Why no B-B anymore?

NV290 wrote:

v8interceptor wrote:

NV290 wrote:The last 4 axle units built for a class 1 were the GP60'S (Inclduing B Units) for the ATSF. EMD offered the 70 series as a GP70 but nobody ordered any. The 90's was all about building higher horespower 6 axle units with the idea that you could pull bigger trains with fewer units. And the idea worked. 6 Axle units have much higher tractive effort then there 4 axle counterparts and the less locomotives you need per train, the less cost. The railroads moved their 4 axle fleets off to local and yard use primarily and all was fine.

But now those 4 axle units are getting alot older. And railroads have been looking at new 4 axles. But as has been said, GE and EMD are not offering anything. Both companies are still doing just fine churning out 6 axle units on orders hundreds deep. And unless a railroad is willing to order hundreds of 4 axle units, it's unlikley EMD or GE will offer any. So rebuilds abound as well as the GenSet models. I regulary use GP40's from the 70's and 80's on yard jobs and locals and the vast majority of them still work great. There is no failure epidemic right now or on the immediate horizon for 4 axles. They will make due with what they have untill the time comes. And at that point, you will start to see some new 4 axle power roll off the assembly line of GE or EMD.

If Ge and EMD are "offering nothing" what would you call the GP22ECO(some ordered by KCS) and ES22B? Yes, they utilize some remanufactured components but so did many of the "new built" second generation GP units. By that reasoning a GP15-1 wasn't a "New" locomotive"...

It's still not a "new" locomotive from the ground up. That was (at least what i interpreted) what this thread was asking. They are rebuilds, and yes, just like the GP15-1. Virtually every class 1 does major rebuilding work and creates "new" locomotives. But at the end of the day, it's still a rebuilt unit. Just because a manufacturer does the work and gives it a new model designation does not give it the same signifigance as a locomotive engineered from the ground up. There are lots of companies now buying decrepit old hulks and modernizing them with gensets and new electronic control systems and selling them as a "new" locomotive. To some people, maybe they are. To me, it's a rebuild.

Everyone is certainly entitled to there own opinion of what constitutes "new". If you think a recycled frame, trucks and a good deal of the carbody with a new prime mover and electronics means something is the same as an actual entireley new design, then to each his own.

If EMD builds a GP70ACe or GE builds an Dash 9-44BW (for example) then you can say they are actually making new 4 axle units. You even mention GE is offering an ES22B. Its not listed anywhere on their website. Even if you do a search. That hardly sounds like they are pushing them.

And on the subject of GE 4 axles... There is a reason GE never had luck selling them in the past, and the same problem still exsists. GE's load far too slow for local work and yard switching. It's simply the design of them. Our brand new, 1 month old ES44AC's load just as slow as our Dash 7's. GE's are fine on the road, when grouped with other GE's, but in the yard? No way. JUNK!. I would be amazed if any class 1 bought GE 4 axle units for yard/local work.

Your point about the GE's slow loading is one I've read many times. Does it have to do with "turbolag" or is it the electrical system? I would note that GE did manage to sell many U23Bs and B23-7s which were their competitor to the EMD GP38 series. Then again, as you point out, there is a reason the 38's keep "going and going" while most of the U boats and Dash 7s were recycled into Hyundais.
As far as the ES22B the document I posted the link to is an official GE release(it amy not be up on their webpage however) but I suspect that the company would need to see a major order to really promote it (and O.C there's plenty of competition in that market).
I once speculated on another forum that perhaps there would be a market for new high horsepower BB road freight units if and when the big class 1's develop the high speed freight (up to 100MPH) service that has been discussed and researched. The FRA test facility in Pueblo has run a train of modified freight cars on one of their test tracks at these speeds in recent years. But another poster on that forum (a railroader by trade) responded that the standard EMD and GE 6 Axle freight units were entierely capable of performing efficiently and economically in such service...

There are 2 functions of the governor that can be confused. One is how fast it follows the change in load, I guess the droop function as in a generator responding to a sudden change in load while maintaining a constant speed. The other is where there is a change in speed signal with or without a load on the engine and there is a built in time delay function controlled in the governor
chopper valve. As I understand this the setting is arbitrarily set so that when the engine execrates there will be minimal exhaust smoke. On EMD blower engines its about 8 seconds and on turbo its about 12 seconds. This is because of the fast reaction of the engine driven air pump.
Crowely Maritime ordered several engines with a very fast chopper valve and always got a good column of smoke with every move of the control handles. EMD was able to use the fast air moving qualities of the gear driven turbo on it model 999 nuclear fast start units where on receiving a start signal the rack instantaneously slams against the stop. This allows a stopped engine to go from o rpm to synchronous speed and pick up 100% load in 10 seconds.

4 stroke engines with free turning turbos have to deal with turbo lag. Alco's have a reputation for loading fast at the price of lots of exhaust smoke. GE has to avoid this by using a chopper valve with a very small orifice to avoid smoke but with a slow load pick up. I suspect that the GEVO engines have 2 small turbos with greatly reduced inertia to speed things up. MTU have been using multiple turbos for this purpose for a long time and some high output CAT 3516 engines have 4 turbos. Some of this CAT engine are being used in switching service but probably at the lower rating but still with 2 turbos. The GEVO 6 and 8 inline engines are only a single turbo so I think that the requirement for fast loading will be hard to achieve.

RickRackstop wrote:I suspect that the GEVO engines have 2 small turbos with greatly reduced inertia to speed things up.

The conventional GEVO-12, which is the most common model being used in all the new ES4400 series units (both AC and DC versions) has a single turbo. They have a low idle speed of 330 and a normal idle speed of 440. Full RPM is 1050 to achieve 4,500 GHP. I agree, that two small turbos would probably help, but the GE engineers must know something we dont.

The only twin turbo GE engines i am aware of is the 7HDL16A and the new GEVO16, which is the engine used in thier 6,000 HP CW60AC. But it's only available now to the export market due to emmision regulations. Supposedly the new 6,000 HP GEVO type engine will have the same output as the HDL version and the same Bore and Stroke of 250x320mm.

Ive run the CAT 3516 in switching service (NJT's new switcher, rebuild from old geeps) and it is okay, but personally I prefer a Geep. It does load pretty fast for a 4 stroke, but also has a "road/switch" switch which really helps make up for the slower loading, but the power delievery is far from smooth and at times, erratic, especially in switch mode. the Road mode is a little more predictable, but it just don't have the nuts from the get go to do much.

They do have a bit of a "smoking" problem, but not quite "Alco'ish". I would say it takes them about 15-18 or so seconds to get to full load.

However, lugging a long set of cars, espeically if you need to use a lot of throttle, the engine just runs out of ooommmppp. Its got nothing. Say for example, pulling (or better yet shoving) 10-15-20 cars, its in notch 6-7-8, going about 10mph, your cond slows you down because he can't see the next switch if lined. "okay, switch is lined, come back another X cars" - going back for power, there simply is nothing. It will go to notch 8, and make a LOT of noise (I think the GP40 cab is MUCH quieter than this thing, and sounds a lot like a GP9 with the whine of the Generator, but amplified...) but the Ammeter just isn't going anywhere. Ive actually stalled out a few times. I had to stop, go to idle, let it sit a minute and then start over, meanwhile the yardie is like "whatcha doin?"

Ive also had some of my first experiences drilling with a GE..........wow, that was...........exciting

It seems like it doing the opposite of what I wanted it to do!

- Im stopped, I throttle out, I want power to move (what a concept!).
- Okay, Im at speed, I throttle off, put some brakes on (or just coast) and she's still loading away speed getting higher and higher
- then i put too much brake on, to slow it down, then i need more power, and the whole cycle repeats it self

I know Im a rookie of sorts to GEs but jeez!!!! They are a PITA!

I was so happy last night, I had a plan ol GP40-2 to work with, what a treat!

Jtgshu wrote:Ive run the CAT 3516 in switching service (NJT's new switcher, rebuild from old geeps) and it is okay, but personally I prefer a Geep. It does load pretty fast for a 4 stroke, but also has a "road/switch" switch which really helps make up for the slower loading, but the power delievery is far from smooth and at times, erratic, especially in switch mode. the Road mode is a little more predictable, but it just don't have the nuts from the get go to do much.

They do have a bit of a "smoking" problem, but not quite "Alco'ish". I would say it takes them about 15-18 or so seconds to get to full load.

However, lugging a long set of cars, espeically if you need to use a lot of throttle, the engine just runs out of ooommmppp. Its got nothing. Say for example, pulling (or better yet shoving) 10-15-20 cars, its in notch 6-7-8, going about 10mph, your cond slows you down because he can't see the next switch if lined. "okay, switch is lined, come back another X cars" - going back for power, there simply is nothing. It will go to notch 8, and make a LOT of noise (I think the GP40 cab is MUCH quieter than this thing, and sounds a lot like a GP9 with the whine of the Generator, but amplified...) but the Ammeter just isn't going anywhere. Ive actually stalled out a few times. I had to stop, go to idle, let it sit a minute and then start over, meanwhile the yardie is like "whatcha doin?"

Ive also had some of my first experiences drilling with a GE..........wow, that was...........exciting

It seems like it doing the opposite of what I wanted it to do!

- Im stopped, I throttle out, I want power to move (what a concept!).
- Okay, Im at speed, I throttle off, put some brakes on (or just coast) and she's still loading away speed getting higher and higher
- then i put too much brake on, to slow it down, then i need more power, and the whole cycle repeats it self

I know Im a rookie of sorts to GEs but jeez!!!! They are a PITA!

I was so happy last night, I had a plan ol GP40-2 to work with, what a treat!

Ill probably never get to mess with the CAT's, but ill take your word for it.

But i agree with you on the GE's. I have no real issue with them on the road. Especially when your consist is all GE's. But for switching or even making a setoff or pickup, simply miserable. They take forever to get up to speed and then they dont want to come down.

For the record GE's new engine - V250 is 250mm x 320mm ( 9.8" x12.6")bore and stroke is the same as the GEVO engine in locomotives and only comes in V12 and V16 versions for the rail business. At this time the inline 6 and inline 8 are marine engines only with a marine accessory rack, deep marine oil pan, exhaust pyrometers, explosion covers, marine governor and other instrumentation required by the various classification societies for marine service. Both the 12 and 16 cylinder engines have 2 turbochargers in both rail and marine versions. The 6 and 8 only have one and can be installed at either end . This is so that if its on the front end away from the propeller the exhaust will line up with the stack which is usually way forward, thus avoiding angling the exhaust pipe from the rear to the front of the engine room.

The V228 familiar as the FDL engine 7FD in marine parlence is 228.6mm x 266.7mm (9" x10.5") bore and stroke is sold as a V8, V12, V16 and each has only one turbo.

Fast load pick up is not an issue in offshore service as in fishing boats, tugs, even ferries as they run at a steady load. Harbor tugs is another matter.

Now if they only go for turbo compounding like Detroit Diesel's new truck engine they might have something.

the 6 and 8 inline GEVO is also made for rail industry as per GE anouncement a few weeks ago.
the only documentation of such engines is currently only available on marine sites.

I don't want to quote "jtgshu" yet again but I think that he gets at the heart of the matter for medium horsepower 4 axle locomotive and that is they will have to do a lot of switching. High speed engines like CAT , MTU, Cummins et al, are rated at 1600 rpm to 2300 rpm are probably the wave of the future. I've been thinking about the lack of responsiveness of 4 stroke engines. Jtgshu mentioned that there was a selector switch for "switching". I see it as it speeds up the base speed analogous to down shifting for a hill on my truck transmission. Probably should run about 1000 rpm, completely negating any fuel saving over the old GP 38's 16 cylinder blower engine.

The high speed engines have become so complex that they require a factory train technician to maintain them in fact CAT in not only willing to finance all this they usually sell it with a service contact. That should be feasable because switchers don't wander very far from home base.

MEC407 wrote:

atsf sp wrote:Basically what im asking is why does GE and EMD, not the smaller companies, not want to invest in creating a new design rather than just rebuilding old designs?

Because the railroads are not currently interested in 3000HP-4000HP 4-axle freight locomotives. If the railroads wanted them, GE and EMD would be happy to comply. The only reason GE and EMD stopped making, for instance, the GP60 and B40-8 is because none of the railroads were ordering them anymore. You can't keep making something if nobody wants it, you know?

Something the Big Three automakers should learn!

Stuart

There is something to remember with all of this:

First is that since the mid 60's four axle units have always been models identical to their six-axle counter parts. (Example GP40 and SD40, U30B and U30C).

Second is that as the horse power get's higher and higher, one has to wonder if you can really distribute 5,000 or 6,000 hp over only 4 axles. Or if you can do you get the correct tractive effort and not wheel slip.

It's interesting that back in the 70's the Milwaukee Road did a study into 4 and 6 axle units. They concluded that once a train got up to speed there was little to no difference between 4 and 6 axles. The SD40-2's were to be the last 6 axle unit the railroad was going to buy. Simply because they came to conclusion that the extra cost and maintenance associated with 6 axles wasn't worth the cost, both initial and overhead. Now one has to remember the Milwaukee had most of it's trackage in areas that were covered with high grades, also tonnages of freight cars has gone up over the last 30 years and trains have gotten longer, so who knows if that study would still hold water today. My guess is that it wouldn't, based on the fact that ATSF GP60's have been the last 4 axle units bought in North America.

Somone else on this post is correct also. There are loads of left over 4 axel units all over the place. As far as what is cheaper, rebuildilng an old loco for transfer/yard service, or buy a multi-million dollar new one? The answer is clear. Plus, many roads have started using 6 axle units in these roles. UP uses rebuilt SD40-2's for hump and yard service in North Plate. BNSF regularly uses rebuilt SD40's with remote control in Galesburg for their yard service.

In many ways, except for passenger service, I think we have seen the end of the usefullness of the 4 axle locomotive. Who knows, maybe sometime in the future this will change, but it is the trend for the forseeable future.

drgw-sd45 wrote:There is something to remember with all of this:

First is that since the mid 60's four axle units have always been models identical to their six-axle counter parts. (Example GP40 and SD40, U30B and U30C).

Second is that as the horse power get's higher and higher, one has to wonder if you can really distribute 5,000 or 6,000 hp over only 4 axles. Or if you can do you get the correct tractive effort and not wheel slip.

It's interesting that back in the 70's the Milwaukee Road did a study into 4 and 6 axle units. They concluded that once a train got up to speed there was little to no difference between 4 and 6 axles. The SD40-2's were to be the last 6 axle unit the railroad was going to buy. Simply because they came to conclusion that the extra cost and maintenance associated with 6 axles wasn't worth the cost, both initial and overhead. Now one has to remember the Milwaukee had most of it's trackage in areas that were covered with high grades, also tonnages of freight cars has gone up over the last 30 years and trains have gotten longer, so who knows if that study would still hold water today. My guess is that it wouldn't, based on the fact that ATSF GP60's have been the last 4 axle units bought in North America.

Somone else on this post is correct also. There are loads of left over 4 axel units all over the place. As far as what is cheaper, rebuildilng an old loco for transfer/yard service, or buy a multi-million dollar new one? The answer is clear. Plus, many roads have started using 6 axle units in these roles. UP uses rebuilt SD40-2's for hump and yard service in North Plate. BNSF regularly uses rebuilt SD40's with remote control in Galesburg for their yard service.

In many ways, except for passenger service, I think we have seen the end of the usefullness of the 4 axle locomotive. Who knows, maybe sometime in the future this will change, but it is the trend for the forseeable future.

I think that most RR's are going to give the gen-sets a whirl, but in the end, they are going to end up keeping their 4 axle power and rebuilding it yet again. BNSF is rebuiding some of their GP35s yet again, and NS is basically building brand new GP38s from older GP38s and 40s.

Rickrackstop makes a good point that I didn't notice before with regards to switch vs. road mode in these higher speed prime mover engines. How much does the fuel efficency (and emissions now!) suffer when in switch mode when the prime mover is running at half or 2/3 or 3/4 max RPMs but only in notch 1, 2, 3 or 4? And compare that to a GP38 or 40 which is just in notch 1, 2, 3 or 4. And now a new option, to compare the older prime mover in the '38 or 40 to the ECO repower units with the V8 or V12.

I think that what is going to end up happening is not unlike the Green Goats. Great in concept, loads of potential, but when reality sets in, and those motors are in service in North American railroading, its conditions and abuse and maintence, or lack their of, the much touted benefits of these things is going disappear very quickly.

Funny you mention the CAT maintence contracts being sold with the locomotives. There was a very large Cat repair truck at my RR's shop, and low and behold, they were working on one of the CAT powered switchers. 2 of its sisters (there are 5 total) were in the shops as well that day, for at my count, a total of 3 in the shops or waiting to come in, leaving 2 actually in service, and none at that yard, but outlying yards.

RE; CAT powered locomotives. What a deal they have, the CAT dealer that is, sounds like the reverse of EMD's success in Great Britain where they sold fewer locomotives because of the high availability rate that they have been able to sustain. The 22ECO and 32ECO will guarantee that the older units can work in sensitive regions, do the switching and still run at run 8 with the big boys. All that and get a greenie award. There is also something afoot for roots blown engines. Most of there problem is due to high lube oil consumption at low loads that slobbers up the exhaust. New piston ring sets cut this in half. Even GE sells an "emission improvement" kits. They published a ASME paper about a test on a GP38 they did that would reach Tier2 except at idle, run 1, and run 2, if they can vary the speed of the blowers with some gadget? Another company, Miratech, is working on after treatment catalyst treatment but has durability problems. This is for the 8 and 12 cylinder engines. I think it would be very amusing if they can get a switcher from the 40's under the T2 wire.

You know when you look at all of this new tech, all I can do is think back to all of the other "new tech." that has been touted over the years as saying, "THIS IS GOING TO REPLACE THE DIESEL-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE FOREVER!" Then when time came to prove it, it failed and everyone sent back to tried and true. Gas turbines, diesel-hydralics, electrics (like the GG-1), and others all said they were better. I all just makes makes me *sigh* at articles that talk about GE's new hybrid-locomotive, etc.

American Railroads are hard on their locomotives. They travel far more miles then railroads in Europen, through territory like the Rocky Moutains, the deserts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, the sub-zero temperatures in Alaska and the midwest, and the 99% humidity of the South like Mississippi and Florida. There is a reason that railroads have choosen the diesel-electric locomotive. They picked it to replace steam and with little exception haven't strayed from it for almost 70 years. Honestly, I can't think of anything replacing it anytime soon.

Only if the government keeps pushing emmision stanndards are railroads going to have to over-complicate an already working proven model. Even these hybrid automobiles are showing issues when it comes to extreme weather conditions with temps below 0F and above 100F.

Now that we have all gotten off topic don't know what Gen-sets and Green goats have to do with railroads moving to 6 axle unit. Except that it is a vain attempt replace existing 4 axles in places like California.

drgw-sd45 wrote:Only if the government keeps pushing emmision stanndards are railroads going to have to over-complicate an already working proven model.

I think you can count on Diesel being the next pollutant the EPA attacks, be it a truck, a reserve power generation station, or a locomotive.

John_Perkowski wrote:

drgw-sd45 wrote:Only if the government keeps pushing emmision stanndards are railroads going to have to over-complicate an already working proven model.

I think you can count on Diesel being the next pollutant the EPA attacks, be it a truck, a reserve power generation station, or a locomotive.

With the new emission standards coming, i would say the attack is on. Caterpillar is bowing out of some engine lines now and locomotive builders are having to look into new options with thier prime movers as well.