when I was still in school, I had a guy in there who claimed he was very knowledgeable about heavy machinery. He would tell me all these stories about his family and their logging business, thinking back I don't really believe much of it anyway, but he told me that CAT made a D12 dozer and I think someone else told me they did at one point, but I can't find anything about them. Does anyone know anything?
No D-12
No, cat has never made a d-12. I work in the oilpatch in Alberta as a HD Mechanic and if there was one they would have a fleet of them.
Never seen one, never heard of one. Not even convinced there's a lot of difference between the first D11 and the D10 of the same era.
Kind of funny this was posted. A guy I work with was telling me, just today, about when he was running a d12 the company he worked for at the time had rented. I just listened, wasn't worth my time to have that talk with him.
I'm the same, not worth my time to argue.
If anything might be considered a D12 it would be the one off Acco dozer. I read that Cat considered a dozer to compete with the Komatsu D575 but there just wasn't enough demand for them to be profitable. They can't use D575's in the oilsands because they're too heavy and from what I've heard at the Komatsu dealer, they need to stock at least a million $$$ in spare parts for a customer who buys one.
what happened with D10/D11 was that Cat changed the numbers to accommodate a medium size machine. This happened with the change from the L to the N Series. The original D10 (no model suffix) became the D11N. The D9L became the D10N, the D8L became the D9N, and a new model D8N was introduced to fill the wide gap between the D7 and the newly re-badged D9N. A model larger than the D11 was looked at, but the cost of development couldn't be recouped in the very limited large mining market that existed at the time.
Hello Nige , Also in the Netherlands some people "knew"about a D12 in the fifties and sixties . I met some of them , but after a further conversation it came out they talked about a TC12 . This was the famous double engin dozer made by Euclid as you certainly have met some day in the past . Have a nice day , johan7
I read of a twin engine Euclid haul truck. It was powered by two Detroit 2 cycle diesels. I knew at the time what model engine, but it now escapes me.
At the mine I worked at in the early 70's they had several 40 ton Euclid trucks with twin 6-71 Detroits which had water tanks on them. They had been end dump trucks when they were new but by the time I got to work there they were semi retired to water trucks for dust control. I know they were offered with Cummins engines too, the model I don't know as where I worked they were Detroits. FWD
Thank you all for all of your input on this subject. I figured the guy was probably yanking my chain. My father has been an operator for many moons, and I usually talk to him about this stuff. Kinda hard sometimes, only hear from him once in a great while.
I've seen a Euclid with a 6-110 Detroit.
Was that the Roots blower model 110 or the Centrifugal Blower model? We had one of each powering gensets many moons ago! Also had a gen set with the twin 6-71 detroits running a single genset. Not sure if they were the same rotation or opposite but the right engine had the blower and water pump mounted on the right and the left had them mounted on the left. Nice thing about the design of those old inline Detroits with the changing of a handful parts you could reconfigure them to fit just about any application. The one I never had the fun of playing with was the 149 series, only ever saw one in person.
I can't recall. Seems like it was a regular Roots blower. Did Detroit ever turbo charge the inline motors like they did with the Vs?
They did make them with turbos for some applications one old parts book I have shows both 4-71 and 6-71 inlines with turbos.
I owned a 3-53T built in 1991, and have seen 4-53s and 3-71s with turbos. I wasn't sure about the straight 6s.
You could have a V-engine blown and turbocharged as well. I had the unpleasant experience of working on one in a Demag shovel many moons ago ........
I think all the turbos were in addition to the supercharger. I've not seen a 2 stroke Detroits without some kind of supercharger.
Yes, need the blower. Some turbos just boost the air into the blower intake and there are other that use a blower with a by-pass valve that opens once boost gets to a certain point and air skips going through the blower and straight into the air box. The blower does keep turning. And yes there are V engines with turbos, I was just mentioning the in-lines as I thought the poster had questioned if they also had turbos.
We put a 2 stroke loco engine in a tin shreader that had just a turbo but it had a clutch to spin it up to speed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GP20
A two stroke detroit won't start without the blower. Mike
Locomotive two stroke DD's (later versions) eliminated blower by utilizing a gear drive to spool up the turbo while starting.
EMD's. Also gear driven while idling. (too late to edit orginal post
What size was used on the locomotive. ?-149 perhaps. Sounds like one I would like to see and hear.
Guessing it was hooked up with a sprag type clutch that would let the turbo spin up free once there was enough exhaust pressure to create boost.
If it is the one he posted the link to, it's the 16V-567 turbocharged at around 2000 hp. EMD started turboing them about 1958. We have a 16V-567 non turbo at about 1480 hp that is so old it is branded a GM diesel, not an EMD. Built about 1939 if memory serves, she'll still fire right off on the coldest morning, and still tows a million pounds out to sea about 10 times a year. BTW, she starts on compressed air from a tank, charged by big electric compressor, powered by a 6-71 GM Diesel generator. I stress this because the 84 y/o captain will forcefully correect anyone who calls them Detroits. That 6-71, and the 4-71 backup generator look like toys beside the 16V-567.
It has an engine, a generator, and a backup generator?
Yep
Does the air start on that one crank the flywheel, or pressurize the cylinders to crank the engine? I worked on some Cleveland diesels on gensets that used distributed air to the cylinders to crank them. Took 450 psi on a cold start, but on a hot engine, 200 psi would do. Clevelands were another GM 2-stroke, mainly a marine engine during WW2. The ones I worked with were V8s and v16s, 720 and 1440 HP respectively with 602 cubic inches per cylinder. I believe there were 20 cylinder inlines built for diesel submarines in WW2.
I don't have a clue what size it is I sent a hand over to work on it I do know that they grenaded a 3512 in it ( prolly a little to much wood ) I cut the flywheel for the air clutch on a 45 x 30 vmc and had to turn it to reach it all. If I remember right they have it turned up to 3500 HP
Sssoooo much cool information, my head feels like it might have gotten a bit heavier. The air is slowly getting replaced by some great knowledge. Lol.
Great stuff. I love it. But unfortunately it might be a little obvious if I were to drive in the yard with one. "Yes honey, It has value. The cooling system is going to heat the house now." LOL
Now step up to the V-20, 645 or the SD-70, 710 4000hp engine.
Somewhere way back another thread got derailed talking about engines....... our local fast ferry has four 333-litre Cat 3618 (not a misprint) Marine engines rated at 10,000HP each .....
Just to give a little perspective to this 3618 Nige mentions I had to find a picture:
Well, I suppose Nige's 3618 makes my 16V567 look small.
And I thought I was special working on a 2000hp Cummins generator.... Small world I guess.
The engines in the large container ships make all other engines look puny but they are over 100,000 HP and only turn about 120 RPM! What's really interesting is they can shut down individual cylinders for maintenance while the engine is still running the other cylinders. I used to have a welding journal from the 80's that had an article on large Sulzer marine engines that had welded oil pans and other parts. It took distortion control to a whole new level. They were smaller than the current marine engines but it showed a picture of the connecting rods that weighed 5 1/2 tons each looking like prehistoric animals.
Yair . . . No matter how big they are though . . . . Cheers.
Just get the "Rose Bud" out and warm it up a little and it will bend right back, No Problem
Extracting those sheared big end cap bolts might prove troublesome though ......
I bet that was a loud bang.
Think that's big??? Check this out. http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/the-largest-and-most-powerful-diesel.html?m=1
It probably uses one of those Cat 3618s for a starting engine.
Heck where's my magdrill....
Gotta love how this thread has progresed from dozers.
Yup. Makes the imaginary D-12 look small doesn't it.
It does, but I can't complain about it because I am guilty of not getting back on track with it. Since I started with a question about big dozers, even though its not a real dozer, I guess I should try to get back to it. Should CAT build a D12 to compete with the Komatsu D575A? Might be interesting. Aaand...go!
If one was to do an data backed comparason on "up time" percentage the D11 may already be more productive that the D575A.
Once Detroits are mentioned, the thread goes out of control real fast. Especially once somebody says something wrong about them, watch out.
Based on the fact that the Dark Side usually have to put an additional dozer on site at their expense to maintain guaranteed availability on D575 fleets I would say that's a given. TBH I think Cat looked at the performance of the D575A and decided there was no requirement for anything larger than a D11. As I said before the market for something as big as a D12 would be so small it might well be such a long return on investment period as to make the tractor financially non-viable. With the current state of open-pit mining worldwide the short-to-medium term future is absolutely the wrong time IMO for introducing a model that might fall flat on its face sales-wise.
I do see the point in your post, Nige. I just thought it'd be cool to see something in between the ACCO dozer and the Komatsu D575A that was 100% CAT made. I also understand the financial aspect is not really there. And on the subject of Detroit diesels, I have always heard that they come with a factory oil leak, at least the older ones.
It's been true in the past that there wasn't enough of a need for a larger dozer. But with the way trucks have grown, we would be closer to needing bigger dozers than ever before. I'm still not convinced there is enough demand, but there may be if more manufacturers jump on the 500 ton truck bandwagon.
Nige, I know it's off-topic, but with the talk earlier of the huge engines, I have a question that's been on my mind for a while now. Even though it burns over 1600 gallons per hour, would it be cheaper in the grand scheme of things to drive the generator in a coal-fired powerplant with one of those 100,000 hp engines? With all the fuel that gets burned stripping, mining, hauling, and reclaiming, would you actually burn less? I'm sure you're going to say "go away, silly boy," but just want to hear you say it.
Yair . . . I will be fascinating to see Nige's reply Shimmy1 but, as I see it . . . . 100000 hp is about 75000 kw times what? Say twenty five cents a kwh (we pay over forty) gives revenue of $18750 per hour less (say) a couple of grand an hour (at the moment) for oil and fuel. Hmmm, then the thing has to be financed and maintained. . . and then of course the numbers don't work so well with hundred dollar oil . . . dunno. My methodology is probably overly simplistic, I probably got a decimal point in the wrong place and I am more than likely talking bull****e (again) but it may serve to keep this discussion flowing.(big grin) Cheers.
Some interesting info about your question : http://www.eskom.co.za/AboutElectri...ts/GS_0002AnkerligGourikwaGasTurbineRev10.pdf Scrub : Did see not your post. You have the right idea about cost.
I definitely am picking up what you're putting down, Scrub Puller , but I guess I'm thinking on the lines of (1)you're burning the fuel anyway (2) one engine instead of 50 (or more?) and (3) maybe 30 guys instead of 100 making $80,000 per year? We might get really deep on this line.
Yair . . . Gotcha Shimmy1 ! Crikey I really love this place and these odd ball discussions . . . I can see exactly where you are coming from. On the face of it there, is much less disruption and energy to drilling wells than what there is in mining coal. The thing, is down in Texas an increasing amount of electricity is being generated by wind. Lets see where this goes now. (another big grin) Cheers,
The questions not so left field to be honest, but at the end of the day when generating electricity it's all down to the thermal efficiency of the plant. Those big marine engines have a thermal efficiency somewhere around 50% which in layman's terms means 50% of the calorific value of the fuel that is thrown in at one end gets thrown out as work (be that turning a propeller or turning a generator) at the other end. A modern steam turbine power plant, typically 20MW per unit or larger, has a thermal efficiency anywhere from 65-90% depending on the design and configuration. Don't confuse those efficiency numbers with overall plant efficiency which will be less because there are always losses in the generator itself, usually from the heat that is generated when producing an AC voltage. Once you've got that out of the way you have to consider fuel cost. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at buring coal in a steam plant or diesel fuel in a big engine effectively the amount of work required (from the time when prospecting starts to the time the fuel is sold) is all costed in to the selling price of the fuel so despite open-pit mining being on the face of it somewhat inefficient it's actually the most cost-effective form of mining for any material be that coal or whatever. Effectively the competition today is between oil at $39.50 a barrel and coal at $43.50 a ton and how much electrical energy you can get out of a barrel of oil versus a ton of coal.
Nige, that 65-90% has to include cogeneration/combined heat power, doesn't it? I thought the coal to power conversion was in the neighborhood of a diesel engine efficiency wise, slightly under 50% max. There's very little district heating in the US, many cities had steam heating districts a hundred years ago, but I think most were abandoned even before the end of their useful life. Shimmy, there was more electric power produced from fuel oil until the 70's. After the oil embargo, there was a push to build coal power plants by a wise engineer named Jimmy Carter. I'd guess that the diesel and labor are less for open pit coal than for fracked oil wells? Scrub, electricity is roughly $.10/KWH in the midwest for residential service. I have a "time of use" like businesses that is $.22 peak and $.06 off peak. Monthly service charge is $10, up to $30 for co-ops that are more rural around here. The northeast has higher electric rates but not that high. California and Hawaii might be that high, I don't know what's happened recently.
Well, this is kind of inline with my original question. How much diesel fuel does it take to mine a million tons of coal, start to finish (stripping, drilling, mining, hauling, reclaim), and how many hours would that same fuel power one of those 100K hp engines? The cost to bring the well online really doesn't pertain to this since the fuel will be burned one way or the other. Also: Would 100,000 hp run a 1,000 MW generator?
The cost to bring the well online is no different than the mining costs of coal, is it? As far as I'm concerned the cost is the easiest factor to look at, Nige says a ton of coal costs just a little more than a barrel of oil. Roughly speaking a barrel of oil 42 gallons at 120,000 BTU/gallon = 5,000,000 BTU. A ton of coal 8,000 BTU/lb x 2,000 = 16,000,000 BTU. That's a lot closer than I thought it would be, but then google says Powder River Basin coal is under $10 so they're not even close on cost per BTU. http://www.howardweil.com/docs/Reports/WEEKLY REPORTS/CoalWeekly.pdf Page 8 shows that even Powder River Basin coal is more expensive than natural gas at the moment... So we're all off the mark. Aren't some of the big mining shovels electric powered also... no diesel required.
Apart from some of the hydraulic shovels, which aren't in the P&H 4100 class anyway, all the big mining shovels are electric powered.
IIRC, it takes around 1.3 HP per kilowatt from a Diesel genset. And that would be on your standard 220-250 KW type. The larger units may be more efficient. I know a standard Cummins KT 1800 HP engine will run a full megawatt generator. but some of that extra HP is for surge protection.
Not counting internal generator losses 1.35 million HP equates to 1000MW, 100,000HP would equate to about 75MW. Generally internal losses within the generator (electrical losses in the windings + heat) are of the order of 15% of the generator output - so for 100MW of electrical output from the generator you'd require the engine driving it to produce about 150,000HP in round figures.
There it is. Unless the numbers change the higher you go, what RZucker is stating would translate to that 100,000 hp diesel could run about a 50-60 MW generator. So, to run the largest station we have here in ND, 1200 MW, it would take 20 engines. Over 30,000 gallons of diesel per hour. I'm thinking that they probably don't burn 10% of that mining. Yep. Can stop wondering about this.
One thing to remember in the whole coal versus liquid fuel debate is to remember that if either one is closed down, the other becomes a monopoly. And we all know what becomes of prices when there is no alternative.
I'm no expert on either of these subjects, so keep that in mind here, but what about when oil is back up to $90 a barrel? As of today its only 40.20 a barrel... Seems like it would change the equation quite a bit.
Actually Syncrude and most of the oil sands are running diesel power in the largest shovels in the world. They originally ran 2 BE 2570W draglines and a lot of conveyor belts, then they tried Krupp bucket wheel excavators but ultimately found diesel shovels and haul trucks cheaper and more efficient in the long run. They started with the Demag H241 which was the largest at the time. Diesel powered shovels aren't constraining by power cables. Syncrude helped develop the original RH400 and I believe purchased the first 3 or 4 of them. The first 10 built were diesel powered. The current models are about 4500HP. Cat now took over the RH400 and it uses a hyd. regeneration system to save on fuel. Syncrude also run the largest fleet of 797's in the world. The big marine diesels can burn the lowest grade of fuel possible so that has to offer some pretty substantial savings as well. I think they even filter the old engine oil and mix it with the fuel.