Eastern Railroad Discussion > GenSets Have a Hard Act to Follow -- One of NS's

Diesel-elecrtric locomotive technology is quite mature and performs its job quite well.  The new kids on the block, multiple-genset locomotives, have a way to go to match their predecessors' performance as shown by the negative reports from those who operate them.  But they are, of course, an attempt at a reduction of the major energy consumption and pollution costs to society of conventional diesel locomotives.  Thus we need to hope the technology matures even more.  Even if the technology never equals the performance of its predecessor technology, it should contribute to reducing the total cost to society of railroading.  Reducing those costs will increase the net benefit and result in more trains and fewer trucks.

The photos are of NS 101 at Lancaster, PA on June 8, 2012.  It is model RP20BD, a four-axle, 3-engine genset locomotive.


Enjoy the photos of the new technology I saw in Lancaster,
Marty Bernard



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/15 13:25 by MartyBernard.

---

---

it is sitting at the back of the track almost like they parked it.

Sharon Evans
Glen Allen, VA

It looks like it is MUed to the unit in front of it.  No?

Marty Bernard

Every time I have ever seen a Genset loco, it's been parked off to the side while REAL locomotives were doing the work.  I've yet to EVER catch one actually running.  Norfolk Southern's corporate assessment of them could not have been much more critical.

Didn't they test them before buying them? Or was there pressure with tax credits, etc?

NS decided to buy ECO locomotives rather than unreliable Gen-sets

I've seen that unit in Enola before.

Note, the gensets in California get used all the time. 

Marty Bernard

I know it's somewhat off topic, but those are some of my favorite locomotives.

Not for ever running one, my railroad only has NRE units....I just like how they look. I remember seeing them brand new when Rail Power debuted them and I fell in love.

Wierd, I know. Put me in the foamer category for today.

Posted from Android

DG .
Unknown, US

MartyBernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It looks like it is MUed to the unit in front of it.  No?
>
> Marty Bernard


Yes it is MU'd to the other locomotive. Although the MU hoses on the side facing the camera are not connected, the walkway safety chains are up between them and the light green train-line angle-cock is open.


Ron

Only one set of MU hoses need to be laced up, unless it's super cold outside and the rule requires it....if that's still a rule?

Posted from Android

DG .
Unknown, US

I don't think those units were ever considered failures because of being unreliable, at least that's not what NS mentioned in their own reports (which I read somewhere online a while back, but not sure anymore where that link is).  I do recall that NS did consider them to not be satisfactory, but it was something to the effect that they were not showing the fuel savings that NS had hoped for.  And they said the reason for it is that the trains (on which they were being used) are long and heavy, so the concept of only 1 or 2 engines running at a time wasn't playing out, since all engines were running most of the time.

MartyBernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Thus we need to
> hope the technology matures even more.  Even if
> the technology never equals the performance of its
> predecessor technology, it should contribute to
> reducing the total cost to society of
> railroading. 

In this case, performance=cost. So they NEED to perform better than what they are replacing. Gensets have only proven themselves efficient in low load environments. At medium to high loads a modern single medium speed engine is more efficient by a fairly healthy margin.  Both in fuel economy and in emissions.

With automatic start-stop, it is my understanding that a EMD ECO outperforms any genset in almost all operating conditions.

So in short we shouldn't be hoping that just this technology matures, but any technologies that promise advancement in the fuel economy/emissions/reliability department mature. Rather than just putting everything into what could turn out to be a technological dead end.

Bunny218 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think those units were ever considered
> failures because of being unreliable, at least
> that's not what NS mentioned in their own reports
> (which I read somewhere online a while back, but
> not sure anymore where that link is).  I do
> recall that NS did consider them to not be
> satisfactory, but it was something to the effect
> that they were not showing the fuel savings that
> NS had hoped for.  And they said the reason for
> it is that the trains (on which they were being
> used) are long and heavy, so the concept of only 1
> or 2 engines running at a time wasn't playing out,
> since all engines were running most of the time.

I distinctly remember NS being much more critical than you suggest.  It is also a fact that nearly EVERY one of these units purchased has been done with government money.  Next to NOBODY has ever plunked down their own money to purchase one of these units.  You also mentioned something else.  Gensets have a very narrow range where they are useful, while a GP ECO unit can perform basically any function on the railroad and do it with repair parts and tools already on hand and with existing skill levels.  Slam dunk as far as I'm concerned.

Labiche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5) Have any of you "expert opinion makers" ever
> bothered to look at the comments being made about
> locomotives in communities?      So why do communities
> complain?  

Most of the people in these communities are clueless and would be better off keeping their mouth shut about things they don't understand.  The reason the air may or may not be polluted in their town is not because the local yard switcher is a GP38-2 instead of a genset.    


Do you even know
> that the basic machinery design of a GP38-2
> engine, for example, is over FIFTY YEARS OLD? 
> Yup, it runs like a charm. Do you even know that the basic
> machinery design of a GP38-2 engine, for example,
> is over FIFTY YEARS OLD?  Oops, sorry for being
> redundant.

Yes, in fact the powerplant design is now over 75 years old.  What's your point?  It STILL does the job better than anything invented since and those GP38-2s have paid for themselves many times over.  Those gensets will be lucky to ever earn back their costs, assuming the railroads paid for them, which most DIDN'T.

I saw and read the original NS report myself, and it with out actually saying so, NS said the gensets were crap. Internally NS showed that their rebuild program and the ECO rebuild program from EMD / Progress Rail were superior to the Genset programs that were available. UP's side of the report was more favorable from a politically correct stand point.

I can't find a copy off hand, but maybe Chris Toth has a copy he can share or post a link to.

Russ

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Labiche Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > 5) Have any of you "expert opinion makers" ever
> > bothered to look at the comments being made
> about
> > locomotives in communities?      So why do
> communities
> > complain?  
>
> Most of the people in these communities are
> clueless and would be better off keeping their
> mouth shut about things they don't understand. 
> The reason the air may or may not be polluted in
> their town is not because the local yard switcher
> is a GP38-2 instead of a genset.    
>
>
> Do you even know
> > that the basic machinery design of a GP38-2
> > engine, for example, is over FIFTY YEARS OLD? 
> > Yup, it runs like a charm. Do you even know that
> the basic
> > machinery design of a GP38-2 engine, for
> example,
> > is over FIFTY YEARS OLD?  Oops, sorry for
> being
> > redundant.
>
> Yes, in fact the powerplant design is now over 75
> years old.  What's your point?  It STILL does
> the job better than anything invented since and
> those GP38-2s have paid for themselves many times
> over.  Those gensets will be lucky to ever earn
> back their costs, assuming the railroads paid for
> them, which most DIDN'T.

Hmmm.  Looks like an entire post was deleted.  What did I miss besides what is quoted here?