Railroad Forums 

  • Go Transit New locos from MPI

  • All about locomotive rebuilders, small locomotive works, and experimental works
All about locomotive rebuilders, small locomotive works, and experimental works

Moderator: Komachi

 #985607  by RickRackstop
 
You say competing engines, you really need to compare identical engines. I know of 2 sets of test done by Southwest Research: the first on an Ingram Barge engine a 12-710G. they tested 5 configurations, the first 4 were with different injectors with different timing. The fifth they added a Firwin catalyst in place of the exhaust manifold and the fuel consumption went up 7%. That was before it could get plugged up. The other was a test on switcher locomotives and the internal structure kept collapsing plugging the exhaust. In any case they will increase the back pressure reducing turbo efficiency. So lets say I'm highly skeptical.

One thing that I wonder about is how Cummins got this deal without a prototype engine and with little or no real locomotive experience. EMD could counter offer to upgrade the existing engines with the Tier 4 parts when available. Cummins does have a relationship with NREC so maybe they are supposed to do the engineering work. It wasn't that long ago that EMD was on the market I guess CAT beat them to the punch.
 #1361454  by MEC407
 
MEC407 wrote: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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ngine.html
Not sure if the following is in addition to, or in lieu of, the QSK95-repowered MP40 project:
RailwayAge wrote:In 2013, GO Transit sent one locomotive from its existing MPI-built MP40PH-3C fleet of 67 units to Boise, Idaho to be repowered, replacing the existing 16-cylinder EMD 710GB engine with a pair of Cummins 16-cylinder QSK60 engines rated at 2,700 hp each (5,400 hp total). As a result of the dual engine design, heavy modifications to the body have been made to accommodate extra air intake and exhaust stacks.

According to MPI, the dual engine setup affords operators the ability to improve reliability and save fuel, as one engine can be deactivated as needed, or used as a backup should one fail during single-engine opeartion. The MP54AC features an IGBT-based AC traction system with individual axle control, brushless AC motors and a synchronous alternator.
Read the rest of the article at: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mec ... ansit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 #1362080  by Fan Railer
 
Spec sheet is out. Looks like a LOT was changed aside from the prime mover repower.

Official Spec Sheet for the GO Transit MPxpress Repower: https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/MP54_QuickSpec_B.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New features include inverter driven HEP (720 kW capacity), leaving 4600 nominal traction HP with a nominal HEP load of 450 - 500 kW (5400 gross HP). AC traction equipment has been equipped.

Tractive effort is fairly high for a passenger locomotive, (82,000 lbs starting and 50,700 lbs /continuous), and top speed has been raised to 110 MPH, with 62:15 gearing and 40" wheels.

Fuel consumption on these brutes is likely to be very high (given the specifications I was able to pull up for the QSK60; http://www.wpowerproducts.com/prodImage ... 0sheet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). With both engines on, notch 8 fuel consumption is around 270 gph.

Contrary to stuff I've been hearing about "lengthened carbodies", overall length remains at 68 feet over coupler faces.
 #1362144  by MEC407
 
Fan Railer wrote:Fuel consumption on these brutes is likely to be very high (given the specifications I was able to pull up for the QSK60; http://www.wpowerproducts.com/prodImage ... 0sheet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). With both engines on, notch 8 fuel consumption is around 270 gph.
That's a lot but it's not bad when you consider the level of horsepower we're talking about. A 16-710 rated at 4000 HP uses 191.9gph in notch 8, which translates to 20.84gph per horsepower. The pair of QSK60s at 5400 HP / 270gph translates to 20gph per horsepower, a slight improvement over the 710 (and presumably also better than what they'd get if they were using a 20-710 at 5400 HP, which I realize is a moot point because there'll never be a Tier 4 710, but I mention it here just for the sake of "what-if").
 #1362188  by NorthWest
 
Fan Railer wrote:Tractive effort is fairly high for a passenger locomotive, (82,000 lbs starting and 50,700 lbs /continuous), and top speed has been raised to 110 MPH, with 62:15 gearing and 40" wheels.
Well, part of that is because it is still really heavy for four axles...
We'll see how reliable and effective the unit will be.
 #1362699  by dowlingm
 
a poster on CPTDB who has a good record on knowing what's going on had the following to say re GO's MP54s:
http://www.cptdb.ca/index.php?showtopic=4666&p=716299" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Steve was wrong in his article, and I've given him up-to-date information subsequent to its publication.

Beyond 647, we're getting 16 new-build MP54ACs. There will be no other conversions.
 #1363718  by mtuandrew
 
I'd like to see how the fuel consumption for two 16-QSK60s compares to one 16-GEVO or 16-1010 (once EMD finally releases the damn thing.) We know those fit into reasonably small locomotives based on the E59ACi (HXN5) and the JT56ACe (HXN3) delivered to/built in China, though they're a little heavy for four axles.
 #1363727  by MEC407
 
I can't seem to find fuel consumption numbers for the GEVO-12 or the GEVO-16. GE claims the GEVO-12 offers 6% better fuel consumption than the 16-710, so perhaps one could take the 16-710 fuel consumption numbers, improve them by 6% to get the GEVO-12 numbers, then divide by 12 to get the per-cylinder number and multiply that by 16 to get the GEVO-16 numbers. I've got a raging migraine right now so I can barely see straight, let alone do math. :wink: