SD70ACe-T4 What went wrong?

Norfolk Southern ordered 10, and I believe CSX ordered 10.

Prime mover not ready for prime time?

• Union Pacific: (QTY: 88) #3013, (assumed to be) 3000-3087
• Norfolk Southern: (QTY: 10), on order, #2000-2009.
• CSX (QTY: 10), on order, #8900-8909 (unconfirmed).
• BNSF (QTY: 10), on order, numbers unknown (will be SD70ACe-P4/T4 variants).

http://locomotive.wikia.com/wiki/EMD_SD70ACe-T4

My guess is G.E. builds a better locomotive.

Unlike GE, EMD had to design, test and build basically an all new prime mover to meet Tier IV standards, so they were a little late out of the box, and then there were some teething problems, so GE got the early lead.  Couple that with Tier IV units higher cost, reduced fuel economy, higher maintenance demands, AND an outbreak of "Precision Scheduled Railroading" which has idled hundreds hundreds and hundreds of locomotives nation wide, means there is little to no demand for new locomotives, especially ones that are more expensive to operate than their predecessors.  The Tier IV units of BOTH builders are the first in history where the customer gets absolutely NOTHING for their investment.  So far, GE has been able to put more Tier IVs on the road and keep them there, but NEITHER company is setting the world on fire.   I suspect the storing of the UP Tier IVs has more to do with preserving their warranty status and to give EMD more time to perfect fixes in a time when they really are not needed, than any catastrophic shortcoming of these units.   Major rebuilding programs have also cut into new locomotives.  Norfolk Southern's SD70ACu and ACC rebuild programs alone are taking a 200 unit bite out of potential new locomotive sales, never mind their GE Dash-9 program.

Thanks DieselBob! 

For what it's worth, I've read someplace else that the EMD Tier IV units tend to use much more fuel than other, previous units. So, the end result for cleaner exhaust emissions is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,loss of fuel economy!  Go figure.

Hot Water posted:

For what it's worth, I've read someplace else that the EMD Tier IV units tend to use much more fuel than other, previous units. So, the end result for cleaner exhaust emissions is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,loss of fuel economy!  Go figure.

Modern diesel trucks do the same thing. I guess the railroads can't delete the EPA software though. 

Hot Water posted:

For what it's worth, I've read someplace else that the EMD Tier IV units tend to use much more fuel than other, previous units. So, the end result for cleaner exhaust emissions is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,loss of fuel economy!  Go figure.

Car manufacturers pull the same trick to scam the CAFE regs Jack. 

They loosen operating tolerances and then require using 0w-20 oil with the viscosity of water.  

Which leads to a fair amount of grumbling about how certain new/newer models drink oil to the tune of a quart per thousand miles or so and how the manufacturers write it off as normal. 

It both situations the government is attempting to legislate a reality that doesn't exist at this time.  The market tends to take care of these things much better than the government.  Think steam vs dieslelization, the market handled this really well, and actually would have implemented it faster if not for government interference during the war.

I think the SP, during a traffic downturn, stored brand new SD40-2's with special cooling package (SD40T-2) at Eugene OR so to protect the warranties.

So clearly the warranties aren't based on time. Is it by mileage or hours? Whichever, I'm sure it beats the typical 3 years, 36,000 miles most cars have!

Will Ebbert posted:

Hot Water posted:

For what it's worth, I've read someplace else that the EMD Tier IV units tend to use much more fuel than other, previous units. So, the end result for cleaner exhaust emissions is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,loss of fuel economy!  Go figure.

Modern diesel trucks do the same thing. I guess the railroads can't delete the EPA software though. 

Do you think the environmental costs (raw materials, manufacturing and DISPOSAL) of the 2.5 gal plastic jug / spout for DEF I put into my pick-up trucks at least balances with the saved emissions and the lost fuel mileage?  I don't....but I'm not a Rocket Scientist. Who knows how many jugs go into the landfills and are not recycled when you leave them behind at the service station pump islands. I have yet so see a recycling bin for them at the stations. I have seen the attendants pick them up and throw them in a dumpster.

Bulldog_65 posted

Do you think the environmental costs (raw materials, manufacturing and DISPOSAL) of the 2.5 gal plastic jug / spout for DEF I put into my pick-up trucks at least balances with the saved emissions and the lost fuel mileage?  I don't....but I'm not a Rocket Scientist. Who knows how many jugs go into the landfills and are not recycled when you leave them behind at the service station pump islands. I have yet so see a recycling bin for them at the stations. I have seen the attendants pick them up and throw them in a dumpster.

One possible solution to that issue for you would be to find a vendor that sells bulk DEF (like a truck stop) and have them refill your jugs, then you wouldn't have to throw them away.  Might be a little cheaper for you too.

I think EMD and GE T-4 prime movers do not need DEF.  However, some other prime movers do to make T-4 emissions.

Now, a new can of worms.  My guess is that a gas powered prime mover would met T-4, but with many opetational issues.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

I think EMD and GE T-4 prime movers do not need DEF. 

Correct.

However, some other prime movers do to make T-4 emissions.

Correct.

Now, a new can of worms.  My guess is that a gas powered prime mover would met T-4, but with many opetational issues.

If you mean compressed natural gas, yes as THAT is the future. 

I'm curious what the industry's reluctance to DEF systems is. Are they concerned with the maintenance of the physical system? I know I've seen where one railroad (I forget which) said they didn't want to have to worry about a locomotive running out of DEF, but that seems like a lousy argument against it. I know the scale of things is vastly different, but an 8 gallon DEF tank on my truck lasts about 10,000 miles. 

The use of DEF on a class one railroad and on a locomotive is fraught with all kinds of issues.

1) The DEF needs to be carried somewhere on the locomotive, and you'll need a LOT more than eight gallons.  A road locomotive probably burns more fuel in a week or two than your truck will in it's lifetime.  There has to be DEF storage at every fuel terminal, and since DEF gets slushy at about 14 degrees and freezes solid a little below that, in most places it would have to be dispensed out of a heated tank or building.  The DEF also must be kept in a heated tank on the locomotive too.

2) Def delivery systems add quite a lot of cost and complexity to the equipment they are used on, the parts are not nearly reliable enough, and they are EXPENSIVE.  I deal with this stuff every day, I know.  The pump unit that takes the DEF from the tank over to the injection point on a Mack or Volvo class 8 truck is roughly $1400.00, and I've got two in the shop right now that need them.  An equivalent one for a locomotive would likely cost five times what a truck unit would. 

3) DEF systems require constant maintenance and frequent repairs.  In a world where the railroads don't want to do anything between the 184 day service intervals besides topping off the fuel, oil and water,  DEF systems will really cramp their style.

4) With even the biggest railroads having only a few places left that actually repair locomotives, who's going to work on them? 

Thanks for the insight Bob! 

Hot Water posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

I think EMD and GE T-4 prime movers do not need DEF. 

Correct.

However, some other prime movers do to make T-4 emissions.

Correct.

Now, a new can of worms.  My guess is that a gas powered prime mover would met T-4, but with many opetational issues.

If you mean compressed natural gas, yes as THAT is the future. 

 

Yes, CNG.

I brought up this topic of using Natural Gas to meet Tier IV emissions requirements during an interview at the EMD McCook plant last year & to the extent I still remember the details of the discussion, EMD was very optimistic of this approach 3 or 4 years prior. At that time when they needed to start working on a Tier-IV compliant diesel-electric locomotive, the price of some measure / unit of natural gas was cheaper than the price of a corresponding measure / unit of diesel & the head of EMD predicted that customers would be willing to adopt natural gas powered locomotives. Some customers even encouraged EMD to continue this development.

But then the price of diesel dropped but the price of natural gas went down but not as much as the drop in the price of diesel. After that, these customers weren’t as enthusiastic about going the natural gas route & EMD expedited the development of a Tier IV compliant diesel locomotive.

These are just my opinion,

Naveen

I know FEC has/ had a considerable portion of their fleet running on natural gas.