Caterpillar Falls Behind GE in Locomotives Race

Yeah, Norfolk Southern has several of these units, and not a word has been spoken about them for about a year, nor have they been released to roam the system, which makes me think they are nowhere close to being ready for prime time. If Cat persues the high speed engine route, they are commiting suicide in my opinion.....  I think making a 710 work STILL has to be option one, (I am NOT convinced that it cannot be done), and the 265 has to be option two.  Building a new low speed design would have to be option three.  Using any of the existing Cat designs would have to be a last resort. Hotwater could probably offer some opinions on this, but IF the 710 can't hack it, what about using the 710's basic architechture, and develop a four stroke cylinder head and manifold design for it? Re-route the intake air out of the lower part of the block and into a new design four stroke cylinder head.  It would be a LOt of work, BUT, if you could offer an engine design that was at least SOMEWHAT familiar to the railroads, and you could save time and money by re-using as many existing parts and tooling as possible, you could have a winner.

Bob, the fork-n-basket rods would not work in a 4 stroke

Correct, but why couldn't you hang regular rods and likely pistons too on the existing crank, or a new design crank made to fit the existing crankcase?

But when you are all done, will you not have an engine with half the HP?

The 710 has very similar bore and stroke dimensions to the old GE FDL four stroke. (I couldn't find B&S info on the GEVO) If converted to four stroke design, I don't see why a 710 COULDN'T put out a similar HP number. (43-4400 HP.

Converting a 2 stroke diesel to 4 stroke is just not practical.

You would have to re-design and cast new cylinder heads.

Re-design the valve train. 

Grind new camshafts and completely re-design the gears that drive the camshafts. 

And I'm sure there are plenty of other modifications  that I havent thought of yet.

Then you'd have to put it all back together and hope it works.

Probably best to design a new engine from the oil pan and up.

The 710 has four exhaust valves in the head. Obviously two of those valves would have to become intake valves, necessitating a totally new cylinder head design and an intake manifold to bring the air to them.  The camshaft would also have to be reconfigured to time the intake valves.  You are right, it WOULD be a huge undertaking, maybe not even possible, BUT, if you could design the new engine 20-30% faster and 10-30% cheaper by re-using some existing designs and components, all the while providing a powerplant that would somewhat familiar, fit in the same basic footprint, use the same auxilliary systems and some of the old tools and maintenence procedures, there could be some real value in that.  After all, we are talking about one of the ALL TIME great engine designs, proven over 75 years, not some Johnny come lately design. I am an internal combustion engine geek, and I love theoretical mind excercises like this. In the 1990's I actually sent GM a rough design proposal for an enhanced Small Block Chevy engine that would have enbraced many of the concepts of the current LS series engine while retaining 20-30% of the parts already in production, and the ability for hotter rodders and racers to back-fit old design components like cylinder heads, intake manifolds and distributors. They could also TRUTHFULLY claim the engine was a direct decedent to the original 1995 Small Block Chevy, not like the bald face LIE they tell now. I'm sure the proposal went directly into a trash can unread, but it was a fun challenge to do. Far too often designers like to prove how smart THEY are, by throwing out the tried and true that was the work of someone else, for something new and unproven that they can claim as their own.  I believe in the building block approach. Start with what DOES work, and improve what doesn't.

Bob,

The approach of using different parts on the same engine didn’t go well for us when we were working on Tier IV for our smaller Caterpillar engines. Like you, at first we thought that we were saving money & time by just redesigning a few parts while keeping the majority of parts the same. We soon discovered that our assemblers in the factory had build schedules to meet & couldn’t waste time  to stop & read the new part numbers on the different parts that seemed identical at first glance. So engines started getting to the end of the line with the wrong parts requiring more time with more technicians to verify the work of the assemblers & rebuild as needed & eventually we had to look into designing 2-D dot-matrix bar codes punched on metal parts & barcode readers at each station that the assembler had to scan during installation before the computer allowed the engine to move to the next station. That meant that we had to redesign some of the smaller forgings to include a flat surface for the barcode, each of the suppliers who made these parts had to get 2 barcode printers (1 for redundancy) & each station on the assembly line required a barcode scanner.

Sure if we could theoretically automate the assembly line like an automotive factory we could have eliminated the human error. But these engines did not have a high enough usage & had sufficient variations in the same model, with respect to attachments & power-take-off drives, to prevent investing in full automation. I would assume that engines on locomotives have relatively lower production quantities compared to my 13 – 18 liter engines making automation even less favorable.

These are just my opinion.

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

I see your point, but I'm envisoning a production run where you would only be building one type of engine in a given production run.  Currently, EMD is really only producing one engine, and unless they kept the 710 in production for certain export markets, there would be no confusion.  I suppose it has to do with low production volume, but I'm a little surprised that the Cat engine line isn't like an auto assembly plant were the assembler just grabs the next availble part, which has been placed into his bin in the proper order for unit being produced. On the car line, the blue hood shows up at the assembly point when the blue car does.  I had the chance to see the 710 assembly line at LaGrange at the 1997 open house.  Quite the experience!

Bob,

We also have the sequencing you refer to. The flywheels that I was responsible for came in tubs sequenced & partitioned from the flywheel supplier that matched the build order at our factory. But that approach was also not error-proof. At the facility / location where the parts were sequenced, the technician could make an error with similar looking parts if the changes are not significant to catch their attention due to repetitive job functions (not sure if this is the correct terminology).

Even though all the engines that went on the locomotive might be identical as you suggest, you have to realize that engines are built at a different facility from where the locomotives are assembled, usually a facility that just builds engines, a facility that also builds engines for other applications. I read recently that Caterpillar also offers 710 for marine applications & that might require different ratings / components / power-take-off from the engines built for locomotives.

The interview for my first job at Caterpillar was at our engine facility at Lafayette, IN & I spent time walking through the factory that built our 3500, C175 & 3600 (C280) engines until I could provide a sample for a random drug test. Even on the same engine model, the amount of variations seemed endless. Some of the differences weren’t even visible from outside like differentiating the engines for ratings for 50 Hz or 60 Hz power generation.

These are just my opinion.

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

I understand what you are saying and there is a challenge to manufacturing different engines, but I don't think it is really any different than what EMD is currently doing. You are just potentially adding one new option to the engine line than they have now, and maybe not, if it replaces some of the current offerings.  Since you mentioned Lafayette, I fully expect Cat to close LaGrange and move engine production to Lafayette at some point.  The other sub-assembly work done at LaGrange now could likely be done there, or at the locomitive assembly plant in Muncie.  They have PLENTY of room there if they need it.

I don't know but I've been around Caterpillar engines & equipment all my life and I think that the reason Cat bought EMD is because Cat couldn't build/ engineer a large bore diesel that could hold up to a EMD.

How many hours can a EMD engine run before it needs a rebuild?

I don't know that they CAN'T, and this goes for Cummins too, but they keep trying to shoehorn some poorly suited existing product into a locomotive.  Either get serious and develop a purpose built railroad diesel, or leave it to the people that do.  I think Cat saw a lot of potential non-railroad business when they bought EMD through the global reputation of the EMD 2 stroke engine, and I think that potential is STILL there. I think the locomotive business was a nice bonus.  They NEED to get serious about the marketing and branding and get out in front of the fact that EMD is now a CAT product, and quit hiding it behind Progress Rail. People KNOW Cat, they KNOW EMD, those names stand for something.  Who gives a flying flip about Progress Rail?

I thought I read somewhere that one of the reasons Cat was interested in EMD and the 710s was because some mine owners wanted Diesel-Electric draglines and mine shovels to replace the current extension cord variety and Cat didn't have anything close.

Also, for any who may think you can't make a 2 cycle 710 engine meet at least some form of tier 4 emissions, you might want to take the time to read this report from 2012.

Final Report
EMD Tier 4 (PM) Aftertreatment Upgrade on a Line Haul Locomotive
FY 2010-2012

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...43,d.aWw&cad=rja

Because the banks are not offset like they are in a four stroke.  Both pistons in the vee intersect the same plane.  That is why they use the fork -n- basket rods, and the reason they chose to was probably to shorten the overall length of the engine. 

 

Don't forget the EMD 710 is a fabricated block, the only cast portions in it are the main web sections that get welded in with everything else.  If you have never seen the process they use to cut the steel plate and assemble/weld the 710 block, it is pretty unique and extremely cool .  Of course watching 3500 or C175 block go through the machining process in Lafayette is also very cool 

 

Originally Posted by Dieselbob:

Correct, but why couldn't you hang regular rods and likely pistons too on the existing crank, or a new design crank made to fit the existing crankcase?

 

You're right, i hadn't considered the lack of cylinder offset in the 710.  I still wonder if a variation of the curent setup couldn't be used in a four stroke.  I would have to stop and think about that one fo awhile.  I don't know if this part was directed at me or not, but yes, I saw 710s being built on the 97' EMD plant tour.  I saw all the flame cutting, the block fabrication etc. I remember the "mig wire" the size of my pinky finger being fed to welders out of 55 gallon drums.  I could have watched that stuff for a week!

Do 710 engines still use welded / fabricated blocks? I thought that our foundry in Mapleton, IL that casts heads & blocks for the larger Caterpillar engines had started providing some block castings for EMD engines in the last few years.

These are just my opinion.

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

Somebody has to make the cast steel pieces used in the crankcase like the crankshaft saddles.  Perhaps THAT is what they are making?

Those are forgings.

Does Tier 4 apply to diesel only, or to all fuels?

Diesel only.

Thanks for the clarification on that.  just glancing at them in the factory, I took them to be nodular iron, or something similar.

Locomotive engines certified to EPA Tier IV must produce no smoke. EPA website mentions that these requirements only apply to opaque smoke. So water vapor in the exhaust must be acceptable then. Perhaps in a few years model train manufacturers could stop offering smoke apparatus on their scale-oriented locomotive models of Tier IV locomotives.

These are just my opinion,

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

naveenrajan,

Locomotive "assembly" is one thing, but the ONLY place in the world that the EMD diesel engines are manufactured is at the McCook, Illinois Engine Plant.