CPM500 do you have any references backing up your disparaging comments? The poor handling of EMD at GM’s hands is well established. You just dismissed as irrelevant which boggles the mind. It couldn’t be more relevant.
Time will tell if Cat’s acquisition of EMD grows their market share in North American locomotive market…
I am sure that back when the U25B was introduced there were many railfans (and probably a few professional railroaders) who wished the GE would have stuck to toasters and refrigerators…
“General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money.”
Thomas Murphy, former CEO of GM
Change “cars” to “locomotives” and you will understand the entire history of EMD…
I know, they can make an exhaust-treatment tender!!
I mean, think about it, they are happy with CNG and LPG tenders, and Bunker C fuel tenders in the recent past, this is an idea that has legs, I think!
Seriously, though, even a casual glance at two-stroke engines intuitively suggests to me that it just can’t meet any modern emissions standard without power-robbing EGR, excessive aftertreatment, and inevitable fuel wasted as it is removed in the scavenge stroke.
Railfans welcomed it after losing three major builders during the 1950s. Any dislike only appeared after the U25B’s production run when Alco started to be viewed as threatened and eventually ceased manufacturing.
But when it was new, it was only adding to the variety that railfans could expect to see at the front of trains.
GE had quite a lot of experience in building their own diesel locomotives by the time they introduced the U25. Queensland Railways purchased ten six axle hood units with FVBL-12 engines rated at 1200 HP in 1951. This was laid out exactly like a (scaled down, 3’ 6" gauge) U25. Because the Cooper-Bessemer engine wasn’t competitive on a horsepower basis compared with the Alco 244 (1500HP and soon 1600HP compared with 1200HP from the same bore and stroke) GE built many units with Alco engines, but by the late 1950s the power was improved and an extensive range of export units was available. The U25 came out of this work. It was innovative and both EMD and Alco took careful note. Reliability came later, as it did to some extent with EMD.
M636C
There is a startup companmy that holds a patent for exactly that:
YoHoHo 1975,
I am well aware of the damage that Roger Smith (the worst CEO GM of all time) did to GM, EMD included. Smith spent 85 BILLION on the auto business…only to result in a precipitous decline in automotive market share.
What exactly is YOUR background in relation to the locomotive business ?
I’m just a fan, But I work in R&D for a 300,000 employee company and I’ve worked in R&D during management changes and I know how those kinds of things work. Being “in the field” doesn’t give you the right to slander. Post some evidence backing up your claim. Everything I’ve read tells me that EMD was at a disadvantage before GM even sold them. I would like to know what Progress Rail/Cat has done or not done that made this situation worse? I’m willing to believe a lot of bad choices made by Cat, but that’s not what you said, you said Ainsworth is incapable. What is the evidence?
Now, that is something clever.
I saw something like this on over-the-road trucks on the New York State Thruway in the 1980s but I never could tell for sure if they were studying exhaust treatment or using the exhaust to heat the cargo. I still don’t know what was going on. The exhaust stack was piped into the bottom of the trailer.
I’d have to agree, looking at the SD59MX, add Urea/SCR to that emissions package and i’m sure it would get the 710 into Tier 4 range. However the Class 1’s don’t want the added expense/infrastructure of Urea. What the Class 1’s should be thinking about, if Tier 4 could be met without SCR, whats the next step… Tier 4 Final, Tier 5? They will need Urea, maybe they can get around that for the next few years. Cooled EGR takes a fuel penalty, SCR doesn’t.
From what I saw in the trucking industry, SCR trucks had far less problems than the cooled EGR trucks.
CAT’s emissions strategy for yellow engiens has been SCR.
If I was a Class 1, i’d say give me an SD59MX with Urea, keep the 710 simplicty, 4300hp, servicablity, parts interchage, and familiartity.
Does GE actually have a CERTIFIED Tier 4 locomotive? The Marine Tier 4 i’m sure was achieved with Urea, Rail engine is a different game.
According to what I’ve read the experimental SD59X could not quite meet Tier IV emissions stan
The SD59MX i’d say is beyond expiriamental theres 12 of them I think, they’re in revenue service, gathering data sure. I’m not aware of GE being apart of a similar program. But on point, SD59MX doesn’t have SCR. Uses EGR valve, DOC (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst) and DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). Similar emissions equipment to a 2007-2010 on road truck.
I don’t agree with that; OTR trucking they put 1 million miles on their engines, hows that different from 1 million kWh on a 710? The trucking industry knew it was an SCR truck or Navistar cooled EGR when 2010 came.
Very true, they can take orders for something that doesn’t actually exisit sure. Is that ethical? I believe GE knows how to play the media and they spun Tier 4 right, they just have to make good on it. At this time, its March 2015, I still see Tier 4 GE on a test track. For one, if GE is on top of Tier 4 they should already be delivering BNSF order. Negative, GE is using credits to sell locomotives currently.
I don’t see how selling as many copies of their already proven product as allowed by law, if the customers want them, has any bearing here.
Railroads are basically only going Tier 4 because they have to, not because it’s a superior product where the most important metrics for them are concerned. The locomotives coming out of Erie that are Tier 4 will cost more, be more complicated, surely have teething troubles, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re slightly less fuel efficient along with other slight decreases in performance compared to the existing Tier 3 product as sacrifices are made in the system in order to get the necessary numbers for the stack emissions.
That these are being built doesn’t infer anything about the quality or status of the Tier 4 design. If anything, it’s the opposite since I’m sure there are some stiff penalties in place if they don’t outshop a Tier 4 example for every Tier 3 credit unit outshopped this year.
GE must have zero doubt that they will be able to fully meet that mandate this year, if they’re building these Tier 3 credit units in the meantime.
[quote user=“Entropy”]
carnej1
According to what I’ve read the experimental SD59X could not quite meet Tier IV emissions standards but it came very close. Presumably with some more development time and money it could…
The SD59MX i’d say is beyond expiriamental theres 12 of them I think, they’re in revenue service, gathering data sure. I’m not aware of GE being apart of a similar program. But on point, SD59MX doesn’t have SCR. Uses EGR valve, DOC (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst) and DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). Similar emissions equipment to a 2007-2010 on road truck.
carnej1
The Class 1 railroads deal with a very different duty cycle on their diesel engines than an OTR trucking operator (or construction company,mining outfit) does and that is why they are being so insistent on a non-SCR solution.
I don’t agree with that; OTR trucking they put 1 million miles on their engines, hows that different from 1 million kWh on a 710? The trucking industry knew it was an SCR truck or Navistar cooled EGR when 2010 came.
carnej1
The question about GE is an interesting one;they are taking orders for Tier IV locomotives but time will tell if their system is a good as they state…
Very true, they can take orders for something that doesn&#
The duty cycle that railroads expect out of their locomotives -
Only adding fuel, sand, brake shoes and emptying the toilet for the 92 days between required inspections where they then get shop attention.
The modern engines now go 6 months between MIs.
I’m sure in a well engineered setup they could have a DEF tank that could match the engines usage rate in DEF/Urea to the locomotives fuel tank. So they’re filled on the same scheudle. Typically its about 10:1 , for every 10 gallons used to 1 gallon of DEF. Don’t think a ‘dirtier’ engine uses more DEF, interestingly the dirtier the exahust the easier it is for Urea to find NOx in the exhaust.
It looks like its a foregone conculsion the 265H engine will be used going forward. The C280/3600 has a poor history in rail applications. Could the 265H become the C265? The synergy within Caterpillar could have them build the 265H at Layfayette, IN, I believe CAT produces 3500 series engines in Griffin, GA now too, which free’s up space at Layfayette, also with the complete lack of petroleum customers buying engines at the moment, typically a heavy buyer of 3500/3600 CAT engines (Oil industry). When CAT purchased MWM, they rebranded their engines as CAT.
MTU has been digging away at CAT’s marketshare, the 265H is identical bore size to an MTU 8000 series engine typically used in large Catamarans and “fast ferrys”. If EMD/CAT could bring non Urea Tier 4 to Marine/generator app and Rail, thats a win win. CAT 3600 engines offer Tier 4 with Urea/SCR.
Just some observations, its going to be an interesting year.
Here are some interesting figures on the SD59MX
Note that 9901 is indicated to have everything except the particulate filter, and that the test on 9900 was to get PM down to Tier 4 standards, not all of the emissions.
To return to the topic, the new EMD engine is based on the 265 but it isn’t a 265H, because numerous changes have been made to the engine, including common rail fuel injection, exhaust gas recirculation and different intercooler arrangements, just to mention those things visible from the outside…
MTU are offering the 4000 series as meeting Tier 4 without aftertreatment but I haven’t heard whether the 8000 can also meet those standards.
I wonder if a lightweight version of the 8000 would work in US Domestic locomotives…?
M636C
I believe the SD59MX employed 3 different types of emissions aftertreatment designs, over various road numbers. Not all have the same emissions equipment.
Here’s a presentation on installing Miratech’s Diesel Oxidation Catalyst on EMD 710 engines.