• GE rolls out 1000th Evolution Series loco

  • 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
 
Let's put this train back on the rails, folks. :wink:

  by trainiac
 
That rate was when they were new. Their current availability rate on UP has fallen below the GE Dash9's not to mention the GEVO's. [...]

Better lease terms on GE + better fuel efficiency + better long term availibility.
I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but I think a couple of corrections are needed.

--The SD70M had an availability of 97-98% when new. It has dropped to 94-96%.
--The oldest (ex-SP) SD70M's have been outlasting newer GE's on the UP, going a million miles before major overhauls compared to an average of 750,000 with GE's.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... ,nodelay=1
--The 4000-4300 hp EMD 710 is between 1.5% and 4% more fuel-efficient than the 4400 hp GE FDL.
http://www.ontruck.org/update/pdf/Locom ... ssions.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/1020 ... lemssn.pdf

None of this really has anything to do with the GEVO vs. ACe debate, nor indeed with GEVO's at all (the original topic). So... 'nuff said.

  by WebInfo
 
trainiac wrote:
That rate was when they were new. Their current availability rate on UP has fallen below the GE Dash9's not to mention the GEVO's. [...]

Better lease terms on GE + better fuel efficiency + better long term availibility.
I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but I think a couple of corrections are needed.

--The SD70M had an availability of 97-98% when new. It has dropped to 94-96%.
--The oldest (ex-SP) SD70M's have been outlasting newer GE's on the UP, going a million miles before major overhauls compared to an average of 750,000 with GE's.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... ,nodelay=1
--The 4000-4300 hp EMD 710 is between 1.5% and 4% more fuel-efficient than the 4400 hp GE FDL.
http://www.ontruck.org/update/pdf/Locom ... ssions.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/1020 ... lemssn.pdf

None of this really has anything to do with the GEVO vs. ACe debate, nor indeed with GEVO's at all (the original topic). So... 'nuff said.
Ok, if believing those figures makes you sleep better at night, more power to you. We can discuss this topic again next year when GE has sold their 3,000th Evolution and EMD has got an order for 4 more 70's.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPRR Engineer: Hey, no hard feelings--just wanted to know why you were asking. I actually started my career in operations at UP, so it's cool you work for them. That "Trains Magazine Expert" comment was funny--like those morons at Kalmbach know anything about real railroading anyway.

  by Nelson Bay
 
WebInfo wrote:I'm not pretending nothing. I'm a corporate consultant to UP among others in the industry. Crunching numbers like locomotive availability rate and making long term recomendations is what I do. You would have to be brain dead to lease an EMD now. Why? Better lease terms on GE + better fuel efficiency + better long term availibility.

How is availability calculated? Is down time for scheduled maintenance a factor?

  by Alcoman
 
Heck! Those 30+ year old ALCO'S on the A&M have 96-98% avaliabilty rating which in my book speaks very well about the maintenance on the A&M compared to the UP.

  by MEC407
 
What is A&M's maintenance interval, though? I've heard that many Alco-only roads use a 30-day or 60-day maintenance schedule, compared to 90-day or even 180-day specified by EMD and GE these days.

  by chicagorails
 
since gm is 500,000 dollars more than a ge more rrs sometimes buy the ge.

  by Luther Brefo
 
MEC407 wrote:What is A&M's maintenance interval, though? I've heard that many Alco-only roads use a 30-day or 60-day maintenance schedule, compared to 90-day or even 180-day specified by EMD and GE these days.
90 day is standard and normal. But for over 30 year old engines, they are doing mighty fine. :wink:

  by Engineer Spike
 
I like the fact that with the new ES series, GE finally built a unit that loads quick, like an EMD! The AC44 or -9 is very hard to keep speed, if using throttle modulation, in rolling hills.

  by GN 599
 
Big deal another GEVO, who cares. They rank up there with the trash 8 or 9. As far as actually operating one they are the same as the two previously mentioned. At least with a dash 7 you could get them to blow flames. The only time a GE is good is on a long pull, period. I have to give them that.

  by CSX-Dan5377
 
GEVO's are in my opion replacing SD40-2s because everone is buying them and sure SD40-2 where great but GEVO are very popular and flexable

  by trainiac
 
GEVO's are in my opion replacing SD40-2s because everone is buying them and sure SD40-2 where great but GEVO are very popular and flexable
True enough--but the SD40-2 is still hanging in there, and I think it's actually better-suited to non-heavy-haul service than a GEVO (a new GEVO on a 2-car local looks a little strange ;-) ) On some roads many SD40-2's were already replaced by SD70M's and Dash-9's by the time the GEVO arrived. It also seems as if older GE's are being replaced by GEVO's (NS C39-8's come to mind).

  by Nasadowsk
 
Of course, the EMD vs GE debate might become moot in a year: The EPA is looking to tighten diesel loco emissions, and the reductions they're talking about (on the order of 80 - 90% lower than today's current standard) will basically mean EMD won't have any choice - the current engines just won't be able to comply at all.

EMD right now does not have the money to develop a new prime mover. You're talking a 100 million dollar outlay. It's likely that 2 strokes won't comply, and the H engine was a dead end.

Of course, I'm sure GE won't complain - the EPA's basically going to legislate their only competitors in the market out of the bussiness.
The EPA right now believes it's seriously underestimating the overall emissions from diesel trains, and the pressure is on from states to clean them up.

The interesting thing is, this might finally push mainline electrification (especially if the EPA does nothing NOW), and GE might not be opposed to that - EMD would be dead in the water, along with MPI, vs GE on any electric order, and GE could easily hold their own in the freight market vs Europe (though in passenger, they'd be dead meat in the short term - big whoop for a market segment that amounts to nothing anyway).

(Of course, GM likely saw this coming, which is why they dumped EMD in the first place)

I do find the timing interesting -right after the GEVO gets it major debugging and becomes at least somewhat proven in the field, the EPA looks to tighen things up...

  by trainiac
 
Gee, Nasadowsk, that's a pretty glum vision for EMD (not to mention GE--lack of competition is not a good thing) but I don't see the 4-stroke vs. 2-stroke debate playing a huge role in the near future, if at all.
Of course, the EMD vs GE debate might become moot in a year:
The new EPA standards aren't slated for application until 2011 or later.
The EPA is looking to tighten diesel loco emissions, and the reductions they're talking about (on the order of 80 - 90% lower than today's current standard) will basically mean EMD won't have any choice - the current engines just won't be able to comply at all.
In terms of pollution numbers, the pre-Tier II FDL and 710 showed more variation among themselves than against each other--so I think any advantage the GEVO has over the 710 would be negligible compared to such a huge reduction in emissions. In any case, I'm pretty sure neither the GEVO nor the 710 on its own would be able to meet such lofty targets. However, unlike Tier-II, the targets are based on the use of catalytic exhaust after-treatment and low-sulphur diesel fuel--technologies that will work on either a 710 or a GEVO.
EMD right now does not have the money to develop a new prime mover. You're talking a 100 million dollar outlay. It's likely that 2 strokes won't comply, and the H engine was a dead end.
Why wouldn't EMD be able to use the H engine? It was originally intended to be EMD's Tier-II offering. And after all, GE did pretty much the same when they used the trouble-prone HDL as a base for the vastly more successful GEVO. But then again, it doesn't really matter if none of the existing engines are capable of meeting targets on their own anyway.

Here's where all my babbling is coming from, by the way :wink:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/1020 ... lemssn.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/nonroad/420f04041.htm

  by WebInfo
 
trainiac wrote:Gee, Nasadowsk, that's a pretty glum vision for EMD (not to mention GE--lack of competition is not a good thing) but I don't see the 4-stroke vs. 2-stroke debate playing a huge role in the near future, if at all.
Of course, the EMD vs GE debate might become moot in a year:
The new EPA standards aren't slated for application until 2011 or later.
The EPA is looking to tighten diesel loco emissions, and the reductions they're talking about (on the order of 80 - 90% lower than today's current standard) will basically mean EMD won't have any choice - the current engines just won't be able to comply at all.
In terms of pollution numbers, the pre-Tier II FDL and 710 showed more variation among themselves than against each other--so I think any advantage the GEVO has over the 710 would be negligible compared to such a huge reduction in emissions. In any case, I'm pretty sure neither the GEVO nor the 710 on its own would be able to meet such lofty targets. However, unlike Tier-II, the targets are based on the use of catalytic exhaust after-treatment and low-sulphur diesel fuel--technologies that will work on either a 710 or a GEVO.
EMD right now does not have the money to develop a new prime mover. You're talking a 100 million dollar outlay. It's likely that 2 strokes won't comply, and the H engine was a dead end.
Why wouldn't EMD be able to use the H engine? It was originally intended to be EMD's Tier-II offering. And after all, GE did pretty much the same when they used the trouble-prone HDL as a base for the vastly more successful GEVO. But then again, it doesn't really matter if none of the existing engines are capable of meeting targets on their own anyway.

Here's where all my babbling is coming from, by the way :wink:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/1020 ... lemssn.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/nonroad/420f04041.htm
Those sources you quote in your "babbling" are out dated with the GEVO engine.

My sources within GE are telling me that they have secured at least another 2000 GEVO orders on top of what has been delivered or is currently under construction.

If the current GEVO doesn't kill EMD, the half billion $$ they are putting into the hybrid version will.