It appears that the last 7 EMD JT42CWRs (Class 66) are on their way to the UK. EMD is ceasing production, as they do not meet the European Stage IIIb emissions specifications. In total, 676 units were built. We’ll see where EMD goes now.
I don’t think the GE Powerhaul series meets the standards either, but GE has announced that they will use EGR and DPF. I’m not sure how they will fit that into the UK loading gauge.
In other news, Vossloh, a European locomotive builder that built diesels with EMD prime movers (first the 710 and now the C175) has announced that they are selling their transportation division, probably by 2017.
I know that the UK loading gauge is restrictive but I doubt an exhaust gas recirculation system would radically alter the envelope of the locomotive.
Roof mounted Exhaust Particle filters might be a height issue however…
I am fairly certainthat the new EMD 12 cylinder 265-H derived EGR Tier IV engine under development would not fit into a UK clearance sized locomotive but the Cat C175 series engine is in the new Class 68 locomotives, so maybe the bigger 20 cylinder version is an option. It will have to use SCR rather than EGR (at least for the forseable future) however, which some potential operators may not want.
I suspect that the issues American railroads have with SGR aren’t as big of factors in Europe since operating conditions are different. They are not running as many heavy trains into sparsely populated areas, and so resupplying the locomotive may not be as difficult. Also, the average trip is much shorter.
The EGR system on the Tier IV ES44AC added a couple feet to the height of the long hood. If this is typical, (I think the Class 70s have the engine similarly at the top of the hood) I think that any EGR duct would have to be run along the side of the prime mover. I’m not sure what modifications this would require, but any locomotives would presumably be cowl units like the Turkish ones.
The EMD EGR system is located at the free end of the engine, under the turbochargers in the engine illustrated in the December issue. I understand that all the UP SD59MX units had it there (although the turbo is at the alternator end). The thing that raises the hood on the new GEs is (I believe) the diesel particulate filter, just as it did on UP9900, the only SD59MX fitted with a DPF.
The JT42CWR probably doesn’t have enough length to fit EGR at the free end of the engine even if the 710 could meet Euro IIIB, but the muffler, not above the engine, required to meet sound regulations could be replaced by a diesel particulate filter. But the JT42CWR would need bigger radiators and the present version doesn’t even provide a walkway past the radiators. There is no room for cab air conditioning in the UK clearance diagram, so EMD have decided not to try to further modify the design, even if the new four stroke engine would fit.
I imagine the C175 is the favoured engine since Vossloh have already sold a number of Eurolight units with ABB AC traction to Direct Rail Services (UK).
Hello, I was reading and wondering why the C175 would not be useable by EMD on the Class 66 (or elsewhere for that matter). It is a “own” engine since CAT owns EMD right?
The C175 will probably be the prime mover in any new EMD locomotive for the European market, if they are going to continue to participate in it. However, they cannot just pull out the 710 and put in the C175, a new locomotive design is needed. That is why the JT42CWR production run is over. Radiator capacity, need for a SGR tank, and other design details are different. As M636C noted above, the Class 66 lacks space for a cab air conditioner (and has been noted to have rather loud cabs) hence further things that could use a redesign.
Plenty of room for air conditioning in a Class 66 … just not a roof air system as is found on many American locomotives and RVs.
IIRC the system on the Class 66 has the compressor and condenser back in the carbody, on the locomotive deck. I don’t recall whether this runs the refrigerant circuit to an evaporator located where the original cab heater was placed, or acts as a small chilled-water plant (which would allow both heating and cooling through a single core). It’s possible to build this as a heat-pump system with reversing valves, but I’d think it would be cheaper and simpler to tap off coolant from the engine when heat (or blended temperature control via vanes and duct motors as in an automobile) is desired.
The major North American railroad freight railroads have told the locomotive builders that they consider SCR based emissions controls a headache they do not need.
GE has developed an exhaust gas recirculation based solution that does not require urea, they will be delivering production locomotives equipped with it in 2015.
The only way EMD can compete in that market is to offer a similiar product, thus they are developing a new 12 cylinder engine with an EGR system based on the 265H engine used in the SD90MAC.
EMD will be building passenger locomotives that use the C175…
EMD hopes to have their TIER IV locomotive ready in 2017.
(What will it be called? I suggest SD85ACe, since it is a 12 cylinder based on the 265H and the testbed is the SD89MAC, intended to have a 12-265H and 4500 HP. Still calling it an SD70 seems wrong somehow.)
ACe seems rather unnecessary at this point when there almost certainly won’t be a DC version of this new model nor is there an older “SD85AC” that requires differentiating the new model’s designation by tacking an e at the end of it.
I wonder if they will keep it? While I suspect that AC will be incorporated no matter how superfluous it may now be, I bet at the very least that the new model won’t include the e tagged on the end of it.
While the new engine is based on the 265H, it is significantly modified and will almost certainly not be called a 265H. EMD have followed a practice that a locomotive with a 16 cylinder engine will have a number divisible by 10, one with a twenty cylinder engine will have a number 5 higher than the sixteen cylinder and a twelve cylinder will have a number one less than the sixteen cylinder.
(I know this was not used at the end of the 710 series, where 70 was used for the 16, 75 was used for a higher rotational speed 16, 80 was used for the 20 cylinder and 69 was used for a prototype AC traction passenger locomotive).
However the first C175 locomotive, a 20 cylinder, has been given the model F125. That allows 120 for a sixteen cylinder C175 locomotive.
Since 90 (and 89) were used for 265H locomotives, we have 100 and 110 free for the new locomotive…
Assuming 100 is chosen, the new 12 cylinder would be an SD99…
To return to the export locomotive which is the subject of this thread…
The JT42CWR used in Continental Europe had cab air conditioner evaporator unit mounted on the cab roof. This exceeded the available clearances in the United Kingdom. Although you would think that there were plenty of other locations, EMD do not offer cab airconditioning on the JT42CWR in the UK.
Assuming that the next UK unit will have a C175, and the 50 series (52 = no of cylinders (12) plus 40) was used for the 265H (the JT56C in China) so 60 is the next available series. It might use a 16, so JT66CW sounds likely…
I have it on good authority that the new EMD Tier IV freight locomotive will be marketed as the SD7089ACeIEGR-4… the North American railroad industry will have to upgrade their computer systems to accommodate the longer model number…
If the F125 locomotive had the description AMT-125 or similar (that model was applied in the 1970s to a low profile F40PH intended to match then new Amfleet cars) I’d agree that the speed was the only consideration but using the code F for a full body four axle unit and a number that actually fits with the preceding convention of numbering, it doesn’t matter how it originated.
I’m one of the people who believe that “F” originally stood for “fourteen hundred” (since “T” was already taken for “twelve hundred”) and coudn’t be used for “thirteen”. It later was taken to mean Freight later just as “SW” came to mean Switcher rather than “six hundred horsepower welded frame” as it literally meant when new.
As I said, the number range next available is “100” so F125 fits the system whether it was originally meant to or not.
My concern about F69 was not that the engine didn’t fit but the only difference from an F59 was the AC traction, which didn’t fit the system.
To return to the thread topic, British operator GBRf recently took delivery of a third batch of seven new JT42CWR locomotives for a total of 21 new units this year. Apparently EU authorities would allow 26 locomotives to be obtained by GBRf prior to the introduction of the Euro IIIb standards. Since EMD couldn’t build the remaining five units in time, GBRf have purchased five 12-710G3 engines which will be delivered to the UK. It is reported that next year, EMD will build seven new JT42CWR locomotives without engines and these will be fitted with the five new engines and two engines removed from older class 66 units damaged in accidents.
Is there any other example besides the SD80 and the SD45/45-2/F45 from which to build a standard definitions for divisible by 10+5? I do not believe there is. And therefore there is no pattern there from which to make assumptions. F125 was designated as such to indicate that the Loco met the 125 sustained MPH rating which is the while reason EMD put a 20 cylinder in that locomotive. I’m pretty sure that EMD marketing said as much. Of course, as of now, there’s no reason to assume, beyond inertia, that it will be SD anything. 6 axle locos are no longer considered special duty, they are the General Purpose units. I’m sure they will stay SD, because any brand recognition is good in their case, but it’s a weak reason.
Again, this is just my view which I’m not trying to impose on anyone…
But the other main example is the SD70 and SD75 pair.
While they both had the same number of cylinders, the SD75 was significantly more powerful (300 HP and for a few units as a test, 500HP) obtained by running the engine at 950 rpm rather than 904 rpm.
Although this distinction became blurred by late SD70MAC and later SD70ACe and SD70M-2 units running at 950 rpm and rated at 4300 HP, when first introduced the use of “+5” to indicate a more powerful engine (and locomotive) was exactly the same as for the SD40 and SD45 pair.
By 2017 and perhaps earlier we will know what the next model number will be for the EMD four stroke freight locomotive, but I would be very surprised if the number is not higher than 90 simply because the numbers have increased on every new model since 1937 or so.
If this happens the F125, regardless of the origin of the number, may become just another number in the series of EMD model numbers, just above the contemporary freight units.
Way back in 1949 or so, GP did mean General Purpose and SD was Special Duty, which reflected the perceived roles of 4-motor and 6-motor diesel locomotives at that time. These roles began to change at the beginning of the horsepower race in 1960 but the model designations continued with GP for four motors and SD for six motors, more for the sake of convenience than anything else.