Who's Ready For a Modernized GP38?

[D.Carleton]

D.Carleton
CECX 1919 was test bed that completed it purpose as was sold to KLW.

I’m well aware. What I’ve been waiting for is some description of the tests, problems with the tests, even reasons why Cummins did not persist with marketing of the QSK95 in freight service (or redesign it in certain ways to optimize efficiency under mandatory DEF-based SCR). Even a couple of sources would do!

That said the QSK95 and QSK50 are different engines.

Not by much. It was my understanding there was relatively little difference other than the obvious changes inherent in number of cylinders, such as crank design or number and placement of turbochargers. If that’s wrong, please indicate the differences.

The QSK50 has been used on the repower of MNCR’s BL20 fleet and so far no negative press.

But there is little if any negative press on the (by now, many) QSK95s running in passenger service. There is nothing I can see that would indicate issues with freight service. The engine has obviously been run in service. Where were the issues?

In any case – I find it interesting that the Progress design uses an 8-710 rather than either a 1010 or a C175-based engine. That has some interesting implications if that GP38cc is intended as competition.

The QSK50 and QSK95 are V-16 cylinder, 4-stroke diesel engines manufactured by Cummins. The similarities end there. The QSK50 is a 6.25 x 6.25 bore and stroke; the QSK95 is 7.48 x 8.27. Different heads, intakes, etc. The QSK95 was introduced in 2015; the QSK50 was around at least six years earlier.

There is a V-12 engine based on the specs of of the QSK95 used in marine and stationary

[Overmod]

How is the QSK95? Let me say that when they are maintained as per Cummins instructions they are VERY reliable. When I first saw a 95 on a skid after delivery it struck me how close in size it was to a 567-12 yet puts out four times the power. But with great power comes great (maintenance) responsibility. The 95 is a precision machine with very tight tolerances.

This is getting to the meat. One of the stated reasons for the relative failure of Cat engines in railroad service is failures, occasionally catastrophic (no pun intended), when the maintenance including intentionally expensive parts is not strictly followed. Can you state what the problems on the QSKs in railroad service from ‘typical’ (to EMD or FDL scope) maintenance attention have been, and what implications this has for maintenance priorities in future?

[MMLDelete]

Calling that an ugly locomotive is unfair to the word “ugly.”

[Overmod]

Calling that an ugly locomotive is unfair to the word “ugly.”

Looks more or less like a GP38 to me.

Admittedly that’s not much of a Bicentennial scheme, but I’ve seen worse paint on GM demonstrators…

[M636C]

Lithonia Operator
Calling that an ugly locomotive is unfair to the word “ugly.”

Looks more or less like a GP38 to me.

Admittedly that’s not much of a Bicentennial scheme, but I’ve seen worse paint on GM demonstrators…

Perhaps he was referring to the rather challenging GPL38S rather than the rather inoffensive GP38CC…?

Of course the air filters aren’t easily worked into a smooth outline…

As I’ve posted earlier, the GPL38S and the SDL38 are both specific export units for a particular customer for whom a light weight version of a domestic unit is more suitable than a straight export unit.

Neither of these are likely to have any influence on domestic units…

The CP GP20 ECO has more in common with the GPL38S than any other domestic unit and the “38” is an export oriented description, not related to any previous domestic unit.

Peter

[Overmod]

Perhaps he was referring to the rather challenging GPL38S rather than the rather inoffensive GP38CC…?

I don’t really mind that one either – in the orange and white it’s a bit reminiscent of a GP10, and I saw very similar cabs on a pair of CSX 40-2s yesterday evening. The air filter gives it a sort of Alco Century/C39-8 flavor – granted, not something everyone would like, but not as bad as frogeye lights on the short hood…

[bogie_engineer]

I have little doubt this design is to give parts and service commonality with other Saudi power, and I spoze the DC power fits in with that. Of course if I were Progress, I’d be actively trying to sell them on DC-to-AC conversion projects…

I would be very interested to see the detail design of the traction-motor blower circulation – including the outlets.

One reason would be that EMD doesn’t have an AC motor that fits in the place of the D-series DC motors, the smallest is about 2" greater from axle to transom. The truck frame can be carved up but it’s a lot of work, especially to accommodate the dogbone link used for the nose support since the first AC motors at EMD. We shoehorned it in for the F69PH-AC’s but those were new castings done with pattern mods and some welded pieces added.

The motor bellows to the underframe and the motor air outlets are no different, but I can’t recall if there is a larger deflector at the lower outlet outside the wheel, which was there to avoid blowing so much stuff off the ballast. The traction motor blower and underframe ductwork is no different, other than the blower wheel may have more blades to compensate for the greater total system resistance. I never saw details of the filter system itself but the design was to take advantage of the clearance diagram and get the intake as high as possible.

[D.Carleton]

One reason would be that EMD doesn’t have an AC motor that fits in the place of the D-series DC motors, the smallest is about 2" greater from axle to transom. The truck frame can be carved up but it’s a lot of work, especially to accommodate the dogbone link used for the nose support since the first AC motors at EMD. We shoehorned it in for the F69PH-AC’s but those were new castings done with pattern mods and some welded pieces added.

Thank you for that. The F69 predates all of my coworkers and thus no one could tell me anything about it. In short, that traction motor is not a ready insert into a Blomberg. Curious about the ABB 3-phase traction motor used on the F40 202.

[MMLDelete]

Lithonia Operator
Calling that an ugly locomotive is unfair to the word “ugly.”

Looks more or less like a GP38 to me.

Admittedly that’s not much of a Bicentennial scheme, but I’ve seen worse paint on GM demonstrators…

I was referring to the GPL38S in the photo in the original post.

I just think the air filter box up there just kills it. Otherwise (albeit a huge “otherwise”) it looks fine. The paint scheme is okay; I like it, actually.

[Overmod]

I just think the air filter box up there just kills it.

It’s a funny thing. I’ve liked ‘humpbacked’ skylines, with big stuff behind and over the cab, since the days of the big Alco Centuries, including the dash-8-39s, but I think the low-nose GP30 is one of the worst looking locomotives of all time, right up there with the BL2 and the Gravel Gerties. And I didn’t think I’d get used to those ox-yoke air ducts any more than I thought I’d get used to that $1.35-of-loose-change-in-a-coffee-can idle of the PowerCerebrovascularAccidents either… but I did.

Had they painted the roof above the cab dripline black, most of the awful upness would be less obvious.

[BaltACD]

I just think the air filter box up there just kills it. Otherwise (albeit a huge “otherwise”) it looks fine. The paint scheme is okay; I like it, actually.

Without the airbox and its filters the engine itself would die in the sands of Arabia

[LensCapOn]

Modernized GP38? How about a modernized SDL39!

[M636C]

Modernized GP38? How about a modernized SDL39!

https://www.progressrail.com/en/Segments/RollingStock/Locomotives/FreightLocomotives/SDL38.html

There you go: same trucks, 8-710 ECO engine.

Outside Saudi Arabia you could skip the air filters.

Note, the SDL38 is loco 4321.

3534 is a modified SD50, illustration included in error.

Peter