Western Railroad Discussion > Is the EMD 12 Cyl "H' engine dead?

The phantom SD unit that housed the 12-cylinder "H" engine surfaced periodically. Any word on it's whereabouts and/or if the CAT people will shelve or scrap it?

It will be very interesting to see what occurs at EMD. I think there's a good possibility that the 2-cycle engines will go to the scrap heap too. Caterpillar certainly has engines in the power and speed range for locomotive, generator, and ship applications, and EMD has the business... opinions, anyone?

They are still heavily used in Marine applications but locomotive purposes are all but dead.

Remember, they still make Alco engine parts. Those old 567, 645, and 710 2-Strokes are going to outlast us all.

- Arved

Weren't they specified for a large Chinese order?

northislands Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weren't they specified for a large Chinese order?

Yes the 6,000 HP 265H was used in for that Chinese order. Most all of those were built overseas though. I don't believe that the 12 cyl version is dead. I think it comes down to the tier requirements that the EPA puts out. The four cycle engines burn less fuel and are suppose to burn cleaner. I still think depending on the new CAT management that we will see a SD70ACe type unit with the 12 265H

YEs, dead as a door nail. The people responsible for this failure (From what I have been told by and insideer) are no longer at EMD, most have been gone several years.

Plus, CAT is the leader in emissions controls on large engines. Why spend the money to try and bring
an "H" motor into compliance when an acceptable alternative exists in the CAT product line. I'm sure
that based on previous locomotive use you'll see some strengthening of components but the basic CAT
package will find use.

From other posts, it seems that CAT locomotive diesels have had very mixed success. Will RRs take another chance with an unproven prime mover?

It's not really been Cat's history to "rationalize" product lines when they acquire a company. For instance, years ago Cat acquired Perkins Diesel in the UK; though the Perkins product line, generally smaller engines, had considerable overlap with Cat's, Perkins still makes a full line of engines.

Also, EMD isn't directly a subsidiary of Cat, but of Progress Rail which is a subsidiary of Cat. So EMD is twice removed from Cat.

Further, as pointed out above, the larger Cat engines have hardly been a resounding success on the railroads. Even the smaller engines have found a niche mostly in switching and branch line locomotives, not in heavy freight service.

Finally, it's hard to imagine Cat discontinuing a product that's found such wide acceptance on the railroads. The EMD 2-strokes are simple, durable, easy to work on, and have (relatively) inexpensive parts that are available not only from EMD, but have been reverse-engineered by many third party vendors.

DeutzHDL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> northislands Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Weren't they specified for a large Chinese
> order?
>
> Yes the 6,000 HP 265H was used in for that Chinese
> order. Most all of those were built overseas
> though. I don't believe that the 12 cyl version is
> dead. I think it comes down to the tier
> require

China is not using the 12-cylinder -- that is the 16-cylinder. The SD89MAC is still at EMD's McCook, Illinois plant.

One issue with Cat motors for railroad use is the main bearing on the alternator end isn't large enough to support the motor and the half of the alternator. One of the larger issues with the MK5000.

Detroit Diesel produced truck engines that were a baby EMD. They tried everything under the sun to meet vehicle emissions, and every modification made them run worse! They finally gave up in what 1992?? That is why Detroit Diesels today are now all 4 stroke.

Paul Ramer
Cincinnati, OH

alamode Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DeutzHDL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > northislands Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Weren't they specified for a large Chinese
> > order?
> >
> > Yes the 6,000 HP 265H was used in for that
> Chinese
> > order. Most all of those were built overseas
> > though. I don't believe that the 12 cyl version
> is
> > dead. I think it comes down to the tier
> > require
>
> China is not using the 12-cylinder -- that is the
> 16-cylinder. The SD89MAC is still at EMD's McCook,
> Illinois plant.


That's why I said the 6,000HP 265H, without also saying 16cyl. We're talking about the same thing.
Anyways, one of the SD70ACe demo's that KCS didn't pick up was supposed to be part of 12 cyl 265H testing. There was a shot some where out here that showed some mods done to the electrical cab. Does anyone have any info on what became of this or if it is still being used?

DeutzHDL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alamode Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DeutzHDL Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> That's why I said the 6,000HP 265H, without also
> saying 16cyl. We're talking about the same thing.
>
> Anyways, one of the SD70ACe demo's that KCS didn't
> pick up was supposed to be part of 12 cyl 265H
> testing. There was a shot some where out here that
> showed some mods done to the electrical cab. Does
> anyone have any info on what became of this or if
> it is still being used?

The Demo SD70ACe was equipped with SCR looking towards meeting Tier 4 emissions. Both builders better have Tier 3 licked as with just over one year to go, they do not have any time to still be experimenting. In any case a locomotive able to meet Tier 2 and also able to operate solely on ULSD fuel should have little trouble meeting Tier 3.

The Detroit Diesels that didn't meet EPA may do so now. A company in Bakersfield CA is building a kit to retrofit 6-71 and 12-71 detroits to tier 2 standards. The kit consists of new piston and liners, cam, and cylinder head. One of my customers will install one in a boat by December. This will make the SCAQMD happy.

usmc1401 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Detroit Diesels that didn't meet EPA may do so
> now. A company in Bakersfield CA is building a kit
> to retrofit 6-71 and 12-71 detroits to tier 2
> standards. The kit consists of new piston and
> liners, cam, and cylinder head. One of my
> customers will install one in a boat by December.
> This will make the SCAQMD happy.


What I want to know is,Why a company in Bakersfield Ca. can do what Detroit Diesel (The people who built the damn thing!!)Could not do for years!!??

Newer technology?
A more imaginative engineer?
No deadhead managers telling the engineers how it MUST be done?
No hordes of lawyers and marketing types telling the engineers how it MUST be done?
No VP getting a bigger bonus by firing the engineers than by completing the project?

There are lots of reasons small companies can easily do things that are completely impossible for large established companies. That is one of the main reasons that large established companies buy small startup companies -- to put them out of business and protect their current market share.

rehunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plus, CAT is the leader in emissions controls on
> large engines. Why spend the money to try and
> bring
> an "H" motor into compliance when an acceptable
> alternative exists in the CAT product line. I'm
> sure
> that based on previous locomotive use you'll see
> some strengthening of components but the basic
> CAT
> package will find use.

I wouldn't be so sure about Cat being the "Leader". I live about 30 miles north of Lafayette, IN, where Cat builds their 3500, 3600 and C-27 big bore engines. I know people who work there, one in particular, who tells me that the C-27, which supposedly is a replacement for the 3500 series engines, is a disaster, with Cat Service people running all over the country replacing turbos that are literally melting on the engine, because of high exhaust system temps associated with Cat's ACERT emissions system.

The ACERT system has definitely not been an unmitigated success, by any stretch of the imagination. Truck fleets are complaining long and loud, about the reliability of late model Cat ACERT equipped engines (per J. D. Power Truck Fleet survey), with at least 3 fleets suing CAT over these reliability problems (per Transport Topics magazine).

I'll believe the 265H and 710 engines are dead when EMD says they are.

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN

No one has even mentioned the parts issue. For railroad to accept Cat powered locomotives, means they must commit to carry another line of parts and to train their mechanical forces how to work on them. And for a work force that has been so babied by working on EMD engines which were designed from the ground up for ease of maintenance, that won't come easy. Another point is that railroads have been splurging on current technology locomotives out of fear what tier 3 compliance will mean in complexity and loss of performance. When tier 3 goes into effect, there may be a sudden drop in locomotive orders until market conditions on the railroads force them to add to the fleet once again, but that could be years down the road with all the new locomotives running around and older models still hanging aroound.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR