We are looking for an EMD  Motor, a 567C or 645.   Any number of cylinders, but must be a goer.  Doesnt matter if there is a

clapped-out locomotive attached, as we just want to do static testing.

A former Vic.  Y Class 6 cylinder would be nice.   Even an old GM  Class, for when successful with our work, we would probably

spend big heaps of money on it and keep it as a museum piece as a token of our gratitude.

People tell us to buy a genset, however a locomotive would be nice as we will be dealing with many railways through-out the

World, as well as marine propulsion and gensets.

Our object is very substantial emissions reduction, carbon around 75 - 80%, and  increased fuel economy.

We have read all about Locomotive 9000, and really that is a joke.  They cant see the forest for the trees.

A different approach to EMD's 710 Tier IV (710E23B) program?

http://www.dieselprogress.com/November-2016/Tier-4-Final-For-EMD-Marine-Two-Cycle/

http://www.workboatshow.com/exhibitor/490807_ElectroMotive-Diesel/

A different approach to EMD's 710 Tier IV (710E23B) program?

http://www.dieselprogress.com/November-2016/Tier-4-Final-For-EMD-Marine-Two-Cycle/

http://www.workboatshow.com/exhibitor/490807_ElectroMotive-Diesel/

Thank-you for the information.  Very interesting.  We are looking at fitting to existing engines.  The older the better.

Must find out if their new 710 is available for locomotives, and if not why, as this is by far their largest market in North America?

Ours is not an After Treatment, and should deliver a fuel saving of 40 - 45%.

Thanks again for your help with the information.

Any of the many clapped out streamliners lying around Goulburn of use?

I believe Pacific National may have a Y class or two spare that could be bought, though they'd have to approve the sale and make sure it won't be used commercially against them or similar situation agreements that would keep them happy. I'm not entirely sure what their terms of sale are but they're picky about who they sell to.

It wouldn't hurt to ask though, or approach Regional Connect/Ettamogah Rail Hub about one of their small branchline type locos they've got in storage and see if they are able to part with one

Any of the many clapped out streamliners lying around Goulburn of use?

I guess it depends on whether you want to use a turbocharged engine or a blower engine...

Off the top of my head, the blower engines use significantly more fuel per kWh and are simpler and cheaper to maintain.

A possible candidate is former Aurizon 2204. I don't know what its present condition is. It seems to be complete externally with a little graffiti as observed yesterday. But it could probably be returned to service with some work. There are also a 421 or two but the 422 would be the way to go as they are simpler and more reliable with electric cooling fans....

I think all of these ex Aurizon units are owned by a South African dealer but you could probably get one for scrap price (what's 110 tonnes of mainly steel scrap worth?)

If the owner of the green GM class in Goulbern (GM 19?) is willing, you might get that to work on but it hasn't run in many years and is missing a lot of the air pressurisation system and maybe other things not as obvious.

One advantage of a cab unit would be the ability to remove all the side panels which would give good visibility of the engine when under test.

I guess it depends what emission standards you intend to meet, but if it was at all easy to meet current USA and European standards without aftertreatment, you'd expect Progress to have done it.

Most rebuilds to meet even Tier 0 (acceptable for rebuilds) replace  a blower 16 with a turbo 8-710 which can meet tier 3.



Peter

Dear Platelayer and others,

The EMD 710 engine does not, and cannot be altered to, comply with Tier 4 . I am under the impression that it is still available for export , and it is possible that it may be licences built in China and or India.

Unless Caterpillar have another change of heart I would presume EMD parts will still be available for decades to come , though whether it beats the Winton 201 new parts being available until around 1985  is debatable.

Compared to old Alcos at least EMB diesels are relatively clean, and compared to road diesels far less polluting per tonne of haulage.

Best wishes and Regards, Radioman

Dear Platelayer and others,

I am open to correction here , but I am under the impression that a two stroke diesel is inherently less fuel efficient than a four stroke diesel.

EMD diesels are popular primarily due to ruggedness, due to steel fabrication which is less likely to crack as it has some flexibility compared to cast metal , and it is designed to be easily maintained in situ , something which four strokes are less easily able to do .

( of course if your loco was equipped with a Napier Deltic , any Paxman or a Fairbanks Morse a crane out was rigeur ! )

(and if you we unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Crossley , access to the fire brigade would also
help !)

I am also under the impression that EMD tried to make the 710 series more fuel efficient in the 1990s without success. Perhaps a technical paper was published about this in the US.

Best wishes and regards, Radioman

Another reason why 2 strokes are longer lasting but use more fuel is that the MEP (the average cylinder pressure) is about half that of a four stroke engine.

Dear Platelayer and others,

The EMD 710 engine does not, and cannot be altered to, comply with Tier 4 . I am under the impression that it is still available for export , and it is possible that it may be licences built in China and or India.

For marine use the 710E23B is Tier 4 compliant with exhaust treatment (urea)

Refer the above quoted link http://www.workboatshow.com/exhibitor/490807_ElectroMotive-Diesel/

http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2017/EMD-710-Series-Model-E-23B-engine-receives-Tier-4-certification/

So based on the Progress Rail announcement in "Professional Mariner" your statement "the EMD 710 engine does not, and cannot be altered to, comply with Tier 4", is incorrect and misleading. Is this your opinion or can you supply links to substantiate your statement?

DLW Varanasi license built 330 16 and 20 cylinder 710 engines in 2016 (based on the number of locos license built)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/DLW-manufactures-330-diesel-locomotives-in-a-year/articleshow/52548732.cms

Alco engine manufacture appears to have been transferred from Varanasi to Golden Rock, to clear space at Varanasi for increased 710 production

Add Muncie, Sahagún, Sete Lagoas, and Varanasi (710 powered) loco numbers for 2016, Progress Rail's 710ECO rebuilds, plus marine, stationary and oil industry engines, and I think that you will find that the number of 710 series engines built in 2016 exceeded 1000

I am open to correction here , but I am under the impression that a two stroke diesel is inherently less fuel efficient than a four stroke diesel.

I am also under the impression that EMD tried to make the 710 series more fuel efficient in the 1990s without success. Perhaps a technical paper was published about this in the US.

My understanding is that the current versions of the EMD 710 are more economical on fuel than the best GE FDL and very close to the GEVO in fuel consumption.

In an emissions test carried out by the US authorities using two Union Pacific Locomotives drawn directly from traffic with no adjustments of any kind being permitted, an SD70ACe and an ES44AC were compared.

Fuel consumption was carefully monitored and at the end the GE was found to have used 10% less fuel than the EMD.
The horsepower produced was also checked, and the GE was producing a bit less than 4000 HP while the EMD produced the intended 4300HP. So the specific fuel consumption for the tests was effectively the same.

Remember this was a test of randomly selected locomotives so neither the railroad nor the manufacturer could influence the result by providing a "good" locomotive.

I can't imagine BHP Billiton replacing all their GEs with EMDs if the fuel consumption was significantly worse. They have about 180 SD70ACe units working all trains (and Rio Tinto have a similar number of GEs, mostly DC traction). The EMDs appear to have had fewer problems than the GEs and are standard locomotives technically, while the Rio GE GEVOs are on a special long frame with larger radiators, just to work in the Pilbara heat. So Rio are paying more for locomotives that are not as reliable (or weren't for several years). You'd want to save a lot on fuel to make that worth while.

Peter

Dear JMT,

I could not get that link to open originally , so I appreciate the correction. It was the Trains Magazine Locomotive Special from the 1990s which said that EMD could not, at that time , make the 710 more fuel efficient, hence the move to the four stroke Deutz derived 1010.

Is there some reason why a urea exhaust treatment cannot be used on locomotives ? I am aware thatMarine EMDs have a much larger sump, and obviously there is more room in a ship than within the confines of a locomotive , to add auxiliaries that will improve fuel processing.

If the 710 can be made Tier 4 compliant then why is Progress Rail / Caterpillar ceasing US supply of 710s as was recently reported in Trains magazine ?

Best wishes and regards, Radioman

Urea can be used but the US RRs wanted a solution that wouldn't need more infrastructure so demanded the builders use something else hence the result we've got. One of the commuter operators over there got CAT powered EMDs that use urea but being a smaller operation they can get away with the extra filling equipment needed.

Current observations are that C44-9W almost always uses slightly less fuel than SD70ACes , this is when used together on the same trains . True the -9 doesn't dig in quite as well or have quite as strong a dynamic brake as a 70ACe but its hardly an equivalent unit . Be interesting to have direct comparison with 70ACe and AC4400 .
7FDL definitely used less engine oil and coolant than most 710s . Shallow sump GT46ACe already noticeable issue .
Honestly the ACE series are a generation beyond FDL powered GEs and development marched on with the Tier series 710s and their computer systems . I suspect 93s probably have later computer systems than their US FDL powered cousins .
Ge made the change from FDL to Evolution engines and had many teething problems . EMD tried with the H engines and they got greedy as did GE with the HDL . Both were marketing wise failures in the US .
If you think about it both the FDL and the 710 are long in the tooth and and I reckon at the end of their development phases . Both have been pushed higher and harder power wise and there isn't really anywhere to go with them . The tier emissions regs  pretty much sealed the coffins on these two motors which is why they now have the late Evo V12 and 1010J V12 - in the US anyway .
The real deal will be ET44AC vs SD70ACE-T4 , and then how they stand up to long term use .

Dear JMT,

Is there some reason why a urea exhaust treatment cannot be used on locomotives ? I am aware thatMarine EMDs have a much larger sump, and obviously there is more room in a ship than within the confines of a locomotive , to add auxiliaries that will improve fuel processing.

If the 710 can be made Tier 4 compliant then why is Progress Rail / Caterpillar ceasing US supply of 710s as was recently reported in Trains magazine ?

Best wishes and regards, Radioman

"Trains" is aimed at a North American reader, it caters to the rail fan market (a goodly percentage
of whom think that a foreign loco is one from the other side of the Mississippi), it is not a trade publication like "Railway Age". As far as the 710 goes, US railfans are convinced that it is dead. With a 16-710E23B costing north of US$1.25 million, there is no way that Caterpiller is going to walk away from ongoing sales of >1000 engines per year. Who outside of North America will purchase a rail traction Tier 4 compliant engine, unless compelled to by legislation? These engines are too heavy/high for the European loading gauges

The liquid exhaust after-treatment chemical freezes (Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is an aqueous urea solution made with 32.5% urea and 67.5% deionised water). Private sector US freight railroads did not want the expense of rolling out the heated infrastructure required to handle this product at each refueling point. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) was seen as a cheaper option. A second objection was decreased fuel capacity, due to the requirement of a second tank for the DEF, leading to around a 6% decrease in diesel capacity

The State owned commuter railroads in the USA service/refuel from centralised facilities, so are going down the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) path using DEF, with high speed diesels from Caterpillar and Cummins (EMD F125, Siemens SC-44 Charger, et al). The high speed diesel engine is initially cheaper than the medium speed, so this appeals to the bureaucratic mindset

Europe is now mainly high speed diesel, SCR treatment is used to achieve European Stage IV standard. ABC (Anglo Belgian Corporation) produce medium speed diesels for rail traction, which also use this method. ABC engines for countries like Iran delete this feature

Sorry to resurrect an old thread

This is the Progress Rail 710E23 Tier 4 Final Certified brochure, covers 8/12/16/20 cylinder variants

http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170712-52832-51137

Aimed at the marine and industrial market

http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170712-52832-18322