FA+
Shop
176
Views
Views
5
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Photography / Still Life
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 600 x 800
File Size 236.2 kB
Report this content
More from BlastForAnAss
EMD diesel engine in the engine room of US Coast Guard buoy tender Sundew, docked at Duluth, Minnesota. These engines are 567 cubic inches PER CYLINDER, making it slightly bigger than your cheesy Cummins pickup engine. These are V8 configuration, so around 800hp each.
I've never seen a 567 engine with polished valve covers. Most of the ones I've seen are "filth and chipped paint" colored :)
The silver jacket covers the exhaust manifold and pipe to try to reduce heat in the engine room. Note the conduit to exhaust pyrometers, a useful engine monitor.
The crazy cover with "flames" in the back covers the air cleaner. The ribbed object under it is a Roots positive-displacement blower which supplies combustion air. These EMDs are two-stroke diesels and they must have a blower of some type to scavenge the cylinders or they don't run!
Two strokes provide a lot of power for their weight and size and are simple, but they are fairly dirty. Modern emissions laws have pushed them from the market but they had a long run!
I've never seen a 567 engine with polished valve covers. Most of the ones I've seen are "filth and chipped paint" colored :)
The silver jacket covers the exhaust manifold and pipe to try to reduce heat in the engine room. Note the conduit to exhaust pyrometers, a useful engine monitor.
The crazy cover with "flames" in the back covers the air cleaner. The ribbed object under it is a Roots positive-displacement blower which supplies combustion air. These EMDs are two-stroke diesels and they must have a blower of some type to scavenge the cylinders or they don't run!
Two strokes provide a lot of power for their weight and size and are simple, but they are fairly dirty. Modern emissions laws have pushed them from the market but they had a long run!
Category Photography / Still Life
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 600 x 800px
File Size 236.2 kB
Haha, that's nothing ;)
These engines were often upgraded to "645" components which are 645 c.i. per cylinder. And there is a 710, though I've never personally seen one... too new.
The engine I've worked with most is 668 c.i. per cylinder, so a V16 is 10,688 c.i.!!! Now THAT is an injine! :)
These engines were often upgraded to "645" components which are 645 c.i. per cylinder. And there is a 710, though I've never personally seen one... too new.
The engine I've worked with most is 668 c.i. per cylinder, so a V16 is 10,688 c.i.!!! Now THAT is an injine! :)
Two stroke diesels are actually quite common! Many very large diesels (ships, stationary power) used to be two stroke. Nordberg and Fairbanks-Morse built gobs of them.
General Motors had immense success with two stroke diesels:
Detroit Diesel division: 51, 71, 92, 110 (truck and general purpose)
Cleveland division: 268A, 278A (mostly marine)
Electro Motive division: 567, 645, 710 (mostly locomotives)
(all model numbers are cubic inches PER CYLINDER)
Emissions regulations have killed them so I'm not sure anyone still builds new ones. I'm sure wikipedia has much more about them :)
General Motors had immense success with two stroke diesels:
Detroit Diesel division: 51, 71, 92, 110 (truck and general purpose)
Cleveland division: 268A, 278A (mostly marine)
Electro Motive division: 567, 645, 710 (mostly locomotives)
(all model numbers are cubic inches PER CYLINDER)
Emissions regulations have killed them so I'm not sure anyone still builds new ones. I'm sure wikipedia has much more about them :)
EMD still produces 710s and they meet all the current emissions standards. 2 stroke engines actually have cooler combustion temperatures so it is better in terms of NOx emissions. MPI has the rights to make 645 engines which are currently used for the MP36PH-3 series of commuter rail locomotives.
I find it curious they are bothering with the 710. It may have had the worst commercial acceptance of any GM two stroke design! :) Since "EMD" is owned by Cat, why not just use a Cat engine (e.g. 3500, 3600) where there might actually be manufacturing volume and parts stock?
Oh, well. Rarely do I understand the logic of American corporate management.
Oh, well. Rarely do I understand the logic of American corporate management.
The 710 is hugely reliable and is very well regarded, especially in overseas markets. Go to the Wikipedia page and see all the places the 710 turns up. EMD has had poorer sales compared to GE because GE is cheaper. All the way through the GM era EMD was always seen as a superior product by the crews, but not the bean counters that wanted to save money with GE.
CAT lacks a prover large displacement locomotive engine. All of their diesels are high RPM small bore models that tend to die when subjected to high load and little maintenance. They are seeing some use in new passenger rail equipment, but I doubt those engines will last 10 years. Attempts to use CAT prime movers in the 1990's all met with failure.
Note the GE EVO design is the same type of large displacement engine well suited for locomotive use. Freight railroads are never going to buy high rev diesels cause they've been bit by CATs promises before.
CAT lacks a prover large displacement locomotive engine. All of their diesels are high RPM small bore models that tend to die when subjected to high load and little maintenance. They are seeing some use in new passenger rail equipment, but I doubt those engines will last 10 years. Attempts to use CAT prime movers in the 1990's all met with failure.
Note the GE EVO design is the same type of large displacement engine well suited for locomotive use. Freight railroads are never going to buy high rev diesels cause they've been bit by CATs promises before.
Ah, it does appear the 710 is more accepted than I realized. I forget that a lot of time has passed since I was around these things... back then a 710 was mere novelty. The 645 was the gold standard. What is an SD60/70/80? Never seen one :)
Cat had the 3600 medium speed series for years, what's wrong with it? The new 280 (which must be quite similar) is medium speed, single turbo and a straightforward 6 or 8 gives considerable hp. I can see the complaints against the high speed units (4 turbos, really?), but it certainly seems at least one big/slow Cat series has existed a long time.
It can't be any worse a flop than the 265, right? lol
I sure hope EMD improved their turbos, since there is no Roots-blown 710. That turbo/super on older engines was a farking nightmare for any "casual" user :(
Cat had the 3600 medium speed series for years, what's wrong with it? The new 280 (which must be quite similar) is medium speed, single turbo and a straightforward 6 or 8 gives considerable hp. I can see the complaints against the high speed units (4 turbos, really?), but it certainly seems at least one big/slow Cat series has existed a long time.
It can't be any worse a flop than the 265, right? lol
I sure hope EMD improved their turbos, since there is no Roots-blown 710. That turbo/super on older engines was a farking nightmare for any "casual" user :(
The MK5000C tried using a CAT 3612 and it was a complete failure. I believe that plant was designed for marine use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK5000C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK5000C
I know the MK5000 was a flop, but there have been plenty of successful engines used back and forth with marine applications, so I don't really see what the marine bit has to do with anything.
The De La Vergne used in Baldwins was an early marine engine that was an awesome rr engine, thoroughly indestructible! Tons of EMDs went into marine applications. FMs were used much more in marine than in locomotives, and were moderately successful in locos. And the last significant use of 251s is Navy and Coast Guard ships, including ice breakers.
I do see some of the larger Cats show twin turbos, but I can't imagine a company like Elliot couldn't slap a single on it in a few days.
It just puzzles me that Cat can't figure this out... It's not like medium speed diesels are anything new. They must be one of the largest diesel builders in the world, and they probably own the engineering design files of EMD...
The De La Vergne used in Baldwins was an early marine engine that was an awesome rr engine, thoroughly indestructible! Tons of EMDs went into marine applications. FMs were used much more in marine than in locomotives, and were moderately successful in locos. And the last significant use of 251s is Navy and Coast Guard ships, including ice breakers.
I do see some of the larger Cats show twin turbos, but I can't imagine a company like Elliot couldn't slap a single on it in a few days.
It just puzzles me that Cat can't figure this out... It's not like medium speed diesels are anything new. They must be one of the largest diesel builders in the world, and they probably own the engineering design files of EMD...
What kills marine diesels like the FM OP in rail use is that marine diesels run at constant RPM for hours or days. Rail use requires not only sustained high load, hi rev operation, but also frequent throttle adjustment. Rail engines will do fine in marine because marine is a less stressful environment. Throw in a lack of maintenance and and you really need a magical design...the type that originates in places with a lot of institutional knowledge. Look how EMD's H-engine failed when they moved away from 2-cycle.
For example the new EMD F125 passenger engine uses a CAT C175-20 to generate 4200hp. A 710 uses a V16 and a GE EVO uses a V12. Also the C175-20 has 4 turbos instead of 1 turbo. Each cylinder and each turbo is a maintenance item and a point of failure. At higher RPM you get more wear and a lower time between failure.
In North American railroading you have to assume there is no money for maintenance. That is why European designed diesels always crap out under North American use. They assume good quality track and strict maintenance regimes.
In North American railroading you have to assume there is no money for maintenance. That is why European designed diesels always crap out under North American use. They assume good quality track and strict maintenance regimes.
In my experience, it doesn't take very long before an EMD is burning lubricating oil. Regardless of how clean it burns in theory or on the test stand, I have a feeling that when you get them in the field, they aren't going to do so well for "real world" emissions :)
Now whether emissions standards have any relation whatsoever to "real world" emissions is surely an entirely different discussion ;) I've never paid any attention to emissions standards, and don't ever expect to (thankfully)!
Now whether emissions standards have any relation whatsoever to "real world" emissions is surely an entirely different discussion ;) I've never paid any attention to emissions standards, and don't ever expect to (thankfully)!
Yup, the 567A/B had a different cylinder/head/block design, mostly about its water jacket. They were often 'leakers' leaking coolant into the airbox and cylinders, hence their need for the blowout cocks and the ritual of cranking over before starting. They resolved that issue by about 1951-2-3-something with the improved C block.
Just my 2c, you geeks can battle out the details... Ive done that many years ago. And I am finished with it.
Just my 2c, you geeks can battle out the details... Ive done that many years ago. And I am finished with it.
Comments