[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by D33-PAC

Why does India have to buy this from GE ? It's incredible that INDIA will be overtaking the UK in GDP size but even a train has to be imported. Doesn't India have any domestic makers ? Apart from gold and oil the amount of special equipment India imports is untenable. Indians are manic about the engineering discipline for scholastic reasons only I guess.

Good point. Thank you for stating it. The factors as I see it - One, the hoops and loops you have to jump through to set up a manufacturing unit in India are so much and so troublesome that it is now simpler to invest in the stock market or in a services company to get your return on capital than to get into manufacturing. Till the 1980s at least the wretched license raj ensured you had a protected market to sell too. Now that too has gone with Chinese imports on almost all manufactured goods from full blown machinery to small Ganesha idols and umbrellas. Second, for large projects we are not a low cost country contrary to the popular belief - I speak from painful experience. Govt or private sector oligopolistic control over infrastructure and key factor inputs plus fairly high cost of management make us a medium cost production country and not low cost by any stretch. The only thing low cost is the bottom end of labour - skilled and semi-skilled which often is but a fraction of the total cost of production. Third, specifically with reference to the diesel locomotives - the producer whether private or PSU has only one customer. And if you are a private sector manufacturer captive to a solus Govt customer you may need one year's worth of revenues of working capital to compensate for the delays and the deliberate objections raised in getting your payment out. Just sharing what I have observed over my career others may disagree. I am sure there are many other factors too.

[Sutripta]

^^^
Production (know how) is only one aspect. We are woefully short on design aspects (know why). In the mature engineering fields our first attempts will come up short if we benchmark against world standards.

If it is of strategic importance to us, we start, learn from our failures and keep improving. Costly.

If it is not of strategic importance, and is readily available in the global market, what resources should we put behind it. (National pride might sometimes come into play though - China and ball pens)!

Even for defence related items (strategic importance) Kaveri, Insas, and so many others come to mind.

PS. Didn't we have a 6000 HP electric loco, ABB tech?

Regards
Sutripta

[torquecurve]

Originally Posted by D33-PAC

Why does India have to buy this from GE ? It's incredible that INDIA will be overtaking the UK in GDP size but even a train has to be imported. Doesn't India have any domestic makers ? Apart from gold and oil the amount of special equipment India imports is untenable. Indians are manic about the engineering discipline for scholastic reasons only I guess.

It irks me everytime I see VOLVO trucks in coal mines, Scania trucks for heavy lifting, imported German cranes, so on.

Originally Posted by tharian

True.


These GE loco's most probably will be the last diesel's we seen on tracks after a while and once the order / agreements are fulfilled, I don't think they will be produced anymore.
It is a wrong decision by the Rail ministry IMO, as they could have continued manufacturing EMD's for use on non-electrified lines (Dedicated Freight Corridor) as and when required till electrification is complete.

WAG12 has oscillation issues and from what I know has still not certified to be used for duty.

Originally Posted by superbad

I thought diesel is on its way out & electric locomotives are replacing it everywhere.

Originally Posted by shashanka

Well said. We fabricate satellites, nuclear reactors & now, even nuclear subs (albeit with Russian tech), but when it comes to making engineering fundamentals - large diesels among them - we seem to run out of breath.

Originally Posted by tharian

Most of our diesel loco's were built on transfer of technology agreements and derivatives of the same base model were built over the years as more power and speed were required.
The only mainline diesel loco that was indigenously built as far as I know was the WDG5, which was a failure.
It is no surprise that we import loco's from the Americans who are good at making diesel loco's. ALCO is the best example.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

...One, the hoops and loops you have to jump through to set up a manufacturing unit in India are so much and so troublesome that it is now simpler to invest in the stock market or in a services company to get your return on capital than to get into manufacturing. Till the 1980s at least the wretched license raj ensured you had a protected market to sell too. Now that too has gone with Chinese imports on almost all manufactured goods from full blown machinery to small Ganesha idols and umbrellas. Second, for large projects we are not a low cost country contrary to the popular belief - I speak from painful experience. Govt or private sector oligopolistic control over infrastructure and key factor inputs plus fairly high cost of management...

Originally Posted by Sutripta

^^^
.....
If it is of strategic importance to us, we start, learn from our failures and keep improving. Costly.

If it is not of strategic importance, and is readily available in the global market, what resources should we put behind it. (National pride might sometimes come into play though - China and ball pens)!

Even for defence related items (strategic importance) Kaveri, Insas, and so many others come to mind.

PS. Didn't we have a 6000 HP electric loco, ABB tech?

Regards
Sutripta

As Always Narayan Sir, has put it in a very succinct answer to this question. However, I will add a few bits and pieces from whatever little exposure I have had to fields involving the Indian Industry.
We in the past had good heavy industry presence 'Walchand, Kirloskar, Godrej, TATA (TELCO), Jessop, etc' to name but a few. Some are now reduced to manufacturing other designs whilst others have amalgamated into other businesses. A key aspect was the 1975-85 period which, while providing local industry with much needed 'captive market' also closed it to innovations from outside. Basically, a table fan like 'Cinni' with an outdated 'potentiometer' control switch was 'state of the art' for us.

The second point, which killed a lot of our 'engineering' giants was the obsession with 'socialistic' concepts where mediocracy was also awarded. Before you kill me allow me to explain. Most government contracts (if not all), were awarded based on the concept of 'L1' (Lowest Bidder), with exceptions made to the expectations. Companies like Telco (Locomotive), which were funded locally, couldn't compete with the likes of ALCO or GE which were willing to go low on prices - as they had lines which were already amortized (production runs of 100's done), whereas TELCO or Walchand would have to set up additional lines. Basically, we didn't forecast that once a line is built - it will serve us for decades, instead, we chose to use a simpler method of asking for investment - for our poor (read electoral homes) regions. This practically killed off any private heavy industry in India.
Then - as we got used to ToT (Transfer of Technology) this chasm widened.

Another key issue is that we Indians are not built to accept failure or competition. The reason the US is able to make stuff today the way they do - is because there is competition. None of the engines, aircraft, ships, etc - are made by government organizations - they are private organizations with government control where needed (e.g.Military) who invest their money in R&D, develop a product when competitions are called, and the winner gets the R&D grant, along with the production award, the loser sometimes gets partial production rights to ensure they don't go under. Failure is also taken as a way to do better (Read up about the F22/ YF23 - some technologies proven in the YF23 which lost made its way to the F22). We don't compete - we expect one design and development house to design and develop something based on 'brochure' numbers that we see. There is 'no' competition - and what we get we then expect to be the best, which it isn't of course and then we buy, because we have a need, and the cycle continues.

Another aspect that most of us are loath to admit - but are responsible for is the very notion that 'Indian designed/ engineered/ produced = bad'. Too many examples to quote - some on this forum as well. But don't want to go there.

Coming to the point of why we couldn't make our own diesels when we have successfully made electric locos (WAP4/WAM4/ WCAM2) - the answer is simple. The technology driving today's diesels have gone beyond the 'curve' of where we were at. The humble ALCO's were upgraded to the extent possible by our venerable Railway engineers. Some technologies were not available to us due to patent/ IP issues which meant, that if we wanted to again be on the curve - we had to import.

To the point of why we still need diesels when we are targetting full electrification, there are three simple reasons. - 1 - Shunting and Yard duties , 2 - Backup for loco failure, 3 - backup for key grid failures. (If I remember correctly we had a 100+ loco sheds so at 5 per shed, 500 locos at least, plus shunters/ yards), so we might still need 1000+ diesels (Mainline+derated).

Why we went with a GE design when we had the EMD's. The thought was to have power equivalent to the newer Electrics (6000 hp), to haul similar loads at similar speeds and acceleration to allow faster clearance of lines, meaning increased capacity on existing networks. the WAG12 is a 12000 HP loco - but is actually a 'dual loco', similarly, a double-headed GE (WDG6G) will act as a 12000 HP equivalent. We will also have 10000 HP engines (the converted WDG duals).

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by torquecurve

We in the past had good heavy industry presence 'Walchand, Kirloskar, Godrej, TATA (TELCO), Jessop, etc' to name but a few....
The second point, which killed a lot of our 'engineering' giants was the obsession with 'socialistic' concepts where mediocracy was also awarded....
Then - as we got used to ToT (Transfer of Technology) this chasm widened.
Another key issue is that we Indians are not built to accept failure or competition.....

torquecurve, like a blue moon you appear once in a while and then sweep us off our feet with your posts.

To this let me add a saga between GE and GoI that I have some personal knowledge of. In the late 1990s under NDA-I Jack Welch made an offer to set up a loco factory in India and build GE locos here for the Indian Railways and for export - what they needed was a firm off take contract of some kind. Time rolled on. Poor Jack retired. His successor Immelt repeated the offer and this time I think even an MoU of sorts got signed. But our bureaucrats hummed and hawed ....the sun rose and set many a time, NDA-I went away, in came UPA-I. Politicians shuffle around but our proverbial IAS stay put. GE once again offered to set up the plant. UPA-I gave way to UPA-II. Finally after 10 years GE gave up. I leave each to draw his own conclusions. I can think of many words the 'A' in IAS could stand for. Now Immelt has retired as has his successor. And we still don't make big world class locomotives.

[batterylow]

Being a single cab, how are they turned around?

[tharian]

Originally Posted by batterylow

Being a single cab, how are they turned around?

Loco's have a reverse and forward switch. They can be driven either ways and operating them long hood forward(cab back) is difficult which is why dual cab EMDs were introduced.

[saurabh2711]

Originally Posted by sunishsamuel

Is there any reason why the cab design at the front is flat compared to the nosed ones.

Sir,
+1 to that. I really don't know why the Indian designers do not understand and implement the concepts of aerodynamics. I assume there is only one train at this point which has a nosed cabin and this train goes upto Katra or Udhampur. There should be more of these.

[SR-71]

For such a lengthy engine they should have had dual cab. I wonder if it would be a PITA to pilot this beast in LHF mode.

[Geo_Ipe]

What torque numbers are we looking at, this being a diesel engine! Torquey diesel engines in cars are often described as "pulls like a train engine". Just curious to know how much torque actual train engines produce.

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by saurabh2711

Sir,
+1 to that. I really don't know why the Indian designers do not understand and implement the concepts of aerodynamics. I assume there is only one train at this point which has a nosed cabin and this train goes upto Katra or Udhampur. There should be more of these.

It's a goods/freight engine. Top speed is 105 kmph. What's the point of having an aerodynamic nose? It's primary purpose is to haul 60/70 goods wagons at 80,kmph single handedly on non electric routes, which it can do all day.

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by Geo_Ipe

What torque numbers are we looking at, this being a diesel engine! Torquey diesel engines in cars are often described as "pulls like a train engine". Just curious to know how much torque actual train engines produce.

An engine, no matter how torquey - can't actually pull a loaded fright train from the standstill without a lot of drama and clutch burning; at least being practical. Steam engines used to do the same - but their torque delivery was mostly like electric motors - everything right from beginning.

Most of these engines work as an electric generator, whose work is to make sure that the traction motors get the power supply - and electric motors have a lot more torque, available right from 1 rpm. Any way, a few specs of WDG4 are as follows:

• Engine layout: V16
• Displacement: 1,86,160 cc or 186 liters (Normally we feel contented with a car with 2-3l engine)
• Maximum power: 4132 bhp @ 904 RPM
• Peak torque: Around 9400 nm

What is important for this engine, is to make sure that it can keep on moving the prime mover of the generator with enough strength that enough induction keeps on happening for motors to keep getting enough current as much they demand, more the load - higher current your AC induction motors will demand - and higher the current demand; more is eventually the load on the engine. My past experience of working on some XL sized DG engines says that electric load at times is more stressful than mechanical loads for the engines and if the engine is actually not overtly powerful at times; electric load stalls it in no time - and you don;t have an option of changing gears to increase or decrease the torque at the wheels, the generation unit is directly attached.

Why we say, 'Pulls Like a Train Engine'?
Rather simple, these big daddys' don't give up once they start pulling, once the motors start moving the wheels and they keep getting enough current (which they always get), in a similar fashion; if you look at the high displacement motors; especially say - like Toyota 3.0 D-4D, once the vehicle is on the move; you need not struggle with gearbox. The engine itself is powerful enough that it will keep going until the situation you throw it at is an overdose.

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

It's a goods/freight engine. Top speed is 105 kmph. What's the point of having an aerodynamic nose? It's primary purpose is to haul 60/70 goods wagons at 80,kmph single handedly on non electric routes, which it can do all day.

Indeed, the function here matters more than the form. You need to accommodate a lot of components on the cab, neither they have space, nor they have extra money to integrate a nose over there. Additionally, the cooling system demands a lot of air to enter it and not go past from above or sides of it, even if they make a pointed nose, they still will need to have a lot of openings on that too for a lot of air to reach the radiators.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by VKumar

What is important for this engine, is to make sure that it can keep on moving the prime mover of the generator with enough strength that enough induction keeps on happening for motors to keep getting enough current as much they demand, more the load - higher current your AC induction motors will demand - and higher the current demand; more is eventually the load on the engine. My past experience of working on some XL sized DG engines says that electric load at times is more stressful than mechanical loads for the engines and if the engine is actually not overtly powerful at times; electric load stalls it in no time -

Could you pls. explain all this in a way we laymen can understand.

I thought the prime mover of the generator was the engine itself.

Also doesn't the engine see only a mechanical load? Thus shaft/ flywheel horse power.

The motors which are connected to the wheels - same as our normal AC induction motors, just bigger?

I think 'pulling likes a locomotive' comes from steam engines. Which have full torque at 0 rpm. And were normally placed in front of the string of wagons/ coaches. Because it was thought that pushing would be unstable.

Regards
Sutripta

[AirbusCapt]

Diesel locomotives don't have torque numbers, they have tractive effort figures. Tractive effort is the amount of fully loaded wagons the locomotive can pull from standstill up a 2% slope. That's why locomotives are intentionally made heavy (by putting in cement blocks ), to ensure the wheels adhere better and there is more tractive effort.
This current locomotive is a diesel electric one. The diesel engine operates a large generator which generated dc power. Equipment within the locomotive then convert this dc power to ac power and supply traction motors within the axles. Computers control all the processes from power generation to preventing wheelslips etc.

[ron_9191]

Looks like a performance locomotive running on Koni dampers What I really dont understand is the fact that they have made it a single cab design. The earlier model WDP4 if I am not wrong had the single cab version which I believe received a lot of complaints from loco pilots unable to see anything because of the cooling system on the front blocking sight and looking like a chicken coop on wheels head on.

However... a V16 turbo with 6000 BHP is something to brag about for sure!

[A350XWB]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

I thought the prime mover of the generator was the engine itself.

In a diesel-electric locomotive, prime mover is the diesel engine. It runs the generator and rest is explained below.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

The motors which are connected to the wheels - same as our normal AC induction motors, just bigger?

Earlier locomotives used DC traction motors while the modern ones use 3-phase ac induction (asynchronous) motors.

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

That's why locomotives are intentionally made heavy (by putting in cement blocks ), to ensure the wheels adhere better and there is more tractive effort.

Can you please share some details and pictures of modern locomotives with these?

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

The diesel engine operates a large generator which generated dc power. Equipment within the locomotive then convert this dc power to ac power and supply traction motors within the axles. Computers control all the processes from power generation to preventing wheelslips etc.

Most modern diesel-electric locomotives use AC-AC traction and the diesel engine drives an AC generator, whose output is fed to a rectifier and the DC thus generated is used as the input to the TCC (Traction Control Converter) controlled by the LCC (Loco Control Computer). It is here that GTO (Gate Turn-Off Thyristor) or IGBT (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor) is used to generate the required V/f output to be fed to the traction motors. 3-phase AC induction motors are used for traction in modern locomotives. DC motors were used before the invention of high power semi-conductor devices when finer control was not possible.