Railroad Forums 

  • GENERAL ELECTRIC PASSENGER DIESELS

  • General discussion about locomotives, rolling stock, and equipment
General discussion about locomotives, rolling stock, and equipment

Moderator: John_Perkowski

 #876673  by RAY
 
When Amtrak chooses to place a substantial order for new diesels, should it twist GE's arm to re-enter the passenger locomotive business, or are there other off-the-shelf high speed passenger diesels out there, superior to GE?
 #876760  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Pacific 2-3-1 wrote:GE once tried to acquire ownership of The Budd Company's Railway Division, but was prevented from doing so on anti-trust grounds.
That's interesting. I don't see any antitrust issues about that seeing GE as in the locomotive and propulsion field and Budd with passenger cars. Vertical integration.
 #876849  by DutchRailnut
 
Despite EMD announcing they want to built passenger locomotives I doubt they get far with current engine block designs.
Put todays EPA restrictions on a new EMD and it will be slow as molases too.
its far more likely to see a new passenger diesel come from MPI in form of HSP46 locomotive in both a single and dual mode version.
keep eye out on MBTA in 2012 for what that will bring.
 #876898  by pebbleworm
 
Caltrans is running EMD F59PHIs that meet tier 2 standards -
http://www.equinoxcenter.org/assets/fil ... otives.pdf
I rode behind one on the San Joaquin and it was pretty darn speedy from where I was sitting. 15 minutes early is always a good thing. Emission controls don't always mean lower performance or efficiency, despite what bankrupt Detroit automakers want you to believe.
 #876919  by tnbirke
 
The slow loading is important in start/stop situations (commuter) more than in long distance service. The EMD turbochargers are gear driven through about Run 4 so there is plenty of air into the engine even at low speeds. The GE turbochargers are totally exhaust driven so load up slower...and also sometimes produce excessive smoke.
 #876923  by Matt Johnson
 
The ideal would be an EMD powerplant in the GE Genesis body, with its reasonable weight and stable, smooth riding high speed trucks. The Genesis series seems well engineered aside from the chugging, smoke belching, fire prone powerplant! :)
 #876947  by DutchRailnut
 
pebbleworm wrote:Caltrans is running EMD F59PHIs that meet tier 2 standards -
http://www.equinoxcenter.org/assets/fil ... otives.pdf
I rode behind one on the San Joaquin and it was pretty darn speedy from where I was sitting. 15 minutes early is always a good thing. Emission controls don't always mean lower performance or efficiency, despite what bankrupt Detroit automakers want you to believe.

yup but next standard is Tier four, something EMD has not met jet.
tough to meet tier IIII with overgrown lawnmower motors.
 #876953  by Jersey_Mike
 
It's nothing that can't be fixed with a little clever engineering. There is also nothing to say that CAT-EMD can't refresh its engine line based on the existing 4-cycle 1010 or an all new design of either 4 or 2 stroke design (and its about time they did anyway). The EMD engine family has demonstrated incredible longevity far outlasting their GE counterparts and have also been highly competitive in the world marketplace. With CAT's capitol and engineering resources behind them EMD stands to succeed no matter which route they take as long as CAT doesn't try to fit one of its existing road market diesels into the locomotive market peg.

That aside \tThe best way to get responsive performance out of a diesel engine, yet still allow it to be robust enough for decades of railroad use is to go 2 stroke. Both the Junkers Jumo 204/205 and Napier Nomad models of 2 stroke diesels were not only intended for use in aircraft, but also set efficiency records in terms of specific fuel consumption for their day. The way EPA policy destroyed the highly efficient diesel powered passenger road vehicle market 30 years ago can best be described as suspicious. Europe had no problem with diesel vehicles (much the same way they have no problem with EMD's diesel locomotives) and with a majority of new cars being sold as diesels they can enjoy the MPG fruits of their policy. That the EPA would seek to undermine the best design for a passenger diesel locomotive hints that someone is lobbying behind the scenes to keep America shackled to its inefficient motor vehicles. Old school pollutants aren't the problem any more, heat trapping gases are and it turns out that decades of EPA policy has only made the problem worse.
 #876993  by John_Perkowski
 
Pardon me for a lack of knowledge,

But what needs to be done to the good old EMD 567 or even 645 powerplants (in particular) to make them EPA compliant? I know it's out of production at the moment, but every engineering drawing ever made for these have to be out there somewhere.

Of course, the same problem of economics kicks in: Amtrak cannot afford to have a locomotive engineered to purpose. The economies of scale are just not there. It has to buy from the catalog.
 #877003  by Jersey_Mike
 
But what needs to be done to the good old EMD 567 or even 645 powerplants (in particular) to make them EPA compliant? I know it's out of production at the moment, but every engineering drawing ever made for these have to be out there somewhere.
First of all the 567 and 654 engines have long since reached their power limits so would not really be in contention for any sort of new build locomotive. That being said the standard tricks include electronic fuel injection that can vary the timing and amount of the fuel for an optimal burn. There's also some tricks you can do with Exhaust Gas Recirculation to reduce the NOX and one might be able to implement that on a 2-stroke by fiddling with the scavenge process. You can fiddle with the turbo system to get more air into the cylinders to avoid the black puff of smoke from the lag. You can adjust how the engine revs up, again to eliminate incomplete combustion. Specifically one can used a multi-stage turbo and this has actually become a popular technique by diesel engine manufacturers, CAT included, to reduce emissions.

Hey, if EMD has to put a twin/staged turbo on its new engine to meet emissions compliance I wouldn't complain. Performance and throttle response would be all the better XD

BTW regarding power EMD recently sold 25 SD70ACS locomotives to Saudi Arabia rated at 4500hp, which is 200hp more than a standard V16 710. Another question Amtrak will need to consider is if it will get on-shaft HEP or use a pony engine. Given the amount of time Amtrak trains spend sitting around not moving I think they should consider moving to the pony engine configuration as it would allow the prime movers to idle with a lower fuel consumption. Also if an engine craps out in route its HEP APU, being an independent system, would still be able to supply power to the train avoiding a MARC like situation and allowing a second engine to apply pull power to get the train to its destination. I am not aware of any GE passenger diesel designs that have made use of a pony engine.
 #877013  by goodnightjohnwayne
 
Jersey_Mike wrote:It's nothing that can't be fixed with a little clever engineering. There is also nothing to say that CAT-EMD can't refresh its engine line based on the existing 4-cycle 1010 or an all new design of either 4 or 2 stroke design (and its about time they did anyway). The EMD engine family has demonstrated incredible longevity far outlasting their GE counterparts and have also been highly competitive in the world marketplace. With CAT's capitol and engineering resources behind them EMD stands to succeed no matter which route they take as long as CAT doesn't try to fit one of its existing road market diesels into the locomotive market peg.

That aside \tThe best way to get responsive performance out of a diesel engine, yet still allow it to be robust enough for decades of railroad use is to go 2 stroke. Both the Junkers Jumo 204/205 and Napier Nomad models of 2 stroke diesels were not only intended for use in aircraft, but also set efficiency records in terms of specific fuel consumption for their day. The way EPA policy destroyed the highly efficient diesel powered passenger road vehicle market 30 years ago can best be described as suspicious. Europe had no problem with diesel vehicles (much the same way they have no problem with EMD's diesel locomotives) and with a majority of new cars being sold as diesels they can enjoy the MPG fruits of their policy. That the EPA would seek to undermine the best design for a passenger diesel locomotive hints that someone is lobbying behind the scenes to keep America shackled to its inefficient motor vehicles. Old school pollutants aren't the problem any more, heat trapping gases are and it turns out that decades of EPA policy has only made the problem worse.
If you actually have traveled in Europe, you'd notice that the air quality in a number of European cities is worse than L.A. on the smoggiest day. Europe has had some fairly lax diesel emissions standards, which has lead to very high levels of particular emissions - and as we all know, diesel particulates are carcinogens. Then there's the issue of large quantities of smog forming diesel emissions which require urea injection. Diesel cars are dirty at the tailpipe without expensive technology and cost maintenance, hence the lack of popularity. Overall, the EPA has been successful in improving air quality in the last 4 decades, far more successful than the environmental regulators in Europe and Canada.

Locomotive do put out a lot, and I do mean a lot, of very noticeable, sooty emissions. Even Amtrak's GE Genesis locomotives put out huge quantities of particulates, and they're hard considered to be dirty, so it's clear that the EPA should demand lower emissions. The same goes for Class 8 trucks.

Of course, there was that recent study that indicated that a single huge container ship puts out more emissions than 50 million personal automobiles. It makes railroad locomotives look fairly clean in comparison.

Back to EMD. The Caterpillar takeover is good news for the future of the company, because it was as good as dead in the long run without access to capital and expertise. History shows that GM managed to sell off and/or neglect every profitable non-automotive division, and in the case of EMD, corporate stupidity lead to the sacrifice of the locomotive market to GE. Of course, looking at how GM managed its core automotive business, it's fortunate that the GM management neglected and sold-off EMD to the private equity that eventually put it in the good hands of Caterpillar. If GM had actually paid attention to EMD, it probably would have gone the way of Oldsmobile, Saturn and Pontiac.
Last edited by goodnightjohnwayne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #877023  by Jersey_Mike
 
goodnightjohnwayne wrote:If you actually have traveled in Europe, you'd notice that the air quality in a number of European cities is worse than L.A. on the smoggiest day. Europe has had some fairly lax diesel emissions standards, which has lead to very high levels of particular emissions - and as we all know, diesel particulates are carcinogens. Then there's the issue of large quantities of smog forming diesel emissions which require urea injection. Diesel cars are dirty at the tailpipe without expensive technology and cost maintenance, hence the lack of popularity. Overall, the EPA has been successful in improving air quality in the last 4 decades, far more successful than the environmental regulators in Europe and Canada.
Well I guess if you count Eastern Europe as part of Europe, but i would suspect that poor urban air quality is highly correlated with cities that offer Trebant tours. Given the sheer quantity of environmental finger wagging and judgment flowing over from Canada and Europe I would say that whatever environmental standards they want to adopt are probably better than what we have here.
goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Locomotive do put out a lot, and I do mean a lot, of very noticeable, sooty emissions. Even Amtrak's GE Genesis locomotives put out huge quantities of particulates, and they're hard considered to be dirty, so it's clear that the EPA should demand lower emissions. The same goes for Class 8 trucks.
The large amount of smoke indicates that the engines are working hard for me, the customer. Besides its traditional for railroad locomotives to blast large quantities of black stuff out the top.
goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Of course, there was that recent study that indicated that a single huge container ship puts out more emissions than 50 million personal automobiles. It makes railroad locomotives look fairly clean in comparison.
Well of course because modern passenger vehicles have almost no classic emissions any more. That statistic is highly faulty as one could say that container ship puts out more emissions than an infinite number of Tesla Roadsters or Nissan Leaves. Hell, my 1969 Mustang probably out more emissions than 50 million modern personal automobiles. Forget about closing the garage door and letting the engine run, I'm lucky to back out of of the driveway w.o asphyxiating myself. :P

BTW EMD's website says that the 710 will meet Tier IIIB requirements by the end of this year and that they can deal with NOx better than most other diesel engine designs.