The CC of a Locomotive.

[WestRiding]

Bit of an odd question, but one I have never found an answer to. Car Engines are measured in CC. So, what is the CC (Cubic Capacity) of a Railway Locomotive. A class 66 for example?

 

[jopsuk]

The class 66 has an EMD 710 prime mover. which we can see here that each cylinder has a displacement of 11,600cm^3. Specifically, it has a 12N-710G3B-EC, which (as you may or may not guess) is a V12 version, so multiplying by 12 gives us 139,200cm^3.
Note that the Class 67 and the "new" class 69 use an identical unit.
If you go digging on wikipedia, you'll find similar info for most engines. In the info box for a locomotive the bit you're after is the "Prime Mover". You'll often find this takes you to a page about an essentially modular engine family like with the Class 66.

 

[talltim]

Well, for example the 66 has an EMD 12-710G3B-EC prime mover. The 12 is the number of cylinders and the 710 the capacity of each cylinder in cubic inches.
So that’s 710*16.387*12=139618 cc or 139.6 litres

A class 68 has a Caterpillar C175-16 prime mover with 16 cylinders of 5,289cc each giving a total of 84.7 litres

 

[WestRiding]

Interesting. Thanks for the replies.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Supplementary question for the engine experts: for the same basic design of engine, does power output increase proportionally to an increase in cc?
Or putting it another way, does the power:cc ratio change as engine size increases?

And related to this, do you get more power from an engine with, for example 4 x 1000 cc cylinders or 8 x 500 cc cylinders?

 

[36270k]

Maybach MD650 in a Warship Class 42 is 65 Litres ( 12 Cyl )
Maybach MD870 in a Hymek Class 35 is 87 Litres ( 16 Cyl )

The EMD engine in a class 57 or 59 is 645 cu in per cylinder

 

[Richard Scott]

Supplementary question for the engine experts: for the same basic design of engine, does power output increase proportionally to an increase in cc?
Or putting it another way, does the power:cc ratio change as engine size increases?

And related to this, do you get more power from an engine with, for example 4 x 1000 cc cylinders or 8 x 500 cc cylinders?

A lot to do with volumetric efficiency and friction. Less friction in a 4 cylinder than a 5 cylinder of same capacity but the 5 cylinder would be able to run at a higher rotational speed due to lower individual masses so may produce more power at expense of fuel consumption. Would be interesting to know how the 12 cylinder Sulzer engine compared to the 16 cylinder EE engine in terms of fuel consumption. Believe the Sulzer was around 228 litres and EE 247 and ran 100rpm faster.

 

[Railperf]

Class 755/3 units are fitted with 2 x 16-litre Deutz V8 diesel engines of 480 kW - 643.7 hp each. So total 32 litres - 960 kW - 1287 hp

The Class 755/4 power packs are fitted with 4 engines! - so 64 litres and 1920 kW - 2,574 hp. Estimated 80-85% of that power available for traction.

Compares interestingly with a single HST Power car that IIRC was 79 litres and developing 2,250 hp at 1500rpm. Though only 1770hp available at the wheels for trcation.

Power outputs hp/litre look low in comparison with high revving car engines, but train engines usually run at around 1800-1900rpm maximum.
Car engines produce at lot less power at those engine speeds too.

 

[edwin_m]

The other complication is that the Class 66 engine is two-stroke. Most locomotive engines are four-stroke (the Deltic being an exception). A two-stroke engine is likely to produce more power for its weight and cubic capacity, as each cylinder has two power strokes out of four rather than one. But combustion is less efficient so fuel consumption and emissions tend to be higher.

 

[43096]

Class 755/3 units are fitted with 2 x 16-litre Deutz V8 diesel engines of 480 kW - 643.7 hp each. So total 32 litres - 960 kW - 1287 hp

The Class 755/4 power packs are fitted with 4 engines! - so 64 litres and 1920 kW - 2,574 hp. Estimated 80-85% of that power available for traction.

Compares interestingly with a single HST Power car that IIRC was 79 litres and developing 2,250 hp at 1500rpm. Though only 1770hp available at the wheels for trcation.

The 79 litres is for the Valenta. The 12VP185 is 63.24 litres.

An even more direct comparison would be with the 12LDA28C engine in Class 47 - within 6hp on the power rating.

 

[DustyBin]

If I remember correctly the EE engine in the Class 50 displaces 246 litres. The Class 40 should be the same.

Supplementary question for the engine experts: for the same basic design of engine, does power output increase proportionally to an increase in cc?
Or putting it another way, does the power:cc ratio change as engine size increases?

And related to this, do you get more power from an engine with, for example 4 x 1000 cc cylinders or 8 x 500 cc cylinders?

In answer to your first question, look at the EE ‘RK’ engine range; they get more powerful as they get bigger.

Unfortunately your second question isn’t quite as easy to answer! There are a lot of variables, and it’s important to appreciate that torque is as important as power (generally speaking). The two don’t necessarily go hand in hand either. The easiest way to increase engine power (and torque), other than increasing capacity, is to introduce forced induction.

Sorry I could chat all day about this stuff!

 

[Railperf]

The 79 litres is for the Valenta. The 12VP185 is 63.24 litres.

An even more direct comparison would be with the 12LDA28C engine in Class 47 - within 6hp on the power rating.

The MTU 16V4000 R41R HST engine is 65 litres and 1700 kW - 2280 hp

 

[theageofthetra]

Has me wondering what the largest engine cubic capacity ever fitted to a locomotive (UK & overseas) I reckon some Russian or Chinese loco from the 60's would be in with a shout.

 

[DustyBin]

Has me wondering what the largest engine cubic capacity ever fitted to a locomotive (UK & overseas) I reckon some Russian or Chinese loco from the 60's would be in with a shout.

The 16 cylinder English Electric engines must be up there in UK terms. I’ve no idea about overseas though!

 

[hwl]

Has me wondering what the largest engine cubic capacity ever fitted to a locomotive (UK & overseas) I reckon some Russian or Chinese loco from the 60's would be in with a shout.

Probably EMD DDA40x with 338.22 L (2x 16V 645s - but earlier less powerful version than the 59s, most technically similar to the 57 V12 engines) - 6600hp/4943kW
Single engine in US SD80-MAC with V20 710 engine @ 233L - 6000hp

 

[Richard Scott]

Has me wondering what the largest engine cubic capacity ever fitted to a locomotive (UK & overseas) I reckon some Russian or Chinese loco from the 60's would be in with a shout.

Think Russian engines tended to run to around 1000rpm so weren't actually that big. They went for multiple locos. Looking at the Kolomna V16 fitted to the DB 232s, wasn't a particularly large engine.

The MTU 16V4000 R41R HST engine is 65 litres and 1700 kW - 2280 hp

Was rated at 2730hp in DB 218s and later versions think are close to 3000hp.

 

[Railperf]

Think Russian engines tended to run to around 1000rpm so weren't actually that big. They went for multiple locos. Looking at the Kolomna V16 fitted to the DB 232s, wasn't a particularly large engine.


Was rated at 2730hp in DB 218s and later versions think are close to 3000hp.

Would the HST traction equipment have been able to cope wirh an extra 500 to 700 hp? I have no idea what the traction motors were rated at?

 

[hexagon789]

Would the HST traction equipment have been able to cope wirh an extra 500 to 700 hp? I have no idea what the traction motors were rated at?

1,868hp for the four together iirc, that would give 467hp per motor

 

[hwl]

Would the HST traction equipment have been able to cope wirh an extra 500 to 700 hp? I have no idea what the traction motors were rated at?

No, hence the max rpm was reduced by circa 450rpm in the HST version to avoid cooking the TMs especially the GEC ones. In engines used for electricity generation (inc locomotives) peak torque is usually at the max rated engine speed, hence the HST installation is sub-optimal efficiency wise.

 

[Railperf]

No, hence the max rpm was reduced by circa 450rpm in the HST version to avoid cooking the TMs especially the GEC ones. In engines used for electricity generation (inc locomotives) peak torque is usually at the max rated engine speed, hence the HST installation is sub-optimal efficiency wise.

Though i guess it all depends what the alternator's maximum rating was as well as other components within the witing system.
That's interesting because there was talk of fitting 3'000hp engines at one time for higher speeds / longer loads, so one assumes the traction system was built for the larger engine, otherwise a full strip out and rebuild would have been required of both ngine and traction electronics?
So 467hp was the continuous rating for each traction motor?
It seems the motors were then receiving around 25 hp less electrical power than their continuous rating.

 

[43096]

Though i guess it all depends what the alternator's maximum rating was as well as other components within the witing system.
That's interesting because there was talk of fitting 3'000hp engines at one time for higher speeds / longer loads, so one assumes the traction system was built for the larger engine, otherwise a full strip out and rebuild would have been required of both ngine and traction electronics?
So 467hp was the continuous rating for each traction motor?
It seems the motors were then receiving around 25 hp less electrical power than their continuous rating.

The maximum rating of the HST main alternator is 1,868 kW, or 2,505 hp.

There's more to it than the electrical system - a bigger engine also means a bigger cooler group would be required. Given that the original Marston and Serck types were on the limit with the V12 Valenta at 2,250hp, it would need a substantial redesign.

 

[Railperf]

The maximum rating of the HST main alternator is 1,868 kW, or 2,505 hp.

There's more to it than the electrical system - a bigger engine also means a bigger cooler group would be required. Given that the original Marston and Serck types were on the limit with the V12 Valenta at 2,250hp, it would need a substantial redesign.

Of course. A huge change and probably loads of extra weight. Looking at the compactness of the Stadler Class 755 Power pack design, I do wonder why locomotive designers still seem to favour one large engine rather than a raft of smaller ones.
Could 4 or more Deutz V8 engines/GU's from a Stadler 755 and their traction/cooling equipment be accommodated comfortably in the space vacated by a HST engine, alternator and cooler group?

 

[43096]

Of course. A huge change and probably loads of extra weight. Looking at the compactness of the Stadler Class 755 Power pack design, I do wonder why locomotive designers still seem to favour one large engine rather than a raft of smaller ones.
Could 4 or more Deutz V8 engines/GU's from a Stadler 755 and their traction/cooling equipment be accommodated comfortably in the space vacated by a HST engine, alternator and cooler group?

Bombardier tried it with their TRAXX multi-engine loco in Germany (Class 245), which uses four engines. It hasn't been a great success, despite using proven CAT engines, with plenty of rectification work required on those built so far.

 

[edwin_m]

With several small engines there's more to be maintained and to go wrong, although if something does go wrong the train can probably keep going on the other engines. That has to be set against the fuel savings and reduced engine hours if some engines can be shut down when maximum power isn't needed, which is probably more of a benefit for a loco than for a MU because there is more variation in the duty.

 

[hwl]

Bombardier tried it with their TRAXX multi-engine loco in Germany (Class 245), which uses four engines. It hasn't been a great success, despite using proven CAT engines, with plenty of rectification work required on those built so far.

Not very successful in the states either, again poor reliability vs single lump.

 

[DelW]

A few years ago there was a trend in parts of the USA (principally California and to a lesser extent Texas) to replace 1000 - 1500hp switchers with two- or three-engine "gen-set" locos. The aim was to reduce emissions and fuel consumption by being able to shut down one or two engines when the loco was under light load or idling. It was also thought that they'd be able to use cheaper mass production run diesels.

However, although a hundred or so were built and were reasonably successful, it looks unlikely that many more will be built, and some early ones have already been withdrawn. It's been suggested that they were too complex, causing unreliability, and that non-rail-standard components caused maintenance problems.

In areas where (lack of) emissions standards allowed, railways also found it cheaper to utilise surplus road-switchers retired from mainline service rather than buying new or heavily rebuilt equipment.

 

[Richard Scott]

Bombardier tried it with their TRAXX multi-engine loco in Germany (Class 245), which uses four engines. It hasn't been a great success, despite using proven CAT engines, with plenty of rectification work required on those built so far.

Think they also struggled with software to get optimum performance and fuel consumption. Apparently is 10% more efficient in terms of fuel consumption than a 218, not really a great saving given the complexity. Sure with modern drives a single engined loco would come close to that anyway. Was talk of ordering around 200 of the 245s but only around 50 or do built and still overhauling 232s so not the success that was hoped for? Sorry, bit off topic, here.