This photo is from the Cummins display at the American Public Transit Associations conference in Houston.
i left the person in the photo for scale.
about same size as EMD 645, the floor of locomotive would be about were top of black mountings are.
Here’s one that shows the ‘person’ scale a bit more clearly:
Some interesting promotional reading here, – don’t miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the ‘20-cylinder high-speed engine’!
That’s nice but has a QSK made it into real-world railroad service yet? I remember a pre-EMD Cat making the same sort of promises 20 years ago. Didn’t quite work out then.
Yeah, and it worries me even more when Pence’s own comments in Cummins’ own press release get the locomotive number wrong.
I still think that a 1200 rpm engine has a better shot at being successful in ‘regular’ railroad service than an 1800 rpm one, and that would be true of the proposed 20-cylinder QSK120 too.
It’s going to be fun to watch the ‘progress’ of the C175 engine in the PR43C… and then with a longer crankshaft in the turbocharged potato-chip Spirit locomotives. Suspect it isn’t going to quite work out now, either. Meow.
Also keep in mind that EMD has apparently given up on bringing the 710 engine into compliance with Tier 4, which isn’t going to go away.
I’m doubtful that the QSK engine will find any takers among Class 1 freight railroads as it requires SCR(Urea) to acheive Tier iv compliance…
It will be interesting though, to see how the converted SD90Mac does…
I am wondering that myself, too.
Neither Caterpillar nor NS are publishing anything about these C175-equipped locomotives. The first C175-equipped locomotives are just now entering service in the UK, in the Class 68 type., so their performance and reliability will be at the spotlight.
N.F.
I do think that Cummins was pointing more at the MTU R4000 instead of the Caterpillar C175.
The 20-cylinder MTU R4000 barely reaches 3 MW, while the C175-20 reaches 3.5 MW
N.F.
I thought it was in reference to the squabble a few months ago regarding EMD’s complaint that the Siemens-IDOT contract had to be overturned because the QSK95 (they said) couldn’t quite make the horsepower to reach 125mph with the required load, while the C175-20 nominally could. (I’m too lazy to find the thread where we discussed that.)
I think nfotis is correct. The 20V4000R43 and R53 are used quite widely in locomotives built in China for use in New Zealand and Australia.
The 20V4000R43 is rated at about 3750 HP and the 20V4000R53 is rated at 4000 HP. The R43 is used in the Kiwi Rail DL class built by China Northern and the Pacific National 88 class, model SDA-2 built by China Southern in Qishyuan. The R53 is used in the model SDA-1 (SCT CSR class and QUBE QBX class) in Australia.
I think the intention was that the larger Australian locomotives were to use the R43 rated at 4000 BHP, about 3800 HP into the alternator but about the time the first SDA-1s were delivered, the quoted gross rating rose from 3000 kW to 3150 kW and the description changed from R43 to R53, suggesting that the loco manufacturer and the customer had different ideas about the rating.
I think the 20 cylinder C175 is rated at 4700 HP in the F125 w
Thank you for the voice of expertise with this post! I was hoping you’d contribute.
No question that the C175-20 makes more nominal horsepower than the QSK95. I have not yet determined what the weight and length ‘penalty’ of the QSK120 (the Cummins 1200rpm 20-cylinder engine design) over the QSK95 is, but I’d suspect it is more, perhaps substantially more, than that of the C175-20 over the engine in the PR43C. Something I noted with some interest in the Cummins press release was that the nominal power output of the QSK95 appears to have been slightly tweaked upward from what it was when the EMD contract controversy erupted. I have not run the numbers through the adjusted Davis formula, but would put quite a good dinner on the line betting that the ‘math’ now produces 125mph or better…
You can probably also resolve the question about whether the 4700 traction HP of the C175-20 includes or excludes the HEP power in the Spirit locomotive – I have seen it both ways, with the indication that at full nominal HEP draw there might not be enough horsepower left … by EMD’s own calculations … to get to or sustain 125 mph.
[quote user=“M636C”]
Overmod
nfotis
… Some interesting promotional reading here, – don’t miss the dig at EMD/Progress about the ‘20-cylinder high-speed engine’!
I do think that Cummins was pointing more at the MTU R4000 instead of the Caterpillar C175.
I thought it was in reference to the squabble a few months ago regarding EMD’s complaint that the Siemens-IDOT contract had to be overturned because the QSK95 (they said) couldn’t quite make the horsepower to reach 125mph with the required load, while the C175-20 nominally could. (I’m too lazy to find the thread where we discussed that.)
I think nfotis is correct. The 20V4000R43 and R53 are used quite widely in locomotives built in China for use in New Zealand and Australia.
The 20V4000R43 is rated at about 3750 HP and the 20V4000R53 is rated at 4000 HP. The R43 is used in the Kiwi Rail DL class built by China Northern and the Pacific National 88 class, model SDA-2 built by China Southern in Qishyuan. The R53 is used in the model SDA-1 (SCT CSR class and QUBE QBX class) in Australia.
I think the intention was that the larger Australian locomotives were to use the R43 rated at 4000 BHP, about 3800 HP into the alternator but about the time the first SDA-1s were delivered, the quoted gross rating rose from 30
I was recently advised of this development by MTU. I understand that MTU had intended to use SCR and urea but had found that with very high pressures in the common rail system that emissions could be controlled without the need for that additional stage. GE also have tested GEVO locomotives with SCR and urea but have moved to a version that doesn’t require urea.
Of course, you have to be happy with very high pressures in the common rail fuel system and given some unhappy experiences with the MTU 4000 and an early design of high pressure fuel pump, I might let a competitor try the MTU Tier 4 solution first (and maybe the urea free GEVO too).
M636C
Note that the excerpt came at Innotrans, which is mostly focused on European rail market, not North-American rail market.
So, I drew my conclusions according to the people who were the intended audience on location.
N.F.
If I am not mistaken, the MTU R4000 is currently the only mainline diesel engine certified for Stage IIIB emissions?
As far as I know, the two-stroke EMD engines are going to die in two months in the North American and EU markets, hence railroads were buying as many 710G-based locomotives as possible before the December deadline.
Also, the C175 seems to not comply with Tier4 / Stage IIIB regulations, yet. At Innotrans, I saw a large SCR installation hanging above a C175-16, it will be a rather tight fit even in continental Europe loading gauge (and probably it will be near impossible inside UK loading gauge).
A related blog article might be of interest:
Note that the MTU R4000 is practically the default diesel option in platforms like the Bombardier TRAXX, the Siemens Vectron and PESA Gama, in their 16-cylinder, 2.4 MW version.
N.F.
In terms of numbers out on the road, the British HST power cars are probably the most numerous application of the MTU 4000 in the form of the 16V4000 (and these have the later design of common rail fuel pump).
The MTU Tier IV solution combines exhaust gas recirculation with very high pressure in the common rail to ensure complete “atomisation” of the injected fuel to control NOx formation and to eliminate HC in the exhaust.
I’m not sure if a production engine meeting these standards has been built yet although I assume that they’ve run test engines successfully.
MTU already use double walled tubing for the common rail but very high pressure fuel lines are a risk, as the fuel pump failures proved. Engine hood fires were quite common with Alco 251 engines to the extent that some operators had fixed fire extinguishing systems. If GE have adopted the same solution, we might see more fires on locomotives.
The C175 is an enlargement of the CAT 3500 which has been very successful in locomotive applications unlike the much larger 3600 which hasn
I live close to where this is built there is no way emd is using this . Contractors are’nt allowed to use cat equipment at cummins. Fierce rivals
No one is claiming that EMD will be buying engines from Cummins.
The Indiana Railroad is having an SD9043Mac that they own rebuilt with the Cummins engine. CAT/Progress/EMD has nothing to do with the project.
Well, yes, I was thinking about original designs, not repowered units.
As far as I know, in continental Europe nobody uses the C175, yet.
Is this the same solution adopted for Stage IIIB?
I ask because I remember that the diesel fuel available is also different (low-sulphur diesel is standard in Europe, if my memory is correct)
I think GE engines before GEVO often had burned hoods, too (for similar reasons?)
But EMD units rarely showed these scorch marks.
The only application of Cat