Siemens & Cummins partner to build new Tier 4 diesel locos

From RailwayAge:

RailwayAge wrote:Siemens Rail Systems and Cummins jointly announced a partnership on Dec. 3, 2013 that they said "will bring one of the most modern and efficient passenger rail, diesel-electric locomotives in the world to the U.S. marketplace."
. . .
The locomotives will be built and assembled at Siemens' solar-powered transportation manufacturing facility in Sacramento, Calif. Cummins diesel QSK95 engines will be made in Seymour, Ind. The 95-liter prime mover is the most powerful high-speed 16-cylinder diesel to be installed in a locomotive generating more than 4,000 hp (2,983 kW), the companies said.

The first QSK95-powered freight locomotive, with Siemens AC traction equipment and traction control, will begin commercial service operation in a field test with the Indiana Rail Road Co. (INRD) in mid-2014 as the first heavy-hauler repower QSK95 installation and is ready to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 ultra-low emissions regulations.

Read the rest of the article at: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mec ... tives.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmm....
95 litres total displacement in a 16-cylinder engine works out to a bit over 360 cubic inches per cylinder. (Confirmed by the QSK 95 brochure at the Cummins WWWebsite: cylinder dimension 191mm bore and 210mm stroke, or a bit over 7.5 inches bore and abit over 8 and a quarter inches stroke.) So: a bit over half the cylinder displacement of a General Electric FDL, and rather less than half the the cylinder displacement of a GEVO. Top speed is 1800rpm, as opposed to the 1050rpm of the GE prime movers. Other things being equal (which, of course, they seldom are in practice!), bigger is more fuel-efficient in diesel engines...

The Cummins brochure also mentions that the Tier IV version of their engine is otherwise similar to the Tier III version, but includes a urea tank. North American railroads would really, really, like to avoid urea treatment of exhaust; the most recent press release from GE boasts that they have managed to avoid the need for it in their current GEVO Tier IV prototypes.

The smaller engine is lighter in weight (I think the Cummins catalogue said 29,000 pounds or so, compared to the 45,000-50,000 pound weights of the FDL-16and GEVO-12), which is obviously desirable in a high-speed passenger unit. So I can see the Cummins engine making inroads in that niche market, but I will be very surprised if it becomes a serious competitor for mainline freight locomotives. (Their press release talks about a "heavy haul" locomotive prototype, which I believe isa re-engined SD-40. We shall see what we shall see.)

(Thanks for posting this!)

Progress Rail is also using a urea system in their upcoming CAT-powered/EMD-branded North American passenger locomotive. Metrolink is the launch customer, I believe. Maybe passenger railroads are more willing to accept the use of urea than the freight roads.

Commuter rr power tends to make repeated trips over the same line-which makes the management of urea less of a challenge vs. a Class 1.

Bright Star--
Yes. For freight railroading, maybe the nearest analogue (limited route, repetitive operation, typically just one shop or engine terminal) would be the dedicated iron-ore (and other mining) railroads, like the QNS&L or the various Western Australian operations. I can imagine that they might have a similar willingness to consider ideas that would be a headache (involve more management, more capital investment in terminals, etc etc etc) on a big Class 1.

From "Afigg" over at Amtrak Unlimited:
EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens. Lengthy Railway Age article with specifics on EMD's argument that the Siemens' proposed loco won't meet the 125 mph speed requirement: EMD protests locomotive contract award. Don't know enough to determine how much merit EMD's protest has, but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award to where the September, 2017 funding deadline becomes a serious issue.
 
Excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:
 

Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs).
 
The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”

My response:
Once again, the "lack of HP" of the Siemens locomotive necessary to sustain 125 mph operations (according to EMD) can be easily solved by specifying a 5200 hp QSK120.

Siemens did not specify the QSK120 engine at the time the proposals were due and as such they don't have the power to meet the original requirements. If IDIOT changes their mind now by reopening biding or accepts Siemens proposal as is, the EMD has a case and evidently intends to sue.

Full protest letter here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205490917/HSR ... 4-Original" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cummins has only built Gen-set type Prime Movers that are proven "OK" for switching,
they have yet to build a proven Prime Mover for a "Road" locomotive, Cat has built
Prime Movers for RR use with mixed results for the moment,none for Passenger use(HEP plants don't count).
Both EMD/CAT and Seimens are proposing Passenger Locos with unproven Prime Movers.

Backshophoss wrote:Cummins has only built Gen-set type Prime Movers that are proven "OK" for switching,
they have yet to build a proven Prime Mover for a "Road" locomotive, Cat has built
Prime Movers for RR use with mixed results for the moment,none for Passenger use(HEP plants don't count).
Both EMD/CAT and Seimens are proposing Passenger Locos with unproven Prime Movers.

You have a point. The loading factor for passenger service I would expect to be much higher than even line-haul locomotives at 20% run 8 or full power. In the new passenger locomotive dream world, to accelerate to high speed and stay there the engine has to run at maximum power for long periods.

The QSK series engine does have a history in its 12 cylinder form, the QSK 60. In marine applications where they run for long periods at full power they just don't stand up. I envision that any of these engines in passenger service will have a service life of about 2 years until they turn themselves into junk. I hope that the winning design will facilitate quick engine changes.

Oy. Just use a GEVO-12 and be done with it!

Well, would you look at this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/caterp ... -184491630" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would really like to see Illinois's response letter, to be honest.

This might be a crazy thought,Before the start of last year's season of "Deadlist Catch", the
FV "Time Bandit" had a overhaul that included the swapout of their main engines with new Cummins
units, were they QSK models?
Other then some minor startup glitches,they seem to have made it thru the season,
and the Bering Sea. Only time will tell....

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?
http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/pr ... 03009e.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fair use quote:

The Departments of Transportation for the U.S. states of Illinois, California, Michigan, Missouri and Washington have awarded Siemens a contract for the delivery of 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives. The contract is valued at approximately €165 million ($225 million). It includes a purchase option for another 225 locomotives which will be used for regional and mainline trains traveling at speeds of up to 200 km/h (125 mph). The 32 locomotives ordered are scheduled to be delivered between fall of 2016 and mid-2017. "For Siemens this order marks our entry into the U.S. diesel-electric locomotive market and strongly underscores our long-term vision for the U.S. passenger rail market", Jochen Eickholt, CEO of the Siemens Rail Systems Division, emphasized. The diesel-electric locomotives will be manufactured at the Siemens plant in Sacramento, California...

... The official Notice to Proceed has now been formally granted...

...The Charger locomotives will be used exclusively in passenger service. The primary traction drive, a 4,400 hp-rated diesel engine with 16 cylinders and a cubic capacity of 95 liters, will be manufactured in the U.S. by Cummins Inc., headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. These modern locomotives are powerful and efficient and will deliver a cleaner ride, with better air quality and reduced emission rates ensuring compliance with the Federal Railroad's EPA Tier IV regulation required to be in place in 2015...

...The contract includes 32 vehicles plus spare parts supply. In addition, there are options for an additional 75 locomotives for use in regional transportation and another 150 locomotives for mainline transportation.

The Charger locomotive reaches a tractive effort on starting of 290 kN with a weight of around 120 tons. The Cummins QSK95 diesel engine is 4,400 hp-rated. These U.S. locomotives are based technically on the Siemens Eurosprinter, Eurorunner and Vectron locomotive platforms which have been proven through several billion kilometers in both freight and passenger service. The components are procured and manufactured exclusively in the United States.

Hurray! A weight estimate!!
From the Siemens press release e quoted in the last post:
"The Charger locomotive reaches a tractive effort on starting of 290 kN with a weight of around 120 tons."

120 tons OUGHT to mean 120 US/short tons: so, 240,000 pounds. AT LAST!!! Anew passenger diesel that isn't GROSSLY overweight.

(I think the convention is that the spelling "tons" is for U.S. or Imperial tons (= short tons or long tons), with metric tonnes marked by the spelling "tonnes." Of course, the press release is from a German company and datelined Berlin, so it may have been written by someone THINKING in metric. But even 264,000 pounds would be an improvement over some recent passenger power: MPI, I'm looking at YOUR recent offerings here.)