Go Transit New locos from MPI

Go Transit's order for 26 new locos are going to be built with EMD 16-710 engines, EMD traction motors, controls, microprocessors and other components... MPI is going to call them MP40PH-3's but really you could call them F70PH-2's. I got this from Trains magazine and the MPI website[/b]

They will probably be called MP40PH-3C;
MP: Motive Power
40: 4000 Hp
P: Passenger service
H: Head End Power equiped.
3: Microprocessor controlled
C: Caterpillar HEP power plant.

Thanks for the info clyde. Then can you tell me what the F59PHI that AMT runs, stands for?

EMD F59PHI
F: Full carbody (not external engine room walkways)
59: Serie 59 (incl. 12-710 G3B turbocharged engine 3200HP)
P: Passenger service
H: Head End Power equiped (prime engine driven I guess)
I: Injection (EM-2000 electronic fuel injection control)

I'm not 100% sure for the last digit. Here's a link for more on these loco.

[url=http://www.westcoastexpress.com/LocomotiveSpecs.htm][/url]

I thought the I in F59PHI stood for Isolated cab like the SD60I

Clyde wrote:EMD F59PHI
F: Full carbody (not external engine room walkways)
59: Serie 59 (incl. 12-710 G3B turbocharged engine 3200HP)
P: Passenger service
H: Head End Power equiped (prime engine driven I guess)
I: Injection (EM-2000 electronic fuel injection control)

I'm not 100% sure for the last digit. Here's a link for more on these loco.

http://www.westcoastexpress.com/LocomotiveSpecs.htm

the F59PHI has a separate cummins HEP package and the "I" is indeed for isolated cab, note that GO transits F59's don't have the I and are F59PH

Ditto with Metrolink's first F59's (non-streamlined units). I believe they were actually tagged onto the back of a GO order not long after the earthquake in LA during the early 1990's.

This may seam a stupid question, but what is the purpose behind having 1 4000hp unit on a 6 car commuter train? Is it acceleration? Surely a 12-710 would suffice?

QR National wrote:Ditto with Metrolink's first F59's (non-streamlined units). I believe they were actually tagged onto the back of a GO order not long after the earthquake in LA during the early 1990's.

This may seam a stupid question, but what is the purpose behind having 1 4000hp unit on a 6 car commuter train? Is it acceleration? Surely a 12-710 would suffice?

Go plans to use them on 10 to 12 car trains.

Even still, we have long distance passenger trains (35 cars on The Ghan sometimes) with a 4000hp + 3800hp unit on the train. Same horsepower which they put onto 100 car stack trains.

QR National wrote:Even still, we have long distance passenger trains (35 cars on The Ghan sometimes) with a 4000hp + 3800hp unit on the train. Same horsepower which they put onto 100 car stack trains.

yes but long distance passenger trains have to start and stop far less frequently. A GO train on the Lakeshore line will have to make over a dozen stops, going from track speed to zero and back. It's all about acceleration.

I think you'll find that the Ghan has to run two locomotives because of reliability reasons on the Darwin line .

11 of GO Transit's MP40PH-3Cs (currently powered by EMD 16-710s) are soon going to be repowered with the new Cummins QSK95 4000 HP engine:

Railway Gazette wrote:Launching the engine at its Seymour, Indiana, plant, Cummins announced that Toronto commuter operator GO Transit will be the first QSK95 customer in North America, with an order for the repowering of 11 MotivePower MP40 locomotives.
...
'We anticipate that the QSK95 will power the first passenger locomotives to meet Tier 4 emissions standards in North America using Cummins' proven SCR exhaust after-treatment. The inherent advantage of high-speed diesel efficiency and a more compact installation over medium-speed locomotive engines becomes even more apparent with the need to meet very low emissions standards.'

Read more at: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/s ... ngine.html

Afterthought: this new 4000 HP V16 engine has a total displacement of approximately 95 liters. That's not much more than the 8-cylinder version of EMD's 710, which is approximately 93 liters, or the 8-cylinder version of GE's FDL, which is approximately 88 liters.

To get twice as much horsepower from the same/similar total displacement is pretty impressive.

The QSK95 uses four (4) turbochargers. I suppose a likely argument from EMD or GE in favor of their own engines would be "why would you want to maintain four turbos instead of just one?"

I'd be really interested to know what kind of fuel consumption this engine has compared to a 16-710 or GEVO-12.

The QSK95 requires diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) in order to meet Tier 4 standards, which obviously means an additional product that railroads would have to buy and store, but I've heard reports from the school bus industry that the new bus engines using DEF get better fuel economy than the competing non-DEF engines, thus making the DEF cost a moot point. It'll be interesting to see if that translates to much larger engines when EMD (and perhaps/probably GE) release their non-DEF Tier 4 engines.

The Railway Gazette article says that the prototype won't be available until 2013 and that limited production won't begin until 2014 and full production in 2015. All these engines will have to be Tier 4 if they don't get into service until 2015. If they don't have a prototype now what is the engine in the picture? The inherit advantages they have is that they are smaller and lighter than medium speed engines of similar horsepower. As far as efficiency is concerned with a SCR tacked on it won't be as efficient. The serviceability looks to be poor also adds extra hours when they have to replace cracked heads or cylinder "kits" High speed engines don't have a good record in the marine field and I haven't heard too much good about Cummins engines in Gensets either.

RickRackstop wrote:As far as efficiency is concerned with a SCR tacked on it won't be as efficient.

Can you elaborate on this? The reason I ask is because I'm curious about how SCR (injecting DEF into the exhaust) would make the engine less efficient. As I mentioned in my previous message, I've been hearing from several reliable sources that the new bus engines with SCR actually get better fuel economy than the competing engines that use EGR instead of SCR.