Bowen Rail GT46CU-ACe Gen III

Bowen Rail which operates coal trains in Queensland, Australia started taking delivery of Progress Rail units back in September of last year. They are designated GT46CU-ACe Gen 3. The units are 1067mm Gauge and appear to be the Aussie version of the SD70ACe. Outfitted as a Co-Co loco and weighing in at 138 tonnes (151.8 US tons).

Peter may be lurking around here. Perhaps he or anyone else can provide more details. I’m curious as to what the differences are compared to prior generations of the GT46. These are interesting locos and the cab looks to be an improvement compared to previous Aussie road units.

These were an effort to get a 16 710 and the associated horsepower to the rail in a narrow gauge locomotive .

To do this within their loading gauge the unit has to be longer than that of locomotives on our national standard gauge .

They obviously won’t pull what a USDM SD70ACe can because they don’t weigh 185 odd metric tonnes like the units here in the Pilbara .

Length weight and 16 rather than 12 cylinders would be the major differences .

I have written an article to appear in the September issue of Railway Digest magazine on these locomotives. I was fortunate to get active assistance from Progress Rail in preparing the article. The basic dimensions are:

Type GT46CU ACe gen III Wheel Arrangement Co’Co’
Engine EMD 710G3C-T3 Length 23.7 m
Cylinders V-16 Width 2.8 m
Power 3200 kW Height 3.9 m

Thanks Peter for the informative article. Also thank you for the correction on the Imperial 2,240lbs ton. I forgot it uses the long ton as opposed to our short US ton. Even more important for conversion to metric so we can have a standard measurement for weight.

Just curious – is that 430 kN continuous TE?

Yes.

The quoted figure is 430kN at 23 km/h

The starting tractive effort is 600kN.

I use a standard compact tabulation, and it is not easy to squeeze in the continuous speed and starting tractive effort figures.

By comparison, the standard gauge Gt46C-ACe has a continuous tractive effort of 700kN but it uses the 1TB2622 motors from the SD70MAC. Apart from some units ballasted to 139 tonnes in coal traffic, the standard gauge locomotives weigh only 134 tonnes (=132 imperial tons and a 22 ton axleload) and are 22m over couplers. A lot of trouble went into getting them that light, with 10 000 litres of fuel.

Peter

Continuous TE on the standard gauge units is 53% of the weight on drivers? That must be a record.

That is one of the advantages mentioned for AC traction motors.

It would be interesting to see them actually do 53% under real world conditions .

I’ve had USD 70ACes on their knees giving a bit better than their maximum rated KNs .

I’ve not had GT46ACes leading locally , mostly they are slave units on interstate trains . Firstly because the small fuel tank means shorter range , and secondly the cabs are not up to long range standards .

A bit OT but some of these GT46ACes must not be Tier 3 because at least some have ,

“Fitted With 18:1 Tier 2 Pa’s” on the side of the crank case . Would this mean the max power is down compared to a Tier 3 16 710 ?

This loco had recently been rebuilt by the look of it .

These GT46C ACe units have a very good anti-slip system and early trials on a 2.5% grade proved that they could haul the rated load in simulated rain conditions. The competing UGL/General Electric locomotives failed the test and GE had to change the programming of their control and anti-slip systems. The UGL C44ACi units have GEB 30 traction motors that are less capable than those on the GT46C ACe units. The C44ACi units with modified control settings can meet the test conditions, but they are limited to 7400 litres of fuel to meet the 134 tonnnes Limit for main line operation at 115km/h, compared to 10000 litres on the GT46C ACe. The latest C44ACi units have a new bogie design which reduces the mass by 2 tonnes per locomotive, so these should be able to carry more than 9500 litres of fuel at the 134 tonnes limit.

The New South Wales State Rail Authority only started purchasing locomotives of 3000HP or more in the early 1980s after EMD introduced their “super series” wheel slip system using radar doppler speed measurement and the GT46C ACe units have a development of this system. This is due to the many steep grades on the system, most of which are still there today.

Peter

BDA works, or has worked for, the only division of the only operator that does not use GT46C ACe units as lead locomotives (Pacific National Intermodal). They don’t even use the UGL C44ACi units as lead (which I understand is because, although the cabs are almost identical with the C40-9i units that are favoured, the C44ACi units have a microwave oven instead of a hotplate for preparing meals).

Pacific National’s Bulk division use the GT46C ACe units as lead all the time, and they have 40 units compared to Intermodal’s nine. SCT, the first operator, have always used their 15 units as lead, as did One Rail, who have 13 units. SSR have two which usually lead trains.

As I mentioned above, except possibly for the latest C44ACi units with “Flexicurve” bogies, the GT46C ACe units with 10000 litres have the biggest fuel capacity of any AC unit allowed on main lines at 115km/h. SCT’s units are fitted for “in line fuelling” to top up from a tank container on the leading vehicle, as do One Rail’s GWA class locomotives.

I think that the earliest GT46C ACe units may have only met Tier 2. However, I think Tier 0 is the only standard proposed for

Is that 18:1 the engine compression ratio? If so, I’d suspect part of Tier 3 final compliance would involve a lower compression ratio if SCR is not employed, and to me a lower compression ratio would involve higher fuel consumption to make peak rated power, but no perceivable steady-state power difference at a particular governed notch.

You must be uninformed Peter .

Yes I have had C44ACis as lead units though not for a while . At various times I’ve had a steer of most varietys of the NR based things , NR 92 93 CF44 QL . And for comparison , USD CW 44-9 .

The issue with GT46ACe and C44ACi is the same , not enough internal fuel/range .

Either on any sort of load will not make Melbourne out of Brisbane , and are even more useless across the trans Australian railway . I suspect they won’t make Adelaide out of Sydney either .

It seems that in this day and age it’s virtually impossible to make a 4000/4400 Hp AC traction Diesel electric locomotive with a provisioned mass of 132-134 metric tonnes and give it a 12,500 litre usable fuel tank .

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the ACs can do which the DCs can’t . What does matter is that an AC traction unit out fuel is worse than useless because then it becomes extra dead mass to tow around .

Microwave Ovens . US domestic units have a lot more space in the cabs than ours do . In ours you put a microwave in with its associated roll cage in and lose a sizeable chunk of space on the co drivers side . Pain in the butt .

Fridge . Now because the US style safety cab has an access well through the front of the cab there is adequate space to park a decent sized fridge in the conductors side of that well/passage . In Australian “Road Switcher” style locomotives the cab access is through the back wall leadling into a vestibule with external doors both sides . You can fit a quite reasonably sized fridge in USD cabs . You can do the same with an NR . For some strange reason EDI and UGL baulked at fitting anything better than a not very glamerous bar fridge in GT46ACes and C43/44 ACis .

Now , Peter , I assume you have not spent 8-12 hours on a regular basis in any locomotive - let alone do it for 30 odd years . If you had you’d realise that two adults wanting to eat and drink decent food/drink takes u

Our SD70M-2s and SD70ACes aren’t much better. The headlight switches and other buttons (bell, horn sequencer, alerter reset) are just kinda slapped on and different units in the same series might have them in a different order.

Do your GT46s also have half the breakers hidden in a room behind the cab, and the battery knife switch in the generator compartment?

Our screens do face the engineer, but my main complaint about them is that they don’t dim enough and make a lot of glare at night (most of our GEs also have this problem).

Thanks for posting that info BDA. Questions for you. It sounds as if you prefer operating North American heavy haul loco’s. If my assumptiuon is right. Do other engineers in Australia who have operated on the Pilbara and on the national network feel the same? Or is it just few and far between?

I thought I might address some points in BDA’s last posting:

It seems that in this day and age it’s virtually impossible to make a 4000/4400 Hp AC traction Diesel electric locomotive with a provisioned mass of 132-134 metric tonnes and give it a 12,500 litre usable fuel tank .

Not just AC traction units. The Cv40-9i as first built with GE 793 motors weighed 134 tonnes, 132 imperial tons. Sadly the GE 793 (apparently based on the GE 731 used in switchers) didn’t work as intended, and was replaced by the slightly heavier GE 793A1, which worked well, but weighed a little more, so the Cv40-9i now weighed somewhere between 135 and 136 tonnes. On paper this was accounted for by limiting the fuel load of the “NR class” to 11500 litres, at least in theory. I have been told that this limit was never applied, just nobody mentioned to the ARTC that the locomotives now weighed more. I think only the earliest locomotives got the original 793 motor. I recall seeing NR 1 stopped at Yass Junction for some days with traction motor problems early in its life. But in fact, the Cv40-9i

Just so people in the US know .

In Australia drivers are known as exactly that , often the term mainline tacked on for those than run all over their employers system .

When I say designed by engineers I mean mechanical and electrical engineers .

This may sound biased but it isn’t . Most , but not all , drivers who’ve spent many hours in them would have the NRs cab style and amenities on everything - given a choice . I hear this all the time about GT46 ACes . Quite a few drivers I worked with on USD spec units said the same thing .

I didn’t mind the US cabs though I did prefer desktop style in the C44-9s and SD90Macs . Strange in a cab that was that big to be hemmed in next the AAR control stand in a SD70ACe . Also these are different in that most of the CBs are on the back wall of the cab . NR based units have them above the windscreens or on a panel behind the drivers seat , they also have an island control stand and the better ones have all the common switches - like gen field head and ditch lights wiper washers step lights - right next to you .

Also note that most Australian built locomotives are left hand drive where USD units are right hand drive .

GT46ACes have switches all over the place in no logical order . C44ACi (93 class) started to go this way but were were told no we want them as much like an NR as possible .

Same as the hot plate/microwave debacle . Drivers preference over manufacturers .

The original C43ACi 92 class doesn’t fit into the above category because what started out as an AC NR replacement ended up as a coal division unit . They don’t do the longer distance interstate runs .

Sorry if this is a little OT but is does relate to mass and fuel tank capacity that gets served up to us in Australia .

Firstly I’m not sure what usable fuel tank capacity these Bowen PR units have .

Just recently one of our interstate Brisbane Melbourne (BM) trains was run run across three states and had fuel range issues .

Interestingly it had one of each classes NR/93/ TT(GT46C ACe) . Not surprisingly it was never going to make it with all three running . The NR.

Sorry gotta run back later .

The fuel capacity was not included with the data provided to me. I think the capacity may be 10 000 litres, simply because that was the fuel capacity in the standard gauge GT46C Ace, and the new locomotives were developed from the standard gauge version. I may ask Progress Rail…

However, the GT42CU AC has 9000 litres, for a 3000 HP locomotive, on a weight of 120 tonnes. So I think the 4300 HP 138 tonne locomotive would need more than that for operation on the same network.

Wouldn’t the GT46C ACe on a BM service be an LDP rather than a TT? The TTs are almost exclusively on coal traffic, while the LDPs have spent most of their life on intermodal and steel product traffic? They are basically the same, but no LDP units carry additional ballast.

Peter

Intermodal uses both LDP and some TTs , just like Northern coal uses some 93s .

Back to the above , was side tracked by another BM .

What usually happens is MB/BM trains get 3 NRs or occassionally two and a 93 or GT46ACe . The smaller effective fuel capacity TT or LDP or 93 is offline to Taree or somewhere north of Hawksbury River . Then it goes back on line for the steeper grades between there and the last 1:40 just south of Junee . After that its arguably extra HP for speed but not essential . The real problem is where you have an NR and two small fuel capacity units . Obviously one could go offline but the other is going to burn too much of its limited usable capacity . Also train performance suffers when fuel saving (vs running dry) takes priority over on time running .

This is why I keep telling you M that for true long distance operations the PR/EDI units don’t cut it . They are actually better in a way than the C44ACi’s because 10,000 litres of fuel goes further than 7200 . Long term we hope the axle loads for locomotives can increase because the C44ACi still has the big tank . Not much you can do with the smaller tank GT46ACe .