What is a C45ACCte? I have never heard of this engine but by the markings sounds like a GE. Some infromation or a photo would be nice.
thank you.
The CTE units are identical to a AC4400CW, except for special software that controls maximum tractive effort for DPU (distributed power) applications. The “CTE” part stands for Controlled Tractive Effort.
We had a write-up on it Trains about a year ago in the Locomotive news section.
ARE GEVO’s EVER IN CHICAGO?
Mark,
sorry, that´s not all!
CTE is correct but the C45ACCTE is a little bit more! It´s much more!
The C45ACCTE is UP´s designation for the new General Electric TIER II - EVOLUTION SERIES freight engines. It´s very similar to the “old” AC4400, has the same power rating, looks near identical but the GEVO`s are NEW. So UP´s designation is C45ACCTE instead of C44ACCTE.
GE name this series at the website only as Evolution Series without an official designation. In one article I read that GE´s designation will be AC4400EW or AC4400 EVO. Make a little confusion.
The biggest difference is the diesel! The diesel is a brandnew 12 cylinder instead of the good old 16 cylinder.
GE´s says about the engine:
"The new GEVO 12-cylinder diesel engine produces the same 4,400 horsepower as its 16-cylinder predecessor. And it accomplishes this feat using less fuel, delivering significant savings over the life of the diesel locomotive.
The cleaner running GEVO 12 engine also produces 40 percent fewer emissions than current diesel locomotives. This means GEVO-powered diesel locomotives already comply with Tier II EPA regulations scheduled to go into effect in 2005."
Because of 2005 the first engine is numbered “2005”
Use this link
https://www.getransportation.com/general/locomotives/loco_models.asp#
then go to “Evolution series”.
There you will find more information about this new GE loco series.
By the way: I read that BNSF also own 50 GEVO´s. I don´t know that this is true because I thought that the handfull GEVO´s, delivered to UP, are for testing.
Never read before that the GEVO´s are real available.
Ulrich,
Thanks for the link to the GE site. I’m too lazy to do a search myself. Sadly, GE are very liberal with rhetoric and hype, and provide very little in the way of facts, particularly about the new 12 cylinder engine. I can’t recall the launch of a new engine where minor items like the bore, the stroke, the maximum rotational speed, and brake mean effective pressure have not even been mentioned.
Some few facts were released in a press release which found its way into Railway Gazette International, November 2003, page 729. Apart from the usual material about the locomotives and the tests on Union Pacific, it is indicated that all AC locomotives will have the CTE feature as standard.
It is said that 30 “Pre-production” AC locomotives will be tested on BNSF between Chicago and Seattle, and later (early this year) 15 DC locomotives will also be tested. Production locomotives will be delivered from 2005.
Extraordinarily for such an article, the road numbers of the AC prototype (2005) and the DC prototype (2011) were quoted, and that two cabless prototypes are being used for equipment development (no numbers quoted).
I suppose EMD have an SD70DCe somewhere!
Peter
I know there is a thread about the SD70ACE floating around here…good thread. Anyway it seems that GE is getting a little bit of a jump having real worl testing as opposed to running around a track at Pueblo. Is there anyone who has had the honor of running either one out there? This is the first real head to head relsease of engines from the two companies. It will be interesting to see how things play out.
(P.S. Mark, I know by the article you’ve been around the SD70ACe, how about the AC45?)
Does anyone know if the new 12 cylinder is FDL or HDL based. I would assume it would be a cut down version of an HDL 3/4 of 16 = 12 : 3/4 of 6000 HP = @4400? Rough math but it works. It seems like it would be hard to pump up a FDL from 3200 to 4400.
Anybody…anybody?
Broncoman,
I think the GEVO is based on the HDL. If you follow Ulrich’s link to the GE website, there are two illustrations of the engine. One is the side view photo that has already been in Trains, the other is a computer generated perspective view from above. That perspective view shows the exhaust manifolds, two side by side, as in the HDL, but feeding a single turbocharger. Also, the visible section of the cylinder in the power assembly on an HDL is shorter than in an FDL, and again the GEVO looks more like an HDL than an FDL. There are cross section diagrams of the FDL and HDL engines on the GE website which tou can compare with the GEVO illustrations.
So with that information, and the logic of the power rating you mention, the GEVO is clearly a modified 12 cylinder HDL.
So the obvious question is - “Why don’t GE say that?”
You should recall that the HDL was not an original GE design, but was developed in conjunction with Deutz MWM in Germany. GE were to take the lead in developing the engine for locomotive use, and were mainly responsible for the Vee type engines, while Deutz MWM concentrated on smaller in line engines for shipboard auxiliary power use.
When the HDL hit the tracks in the AC6000, a number of failures occurred and in general GE had to do more work on the engine than they thought they would have to. This ended in a law suit between GE and Deutz MWM, so there is no longer a joint agreement on the HDL engine.
So presumably, GE have produced, in the GEVO, an engine that is generally like the HDL but has all the features that GE would have put in rather than compromising with Deutz MWM on features useful for other applications than locomotives. I think that a heavier crankcase to reduce vibration was one thing GE wanted.
But with that background, GE are probably not enthusiastic about sayng that their all-new engine is based on one that caused them a lot of trouble in the past. There may even be clauses in
I found the phots of the SD70CE to be most interesting. I saw a lot of GE details on the loco. So what gives? Is the SD70CE really a break-through loco or just a too-late answer too GE?
Hi Peter,
I also think that the new engine is basicly a 12 cylinder version of the HDL!
When you search for facts, don´t forget that the GEVO´s are in the moment experimental! The main facts are clear but some fine adjustments will come in the next month.
The first real GEVO´s will not leave the plant at Erie before August or September, I think!
And I agree with wncrails, the SD70ACe isn´t really a break-through! What´s a break-through?
The real break-through is that both diesel engines, GE and EMD, will reach the Tier II emission parameters! That´s all !!!
The surprise for me is: Who remember to EMD´s 12 cylinder 265 H engine testunit #GM92 ? Why use GM the “old” 710 istead of the "new "265 H?
The 710 G will reach Tier II parameters so easy as it sounds? Okay, possible is everything!
The rest is development. I think we should not begin to talk about the next generation!
Ulrich,
I’m happy to wait and let GE develop their engine, but I am unhappy with organisations that release a lot of media “Hype” without giving us the figures to back it up. They suggest that the GEVO is “cleaner” regarding emissions than a modified FDL engine would be, but don’t tell us the figures. The only numbers we’ve been told are the engine power and the number of cylinders. I don’t think we’ve been told if the GEVO 12 is lighter or heavier than the 7FDL-16!
I would agree that EMD 92 (sometimes called an SD89MAC) was the logical “equivalent” to the GE “GEVO” unit, and it too might be cleaner than the tier II 710G engine, but EMD made a different decision to GE about what their customers wanted. As you say, we can only wait and see which of the locomotives sells better. I’ve said on another thread that the SD70ACe looks to me like EMD 92 rebuilt with a 710G, but people assure me that it isn’t.
For wncrails, when the cab design on EMD 92 was introduced, one comment was that the front cab windows were interchangeable with those of GE Dash 9 / AC4400 locomotives. While that’s a good idea, I don’t believe the cab has to be that ugly. Taller doors were introduced on later UP SD70Ms, without looking as bad as the SD70ACe cab appearance. The SD70ACe design would be cheaper to build, however.
To meet tier II regulations, bigger radiators are necessary to control the combustion process sufficiently closely. This has affected both manufacturers, and this has made the EMD look a little more like the GE, although the actual modifications to the two locomotives are quite different, and I don’t think EMD is copying GE, consciously or unconsciously. To quote “Scotty” from “Star Trek”, “ye canna change the laws of physics” and they affect both locomotives the same way.
Peter
Peter, in one of the other posts where you and Mark were telling me about the intricacies of gear driven turbos, I am a little fuzzy with regards to why you would need two turbos like what the 16 HDL had. Of course that could be one of the design changes that GE made when they went to the GEVO was to drop the second turbo. I am also curious as to why EMD went with the 710 2 stroke when Detroit Diesel stopped marketing 2 strokes for the truck industry because they couldn’t get them clean enough emissions wise to meet the newest regulations. It seems at some point locomotive emissions will end up at the same point.
Dave
broncoman,
The design and application of turbochargers to diesel engines has a lot of variables and is bit more of an art than a science. If you fit a single big turbocharger (to a normal four stroke engine), it might be slower to react than two smaller units giving the same total boost capacity, and result in greater production of smoke on acceleration. You need different sizes of turbocharger for different numbers of cylinders in a given size of engine. I suspect that the GEVO has a single turbocharger slightly bigger than each of the two on the HDL.
The gear driven turbocharger in the 710 is able to provide a controlled amount of air to the engine in blower mode which may assist in meeting tier II requirements. The Detroit engines did not have this feature, and had lower fuel efficiency due to the use of a turbocharger and a roots blower in series (and having the power loss due to having to power the blower at all times, unlike the EMD arrangement).
It is quite possible that the 710 will run up against some future emission regulation, but it hasn’t yet. My feeling is that EMD preferred to sell a product that customers had been buying rather than take the risk with the 12-265H which has only been tested in one unit so far. They may be still testing a 12-265H for future use, but only time will tell us that.
I hope this clears up your question. If not, I’ll try again.
Peter
Crystal clear! Not wanting to start a GE-EMD bashing here, but has GE units always smoked more than EMD or is that just a perception. I have seen the flaming stack of a GE unit but have yet to see that on a EMD.
I can see your point with the familiarity of the 710, but it seemed that there were som many cool point to the 265 one piece crankcase, ability to use antifreeze, that it would be a better platform to carry forward with. Have the H engines been that troublesome on the road? You hear about the teething problems of the sd90mac but were those problematic of a whole new unit from the ground up, are problems starting with the engine out.
Thanks again for the enlightenment.
Dave,
The only real customer for the SD90MAC with the H engine was UP (although CP did receive a few), and they were the guys who asked for a thousand SD70Ms. Now that was at least partly due to the fact that only 6000HP units were on offer, and not many roads need them. If you expect to continue selling units to UP, you at least keep making something similar to their favourite locomotive. EMD may have been too conservative with the SD70ACe, but they don’t have large fleet out on test because they know that most of the critical parts of the unit they are offering is the same as hundreds of units already running nearly everywhere.
Both the GE and EMD 6000 HP units were less successful than the builders hoped, and both builders must have lost money on them. I guess GE is saying “we’ve fixed the problems with the HDL with our new GEVO engine” while EMD is saying “You asked for more 710s and we’re giving you what you asked for”. We can only wait and see if the balance of orders changes, or if one or the other is a winner.
In the case of the SD90MAC, the 4300 HP units outsold the equivalent DC powered SD75, so there can’t have been much wrong with the whole unit apart from the 265H engine.
If things go too much toward GE, EMD could still offer a 12-265H, and they have stated that the H engine can meet tier II regulations.
By the way, I have a photo taken a week ago of a train just entering a 2.5% grade, hauled by two Dash 9 GEs and a 710 engined EMD. The GEs produced black smoke clouds about the size of the loco cabs, before it dispersed, but the EMD made no visible smoke apart from the thin haze it had been producing before it hit the grade. I don’t know how this feature is treated by the emissions regulations, but it looks bad to the public.
To return briefly to the Detroit engines, I think their poorer fuel consumption probably put them out of production. It might have been possible to improve the emissions, but the lower efficiency mea
Peter,
I also never seen a 710 with such a smokecloud than a GE! But I think that the SD89MAC and the SD70ACe are similar and different in the same way.
I often think about our posts in the last time about the GEVO´s and SD70ACe´s.
There is a goal, named TIER 2. And a date: January 1, 2005!
EMD and GE had searched for ways to that goal. And both companies find a way!
I think that this scenario is possible:
GE: Who knows what tomorrow brings. When will come TIER 3? We pay the high price, start a new diesel generation and so we will become a good platform into the future, and a short and light 4.500 hp 12 cylinder is a good start for tomorrow. And when the market need a 6.000 hp diesel: NO PROBLEM – a 16 cylinder version is possible! And we make constant development because at one day TIER 3 is coming!
[u]EMD: [/u]We try to reach TIER 2 as cheap as possible! After the not succesful tests with a 12 cylinder 265 H (why is „GM92“ the one and only), we realized that a modified 710 will reach the TIER 2 emissions. Cheap but it works!
In the next future we see no market for a 6.000 hp diesel.
Okay, TIER 3 will come, but not tomorrow, and so we have time for the real next ge-neration of EMD dieselengines and this will be a 4-cycle!
The GEVO´s and the SD70ACe´s are the answer to TIER 2 That´s all!
What is the real evolution in the GEVO? The TIER 2 diesel! When you take only one look, possible you don´t see the real differences between a GEVO and AC4400!
And in the SD70ACe? The TIER 2 diesel! And EMD had made such a good work that the SD70ACe don´t need the Insulated cab! Smooth and silent inside!
The new SD70ACe design is no evolution!
Possible Im crazy, but I think so!
Ulrich,
I would agree that EMD has taken the lower cost route to reach tier II, but it isn’t necessarily true that the 710G is at the end of the road. If you compare the development of the 710G and the 7FDL-16, from, say, 1960 when the U25 was released, the EMD engine has increased in both bore and stroke from the 567 through the 645, and the engine speed has increased. The FDL is the same size it was in 1960, and the engine speed has not increased significantly. The FDL may well be at the limit of its development, and the existing power might not be able to be maintained while careful adjustment needs to be made of combustion temperature to control the production of the undesired gases. This is certainly the case with the Caterpillar 3500 series, used in the MPI (andEMD) switchers. Meeting pollution requirements can affect both power and fuel consumption unfavourably.
My basic point is: GE may not have had a real choice, since the FDL may have suffered performance loss in meeting tier II (although I have no doubt it could be made to meet tier II).
EMD could meet tier II relatively easily, but possibly because much more effort had gone into optimising the 710G to meet the fuel consumption figures that the FDL produced more easily because of the natural advantages of the four stroke cycle in that regard. But the easy solution for EMD was to stay with the 710.
The 16 cylinder EMD engines are usually well balanced, since that was the basis of the original design. That hasn’t been the case with the eight (a revised 8-567CR with a different cylinder firing order) and the twelve (the 12N-710G3B, also with a new firing order).
Although I don’t know this, it is quite possible that the 12-265H had vibration problems as well, although there may have been other problems shared with the 16 cylinder. The intercoolers and cross flow head arrangement might have had complications too.
But it may not have been a real choice for either EMD or GE!
Hi Peter,
sorry had problems with my internet-connection (cable / WLAN = sh…)!!!
Your right. Basicly you say the same like me. My statement to EMD was because of a EMD notice some years ago. In the mid 90´s EMD announced that the next diesel generation will be a 4 stroke engine and that the 710 will be the end of the line in the 2 stroke engines.
A well balanced engine is a magical thing - the crankcase, the firing order and many other things are important. More cylinder are the best but a well designed engine could be similar!
Mercedes - Benz had a 6 cylinder engine for use in miditrucks in the mid 80´s called “Shipdiesel” because of the bad balance and rough running - Sounds also real like a shipdiesel.
Then the designer create a new crankcase and some other modifications. The result was a perfect, smooth running and well balanced engine!
Ulrich,
Good to see you back on line. I have occasional problems with my connecting cable, and with the firewall software, but the cable company and the ISP are generally OK. You might find some interest in the “World’s Heaviest Trains” thread, where I got a bit involved.
The other point I should have made about balance is that the vee angle of an engine gives the best balance with a given number of cylinders. My car has a 3.8 litre GM V-6, which has a 90 degree vee angle, excellent for V-8s, but not optimal for a V-6. The crankshaft effectively has to have six throws rather than three to get reasonable balance. The same problem applies to locomotive diesel engines, which have the same vee angle over a range of cylinder numbers.
One day we might get real data as to why the choices made by GE and EMD were different, and why things changed after the introduction of the 6000 HP engines. But until then, I’ll try to work it out myself as best I can.
Peter
Peter,
Do you happen to know what the V-angle is for 710 and H/F-DL. I would assume it is 90 degrees. It is amazing what kind of changes that firing orders and V-angles and the like can make to the balance of an engine. Your engine above for instance was offered in both odd-fire and even-fire setups. You could feel the difference, but both had good points and bad points.
Dave