EMD to build North American passenger locomotives once again

BandA wrote:What does the urea do to operating costs? disposal/maintenance/supplies? (can't they just extract urea from the lavatories )

I'm not sure if there would be any disposal costs. You pour DEF into the reservoir and it's injected into the engine exhaust. When the reservoir is running low, you add more. It pretty much disposes of itself, similar to windshield washer fluid or sand or other consumables.

The problem with EMD today is its being run by a guy with a long resume in the scrap metal business. Seriously.

http://www.caterpillar.com/cda/layout?m=668603&x=7

Both builders, pre-CAT takeover, had an emphasis on meeting emissions standards through prime mover design. The EMD approach post-CAT seems to be changing to less durable CAT designs and silly appliance add-ons to existing EMD engine designs. The kind of approach one would expect from a guy with NO industry experience in critical component development. As a company, they are living off ghosts of the 75 year-old Engineering momentum from LaGrange and London, while assembling in Muncie for $14 an hour.

Some data on the diesel engine (C175-20) slated to be used in this locomotive. It is markedly more fuel hungry than the EMD 710 that it replaces. (244 gph vs 190 gph).
http://www.cat.com/cda/files/3416526/7/ ... 12470V.pdf

Wonderful...

;-\

Fan Railer wrote:Some data on the diesel engine (C175-20) slated to be used in this locomotive. It is markedly more fuel hungry than the EMD 710 that it replaces. (244 gph vs 190 gph).
http://www.cat.com/cda/files/3416526/7/ ... 12470V.pdf

Application not specified, and you're citing full load. How long would this be at full load pulling a passenger train?

amtrakowitz wrote:

Fan Railer wrote:Some data on the diesel engine (C175-20) slated to be used in this locomotive. It is markedly more fuel hungry than the EMD 710 that it replaces. (244 gph vs 190 gph).
http://www.cat.com/cda/files/3416526/7/ ... 12470V.pdf

Application not specified, and you're citing full load. How long would this be at full load pulling a passenger train?

Full load or not, one would think that if the difference in fuel usage at full load is that much, then all along the "rated rpm range" (1200-1800 [C175] vs 500-900 [710]), it would be safe to presume that the C175's fuel consumption is nominally greater than the 710's. But of course, this is only preliminary data, without rpm vs consumption comparison graphs, so I can not be 100% sure about my conjecture. Also, as far as I've seen, the application is not as much of a variable in the gph as is the rated power output. Then again, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

The only reason I went looking for this data, in fact, is because of the discussion on the ALP-45DP, which is also powered by CAT high speed diesels, and the fact that it demands more fuel than it's predecessors which are powered by medium speed diesels (like the 710).
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 0&start=30

KevinD wrote:The problem with EMD today is its being run by a guy with a long resume in the scrap metal business. Seriously.

http://www.caterpillar.com/cda/layout?m=668603&x=7

Both builders, pre-CAT takeover, had an emphasis on meeting emissions standards through prime mover design. The EMD approach post-CAT seems to be changing to less durable CAT designs and silly appliance add-ons to existing EMD engine designs. The kind of approach one would expect from a guy with NO industry experience in critical component development. As a company, they are living off ghosts of the 75 year-old Engineering momentum from LaGrange and London, while assembling in Muncie for $14 an hour.

The entire EMD senior mgmt. 'team' is all Ainsworth lackeys with little/no experience in the marketing/design of heavy duty road locomotives. Also of note is the fact that some EMD 'GM-lifers' with moribund careers have undergone 'miraculous' resurrections under PR ownership. Does EMD HQ belong in Albertville, AL ?

Sooner than later...CAT management is going to be revealed as being extremely dumb on this entire score.

Latest news on the EMD F125 locomotive (which is now being referred to as the "Spirit") from Railway Age:

Railway Age wrote:EMD on May 31 signed an agreement with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to supply up to 20 new-design EMD F125 low-emission Spirit series diesel-electric passenger locomotives for operation on Metrolink, the commuter rail service provider in Southern California.
. . .
The F125 Spirit consists of a streamlined Vossloh Rail Vehicles (VRV)-designed monocoque carbody with one control cab equipped with CEM (Crash Energy Management); a turbocharged, 20-cyclinder; four-stroke Cat® C-175 20 diesel engine; an AC traction propulsion system; VRV high-speed trucks; inverter-controlled HEP (head end power) . . .
. . .
EMD plans to assemble the locomotives at its Muncie facility in Indiana.

Read more at: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mec ... pirit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is an ugly-looking locomotive. Let's hope this is one that comes out looking better than the artist's conception.

It sort of looks like it's wearing a Darth Vader mask.

Looks like an evolution of the PL-42, which IIRC was a Vossloh carbody design also. (Yes I know they were technicaly Alstom units, but Vossloh was quite involved with them).

They don't say who's providing the inverters. That could be a make/break thing...

KevinD wrote:The problem with EMD today is its being run by a guy with a long resume in the scrap metal business. Seriously.

http://www.caterpillar.com/cda/layout?m=668603&x=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both builders, pre-CAT takeover, had an emphasis on meeting emissions standards through prime mover design. The EMD approach post-CAT seems to be changing to less durable CAT designs and silly appliance add-ons to existing EMD engine designs. The kind of approach one would expect from a guy with NO industry experience in critical component development. As a company, they are living off ghosts of the 75 year-old Engineering momentum from LaGrange and London, while assembling in Muncie for $14 an hour.

I would bet that the Cat engine was chosen as being a much lighter 4000hp+ engine. A 16-cyl. 710 engine would have been much too heavy for the application, let alone 125mph.

Yea, it kinda does look like a PL42.....a PL42-2 if you will......hahaha

As NJT has found with the ALP45 dual mode locos, the Caterpillar powered engines are VERY thursty, like an unbelievable amount of thurst. Couple that to small fuel tanks (again, for weight issues) and their range is kind of limited and definitely has to be considered in advance before dispatching one. It seems like CAT engines are relatively efficient in yard service, (as NJT has found with the MP20 switchers) but when the locos are running under full power out on the road.......drink drink drink drink.

Running the PL42 on a daily basis, I can say for a fact one of the biggest problems with it is grip on the rails. The ALP45 has much better traction. But it pretty much has the same wheel slip/slide system that is in the ALP46As, which works VERY well.

But that much power in a 4 axle loco, and a "lightweight" loco to boot like the Spirit is supposed to be, they BETTER have an excellent WSS system on it or its going to be absolutely useless...and a large fuel tank, or a fuel tender!

Just for comparison, a fully-equipped E9A (2x 12-567) weighed about 315,000 lbs over six axles, an FP7 (16-567) weighed about 258,000 lbs, the F59PHI (12-710) is listed as weighing about 265,000 lbs, and the DE30AC (12-710) weighs a smidge over 280,000 lbs - about the same as the proposed F125, though with 1,700 less horsepower on tap. And yes, I'm still dreaming about an E10ECO rebuild with a pair of 8-710s and steerable trucks

mtuandrew wrote:And yes, I'm still dreaming about an E10ECO rebuild with a pair of 8-710s and steerable trucks

You and me both!