Railroad Forums 

  • Progress Rail/Caterpillar PR43C mystery? 3005hp for UP?

  • All about locomotive rebuilders, small locomotive works, and experimental works
All about locomotive rebuilders, small locomotive works, and experimental works

Moderator: Komachi

 #684618  by MEC407
 
Yes, but I think that by "high horsepower" he meant 3000+, which rules out the gensets and the Brookvilles.
 #684643  by FCP503
 
I grew curious about the C175 engine family, and did a little reading. While Cat's offical literature seems rather short on real data, I read elsewhere that this engine family is designed to operate at 1500-1800rpm max speed. Read press release here: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199 ... s-new.html

Does the engine in the PR43C also operate in this rpm range?

I can understand the desire to operate at 1800rpm in a 60hz generation application (60x30=1800) or 1500 rpm for a 50hz app. (50x30=1500)

So I am wondering what max rpm Cat is using in the PR43C, since the output will be converted to DC. The old axiom "build it fast, or make it last" is rolling around in my mind here....

I'm also curious if this engine has the longer oil change intervals that railroads are accustomed to with medium speed engines (like the 710G and EVO12)
 #684694  by RickRackstop
 
There is a lot of confusion in engine rating systems. For instance the 12v4000 MTU engine M53 is rated at 1851 hp SAE for continuous and the M90 rating is 2736 hp SAE for light duty. In the Progress unit they have a16 cylinder C175 comparable to the MTU 16v4000 rated from M53 at 2467 hp SAE continuous up to M91 rating of 4613 hp SAE light duty. I think the CAT engine rating is in the medium duty region. Some where I read that even road locomotives spend up to 55% of their tine at idle. The EPA road locomotive load cycle reflects a rather low load factor so using souped up engines seems to make sense particularly for switching. The rating system makes more sense to me if you compare it to aircraft duty. Take off power equals maximum rated or light duty. Climb power is medium duty and high cruise power is continuous duty. My favorite is war emergency power. P47 fighters of WW 2 had safety wire in the throttle quadrant that if the pilot had to escape he broke the wire for more power When he escaped and returned to base the crew chief seeing the broken wire changed out the engine. So you have to be careful about these ratings. On the Boat Diesel forum there is a good explanation of this subject and his conclusion is that when you start going above 30 hp per liter of engine displacement you start getting high wear rates.
 #684855  by MEC407
 
when you start going above 30 hp per liter of engine displacement you start getting high wear rates.
Interesting.

If my math is correct, the GEVO-12 would be about 23.4 horsepower per litre of displacement (4400 HP / 188 litres).

GE could eventually raise the horsepower to 5000 and still be well under that 30 HP/litre limit.

Sorry for the random thoughts... back to our regularly scheduled program. :wink:
 #685165  by RickRackstop
 
EMD and GE are both about the same as far as rated horsepower per liter, the C175 is twice as much (46 hp/ lt) at 3600 hp and requires the other engine to get 4300 hp. I think the very approximate 30 hp figure is if you expect at least 2000 hours of service life. We still have no idea why they are using the "father - son" engine system. I would expect the locomotive was intended for switching or hump service where you move the light locomotive around with the "son" engine, do switching with the "father" engine and both together for a short hard shove. If you try to keep with the big boys they probably won't last.
 #685506  by Super Seis
 
Interesting and little known fact about Caterpillar: Back in 1986, they commissioned a study (in conjunction with Brown Boveri of Canada) that explored the possibility of entering the North American loco market. A few years later (1991 ?), the only MLW M-640 was converted to AC traction, with Brown Boveri equipment. Of course, MLW built their last new loco back in 1985.

SS
 #685884  by v8interceptor
 
Super Seis wrote:Interesting and little known fact about Caterpillar: Back in 1986, they commissioned a study (in conjunction with Brown Boveri of Canada) that explored the possibility of entering the North American loco market. A few years later (1991 ?), the only MLW M-640 was converted to AC traction, with Brown Boveri equipment. Of course, MLW built their last new loco back in 1985.

SS
And a few years later they really tried when they made a purchase offer to GM for EMD. IIRC, they made the highest offer but the Union at EMD's London, Ont. plant vetoed the deal...
I've always wondered if the MK5000C had been more succesfull would CAT have bought MK Rail/MPI before Wabtec could..
 #686186  by Allen Hazen
 
Super Seis--
Minor correction. CP 4744, the M640, was rebuilt with Brown-Boveri AC traction equipment in 1985. (So, five years after the German railways started using locomotives with variable frequency AC motors.) In the early or mid 1980s I recall a report in "Railway Age" that both main U.S. locomotive builders were thinking about AC locomotives, with GE thought to be more advanced. (In the end, GE's AC44 didn't hit the rails until about 1994, a year or two after EMD's SD60MAC and SD70MAC, but GE had supplied equipment with invertors and AC motors for transit cars before that.)
 #811658  by RickRackstop
 
I noticed that the units have been kept close to CAT's engineering headquarters near Peoria. Here's a description of the diesel itself. http://www.csanyigroup.com/caterpillar- ... -generator The 20 cylinder version is standard in the 250 ton mine truck that CAT builds replacing the CAT 3524, that's 2-3512's in tandem.