• Fuel Usage

  • Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.
Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.

Moderators: AMTK84, MEC407

  by MEC407
 
GE's current locomotives for the American market use a 12-cylinder,
four-cycle engine that generates 4,500hp.

EMD's current locomotives for the American market use a 16-cylinder,
two-cycle engine that generates 4,300hp.

Would it be safe to assume that the GE engine is more fuel efficient than
the EMD engine?

Thoughtful responses appreciated. :)

  by TerryC
 
I read in TRAINS magazine some thing along the lines of this. "The difference in fuel usage if there is a certain amount of G.E locomotives can be a 1 million dollar saving over E.M.D locmotives." That would explain why Norfolk Southern buys so many G.E units. On top of that, the units those units have a reduced horsepower rating resulting in even more fuel being saved.

KEEP ASKING KEEP LEARNING
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=20871
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=50449
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=80856

  by WebInfo
 
Staying with the fuel sucking 2 cycle was a big mistake by EMD. The bone heads that run EMD never had the foresight to see that fuel prices were going to go so high. They were banking that they could sell some units to the RRs because the 710 was a known quantity vs. the new Evolution engine. When it come down to it, the RRs care more about money, and if you can save millions per year with the Evolution on fuel cost, you better believe the RRs will be going with GE.

  by Santa Fe Sucks
 
WebInfo wrote:Staying with the fuel sucking 2 cycle was a big mistake by EMD. The bone heads that run EMD never had the foresight to see that fuel prices were going to go so high. They were banking that they could sell some units to the RRs because the 710 was a known quantity vs. the new Evolution engine. When it come down to it, the RRs care more about money, and if you can save millions per year with the Evolution on fuel cost, you better believe the RRs will be going with GE.
As I say, GM can't built a car right, what makes you think they can build a locomotive any better?

  by trainiac
 
"Thoughtful responses appreciated"...... Fuel sucking 2 cycle? Bone heads that run EMD? Come on! I support both the GEVO AND the ACe, but I wouldn't make silly statements of either of them without having something to back me up! So in an attempt to be unbiased, I have done some research and have couple of comments/speculations on the above responses:

The 710 has years of reliable service behind it. The GEVO doesn't. EVEN IF the GEVO were to save millions in fuel costs, it ***may possibly*** present maintenance problems that counterbalance the fuel savings. We don't know. I have heard that BNSF has had alternator problems with the GEVOs, though it is likely a minor teething problem that will be worked out.

Secondly, does a GE actually save millions in fuel use over EMD? I have been able to find two separate government sources that give, among other things, fuel consumption information for the 710 and the 4400-hp FDL:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/transport/publicati ... g/x1_e.htm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/1020 ... lemssn.pdf

Both of these sources put the 710 AHEAD of the 7FDL in terms of bsfc (brake-specific fuel consumption, in pounds per horsepower-hour). Multiple sources indicate that the GEVO will have a 3% decrease in fuel consumption compared to the 7FDL.

Using numbers from the sources above, the GEVO will, in one case, be more efficient than the 710 and in the other case be less efficient.

In other words, based on these two sources, it's a draw, and NEITHER locomotive will save huge amounts of money in fuel over the other.


**These calculations were based on the non-Tier II 710, since I was not able to find numbers for the newer engine.

  by mxdata
 
And when you subject diesel engines to varying load and different rates of load application, the steady state fuel consumption figures go right out the window and whichever engine sucks the least fuel per kilowatt hour produced while you are freezing your butt off in the middle of Iowa watching the instrumentation at ten degrees below zero with a -45 chill index is the winner.

Been there, done that.

  by MEC407
 
Thanks to all who posted thoughtful responses to my question, especially Mike Eby. :-D

  by trainiac
 
You're welcome :-D I was curious myself to see how the fuel economy figures stacked up.

  by videobruce
 
I prefer Alco's myself. :wink:
Didn't I see something that EMD (GM) was selling off that division to someone else?

  by trainiac
 
GM sold EMD to Greenbriar.

  by videobruce
 
Thought it was something as that. When was that and who is Greenbriar?

  by MEC407
 
videobruce wrote:Thought it was something as that. When was that and who is Greenbriar?
It happened back in January.

Here is the discussion at the EMD forum:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9850

  by slchub
 
My engine service instuctor once said GE's are very fuel effecient because half the time they are shut down on thier own accord.