Railroader here. We're looking at a diesel locomotive that has the Cat D342 and wondering how reliable it is and/or how it compares to the D17000. Our mechanical guys are not fans of the D17000, because of the expense and availability of replacement parts and for overall performance and reliability. I'd be very greateful for members of the group's insight on the performance, reliability, and relative maintenance expense of the D342, either unto itself or as compared to the D17000. Thank you! Charlie MV
I believe the D342 is the engine that was used in the D8 dozers up to a K model. Is this a switching engine of something? That's not a big engine for a locomotive.
The last emd locomotive I was in had a 855 big cam back behind the main emd 2 stroke engine. I think it was powering a aux generator if I remember right. That may be what they are running with that small of a engine?
Air compressor would be my guess. But then again I don't know much about locomotives. A former coworker of mine used to work for one of the big railways up here and said it takes a few hours to air it up if its all empty.
A lot of the commuter railroads used that aux power setup for train power in the cars, lights, microwave ovens, etc. Later Amtrak locomotives tapped the main traction generator, running the main engine at a continuous 900 rpm and using invertors to control the traction motor speeds.
It really shouldn't take that long, most class 1 locomotives have 400 plus cfm air compressors, get 4 of those big boys pumping together and you have a lot of air.
I think the OP may be referring to the 44 ton GE switcher. The early models had the 17000, later they had the 342, Two engines in each unit. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard had several early ones that were converted to 230 Hp Cummins 855's in the 70's.
You are correct, sir. The final four 44 ton(ner) locomotives were built in 1956 and were equipped with the D342, where the prior units all had the D17000. The one we're looking at was actually the final one produced. This is interesting feedback for sure. Does anyone have commentary on the reliability of the D342, either from direct experience or secondhand knowledge?
John C or others should be able to comment on the engine specifically, it it was in D8's like he says. Something that was built in '56 and still in use is obviously not known as a lemon, and the use and maintenance in the last 30 years is every bit as important as what came out of the factory. If you want second hand knowledge, search out what people say about the D8's of that era, and take into account the HP ratings.
How many BHP is the engine rated at in the locomotive application..? For sure spare parts availability will be far better for a D342 compared to a D17000. There must be thousands of them still running around, both in D8's and other applications like industrial engines and gensets. Sometimes even complete brand-new D342 engines come up for sale in US Govt surplus auctions and they always seem to command good prices.
Having extremely limited first had knowledge of the D342 I'll leave real answers to those who know many times more than I will ever know. That said in my eyes the reliability of any engine is heavily dependent on the reliability of the people operating and maintaining said engine!
I know of a low number D342 that has been on a drill rig for 50 years and had a head off one time due to an overheat. This engine has a 46AXXXX serial with a starting engine. They are pretty much bullet proof in the lower HP ratings.
the d342 came in a few power ratings. the last ones in the d8k having the most in the crawler line-up. like any other engine, they had a few updates throughout the production run. the older engines like mine (235hp) were the last of the low-horse d8's. when they went to the high-horse engines in 1965, as far as I know, they put on a smaller turbo(faster spool-up and maybe more boost) and gave it more fuel. it was a fairly big gain but it found some weak spots in the rest of the drivetrain. slow running engine about 1200- 1400(I think)rpm. the d8k engine had some crankshaft cracking problems- they were not originally designed for that higher power. last I heard, cranks were getting hard to find unless the aftermarket has stepped up. I like to baby mine (warm up especially) before I work it hard and cool-down. its a big chunk of cast-iron and very expensive to repair. easy engine to work on and reliable- no electronics lol. also there were a lot of them made over a couple decades. I had to change the block and crank in mine back in the mid eighties. at that time there were lots of good used parts around but not so much around here anymore. I haven't had to buy any engine parts for mine in the last 20 years so I can't say for sure. all the early ones were pup-start but the later ones were mostly direct electric start
The engine in the 8K had lots of design issue with the machine that made problems for the engine. They first mounted the mufflers under the hood and the extra heat created by the extra horsepower cooked the heads pretty bad. They moved the mufflers to the top of the hoods and that problem was solved. There was a time in the first run where some engines were still counter bored engines. It wasn't too long before those engines started beating out the counterbores. The went to the plate engines and the problems became a lot less. I don't know how well they would work in a gen set application because they liked pull down and just grunt through heavy loads. Maintaining a set speed might be a different story. Considering the time frame of the low horse engines, they weren't that bad on fuel. The late model 8H and all the 8K model dozers were pretty thirsty. Crankcase pressure was never a problem with them. They had a one inch breather tube. Pop a piston or break some rings and it seemed like you could get more vapor out of that tube then exhaust going out the stack.