they were switched to 12N-710G3B.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,697 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Sunday, June 5, 2016 11:00 PM

M636C

I hadn't come across the EC suffix before, although I had of course found ES on the Clyde Engineering GT46C and JT42C locomotives.

If EMDEC is the feature, "EC" might be understood as "Electronic Control".

Electronic Fuel Injection seems to be the feature that gets the "ES" suffix, and assuming this comes with EMDEC ES might stand for "Electronic Systems".

To get back to the Wikipedia site, it shows maximum rpm of 900 for those engines where it is specified. For whatever reason, EMD seem to show this as 904, although I can't imagine there is a discernable difference (something to do with digital control, perhaps?)

The Wikipedia site doesn't show any engines running at 950 rpm, although the SD75 and SD70ACe engines all do run at 950 rpm.

If the 4000 HP NS SD70M-2 locomotives really are 710G3B and not 710G3C, perhaps that is the difference between G3b and G3C engines. Maybe all G3C engines run at 950 rpm and all G3B engines run at 904 rpm.

The Wikipedia site confuses export ratings in BHP with domestic ratings in HP.

A 12-710G3B-ES is good for 3030 HP input, 3200 BHP.

All the Australian GT-46C units (all 24 of them to three customers) with 16-710G3B-ES engines are rated at 3830 HP, which I understood was the maximum rating of the AR-11 alternator. The 35 GT-46CWM have both 16-710G3A engines (Canadian built units) and 16-710G3B-ES engines (last four built in Australia).

M636C

 

 

It looks like all the 950 RPM engines don't list an RPM. Perhaps the editors of that page couldn't find a sufficiently verifiable source for that information. (seems unlikely, but...) usually with Wikipedia, if the problem is a lack of information, it's not ignorance per se', but a lack of a source that meet's their requirements. Of course, the ISBN number of an EMD manual stating the info would be sufficient.

 

As an interesting aside and to add a bit more confusion in nomenclature. On the Wikipedia article on the 645, they have a similar list. I was only aware the 645E (roots), 645E3 (Turbo) and 645F for Railroad applications, it appears there were 645E3A,B,C and 645F3B engines used late in the 645 lifespan.

 

Searching on google for differences between a 16-645E3B and a 16-645E3C, there are numerous references to it referring to a subvariant of the Turbo charger. So E3B is 5th revision of the Crankcase Railroad application of the Turbo C subvarient 3.

 

Presumably different Turbos to meet different application needs based on compression requirements, RPMs etc etc etc.

 I did see one forum post on some random forum that it was an indication of power assembly incremental improvements, but this doesn't really jive with the seemingly sporadic releases of prime movers with the suffix. It makes sense to me that it indicates a specific Turbo version appropriate to the application.

 

 

As for NS, -IC suffix, Assuming it isn't a typo that's been propogated throughout the press (unlikely) my guess is it stands for InterCooler since NS used a custom intercooler setup on those engines, not EMD's Tier 2 solution.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, June 6, 2016 10:00 PM

YoHo1975

It looks like all the 950 RPM engines don't list an RPM. Perhaps the editors of that page couldn't find a sufficiently verifiable source for that information. (seems unlikely, but...) usually with Wikipedia, if the problem is a lack of information, it's not ignorance per se', but a lack of a source that meet's their requirements. Of course, the ISBN number of an EMD manual stating the info would be sufficient.

As an interesting aside and to add a bit more confusion in nomenclature. On the Wikipedia article on the 645, they have a similar list. I was only aware the 645E (roots), 645E3 (Turbo) and 645F for Railroad applications, it appears there were 645E3A,B,C and 645F3B engines used late in the 645 lifespan.

Searching on google for differences between a 16-645E3B and a 16-645E3C, there are numerous references to it referring to a subvariant of the Turbo charger. So E3B is 5th revision of the Crankcase Railroad application of the Turbo C subvarient 3.

Presumably different Turbos to meet different application needs based on compression requirements, RPMs etc etc etc.

 I did see one forum post on some random forum that it was an indication of power assembly incremental improvements, but this doesn't really jive with the seemingly sporadic releases of prime movers with the suffix. It makes sense to me that it indicates a specific Turbo version appropriate to the application.

As for NS, -IC suffix, Assuming it isn't a typo that's been propogated throughout the press (unlikely) my guess is it stands for InterCooler since NS used a custom intercooler setup on those engines, not EMD's Tier 2 solution.

 

 

I think you are giving far too much credit to the authors of the Wikipedia page. Reasonably authoritative sources for the engine rpm can't be that hard to find, although in railfan circles, the idea that every 16 cylinder 710 rated at above 4000HP needs to run at 950 rpm seems to be rarely recognised.

645E3B and 645E3C engines seem to have the same power rating, although that doesn't rule out a different turbocharger as all or part of the differences. As I said before, I thought the change to the pistons and connecting rods for the "knuckle" gudgeon pin occurred in one of those, I think the E3C. But this was stricly a reliability improvement and didn't alter the power.

I assume the 645F3B incorporated changes to the crankcase as well as any turbo changes to address the problems experienced in the earlier 950 rpm engines. It may have started the knuckle gudgeon pin changes as well.

It is worth noting that the early 710 engines had the same rating at 900 rpm that the 645F had at 950, which suggests that EMD were not happy with the reliability of the 645F at 950 rpm (although many SD50 problems had nothing to do with the engine).

I scanned through an EMD power Products brochure and noted that the power output table referred to "(710) GB, GC and GC-T2 engines" as all having the same power rating at a selection of rpm for marine use. This suggests that all three were available at that time, possibly for use in different markets.

I'm still convinced that all 710G3C engines run at 950 rpm, although the SD80Ace with a 20-710G3C-ES is rated at 5300 HP and the Indian WDG5 with a 20-710G3B-ES running at a stated 904 rpm is rated at 5500 BHP, maybe 5250 input HP. Perhaps the SD80ACe is rated more conservatively - certainly the 20-645E3 produced less power per cylinder than the 16-645E3.

One interesting variation:

The original ECO rebuild brochures published by EMD indicate the engines to be 8-710G3A-T2 and 12-710G3A-T2 (no "N" for the 12)

A slightly later brochure intended for India, apart from quoting more metric measures (including a cylinder displacement of 11.63 litres/cylinder), quotes an 8-710G3A-T2 but a 12-710G3B-T2....

This seems to imply that there are new "A-T2" and "B-T2" engines contemporatry with "C-T2" engines, all of which are more recent than "B-ES" engines, for example.

The "A-T2" and "B-T2" engines run at 904 rpm while the "C-T2" engines run at 950 rpm. Presumably there are "T3" variants of at least B and C engines now.

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,697 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 12:12 PM
A poster on loconotes indicated yesterday that in the early 80s, EMD used their new computer power to characterize the firing order on the 12 cylinder 645 which lead to a much more well behaved engine although with a higher harmonic. This was indicated as 12N-645E (and F) he further indicated that this new firing order was retained into the V12 710 though the N was dropped since it was no longer new. That was interesting, but it begs the question what changes such that this computer modeled firing order became less optimal such that the firing order was revised again?
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • 42 posts
Posted by HERBYD on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 3:25 PM

as a long time emd  enthusast going back to cleveland 248 then 278athen 567a to the 710 i am very disapointed to see the ending of emd.  each was an improvement.   i think the 1010 @ ge 250   may be good ?.  take all the good and improve.   use the 710 water cooled  liners &keep the water out of the block & away from the oil in the crankcase. most problems are traced back to a water  problem. havent heard from the newer engine problems always like to hear

 

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 148 posts
Posted by Entropy on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 4:31 PM

When was EMD ending? Try to stay on track (no pun).

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 7:45 PM

YoHo1975
A poster on loconotes indicated yesterday that in the early 80s, EMD used their new computer power to characterize the firing order on the 12 cylinder 645 which lead to a much more well behaved engine although with a higher harmonic. This was indicated as 12N-645E (and F) he further indicated that this new firing order was retained into the V12 710 though the N was dropped since it was no longer new. That was interesting, but it begs the question what changes such that this computer modeled firing order became less optimal such that the firing order was revised again?

 
These firing order changes seem to lag the introduction of a new engine by a couple of years. While a lot of 8-567B (edit) engines were built, it was only with the 567C that a revised firing order was required.
 
The main variation in dynamics was the speed increase from 800 rpm to 835 rpm and presumably, different speed at intermediate notches 2-7.
 
I note that the Irish GL-8W units got 567CRs in 1961.
 
Equally, the main change to the 710 from the 645 was the increase in the stroke from 10 inches to 11 inches. I'm pretty sure that that was the change that required a revision of the firing order to reduce torsional vibration.
 
As to the suggestion about jacketed liners in recent four stroke engines, I don't think either the revised GEVO-T4 nor the 1010J have these liners. It isn't a guarantee of a better engine. The Alco 244 had water jacket liners but the 251 did not, and most people would say the 251 was more successful.
 
Larger engines like the MTU 8000 and the MAN 28/33 have water jacket liners (in fact on seeing both engines in sectioned form at a trade fair I wondered if the two companies could have built one engine and sold it under different names).
 
The big advantage for EMD in the jacketed liner intoduced with the 567C was the dramatic reduction in water leaking into the combustion space through the inlet ports, compared to the 567B. Since neither the GE nor EMD four strokes have inlet ports in the liner, the advantages are reduced.
 
M636C
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,966 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 7:07 AM

M636C
These firing order changes seem to lag the introduction of a new engine by a couple of years. While a lot of 12-567B engines were built, it was only with the 567C that a revised firing order was required.

I think it may be valuable to clarify something here.  As I understand the situation, the R modification on the 8-567CR was necessary ONLY on the 8-cylinder engine, for balance reasons unique to the V-8, and there was no need for a twelve-cylinder 567CR. 

There was firing-order refinement on the 12-645, but of course that's not a 567C case or balance.  Something I would like to know is if there is any necessity for 'firing-order revision' or other adjustment on a 567 that has been modified with 645 power-assembly components (and accordingly rebalanced).

Then the 12N-710s are, I think, a distinct change from anything with a 645 case.  Can we have a clean and definitive distinction between 'revised firing order' and balance issues for the three engine families -- preferably with detail-design descriptions of the specific changes (especially for the 8-567CR, with discussion of the balance issues specific to V8 locomotive diesel engines) here?

[By extension, I have started to wonder if the relative lack of success of the Baldwin 408 project might have included V8 issues of some sort that could not be properly assessed by Baldwin at the time.]

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 9:37 PM

Overmod

 

 
M636C
These firing order changes seem to lag the introduction of a new engine by a couple of years. While a lot of 12-567B engines were built, it was only with the 567C that a revised firing order was required.

 

I think it may be valuable to clarify something here.  As I understand the situation, the R modification on the 8-567CR was necessary ONLY on the 8-cylinder engine, for balance reasons unique to the V-8, and there was no need for a twelve-cylinder 567CR. 

 

My apologies. I was very busy yesterday and typed 12-567B when I meant 8-567B.  There were no other 567CR engines apart from the eight cylinder.

As well as the Baldwin V-8s, the V8 Alco 251 had balance problems and at least some 8-251 engines had internal balance shafts geared to the crankshaft. It is understood that the layout of the C415 was influenced by balance and vibration issues.

Reading Eugene Kettering's paper of 1951, available as a PDF on the web, regarding balance and vibration issues is very worth while. Later, the 20-645E3 had torsional vibration issues that were not always corrected by the equipment provided.

M636C

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:19 AM

Miscellany...

 

EMDEC= 'Electro-Motive Diesel Engine Control'-which is a derivation of DDEC-'Detroit Diesel Engine Control.'

When 645 packs are applied to say, a 16-567, it is necessary to change the camshaft counterweights.

CPM500

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,966 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:23 AM

CPM500
EMDEC= 'Electro-Motive Diesel Engine Control'-which is a derivation of DDEC-'Detroit Diesel Engine Control.'

Does EMDEC derive its control structure and perhaps code directly from DDEC?  I had thought it was no more 'related' to DDEC than MTU's MDEC would be ... or if the "D" is for 'digital' instead of 'diesel', than FADEC would be -- in other words, the 'd-something engine control' was generic in the acronym...

I will go through my copy of the 710G3B/C manual (3rd edition, July 1999, DPN E00109EP) which mentions EMDEC to see what the similarities are, but in the meantime here is a DDEC reference for series 60 Detroits, which someone who does know the EMD reference in section 12B already -- Peter Clark, for example -- can use for comparison.  (The troubleshooting guide for EMDEC, which I do not yet have, is DPN N00012EP)

 

[Latter half of post edited due to misunderstanding.  See EMD MI-9547 for details of the use of 645 power assemblies on 567 engines.]

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:03 PM

I've DONE the conversion-multiple times. SOME of us actually have been trained on...and are capable of working on the equipment.

CPM500

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,966 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:13 PM

CPM500
I've DONE the conversion-multiple times. SOME of us actually have been trained on...and are capable of working on the equipment.

Then why are you asking about camshaft counterweights on a railfan-oriented Internet forum?

[NOTE - this post was the result of a misunderstanding of the previous poster's statement about changing the cam weights, which I misread as a question.  The statement as made is correct.]

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:39 PM

Overmod

 

 
CPM500
I've DONE the conversion-multiple times. SOME of us actually have been trained on...and are capable of working on the equipment.

 

Then why are you asking about camshaft counterweights on a railfan-oriented Internet forum?

 

Actually, CPM did not ask a question.  He used a declarative sentence (which might be factually incorrect.  I do not know.):

"When 645 packs are applied to say, a 16-567, it is necessary to change the camshaft counterweights.

 

CPM500"

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,966 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:45 PM

schlimm
Actually, CPM did not ask a question. He used a declarative sentence (which might be factually incorrect. I do not know.): "When 645 packs are applied to say, a 16-567, it is necessary to change the camshaft counterweights.

Thank you for pointing that out.  I apologize (and have modified the prior post to relieve any ambiguity about his statement.)  The statement is NOT factually incorrect.  Preston Cook said this on the subject:

The statement about having to change the camshaft counterweights when you go from 567 to 645 reciprocating components is correct ... The camshaft counterweights are part of the total balance solution for the engine. EMD engine crankshafts make use of a degree of cross counterbalancing, and the camshaft counterweights work to oppose the end to end rocking couple imparted by the motion of the crankshaft and reciprocating components. When you change the weight of the reciprocating components it requires a matching adjustment of the camshaft counterweights or the resulting imbalance and vibration will stress the engine mounting and foundation. I have seen the result when somebody does the pack upgrade without changing counterweights, the engine will vibrate you right across the deck without moving your feet.

(I did think it was VERY strange that someone of the poster's experience would be 'asking that particular question' on this forum!  Now I know why it seemed that way... Embarrassed )

  • Member since
    November 2011
  • 20 posts
Posted by radio ranch on Friday, July 1, 2016 12:36 AM
Tell those fools in Washington
  • Member since
    November 2011
  • 20 posts
Posted by radio ranch on Friday, July 1, 2016 12:48 AM

Tell that to the fools in Washington!

BDA
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 22 posts
Posted by BDA on Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:34 AM

Have to correct you here M , at least one if not two 82 class 710-12s were blown up .

A long time ago but one was from memory on NY3 between Morandoo and Sydney . The crew called the help desk twice and were told to ignore the vibrations . The third call was to say that the power assembly had blown up .

The low rev/idle vibrations were band aided by setting the idle revs higher than normal EMD .

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, September 8, 2021 8:23 PM

BDA

Have to correct you here M , at least one if not two 82 class 710-12s were blown up .

A long time ago but one was from memory on NY3 between Morandoo and Sydney . The crew called the help desk twice and were told to ignore the vibrations . The third call was to say that the power assembly had blown up .

The low rev/idle vibrations were band aided by setting the idle revs higher than normal EMD .

 

 

BDA, which of my posts from June and July 2016 were you addressing?

I recall being told by EMD staff at Kooragang Island in the 1990s that they had received a call from the CIE in Ireland asking if they had broken any crankshafts on the 12-710G3A engines since CIE had broken two in their 201 series JT42C locomotives.

Peter

Join our Community!

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

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy