Seems they cannot get a Tier 4 freight locomotive out. Is not the 1010J in the same line of prime movers as the EMD "SD9060MAC", which was a disaster years ago. What is taking PR so long to come up with a freight prime mover which can work under T4? Shot themselves? In the foot?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Dominic Mazoch posted:Seems they cannot get a Tier 4 freight locomotive out. Is not the 1010J in the same line of prime movers as the EMD "SD9060MAC", which was a disaster years ago.
As usual, you are incorrect! The big 4-stroke cycle EMD engine was fine, but the electrical systems gave lots of problems on the 6000HP SD90MAC units.
What is taking PR so long to come up with a freight prime mover which can work under T4?
The most important thing, concerning the T4 units with the original EMD 710, two-stroke cycle diesel engines involves HOW the exhaust is "cleaned". All the railroad Mechanical Departments got together and demanded that "no DEF" should be used in order to meet/exceed T4. By continuing to "play around" and test/develop exhaust gas recirculation, the GE 4-stroke cycle engines seem to comply with T4, however the EMD (Progress Rail) 710 series engines don't respond well enough to EGR!
On the other hand, the U.S. Marine Industry (river boats and sea going tugs & supply boats) love the EMD (Progress Rail) 710 engine, and have gone with DEF. Thus, the highly reliable and fuel efficient 710 with DEF, meets T4 with no problems. The U.S. marine industry loves the 710, and are continuing to purchase them.
As a side note, the current locomotives from both GE and EMD (Progress Rail) that comply with Federal T4 requirements, are NOT fuel efficient, i.e. they use LOTS MORE FUEL, and is another reason why they are in "storage".
Shot themselves?
Nope!
In the foot?
Nope!
Jack,
A few questions.
Could you define DEF and EGR?
Do the marine industry versions of the 710 perform better being more or less stationary power plants?
Thanks!
Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF)
EGR exhaust gas recirculation.
1. When the "SD9060MAC" came out, the rail press at the time was commenting the 6000hp prime mover was at issue, not the electrical system. Also, EMD started to offer the "SD9043MAC", so railroads could start with the 710 prime mover, then move up to the 256H when perfected. Again, all from the rail press at the time.
2. Given the 1700 hp increase in power between the 70 and 90 series, I can accept the fact the electrical system was not ready for 6000 hp.
Why would you believe the press !!!!! Have they ever run or worked on a locomotive? don
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
