Company says the Canadian railroad’s order is the largest of any Class I railroad since 2014
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/12/22-cn-order-with-ge
Very good news, we are very short of power right now and the aging Dash-8 and SD60 fleets are on their last legs.
This announcement also comes after several weeks of testing two EMD SD70ACe-T4 demonstrators in Western Canada. Perhaps management is not impressed with them?
For the engineering types out there, why do Tier 3 engines continue to be ordered? It seems like any chance they get, the railroads will order a Tier 3 unit rather than a Tier 4 unit. Are Tier 3 units less expensive up front? Or are they more fuel efficient? Or less maintenance-intensive? Please note I am not a proponent for more Tier 4 rather than Tier 3 or some such. I am just wanting to learn more. Thanks in advance for any insight you might be willing to share!
All three: they are cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain. They also are more fuel efficient.
There’s still a GE?
snark/ON
Do you have any fuel consumption that show this?
I tried to find informtion. In an EMD 710 brochure is a chart that the fuel consumption got better from Tier 1 to Tier 3: s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-60253-59723
I didn’t find a comparison of a EMD 710-T3 and a EMD 1010-T4.
The 1010-T4 is a newly designed four-stroke engine with a completely different auxilliary management, idle measures etc. It is not the engine alone it is the whole package that is relevant.
Canadian railroads can buy Tier 3 engines for use in Canada as they don’t have the same emission regulation.
Regards, Volker
I do not beleive that tier 3 locomotives are more fuel efficent than tier 4’s untill I see the actual fuel use per hour for each notch setting for both engines.
That would be wise; I’m surprised someone like Volker hasn’t taken the time yet to compile the data in one place.
The GM two-stroke engine is inherently less fuel-efficient than an engine with a four-stroke cycle, for a number of reasons we’ve discussed in different threads. This was brought up in at least two of the discussions on the 265-H engine (whether or not you subscribe to the “1010 evolved out of the 265 design”, the 1010 has the same relative combustion efficiency over the 710 family)
One point that needs to be carefully considered is that a Tier 4 design that uses SCR can intentionally use hotter/better combustion in its power stroke, and compensate fully for the additional NO generation by increasing the consumption of the ammonia source if necessary. This is a reason for the push towards ‘liquids consumption’ rather than just specific fuel consumption in determining a fair measure of ‘fuel use’ economically.
Now, I believe the existing ‘practical’ (meaning ‘those railroads will buy’) Tier 4 freight locomotives are still relying on relatively carefully-managed EGR to meet standards; that argues to me that even before discussing a need for active ‘particulate filter regeneration’ the actual sfc will be at least slightly higher for the same engine output provided by an equivalent Tier 3 compliant unit. But I will wait for detailed data.
I would have if had more data than linked above. That is the reason I asked. So someone else hopefully does the legwork.[;)]
I doubt myself that freight Tier 4 locomotives are less fuel efficient. That the EGR equipped Tier 4 locomotives don’t need diesel particulate filters shows that they have a completer combustion needing less fuel for the same output.
Regards, Volker
Edit: Perhaps we should create a separate thread. Here it might get lost.
I have no information on the EMDs, and as the prime mover is different I should have restricted my comments to the GEs. EGR has traditionally reduced fuel economy somewhat (ballpark <10%) between otherwise similar model runs. I don’t know if that is the case here, but I suspect the efforts to reduce NOx output without SCR have reduced fuel efficiency.
The Tier 3 locomotives in this order are “Tier 4 Credit” units. Without question they cost less initially and cost less to run than a Tier 4 equivalent.
I concur … do it!
We can then recapitulate the physics and engineering briefly there so the discussion stays on proper tech focus.
I am glad I asked the question! And thank you all for the excellent information - I have learned a lot already! Much appreciated!
A short SEARCH of “Fuel Consumption on General Electric Tier 4 Locomotives?” Turned up the following linked site:
@ https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/?mobileFormat=true
This is information from a CSX Document titled: “Fuel Efficiency” .
A further Search on “EMD Tier 4 Locomotive performance” turned up a number of sites, but this linked "Railway Age " seemed to offer some information(?)
Linked @ http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/engines-of-change.html
FTA:"…• EMD’s Tier 4 freight locomotive, the SD70ACe-T4, is powered by an all-new, 4,400-traction-hp, 12-cylinder, four-stroke EMD-developed 1010 diesel engine. EMD attained Tier 4 without the use of urea as an after-treatment. The 1010 is a radical departure from EMD’s traditional two-stroke engine.
I have copied the posts regarding the fuel efficiency of Tier 3 and Tier 4 freight locomotive into a new thread: Fuel Efficiency of Freight Diesel locomotives, Tier 3 vs. Tier 4 http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/266965.aspx
Please post your comments regarding the fuel efficiency in the new thread.
Regards, Volker
The first one, a ES44AC:
First locomotive six months after ordering, pretty quick. Does GE have a backlog of orders or not?
No, there’s actually a lot of free capacity right now as there have been few new orders in the last couple of years. They are doing a lot of rebuilding, though.
Does anyone know yet what the exact split of ET44AC’s vs credit-user ES44AC’s will be?
They will all have to meet EPA requirements, CN and CP now have an agreement with the Government of Canada that their new locomotives will conform to U.S. standards.
By law, would that not be 50-50?