What’s with all the hoppla over this new class?
Is it a quantum leap in locomotive evolution?
How is it being billed as the future when G.E has basically the same thing and theirs is being road tested as we speak.?
Does any one know if the 70 e has the i cab[isolated version]?
[%-)]
There are no plans to offer the SD70ACe with the isolated-cab option. EMD feels that the relocation of the electrical cabinet suffices. Having ridden the SD70ACe at speed at full load, it struck me as quiet and vibration-free.
It would be silly to give a summarized version of the the article here–that’s why it’s the length it is. Why not read it when your copy arrives on Monday, or visit your retail outlet today, and from that draw your own conclusions? Suffice it to say that are striking differences in the approach GE took to get to the EV44AC and EMD to the SD70ACe.
EMD is also road testing, but rather than on a Class I, it’s doing it at the Pueblo Test Track. It’s an interesting question which is the “better” approach; obviously, if EMD wanted to do Class I tests, it could do that, and if GE wanted to do Test Track tests, it could do that.
Time will tell which approach finds better market acceptance.
It’s a very nice Locomtoive unlike the GE GEVO PELASE
Santaras ---- The extra simple answer is that the Feds have new emissions rules comming up that current locomotives can’t meet. The “e”'s are GEs and EMDs answers.
But as Mark says, it ain’t that simple! Not by any way. So, I get to wait for the magazine, too. (drat) The good part of that is, however, we will be informed about what really is going on.
One of the things that I suspect we will hear is that every locomotive that EMD and GE now build will be out of the catalogue. We have had some interesting discussions about 6000 HP locomotives, 5000 HP locomotives, 20 cyl vs 16 cyl, and so on, and I think we will see the reasons why the builders have not worked harder on the super high HP locomotives harder than they have. Simply, I suspect that they won’t be permitted to sell them in the US due to the new standards.
I Have already received my Febuary copy ,it arrived Jan 3 up here in Canada and read the arcticle.
Thanks to the wife for it was an Christmas present subcription for a year.[read Jan edition Christmas day!]
Still,I think G.E and EMD are offering a very similar product.
Thanks for the reply ,none other from the Editor himself.
Mr.Hamphill, you stated that EMD is only testing their SD-70ACe at Pueblo. I am confused. According to Railpace magazine the on-going order of SD-70AC’s are SD-70ACe type units with the flaired radiators,4300HP, the latest high tech adheshion system, modular design etc. At the moment there are from 10-15 units on the ground. Railpace also said CSX has placed an order for 20 SD-70ACe for 2nd quarter delivery. CSX and EMD are testing these units on the Boston line-over the Berkshire mountains.
My question to you Mr. Hamphill is CTC Magazine reported that BNSF placed an order with EMD for 100 SD-70AC’s to be delivered in 2004. Is this true? If it is, will EMD ship out SD-70ACe type units like they are doing with the current CSX order . T-time, Winter Haven , Fl.
t-time:
I think what you’re saying is that you’ve read reports that SD70ACe’s are being built right now. There are not. SD70MACs with flared radiators are not, repeat, not, SD70ACe’s, in spite of what anyone might tell you. The SD70ACe is a radically different design than the SD70MAC and would be very difficult to visually confuse the two, if you study them just a little bit.
As of Monday, December 30, there have been no orders placed for SD70ACe’s that EMD will confirm. EMD will let us know the day they have an order and can make that fact public. They won’t even hint until then, and wisely so – would you want to give your competitor the news that a deal is in the offing? Not hardly.
I’ve heard reports that CSX may take the last of its current SD70MAC order as SD70ACe’s, and that BNSF may get some too, but EMD will neither confirm nor deny that. I’m not even going to be a pest and ask them, because they’re not going to tell me anything until the deal is closed. We’ll report as soon as we know something accurate and truthful, but we’re not in the business of speculation, guesswork, or being wrong. (That’s sometimes more FUN, I admit, but when you do that it tends to close doors.)
The SD70ACe, according to EMD, will not go into production until well into 2004. To summarize, the only SD70ACe’s that exist today are the four prototype units, which as far as I know are all still at the Pueblo Test Track.
santaras: Isn’t it amazing that copies of the magazine get to Canada before the U.S.! That’s because here, USPS holds for tonnage.
Yes, EMD and GE ARE offering a very similar product. That’s what happens as technology matures – it converges. The good news is that you probably can’t go far wrong buying either one. The bad news is that it actually makes your job much harder. How, if you’re the builder, do you convince the railroad that your product is measurably better? And how, if you’re the mechanical officer, do you co
So, the 90-MAC is a go and the others, which I understand to all be 710’s, are not? I would think, then, that we would see a 16-H putting out 6000 and a 12-H putting out about 4000. I remember reading somewhere that EMD has built testbeds of 12-H engines and the held up, and EMD was going to proceed with field trials and start planning for production and the 16-H was still beating itself to death. This was the middle of Summer 2003.
I had made the assumption that the H engine was what EMD was going to use to meet the Tier 2 Standards. I couldn’t feature them designing a new engine from scratch and then junking it unless it failed to meet Tier 2. I am given to understand that 2-cycle diesels can’t be made to meet the standards at a cost that anyone will buy them for. That means, to me, then, that the 710 is dead when Tier 2 takes effect.
I think GE made their announcement when they did for stock price purposes. I track GE and Wall Street made happy noises about the new locomotive and their stock price immediately went up. I hear the locomotive still isn’t ready for prime time, but that is how they announced it - ready to save the American ecology NOW.
Eric: I’m not sure what you mean. But to clarify from my end:
Would someone refresh us on the new Tier 2 standards please? It is not necessary to give every jot and tittle but just the major things would be nice.
The new standard applies only to new locos, correct?
OK! I didn’t know that. I’m sure GM’s stockholders were glad to hear that! Saves a big chunk of bucks. I haven’t kept up on the 710s and Hs.
I figured the H engine would. I am not up to speed on model designations for some of these engines — H-engine; I understand there are 2 models (?), a 12 cyl and 16 cyl? What would be each’s designation. —the 710G would be the 4300 HP 16cyl —What is the 20-710 SD80 engine designation? Does it meet Tier 2? I presume not?
I thought the EMD e-engine was an H- model.
I didn’t mean to imply either. Just that EMD was having a bit of trouble with it and that I couldn’t feature them going ahead with development and/or production if it couldn’t meet the standard.
Eric: EMD engines use a simple designation system:
So: A, B, C, D series crankcases – all 567 cu in displacement per cylinder, though you can stick a 645 assembly into a B, C, and D block. Dunno if you can do that with the A – never have seen one! A BC block is a B block partially modified to C standards to get rid of some of the internal water leak problems with the C. BCs were VERY common; most railroads modified their B blocks during overhauls. 16-645Cs and BCs aren’t uncommon either, but you can’t get 2000 horse out of them unless you’re willing to install bigger radiators and accept the fact that they will fly apart more often.
E, F series crankcases: all 645 cu in displacement – same bore as 567, but longer stroke.
G series crankcase: 710 cu in displacement. Same bore as a 567, stroked out even farther.
H series crankcase: the 265 indicates its bore in mm; it displaces 1010 cu in. This is EMD’s only 4-stroke.
B series crankcases: GP7, F7, F3, SD7
C series crankcases: GP9, F9, SD9
D series crankcases: GP18, GP20, GP30, GP35, SD18, SD24, SD35
E series crankcases: GP38, GP39, GP40, SD38, SD39, SD40, SD45, dash-2 versions
F series crankcases: GP49, GP50, SD50
G series crankcases: GP60, SD60, SD70, SD70M
Mark [:)]
Thanks for the standards. [;)]
So older locos are exempt from the standards until overhauled, correct?
Any ideas on how to make an older loco meet the newer standards, anyone?
The Mookie’s eyes are glazed over again!
Mark -------- WOW. That’s a whole magazine article [wow]
Do I make a correct assumption that the 12-567’s used in the E’s (7-8-9) and SW’s 1,000 to 1,200 HP is the “B” crank case? HP being a function of governor settings?
Now, all of these short lines that have 567’s, what is considered to be remanufacturing and what is considered as rebuild, or backshopped, heavy maint.? Repair and replace of wornout parts in kind should be normal maintenance. How much work can be done on all of those 567’s before a new locomotive is required? In short, what is the economic viability of these engines so beloved by our short (line) brothers.
Is 0% sulfur fuel economically viable?
My dear, retract head into (auto)mobile or home, thaw gently, and it will all be OK. [:D][:D][:D][}:)]
I guess that will be the big question…what is the legalese that constitutes a reman? x% of original parts replaced or replacement of any components from list A (chinese menu)[:)]
Eric: HP is a function of RPM, which, yes, is a governor setting:
B series 800 rpm maximum governed speed
C series 835 rpm maximum governed speed
6-567B 600 hp SW1
8-567B 800 hp SW8
12-567B 1000 hp NW2, SW7, E7
16-567B 1350 hp F2
16-567B 1500 hp F3, F7, GP7, SD7
6-567C 600 hp never offered in a locomotive that I know of, only stationary apps.
8-567C 900 hp SW900
12-567C 1200 hp: SW9, SW1200, E8, E9
16-567C 1750 hp: F9, GP9, SD9
A BC engine is identical in performance to a B engine but has the C liners. There’s also an AC engine, which is the A crankcase with C liners. I never saw one, but the EMD unit exchange catalog lists them. And lastly a 645C or a 645BC, which is the 645 liners in a C or BC block, at the old horsepower rating. You could also put a D liner in the C block; the Rio Grande liked that because it had bigger ports and ran better in the thin air of high altitudes.
Some railroads knocked back the C engines to 800 rpm to increase longevity – a machinist told me that at 800 rpm the C engine ran forever, but at 835 rpm they tended to come apart too often.
Beyond this starts myriad variations. My 1982 unit exchange catalog lists, for instance, 59 different models of governors: that’s why more than one person in the shops will tell you that EMD stands for “Every Model Different.”
As for what’s rebuilt and what’s remanufactured, it’s basically whether you’re recapitalizing the unit or not. As far as I understand the regulations, you can fix a 567 forever and never have to upgrade. But it won’t matter because the 567 is vanishing very quickly because it’s so much cheaper to buy a used 645-engined locomotive than to fix the 567. You can go buy a good running SD40-2 for less money than it will cost you to rebuild a GP9 – I’ve seen the former offered with good wheels under it for $60,000! Ten years ago the same SD40-2 was $350,000. That’s w
Mark, and Eric…
I gotta say, I learn more from your exchanges than…well I don’t know. Please continue[:)]
Amen, brother Amen. [;)]