EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Discussion of Electro-Motive locomotive products and technology, past and present. Official web site can be found here: http://www.emdiesels.com/.

Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM

EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby Tadman » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:10 pm

Given that EMD is one of the strongest brands in railroading, and CAT is one of the strongest brands in equipment, why hasn't EMD and CAT co-branded anything yet? And why do they keep the "progress rail" brand around, a brand that means virtually nothing since it is a 20-year rebuilder rather than a 90-year OEM like Cat or EMD?

Look what fits perfectly:
Image
Tadman
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Michigan

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby MEC407 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:29 pm

I think you'll see them move in that direction eventually. They've already released an SD70ACe demo unit in CAT colors:

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/410132
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby Bright Star » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:22 am

The entire chain of ownership is confusing to all concerned. When PRI purchased EMD, most of the EMD senior management was 'disposed of.' Odd, considering the PRI management had almost no experience with the manufacture and marketing of new mainline locomotives.

In any event, CAT has plans to exploit certain EMD technology for the benefit of their earthmover product lines. There has been some movement of CAT personnel into positions of responsibility within EMD.

In five years, we would expect EMD to be rolled into CAT.
User avatar
Bright Star
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby v8interceptor » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:01 pm

Bright Star wrote:The entire chain of ownership is confusing to all concerned. When PRI purchased EMD, most of the EMD senior management was 'disposed of.' Odd, considering the PRI management had almost no experience with the manufacture and marketing of new mainline locomotives.

In any event, CAT has plans to exploit certain EMD technology for the benefit of their earthmover product lines. There has been some movement of CAT personnel into positions of responsibility within EMD.

In five years, we would expect EMD to be rolled into CAT.


Perhaps, but I note that Caterpillar has kept some "legacy" names of companies it has bought. Solar brand Gas Turbines and Perkins engines being prime examples.
It also seems that they are going to maintain the Bucyrus brand for part of their mining equipment line at least for the near future.
Cat seems to do this when the subsidiary brand has a strong existing customer base and good market recognition. EMD certainly meets those requirements. However, if the name endures I would bet it will be as "CAT-EMD"...As far as Progress Rail's brand name it remains to be seen, esp. considering it's own subsidiary brands like Kershaw MOW equipment and Chemtron welding. It wouldn't surprise me if Cat divests itself of some of Progress's non-equipment businesses (i.e track components,signalling systems)though...
v8interceptor
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby Bright Star » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:37 am

Some of us who post here actually have a connection with the subjects we post on. The rest of you are free to take or leave this information-as you wish.

For some reason (unknown to us to who labor in the trenches), CAT has chosen to keep EMD at arms length. Over time, this will probably change. When is anybody's guess.

As more and more things shake out. we expect that manufacturing currently performed at McCook, IL to be moved elsewhere. This is nothing that CAT (and indeed other outfits) haven't done before. The Chicago area hasn't been hospitable to manufacturing for years.
User avatar
Bright Star
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby RickRackstop » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:52 pm

One thing I think CAT wants from EMD is an all AC electric transmission for their mining trucks. GE make ac electric transmissions for for their competitors Komatsu and Liebherr. The other thing is that recently Progress Tail announced that EMD was going to produce a passenger locomotive prototype using a CAT engine (C175 I think) that would require an new design alternator from EMD to avoid the embarrassment of having to use a KATO of Marathon alternator for the 1800 rpm engine.
RickRackstop
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Poulsbo, Washington

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby MEC407 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:17 pm

Interesting. Would this be along the same lines as the PR43C (C175-16 @ 3600 HP + C18-6 @ 700 HP), or would it be just the C175 by itself? CAT also makes a C175-20 which I assume would be rated at 4500 HP for rail applications.

Obviously the genuine EMD alternator would be a big selling point... but what would be the selling point for the C175 in lieu of a tried-and-true 710? I guess what I'm asking is, who would buy this thing, and why? Would using a C175 dramatically lower the cost of the locomotive? What about maintenance costs and total cost of ownership?
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby RickRackstop » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:00 pm

The government recently issued a specification for new passenger locomotives. Part of that was for 4 axles and a speed of 125 mph. To meet that weight and power EMD would have to use a lighter diesel engine. I think in bidding for a government job they only are interested in if the design meets the specifications and that they are the low bidder, the rest is irrelevant as we know from the tri-rail deal.
RickRackstop
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Poulsbo, Washington

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby MEC407 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:15 pm

Thanks for the clarification; somehow I missed the word "passenger" in your original post.

Is a C175-16 really that much lighter than a 12-710?
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby RickRackstop » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:55 pm

First of all the basic unit of measure will be 4000 plus horsepower and that means 16-710 vs. C175-20. At high speed the load factor on the engine will be high which is where the EMD is a clear winner. I also think that the PR/EMD locomotive will have a bridge truss frame like the old F units had to further reduce the weight. I don't think EMD will have much enthusiasm for this deal as they usually like to line up a minimum order before going ahead. They got their fingers burned on the LIRR DM/DE and that was only of a total of about 42 locomotives, less than the BL series that preceded the GP7. They also built 2 AC motored F40's that Amtrak decided not to buy after all.

The GE/ MPI locomotive that has been sold to MBTA exists only on the "drawing board" so far so that's only as far as EMD should go with it and then bid high so that they will go away.
RickRackstop
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Poulsbo, Washington

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby Bright Star » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:16 pm

One of the big issues with the LIRR DE/DM's is that they came in over design weight, which necessitated some very expensive bridge strengthening. Another issue was the incorporation of local (NYS) content from suppliers with no experience in the railroad business.

I would expect the new high speed design to be designed based upon institutional knowledge gained from the DE/DM experience. The monocoque carbody and fabricated trucks would seem to be a given. Standard building blocks such as FIRE, MELCO invertors and EM2000 based controls would also be expected, along with a static HEP package.

A new line of EMD designed and manufactured alternators suitable for an 1800 rpm could also be applied to CAT engines sold into non-railroad markets, replacing those supplied by KATO and Marathon.

FYI,there was a 16 cyl , AC/DC version of the LIRR DE units that never made it off the drawing board. This may have been EMD's attempt to win the Amtrak bid, which went to GE.
User avatar
Bright Star
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby v8interceptor » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:37 pm

RickRackstop wrote:One thing I think CAT wants from EMD is an all AC electric transmission for their mining trucks. GE make AC electric transmissions for for their competitors Komatsu and Liebherr. The other thing is that recently Progress Tail announced that EMD was going to produce a passenger locomotive prototype using a CAT engine (C175 I think) that would require an new design alternator from EMD to avoid the embarrassment of having to use a KATO of Marathon alternator for the 1800 rpm engine.


When Cat purchased Bucyrus international one of the Equipment lines they acquired was the Unit Rig range of Diesel Electric mining trucks which Bucyrus had acquired from Terex when they bought Terex's mining equipment division. This allows Cat to offer customers a full range of trucks with either electric or mechanical transmissions.

https://mining.cat.com/products/surface-mining/unit-rig

CAT also has been developing it's own in house AC electrical drive systems and already offers these on a couple of it's trucks (including the 797,the world's largest)
The Unit Rig line uses electrical systems supplied by Siemens so it is logical to assume that CAT will want to phase out the third party components and use it's own in house designs.
Given that EMD AC drive locomotives have always used electrical components supplied by other companies (originally from Siemens,lately from Mitsubishi) I wonder if CAT will want to start using their self produced inverters/traction motors, ect. as well...
v8interceptor
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby JayBee » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:58 pm

EMD builds every thing except the inverters, those are supplied by Mitsubishi. 3-phase squirrel cage motors are simpler than series wound DC motors.
JayBee
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby CREEPING DEATH » Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:33 pm

I'm awaiting C-280 powered 100-series EMD test units. I'm really surprised Cat hasn't bought a second-hand SD90 or few for testing.

CD
CREEPING DEATH
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: EMD - why no CAT cross-branding yet

Postby renrut44 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:50 am

Where does the PR22L fit into this picture?

17 are currently under construction at Patterson

These units are Cape gauge, but Dpwner's handout at AusRail 2012 indicated that they had a standard gauge option

GT26C frame, Cat 3512C, Kato Alternator, GHC Bogies, D43BTR traction motors, Downer EDI type compact dynamic brake module. PR has acquired the rights to Downer's designs.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5182/1 ... 0514pm.png
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/358/ ... 0735pm.png
renrut44
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 7:26 am

Next

Return to EMD - Electro-Motive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests