Hi All,
I was speaking to a US railroader via email and he told me that EMD have been been having a number of problems on some of their engine blocks whereby cracks have appeared on the ends of the engines, especially near the mountings. Some of these cracks are apparently 5 to 6 inches long.
Has anyone else heard this or can shed any light.
Any spacific models?
That’s not good.
Hey LVR, cool sig…
Adrianspeeder
The only way a Emd block would crack would be if the welds were bad. They use a welded design kind of like a ship is welded together for almost every model. The onle execption are the H series however the H series also uses antifreeze not just treated water.
The EMD JT42 CWR locomotive in the UK, or better known here in the UK as the class 66 has suffered a number of cracks in the engine block. Freightliner who operates quite a number of them are having problems with large cracks and when I spoke to a friend in the US he told me a number of loco’s there had the same problem. He did not specify US models but said engine vibration was thought to be the cause.
never seen it in marine EMD diesels, anyway… for what that’s worth.
…Finally we’re hearing of an engine with antifreeze installed…Must have really modified the design to allow for {much better}, sealing of all the components. That sure seems like it would eliminate a bunch of hassles.
Yeah, the engine designed for the 90MAC was designed with anti-freeze in mind…which begs the question…what is the primary reason for using water, and not anti-freeze in locomotive engines? Cost? If an engine shuts down, and can’t restart in cold weather, it normally gets drained of water to avoid freeze damage, which probably means dumping the water on the ground. Dave Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown
I’ve seen a few cases of cracks within EMD crankcases…but not enough where I would classify it as a chronic problem. Most of them were a result of suicidal power assemblies. I do remember on one occasion when a rear gear train housing developed some cracks…resulting in lube oil everywhere! 
The advantages of water? It’s everywhere! (almost; some parts of Wyoming come to mind…) The antifreeze used in the 90MACs comes premixed in 250 gallon totes…which aren’t the easist things to pack around! To add it safely, you need ramps (like those in a shop), a centrifugal pump (to get the stuffs out of the tote) and a forklift (to move the tote). With all other locos, all I need is a hydrant, a hose and a box or two of Nalco (additive to prevent rust…and it may have a few other medicinal properties). And as far as freezing, most new locos have an electronic dump valve that will automatically drain the water in the even the loco is dead and the temp drops under 40F. There are other varieties of dump valves, namely the GURU, that will do the same thing without an electrical feed…which is a good thing if your loco (and its batteries) are dead.
…And the question from Dave…Why…? Isn’t the main reason antifreeze is not used in most engines is internal leaks…and one can’t afford to have the antifreeze mix get into the lubricating oil of the engine…
EMD always designed the V-16 as the basic engine, and derived the V-6, V-8 and V-12 from that. In the 567C, the big problem was the V-8 and to cut down vibration, they modified the firing order and ended up with the 567CR (“R” for revised firing order). With the 710, the big problem was the V-12, so they changed the firing order, getting the 12N-710G3B (“N” for new firing order). Oh well, by the time the 710 problem emerged, there was nobody who remembered the 567CR.
With the 12, before the modification, there were a few broken crankshafts. EMD attributed this to faulty welding of balance weights by a sub contractor. While discussing the engine with employees at the joint Clyde-EMD facility at Kooragang Island, where the FreightCorp “Ready Power” units were serviced, I was told of a phone call from Ireland asking about broken crankshafts on the 12-710G3. The Freight Corp 82 class had this engine, and yes, they had broken a crankshaft. The CIE man was very pleased - EMD had assured him that nobody else had the problem! The CIE 201 class are in many ways similar to the class 66, being a JT42CW, lacking the radial trucks.
Flexibility in the frame will be a problem, more so since EMD engines and alternators aren’t close coupled, as are GE and formerly Alco engine -generator sets. Being used to the Alco arrangement, I was surprised to be told that some locomotives based on the EMD G16 design needed underframe strengthening around the engine generator interface, since the torque reaction from the engine and generator were overstressing the frame.
The Class 66 is much lower in height than a US locomotive. In fact, the total locomotive is barely higher than the low nose of a standard EMD unit. There are photos around of the similar class 59 posed with an SD50 showing this. The 66 is right at its weight limit, the new emissions modified 66 951 and 952 having smaller fuel tanks to compensate for a larger radiator. So the combination of a lighter frame and lower height, requiring large
Not really on subject, but there is nothing saying that you can’t put antifreeze in older locomotives. If the seals are tight, it is a cheaper alternative than running a hot start system when the loco is not in use. I will say however, that you have to keep a constant eye to make sure it is not leaking into the oil, and as others have pointed out it does make it logistically harder to fill and drain. But on a smaller road, where the power is not being utilized 24/7 it can make sense.
One thing to watch out for in a case where antifreeze is retrofit to an old locomotive is that antifreeze is marginally less effective at moving heat out of the engine to the radiators. . . if you work it hard on a hot day, you may cook something. You may also encounter increased coking on engine internals. (sticky rings and valve-guides . . .)
Workarounds: derate the primemover in hot weather (not so easy to do with pre-electronic engine control); Increase radiator area; Increase air and coolant flow through existing radiators. In a situation where the locomotive is not the limiting factor in operations the point is moot, though-- an SD9 hauling like 5 cars on 1/2% grades isn’t ever going to reach a ‘derate’ power level. . . . it may not even run in notch 3 for very long. . . (ours doesn’t.)
A more frequent oil-change interval might be wise, too; heat-stressing oil uses up its additive package faster, and small glycol leaks can go unnoticed. (glycol is ‘searching’ in the same way oil is- it’ll find every last pinhole and hairline defect in your head castings, welds and gaskets.
So you’re changing the maintence tasks from ‘on condition’ radiator drain and refill to an increase in periodic work and inspections. Might be worth it. I dunno.
Crazytechie, I thought antifreeze not only lowers the freeze point, but raises the boiling point?
Adrianspeeder
AS: Boil and freeze points and thermal transfer capability are two different things.
Isn’t that kind of strange that the EMD’s crack and the GE’s don’t. “Now what’s wrong with that Picture”.
Ya your correct.
…If an owner has a 2.2 mil engine and someone 'forgets" to drain it while not being used and it’s zero F…I suppose the loss would be sizable. And with various crew working around a certain engine I’d think it would not be impossible to happen.
Sure Adrian it {glyco}, does extend the bracket of operation with out freezing and boiling but the parts it is charged with cooling are still working in an extended heat range created {or allowed}, by the glyco. If it was mine and I desired to keep it in my comfort range, I’d want antifreeze in it if the engine was capable of retaining it where it belongs.
Most railroads apply automatic dump valves to take the human factor out of the proverbial equation. There are several variants; some are electronic and while the batteries have a charge, work just fine. Dead Loco + Dead Batteries + -55F = One Seriously Freeze-Damaged Loco! [:D] Others (http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jl/AASTINO/whispergen/thermo.pdf) do the same job without a electrical feed and were always my brand-of-choice.
There are three reasons you don’t want to put antifreeze in an EMD two stroke:
Oil does not lubricate well when mixed with ethlyene (or propylene) glycol and EMD engines are prone toleaking a cooling water into the oil pan. With water, the water flashes to steam when it hits the oil, leaving only the treatment. You can discover you have a water leak thru oil spectro sometimes. The glycol won’t boil off and you wind up with sludge and an engine in need of rebuilding!
The cooling systems aren’t designed for antifreeze. An antifreeze/water mixture can only transfer about 80% of the heat of straight water. You could survive in the east, but I don’t know about the southwest.
Ethylene glycol is poisonous. You can get around this by using propylene glycol.
Conrail looked long and hard at trying antifreeze in some EMD, but these three issues proved to be too big an obstacle to even get a trial going.