I was told it's done by hand.
Older EMD's used the generator as a motor to rotate and start the engine. Those EMD's were more likely to need purging, especially 567 A, B, and C engines which had not been modified to reduce internal water leakage when completely cooling down.
Later EMD's, with a starter motor, had a 2-stage starting cycle. The starter motor ran slowly for about 2 rotations of the prime mover, and then sped up, to quickly start the engine and conserve battery. The engines still had a test valve on each cylinder, but I never used one on the later EMD's unless the engine was stone cold. The initial slow cranking, I am told, was intended to purge any condensed or leaked water.
Where does one look on the locomotive to see whether the 567 is A, B, C or something else?
@Ken Wing posted:Where does one look on the locomotive to see whether the 567 is A, B, C or something else?
I suggest this reading. Good description and chronicling of the EMD 567.
The wrench is a pin wrench. There are two holes in the face of the valve to insert the pins into.
It's also knurled on the edges for doing by hand.
@Ken Wing posted:Where does one look on the locomotive to see whether the 567 is A, B, C or something else?
There is a badge on the diesel engine. It identifies the model and number of cylinders, the engine serial number, and some other information.
On Thursday, I plan to inspect our two SW-1s, using both the info from the Preston Cook article linked above and seeking this badge.
Given its 1940 build date, the one SHOULD have been built with a 567V or 567U. The 2016 rebuilder placed a plate on the cab saying it was a 567C.
Assuming it was not rebuilt between 1940 when built and 1982 when WWRR acquired it, could a 567U or V be rebuilt into a C?
@Ken Wing posted:On Thursday, I plan to inspect our two SW-1s, using both the info from the Preston Cook article linked above and seeking this badge.
Given its 1940 build date, the one SHOULD have been built with a 567V or 567U. The 2016 rebuilder placed a plate on the cab saying it was a 567C.
Assuming it was not rebuilt between 1940 when built and 1982 when WWRR acquired it, could a 567U or V be rebuilt into a C?
No! There is no way an original 567 U deck or V deck crankcase could EVER be "rebuilt" into a C crankcase engine. If the locomotive currently has a C series engine, then a complete engine change has taken place.
Stand by for an update Thursday...
@Ken Wing posted:Stand by for an update Thursday...
For quick reference, if the engine has round hand-hold covers on the air box and oil pan, then the engine is a C series crankcase.
@Rich Melvin posted:What has been missed in this discussion is that the EMD diesel is a TWO CYCLE engine. It does not have intake valves, it has intake ports around the circumference of the cylinder at the bottom of the stroke.
Those ports are open to the air box, where the intake air is pressurized by the Roots Blower and/or turbo charger. There are also water lines running through the air box. If one of those lines has a small leak, it would not be visible to anyone on a visual inspection of the engine. However, the water from that leak could run directly into any cylinder where the piston happens to be sitting at the bottom of its stroke. And that, my friends, is why you “blow down” an EMD diesel before you start it.
This is not some local railroad’s SOP. It is part of the standard starting procedure for every EMD 567 and 645 engine.
Early in my truck driving career my company had a few tractors with 2 stroke 318 Detroit engines. Every so often when cold starting them they would start in reverse, the exhaust would go out the air cleaner! The only way to stop it was to pull the fuel shut down handle in the cab. Did that ever happen to the big 2 strokes?
@Rich Melvin posted:What has been missed in this discussion is that the EMD diesel is a two cycle engine. It does not have intake valves, it has intake ports around the circumference of the cylinder at the bottom of the stroke.
Those ports are open to the air box, where the intake air is pressurized by the Roots Blower and/or turbocharger. There are also water lines running through that air box. If there is a leak in one of those lines, the water can leak directly into any cylinder where the piston happens to be at the bottom of its stroke, uncovering those intake ports. A leak like this would not be visible on an external inspection of the engine. And that my friends, is why you “blow down” an EMD two-cycle diesel before you start it.
This is not a local railroad’s SOP. This is part of the standard starting procedure for every 567 and 645 EMD diesel engine.
Correct, but most diesels idols their life away, when not in service.
Attachments
Images (1)
@ThatGuy posted:Correct, but most diesels idols their life away, when not in service.
1) Who are these "idols" you are referring to?
2) Now, if you actually mean they "idle their life away", that is no longer true of the modern, computer controlled high HP units. The computer will shut the prime mover down, and automatically re-start the prime mover if the temperature gets too cold, battery voltage gets low, compressed air pressure gets too low, and possibly a few other items I've probably forgotten.
@Hot Water posted:1) Who are these "idols" you are referring to?
2) Now, if you actually mean they "idle their life away", that is no longer true of the modern, computer controlled high HP units. The computer will shut the prime mover down, and automatically re-start the prime mover if the temperature gets too cold, battery voltage gets low, compressed air pressure gets too low, and possibly a few other items I've probably forgotten.
Yes today that is true, I should have stated years ago. The locomotives always idled.
GP40, I was not able to see any of the images in your post for some reason.
@GP40 posted:The logic behind requiring the test procedure to be done after 2 of 4 hours, was the fact that sometimes after shutdown, the Engine block would expand slightly and seize the piston preventing the engine from rotating during the restart sequence.
OK, just where did you come up with THAT? Any crankcase expansion would NEVER affect the pistons within the individual cylinder liners.
Opening the test cocks relieved compression and its associated resistance and often allowed the engine to start.
Sorry, not true. Opening the cylinder test cocks was done ONLY to prevent any hydraulic lock from fluids that might have "leaked" into the power assemblies.
Priming the fuel for the diesel engine 10-15 seconds before cranking was intended to remove any air that may have seeped into the fuel system and ensure that the fuel system was properly pressurized for operation.
Priming the fuel system, while watching the sight glass on top of the engine mounted fuel filters, was to ensure that ALL the injectors had proper fuel supply prior to starting. Many times this priming function took a lot longer than 10-15 seconds.
Hope this helps.
Sure.
Regards,
C.J.
Here is a picture of the plate on the engine block identifying this SW-1 as a 567 with no letter suffix, suggesting it is the original block. Based on the Preston Cook article linked above, this would be either a "U" or "V," but these were apparently not official EMD terms. I forgot to bring the article with me, and I couldn't remember what to look for or take a photo of to distinguish between the two--fabricated versus cast top deck--so I'll have to look again.
The other SW-1 does not have its original block, but a later 567C. One of the staff told me it was a marine version of the 567C.
Attachments
That's what I was trying to explain the other day. Two holes for a pin wrench and a knurled edge to get a grip by hand to close them.
@Ken Wing posted:Here is a picture of the plate on the engine block identifying this SW-1 as a 567 with no letter suffix, suggesting it is the original block. Based on the Preston Cook article linked above, this would be either a "U" or "V," but these were apparently not official EMD terms.
Yes they were, internally. The description "U" and/or "V" refer to how the top deck, or "exhaust deck" was designed/fabricated. The exhaust manifold sections would have a 3 sided gasketed construction, for the bottom, and two sides. Such was problematic in service, so the "V" top deck was designed so that an exhaust manifold would sit down inside the deck with gasketed surfaces on only 2 sides, in a "V" configuration.
That didn't work all that well either! Thus, a flat top deck was designed with internal fabricated exhaust "tubes", water cooled on all sides, in order to direct the exhaust from the cylinder head "pot" upwards to the flat top deck, with exhaust manifolds sitting down on a flat gasketed surface. That is still the way EMD 567, 645, and 710 two stroke cycle engines are designed/built.
I forgot to bring the article with me, and I couldn't remember what to look for or take a photo of to distinguish between the two--fabricated versus cast top deck--so I'll have to look again.
The other SW-1 does not have its original block, but a later 567C. One of the staff told me it was a marine version of the 567C.
Thank you for the correction
I have become very curious to identify which 567 version is in one of the WWRR SW1. As mentioned, the plate just says 567. From the Preston Cook article and date of manufacture, it would be either a 567U or 567V. Per the article, the top decks distinguish these: "The 567 “U” (cast top deck) and 567 “V” (fabricated top deck) engines..." In addition, "The “U” and “V” designations refer to the shape of the “valley” between the banks of cylinders, where the exhaust risers mount to the crankcase." Opening up the side doors, this valley is not visible. I'm attaching a photo of the top over the cylinders on one side. It is clearly fabricated, not cast. If I'm looking at right thing, this engine is a 567V. I've never seen a second, so I may be mistaken.
Can anyone confirm which version this is based on this photo?
Attachments
Images (1)
@Ken Wing posted:I have become very curious to identify which 567 version is in one of the WWRR SW1. As mentioned, the plate just says 567. From the Preston Cook article and date of manufacture, it would be either a 567U or 567V. Per the article, the top decks distinguish these: "The 567 “U” (cast top deck) and 567 “V” (fabricated top deck) engines..." In addition, "The “U” and “V” designations refer to the shape of the “valley” between the banks of cylinders, where the exhaust risers mount to the crankcase." Opening up the side doors, this valley is not visible. I'm attaching a photo of the top over the cylinders on one side. It is clearly fabricated, not cast.
What you are looking at is the top deck, but NOT the exhaust manifold deck. Thus, this is NOT indicative of whether it is a "U" deck or a "V" deck crankcase.
If I'm looking at right thing, this engine is a 567V. I've never seen a second, so I may be mistaken.
No. i.e. you are NOT "looking at the right thing".
Can anyone confirm which version this is based on this photo?
No.
Best thread on here in a while.
One other thing to think about Re: "leaks" being acceptable or not.
On larger designs it will be tougher to get as consistent a result for tight tolerances due to the nature of physical materials.
@rplst8 posted:Best thread on here in a while.
One other thing to think about Re: "leaks" being acceptable or not.
Depends on weather the "leak" is internal or external, what is "leaking", i.e. exhaust, coolant, fuel, oil, or air.
On larger designs it will be tougher to get as consistent a result for tight tolerances due to the nature of physical materials.
Generally it comes down to good gasket surfaces and VERY good gaskets.
Snip: "On larger designs it will be tougher to get as consistent a result for tight tolerances due to the nature of physical materials.
Generally it comes down to good gasket surfaces and VERY good gaskets."
I recently visited a car museum and watched a 1936 Bugatti Type 57 Atalante operate. This car had no head gasket. The metal parts were hand scraped to fit without leaks--no way to blow a head gasket during a race if there isn't one. Not saying this is feasible for a locomotive or auto production line.
@Ken Wing posted:I recently visited a car museum and watched a 1936 Bugatti Type 57 Atalante operate. This car had no head gasket. The metal parts were hand scraped to fit without leaks--no way to blow a head gasket during a race if there isn't one. Not saying this is feasible for a locomotive or auto production line.
That was a very special application, on a car that was hand-made in very small quantities. The machining tolerances required to achieve a mating surface that does not require a gasket is not feasible for any mass-produced large engine or automobile.
It is MUCH more cost-effective to use more lenient machining tolerances and a gasket.
@Ken Wing posted:I recently visited a car museum and watched a 1936 Bugatti Type 57 Atalante operate. This car had no head gasket. The metal parts were hand scraped to fit without leaks--no way to blow a head gasket during a race if there isn't one. Not saying this is feasible for a locomotive or auto production line.
@Rich Melvin posted:That was a very special application, on a car that was hand-made in very small quantities. The machining tolerances required to achieve a mating surface that does not require a gasket is not feasible for any mass-produced large engine or automobile.
Interestingly this is also how the shafts are fitted to Navy ships. The “blueing” process to achieve the proper fit is pretty fascinating.
