 |
Re: Cummins ships first engine for rail market
Author: SP5103
Date: 10-05-2015 - 15:21
In the case of Amtrak, I don't think DEF/urea would be that big of an issue as far as fueling. I assume Amtrak has their own fueling facilities at their larger terminals, and other points are handled by contractor's who just pull up beside with their truck. DEF could be distributed with a reasonable effort.
The bad news is that there are some serious drawbacks that must be considered. First, DEF can freeze at low temperatures so storage tanks whether on ground or the loco would have to be insulated/heated for use in cold areas. Then there is the extra cost of the facilities, adding it to the locos, plus the DEF itself. The biggest drawback may be the volume of DEF required, which I have heard might be as high as 12-15% of fuel capacity. The weight of the extra tank and DEF would be a concern, because even with the lighter weight block of the high speed engine (compared to a standard EMD/GE) most passenger loco designs are now at the absolute weight limit for 4 axles, and there has been some serious consideration of going back to A1A-A1A.
GO Transit wanted MPI to develop a Tier 4 loco (new or retrofit), and MPI did plan on using the QSK-95 but Cummins did not have it in production in time. MPI is supposed to have its T4 loco going to Pueblo soon for track testing, powered by a pair of QSK-60s.
While the railroads have dabbled with gen-sets, they still haven't gained wide acceptance as being the "standard" switcher design. Most of them, with a few exceptions, appear to have been funded in large part using government grants. If the truth was known, I would guess that many railroads will retire them at first opportunity, but somehow have to battle the politicians and consultants that seem to think that an EMD or GE prime mover is "dirty". That is part of what is driving the commuter railroads.
Around the end of WWII, GE was actually the single biggest customer for Cummins engines after truck companies started building their own engines. GE did use a variety of engines, including partner Alco for larger designs, then Cummins for most industrials, and a few Cats namely the 44/47 ton. in the late 1940s, GE pressured Cummins for their new V-12 but Cummins failed to figure it out. GE instead started using the Cat D-397 V-12 with general success. In 1946 GE started building the 70/95 ton line that used a Cooper-Bessemer engine, some of the earlier models had also been tried by GE and other builders. In 1956 GE introduced its Universal line, standardized on the Caterpillar engines for smaller end-cabs and Cooper-Bessemer FV series engines for the larger units. After their divorce from the joint marketing agreement with Alco, GE purchased the Cooper-Bessemer FW/FV design which became the GE FDL engine. The Caterpillar engines were probably an advantage for worldside service and parts on the the small Universal export engines, but GE continued to primarily use Cummins up to the end of the industrial loco design (including those exported) and a few oddballs including two generations of twin Cummins road units for Thailand.
It is interesting that GE does produce a line of modern line of traction alternators for high rpm engines as part of the electrical equipment supplied to outside builders for the huge diesel-electric mining trucks. It seems none of these have been used for rail, everyone seeming to chose modified three phase alternators more common to stationary generation. Sadly I don't think the current high speed engines and alternators will have more than a 10-20 year life when they will be not worth rebuilding requiring an expensive repower job.
I have reasonable faith in the GE GEVO T4, but not sure how many teething problems will exist with the EMD 1010J, Cummins QSK95 and such, or the CAT 20-175. And after a few years of constant use, will they still meet T4 emissions. And they are also becoming maintenance and repair nightmares compared to older designs.
Funny how the railroads are held to such high standards for their emissions and aren't being given any credit as to how fuel efficient they are compared to trucks moving the same freight ...
The bad news is that there are some serious drawbacks that must be considered. First, DEF can freeze at low temperatures so storage tanks whether on ground or the loco would have to be insulated/heated for use in cold areas. Then there is the extra cost of the facilities, adding it to the locos, plus the DEF itself. The biggest drawback may be the volume of DEF required, which I have heard might be as high as 12-15% of fuel capacity. The weight of the extra tank and DEF would be a concern, because even with the lighter weight block of the high speed engine (compared to a standard EMD/GE) most passenger loco designs are now at the absolute weight limit for 4 axles, and there has been some serious consideration of going back to A1A-A1A.
GO Transit wanted MPI to develop a Tier 4 loco (new or retrofit), and MPI did plan on using the QSK-95 but Cummins did not have it in production in time. MPI is supposed to have its T4 loco going to Pueblo soon for track testing, powered by a pair of QSK-60s.
While the railroads have dabbled with gen-sets, they still haven't gained wide acceptance as being the "standard" switcher design. Most of them, with a few exceptions, appear to have been funded in large part using government grants. If the truth was known, I would guess that many railroads will retire them at first opportunity, but somehow have to battle the politicians and consultants that seem to think that an EMD or GE prime mover is "dirty". That is part of what is driving the commuter railroads.
Around the end of WWII, GE was actually the single biggest customer for Cummins engines after truck companies started building their own engines. GE did use a variety of engines, including partner Alco for larger designs, then Cummins for most industrials, and a few Cats namely the 44/47 ton. in the late 1940s, GE pressured Cummins for their new V-12 but Cummins failed to figure it out. GE instead started using the Cat D-397 V-12 with general success. In 1946 GE started building the 70/95 ton line that used a Cooper-Bessemer engine, some of the earlier models had also been tried by GE and other builders. In 1956 GE introduced its Universal line, standardized on the Caterpillar engines for smaller end-cabs and Cooper-Bessemer FV series engines for the larger units. After their divorce from the joint marketing agreement with Alco, GE purchased the Cooper-Bessemer FW/FV design which became the GE FDL engine. The Caterpillar engines were probably an advantage for worldside service and parts on the the small Universal export engines, but GE continued to primarily use Cummins up to the end of the industrial loco design (including those exported) and a few oddballs including two generations of twin Cummins road units for Thailand.
It is interesting that GE does produce a line of modern line of traction alternators for high rpm engines as part of the electrical equipment supplied to outside builders for the huge diesel-electric mining trucks. It seems none of these have been used for rail, everyone seeming to chose modified three phase alternators more common to stationary generation. Sadly I don't think the current high speed engines and alternators will have more than a 10-20 year life when they will be not worth rebuilding requiring an expensive repower job.
I have reasonable faith in the GE GEVO T4, but not sure how many teething problems will exist with the EMD 1010J, Cummins QSK95 and such, or the CAT 20-175. And after a few years of constant use, will they still meet T4 emissions. And they are also becoming maintenance and repair nightmares compared to older designs.
Funny how the railroads are held to such high standards for their emissions and aren't being given any credit as to how fuel efficient they are compared to trucks moving the same freight ...
