Chinese Locomotives for SCT Logistics

 
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I think straight sixes go a bit further back than that and the twin cam six of today is a far cry from what it was back then . V6s are all about packaging and because of the wacky phasing will never run a smoothly as an I6 - which is actually two inline triples on the same crankshaft . BMW has held onto straight sixes for so long because they know the formula works , not from a cheap to manufacture bean counters perspective but then again BMW has a different market and customer in mind ...
FrWD cars are ok if you're a not very discerning driver and any transverse engine particularly a V6 is a nightmare to work on . By comparison north south 4 6 8 is easy . Servos and heaters in seats is a joke and again ridiculous complexity to work on for what a seat has to do .
Gadgets and gimmicks is what sells cars nowdays - not the mechanicals and electricals that make the lounge room mobile .

And the "ese" who've struggled to break into our car market aren't having a win because cheap doesn't make unacceptably nasty good . Complex machinery isn't the same as a plastic spoon , you'll put up with a floppy spoon to a degree because it's going in the bin real soon whereas a car truck or locomotive isn't .
The asbestos they have no concerns over turned up in their injection moulded cars too , would you put up with this to be globally correct ?
I'd like to see you review an eseDM Honda built to eseDM standards because it wouldn't be the same as a JDM one .

Sponsored advertisement

  jmt Deputy Commissioner

KiwiRail Press release 01/03/2014

Bloody amazing, a government employed spindoctor working on a Saturday!

http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/news/296/78/Testing-of-Locomotives-underway-to-ensure-staff-safety/d,news.html
  M636C Minister for Railways

I think straight sixes go a bit further back than that and the twin cam six of today is a far cry from what it was back then . V6s are all about packaging and because of the wacky phasing will never run a smoothly as an I6 - which is actually two inline triples on the same crankshaft . BMW has held onto straight sixes for so long because they know the formula works , not from a cheap to manufacture bean counters perspective but then again BMW has a different market and customer in mind ...
BDA


And BMW have just introduced the 2 series with front wheel drive and a choice of four or THREE cylinder engines. I think they actually admit that the models without four wheel drive drive the front wheels only, and I coudn't find the cubic capacity of the triple in the glossy brochure.

In fact the V6 engines can be quite smooth, as long as they aren't built with a 90 degree vee angle. It was the Buick V6 in the Holden Commodore that gave the V6 a bad name, and that was simply made with a 90 degree vee so it coud be made on a production line meant for V8 engines which are correctly balanced with a 90 degree vee, but for which there was insufficient demand following the 1970s fuel price shock. Most V6 engines now, even those in Commodores, have a 60 degree vee angle and are probably smoother than inline fours.

But the original comment was about the Ford inline six dating back to 1946. I am reliably informed that a 1970s Holden "red" six will bolt up to the transmission of a 1929 Chevrolet, with the engine mounts in the right place.

The Ford six uses the same block casting as introduced in 1960, I'm told. The Ford cross flow alloy head is made by Honda in Japan (but installed in Geelong) but the distributor remained on the same side of the block as the original head, although the spark plugs moved to the opposite side, resulting in plug leads running across the top of the engine. This lack of attention to detail shows the strict limits on expenditure imposed on Ford Australia in producing "local" designs.

M636C
  M636C Minister for Railways

It seems clear that the asbestos in the Kiwi Rail DL class is in a different form than that in the SCT and BK locomotives. This is not surprising given that the locomotives are from different (and at least in theory competing) builders.

I am told that in China there are no significant restrictions on the use of Chrysolite (white asbestos) but there is a ban on the use of the more dangerous Crocidolite (blue asbestos)

Blue asbestos was mined at Wittenoom and this was the source of the earlist cancer deaths related to asbestos. The whole town has effectively been closed since it is not practical to clean up the area.

So China has banned Crocidolite, just as Australia did and will probably ban Chrysolite fairly soon.

However the argument appears to be that both different manufacturers read the ban on asbestos in the Australian and NZ locomotives as the same as their domestic ban as blue asbestos, presumably being unaware of the different regulations in China and abroad.

Since the Australian and NZ contracts were presumably written in slightly different terms and were read by different teams in different factories a considerable distance apart, it seems likely that they both misread "asbestos" as "Blue asbestos". The only thing in common between these locomotives is a German built engine that has a zero asbestos content.

Given that the asbestos removal would most likely be at the expense of the manufacturer and would have cost more than using an alternative in the original construction, if it was a conscious decision to cut costs at the expense of the customer knowing the full meaning of the contract restriction, it didn't work.

It sounds like "Lost in Translation" to me...

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
M if you knew your engines you'd know that the ole 6 banger uses a 4 valves per cylinder twin cam head on the I six block . Naturally the piston crown design has to change to match a four valve pent roof chamber . Also most heads of this nature have their spark plugs centrally located in between the four valve heads .
I'd have to check but I think these engines have direct fire ignition systems (individual coil on plug - COP) so while the block dimensions may be same similar everything that see's fire isn't , nor is anything that controls its even remotely similar . COP ignition doesn't need a distributor/cap/rotor/leads/condenser etc .
Engine blocks are not exactly high tech things and provided the bottom end doesn't spill its innards its a win in my book .
You keep flying the flag for fabricated EMD crank cases , how old is that design ?
  M636C Minister for Railways

I'd have to check but I think these engines have direct fire ignition systems (individual coil on plug - COP) so while the block dimensions may be same similar everything that see's fire isn't , nor is anything that controls its even remotely similar . COP ignition doesn't need a distributor/cap/rotor/leads/condenser etc .
BDA

I specifically referred to the cross flow alloy head engine:

Wikipedia says:

The 1980 introduction of the Alloy Head improved the fuel economy of the ageing OHV six-cylinder engine, an engine with its roots in the 1950s, while at the same time boosting power in the high compression 4.l version from 92 kilowatts (123 hp) to 94 kilowatts (126 hp).

When the facelifted EF was introduced in August 1994 ...

The 4.0-litre inline six-cylinder engine was upgraded to aid refinement and increase power to 157 kilowatts (211 hp) this included the removal of the distributor as it was replaced with a coil-pack ignition system which was a first for the Falcon.

So for fourteen years from 1980 until 1994, hundreds of thousands of Ford Falcons were built with the distributor on the right side of the engine and the spark plugs on the left side with the plug leads laid across the top of the engine in a sort of "fan" arrangement.

It worked but the plug leads would have to be even more heat resistant than conventional leads.

This was at a period when Falcon sales were at their highest.

As to the EMD engine, the last major redesign was around 1951 when the "C" crankcase was first tested. There were detail changes around 1965 for the capacity increase from 567 to 645 cubic inches and again a few years later particularly for the twelve cylinder when turbocharging was applied to that engine.

I'm not familiar with the changes to the GE FDL engine but the basic design dates back to the late 1940s when the engine was called the Cooper Bessemer FVBL.

M636C
  jmt Deputy Commissioner

Steve Palmano covered the use of the Cooper Bessemer engine in export locomotives in detail, in a series of posts on the Yahoo Group W-D-L, over a period of several years

Phil Wormald has edited and condensed the articles and archived here http://www.locopage.net/ge-history.htm
  QSB6.7 Chief Train Controller

Location: Going off the rails on a crazy train.
I specifically referred to the cross flow alloy head engine:

Wikipedia says:

The 1980 introduction of the Alloy Head improved the fuel economy of the ageing OHV six-cylinder engine, an engine with its roots in the 1950s, while at the same time boosting power in the high compression 4.l version from 92 kilowatts (123 hp) to 94 kilowatts (126 hp).

When the facelifted EF was introduced in August 1994 ...

The 4.0-litre inline six-cylinder engine was upgraded to aid refinement and increase power to 157 kilowatts (211 hp) this included the removal of the distributor as it was replaced with a coil-pack ignition system which was a first for the Falcon.

So for fourteen years from 1980 until 1994, hundreds of thousands of Ford Falcons were built with the distributor on the right side of the engine and the spark plugs on the left side with the plug leads laid across the top of the engine in a sort of "fan" arrangement.

It worked but the plug leads would have to be even more heat resistant than conventional leads.

This was at a period when Falcon sales were at their highest.

As to the EMD engine, the last major redesign was around 1951 when the "C" crankcase was first tested. There were detail changes around 1965 for the capacity increase from 567 to 645 cubic inches and again a few years later particularly for the twelve cylinder when turbocharging was applied to that engine.

I'm not familiar with the changes to the GE FDL engine but the basic design dates back to the late 1940s when the engine was called the Cooper Bessemer FVBL.

M636C
M636C

Then went back to a distributor for one model (EL I6).
  M636C Minister for Railways

I think I'm in the wrong business here...

I wrote a fairly serious post and a casual one, and everybody read the casual one...

Yes, I didn't read the EL Falcon entry well enough, although I had read it all the way through before the correcting posts... so it was eighteen years, more or less.

Steve Palmetto's GE list is good but it ignores the really early Cooper Bessemers. A bit like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The ones I'm most familiar with are the QR 1150 and 1170 classes and the early "shovel noses" in Argentina. The 1150 engine was called an FVL and QR publicity said it had common power assemblies with the FWL in the 1170.

I recall being told by the metallurgist in the Laboratory in the QR Workshops at Ipswich that the early GEs were basically experimental and QR had to do all the development testing for these locomotives. The 1150 in particular appears to be the first of what became the U series later.

In Argentina, there were a lot of U12s and U13s with FVBL-8s and U18s with FVBL-12s and by 2003 there were broken Cooper Bessemers all over Argentina, literally in large scrap piles. They don't look very different from FDLs and most of the components were visible. More surprising is that there are locomotives dating back to 1958 still running apparently with their original engines. I guess the much lower rating helps.

M636C
  M636C Minister for Railways

Sorry about the triple post...

M636C
  NOELWB Locomotive Driver

Does anybody know the origin and broad history of the MTU motors used in the CSR class.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Does anybody know the origin and broad history of the MTU diesel engines used in the CSR class.
NOELWB

The MTU 4000 was one of a pair of engines jointly developed by MTU and Detroit Deisel Allison to replace both the larger two stroke Detroit Diesel engines and some older MTU designs.

The two engines were called the 2000 and the 4000, where the numbers represented the capacity of the engine, around 2 litres per cylinder for the smaller engine and around 4 litres per cylinder for the larger engine (4.06 litres/cylinder in the smaller 4000 engines, 4.77 litres per cylinder in the 20V4000R53 in the CSR). The 2000 had the letters DDA above MTU on the cylinder covers and the 4000 had MTU above DDA on the cylinder covers.

The 4000 was intended to replace the 396 engine in the MTU range, but was significantly heavier for around the same power, possibly representing that the engine was designed to meet more demanding applications in the USA where German diesels had not been very successful. The 396 is the engine used in the QR Diesel Tilt Train power cars which have a very high power to weight ratio. The 396 was slected for these power cars although the 4000 was also available, since the light weight was considered important. The 396 was originally a longer stroke version of the 331 engine, to allow 50Hz generator sets to develop the same power as the 60Hz 331 generator sets. The 396 then became the standard engine in many applications.

The 20 cylinder is a fairly recent addition to the range to bring the engine into the 3MW class. The same engine is used but at a lower rating in the Kiwi Rail DL class.

It is a reasonably successful engine and the 16V4000 has been used without major problems in the British Rail HST Power cars.

M636C
  NOELWB Locomotive Driver

Thanks M636C for that info.
Reports in other fora suggest the MTU motors in the CSRs are very noisy. It has been suggested that this is this is a contributing factor in their delayed introduction to service in NSW. Given the stringent enviromental requirements in the EU and USA, one would expect the opposite. Could this be due to non standard mufflers being used by Chinese Southern or are they just noisy.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Thanks M636C for that info.
Reports in other fora suggest the MTU motors in the CSRs are very noisy. It has been suggested that this is this is a contributing factor in their delayed introduction to service in NSW. Given the stringent enviromental requirements in the EU and USA, one would expect the opposite. Could this be due to non standard mufflers being used by Chinese Southern or are they just noisy.
NOELWB

I've seen and photographed the loaded SBR ore train with two or three CSRs including the climb up from Nectar Brook to Mambray Creek and I didn't think that the CSRs were noticeably louder than an NR, for example.

However, I came across the train stopped in the loop at Red Hil and CSR 010 seemed to be quite noisy in idle with individual cylinder pulses clearly noticeable.

It is possible that the muffler doesn't work as well with the much smaller gas flow at idle.

I couldn't comment on whether it meets NSW standards in either condition, however.

There are no equivalent noise restrictions for US Domestic locomotives to those in NSW.

Certainly the SD70ACes run by BHP Billiton are much louder than a TT for example, including those ex BNSF units.

M636C
  M636C Minister for Railways

On discussing the MTU 4000 series with Navy's Principal Mechanical Engineer (the Armidale class patrol boats have two 16V4000 engines as main propulsion), he indicated that a lot of the MTU 4000 noise at idle was not exhaust noise but "rattling" in the common rail fuel injection system. So it is possible that what I heard on CSR 010 was effectively "water hammer" in the common rail fuel injection system, and not the exhaust sound through the muffler.

I'd be surprised if this noise would be a problem in NSW, although it is quite noticeable at idle.

M636C
  jmt Deputy Commissioner
  Raichase Captain Rant!

Location: Sydney, NSW
On a recent trip to Auckland, we noticed a number of DL Class parked at various loco depots, in varying states of asbestos removal. Some locomotives were completely covered by sheets, whilst others had visible engine room door removals, and others still were intact. Talking to a local driver we were told that DL9014 (the second member of the class) was certified as Asbestos Free.

[img]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/13444285284_4407ca7da7.jpg[/img]

[img]https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2935/13444276904_14dac5e4cb.jpg[/img]

[img]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/13444015523_b0588bfc52.jpg[/img]
  DounutCereal Chief Train Controller

Location: Who knows.
When I was over there a couple weeks ago there was also a row of 6 or 7 DL's parked at Wellington, though it didn't look like anything was being done to them at the time as they were fully intact without plastic on any of them.

It makes one wonder what the cost of the removal comes to per loco
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
On a recent trip to Auckland, we noticed a number of DL Class parked at various loco depots, in varying states of asbestos removal.
Raichase

How many DLs are there? The numbers shown in your photos would seem to indicate that there are in excess of 300, although I'm fairly certain that this isn't the case! Can anyone explain the numbering scheme?
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
How many DLs are there? The numbers shown in your photos would seem to indicate that there are in excess of 300, although I'm fairly certain that this isn't the case! Can anyone explain the numbering scheme?
Graham4405

There are 40.

The fourth number is a computer check digit.
  Greensleeves Chief Commissioner

Location: If it isn't obvious by now, it should be.
Thanks M636C for that info.
Reports in other fora suggest the MTU motors in the CSRs are very noisy. It has been suggested that this is this is a contributing factor in their delayed introduction to service in NSW. Given the stringent enviromental requirements in the EU and USA, one would expect the opposite. Could this be due to non standard mufflers being used by Chinese Southern or are they just noisy.
NOELWB

CSR004 was making a bit of noise on 7922V back on the 10/1/14 when I got it at Jung, with CSR007 producing a similar level about a month later on the same train.

CSR004 features at 02:56 in this video



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LGAuckDopw

and CSR007 at 03:50 in this one



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO0Gbn_qPcI
  Gaz170 Junior Train Controller

Location: Gold Coast
To be honest, the loudest noise on the video was the wagons, not the locos.
  seb2351 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I've seen and photographed the loaded SBR ore train with two or three CSRs including the climb up from Nectar Brook to Mambray Creek and I didn't think that the CSRs were noticeably louder than an NR, for example.

However, I came across the train stopped in the loop at Red Hil and CSR 010 seemed to be quite noisy in idle with individual cylinder pulses clearly noticeable.

It is possible that the muffler doesn't work as well with the much smaller gas flow at idle.

I couldn't comment on whether it meets NSW standards in either condition, however.

There are no equivalent noise restrictions for US Domestic locomotives to those in NSW.

Certainly the SD70ACes run by BHP Billiton are much louder than a TT for example, including those ex BNSF units.

M636C
M636C

The CSR's when in idle can choose which cylinder remain active, and this sometimes can lead to a nosier then average idle.
  seb2351 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Thanks M636C for that info.
Reports in other fora suggest the MTU motors in the CSRs are very noisy. It has been suggested that this is this is a contributing factor in their delayed introduction to service in NSW. Given the stringent enviromental requirements in the EU and USA, one would expect the opposite. Could this be due to non standard mufflers being used by Chinese Southern or are they just noisy.
NOELWB

I believe it is non noise related issues that are holding up their introduction in NSW, along with a lack of need.
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
Looking for cotton wool to wrap NSW in, noise the of bloody flies louder!! Is this the same NSW that still allows quad C class on trains or T or 49?? Reality check needed in some quarters

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.