Passenger Trains > Cat Power for EMD's New Passenger Locomotive

Speculation that the 710 engine would not be used in EMD's new 125 m.p.h. passenger unit in favor of a higher r.p.m. engine from the Caterpillar line have proven to be true. The new F125 will be powered by a 20 cyl. Caterpillar C175 rated at 4700 h.p. and running at 1800 r.p.m. with A.C. traction motors and meeting EPA Tier 4 emissions standards. Some promotional details:
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf

The only North American rail application I'm aware of so far for the Cat C175 is the 16 cyl. 3600 h.p. version in Norfolk Southern's PR43C's. Any overseas locomotives using this power plant?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/13 20:48 by shed47.

shed47 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speculation that the 710 engine would not be used
> in EMD's new 125 m.p.h. passenger unit in favor of
> a higher r.p.m. engine from the Caterpillar line
> have proven to be true. The new F175 will be
> powered by a 20 cyl. Caterpillar C175 rated at
> 4700 h.p. and running at 1800 r.p.m. A.C.
> traction motors and meets EPA Tier 4 emissions
> standards. Some promotional details:
> http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sid
> ersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf
>
> The only North American rail application I'm aware
> of so far for the Cat C175 is the 16 cyl.3600 h.p.
> version in Norfolk Southern's PR43C's. Any
> overseas locomotives using this power plant?


Negative. Its a fairly new power plant based of the new QSK90 engine.

That artists' rendering makes me cry.

Interesting that they will use frame-mounted traction motors.

Jaanfo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That artists' rendering makes me cry.


That is pretty ugly! Makes the GE Genesis seems downright stylish!

The face of that unit reminds me of a dinosaur. Passenger locomotives just continue to get uglier.

Maybe they could take a page from the auto industry and do a retro styling - say something resembling an Alco PA! Even a "bulldog" F-unit would be better. Hey, maybe a petition on Change.org!

>Interesting that they will use frame-mounted traction motors.

What on earth are "frame mounted traction motors"? If they are truck-frame mounted, it's a language redundancy. If they are locomotive frame mounted, it's a 140 year throwback to something which didn't really work. Besides a "monocoque" carbody, being uni-body construction like a PCC, has no "frame". 3ph traction motors can't be built like the bi-polar motors used in NYC S-motors and Milw bipolars because the air gap between the rotor and stators would be too large for it to work.

oilcan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The face of that unit reminds me of a dinosaur.
> Passenger locomotives just continue to get uglier.


One "feature" they apparently won't have is fabrication of the nose from what are basically flat sheets of
metal, as on the Genesis. Cesar Vergara's "dressing up" of the Genesis with striping reduced the stark impact
of its unadorned "face," but perhaps we didn't realize that back in 1993, because all we had to look at at
first was the Amtrak Phase III version. When Metro-North introduced their P32 Dual Modes with plain blue noses,
THEY looked gaunt and ungainly, an appearance which Amtrak soon mimicked with the current "Three Sheets to
the Wind" scheme.

I modeled a Genesis from scratch with sheet plastic, when they were brand new, before Athearn made them in
plastic. I was surprised at how ugly it was, before it was painted and decorated.

Nothing says that details of the new EMD nose won't be refined, or that a paint scheme won't be designed
that will work with its basic contours for a better-looking result. Regardless, almost all passengers don't
care what the locomotive pulling the train looks like, as long as it is reliable and gets them where they
want to go, on time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/13 23:44 by GenePoon.

arrow611 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe they could take a page from the auto
> industry and do a retro styling - say something
> resembling an Alco PA! Even a "bulldog" F-unit
> would be better. Hey, maybe a petition on
> Change.org!

Seriously, create a throwback to the good old days of Es & F-Units and PAs. If this ugly slimy thing is the future of locomotive design, then there is no hope for the human race-at least for locomotive design!

BUTT UGLY!!!

Aren't there any good industrial designers around any more???

Bring back the PA or F-unit front ends! Stylish, and fast!

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Interesting that they will use frame-mounted
> traction motors.
>
> What on earth are "frame mounted traction motors"?
> If they are truck-frame mounted, it's a language
> redundancy. If they are locomotive frame mounted,
> it's a 140 year throwback to something which
> didn't really work. Besides a "monocoque" carbody,
> being uni-body construction like a PCC, has no
> "frame". 3ph traction motors can't be built like
> the bi-polar motors used in NYC S-motors and Milw
> bipolars because the air gap between the rotor and
> stators would be too large for it to work.

Mounted to the truck frame. Traction motors on most US freight locomotives are axle-hung, with a big bearing on one end around the axle and a small nose hanger (I forget the exact terminology, I'm not a TM guy) on the other that connects to the truck frame. That arrangement keeps the center-to-center distance between the TM pinion gear and the axle bull gear constant, but makes for a lot of unsprung weight, which can be a problem at higher speeds.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BUTT UGLY!!!
>
> Aren't there any good industrial designers around
> any more???
>
> Bring back the PA or F-unit front ends! Stylish,
> and fast!

Absolute proof the designer from Ingalls Shipbuilding has not retired!

That thing is way to ugly to go fast.

Well...

The feedback from my non Railfan friends is very positive, and would be more likely to get on a train pulled by one...

I think thats the key...

If you squint, and look real close, there is a little "throwback" factor in the design of the nose...

>Mounted to the truck frame. Traction motors on most US freight locomotives are axle-hung, with a big bearing on one end around the axle and a small nose hanger (I forget the exact terminology, I'm not a TM guy) on the other that connects to the truck frame.

This was Frank J. Sprague's 1887 breakthrough, the wheelbarrow mounting, which made using traction motors for rail propulsion economically practical.

>That arrangement keeps the center-to-center distance between the TM pinion gear and the axle bull gear constant, but makes for a lot of unsprung weight, which can be a problem at higher speeds.

Didn't stop the GG1s, which have a variation on the wheelbarrow mounting called "quill drive". If you can't maintain accurate pinion-bull gear center to center distance, then maintenance issues will drive you out of business. Also, use involute contoured gear teeth, not cycloidal ones. Chain drive was a big failure.

Carries sand and urea?

Macster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> shed47 Wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Negative. Its a fairly new power plant based of
> the new QSK90 engine.

Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the QSK90 is a Cummins product.

Larry Dodgion
Wilsonville, OR

Kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carries sand and urea?

Urea is for lower emissions...google it.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BUTT UGLY!!!
>
> Aren't there any good industrial designers around
> any more???
>
> Bring back the PA or F-unit front ends! Stylish,
> and fast!


And expensive as hell to fabricate and they don't meet current crash worthiness standards.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And expensive as hell to fabricate and they don't
> meet current crash worthiness standards.

The MP36's don't look too bad. And the Acela Express and Rohr Turboliners both have what I consider to be the best looking cab designs of any trains on North American rails, while meeting modern standards.