Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="YoHo1975"]In this thread, we're talking about theoretical best choices at the EPA and CARB Combined with the market and engineering realities at EMD and GE. it's a system not siloed decisions. [/quote] Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think some posters want to turn the clock back and revision the requirements in a way that the 710 can be used again. [quote user="YoHo1975"]Having a standard intended to create positive externalities for airquality, it certainly is fundamentally important that they be based in science. [/quote] For me it is science enough when the heavy-duty highway engines need to complain to stricter requirements (0.2 [1.3]g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.01 [0.03]g/bhp-hr PM) since 2007 and it worked. [] requirements Tier 4 locomotives. The EMD E23 marine engines fulfill Tier 4 with SCR. IIRC the EPA chose the limits so manufacturers would have to use SCR. I searched but didn't find the source again. So don't blame EPA, blame the class 1 railroad for insisting on non-aftertreatment solutions. I know EMD's financial situation at the time. I posted it sometime ago in this thread: When EMD decided to try the 710 for Tier 4 they lacked the money to develop a new engine other as GE. With Caterpillar as new owner that changed that and might have influenced the decision for the 1010. I don't have to repeat your response. [quote user="YoHo1975"]2: Tell me, how much has EMD spent since the 1980s on 854H/265H/1010J? Yes, they put off the switch to 4-cycle...because selling locomotives is better than not selling locomotives. [/quote] I don't know how much they spent but with the right the decision at the right time they could have sold Tier 4 locomotives from the beginning. [quote user="YoHo1975"]The difference between what IS practical on the 710 and what isn't is extremely marginal.[/quote] I don't know how marginal that difference is. The UP 9900 reached 3.387 g/bhp-hr NOx with EGR, DOC, and DPF. It already has quite a hump. I have looked for photos of 710 EGR only testbeds but haven't found any. If you would change the Tier 4 requirements you would have go back to standats that GE and EMD could fulfill with their Tier 3 engines. The Tier 3 engines were better than Tier 3 otherwise there were no credit units. If the tweaking wold have changed the locomotive market is speculation. For older locomotives rbuilds to Tiers 0+, 1+, and 2+ are still possible. Refurbishing requires Tier 4 now. There might be an approach to lower the requirement but than the are the rebuilders with Tier 4 certifications. [quote user="YoHo1975"]That these changes also benefit EMD over GE is a minor issue. GE would have saved money and time on the GEVO as well.[/quote] As I said before you can discuss if the requirements were wisely chosen. But that is hindsight. In the public EMD had always been optimistic to reach the goals with the 710. And on highway trucks even stricter requirements had worked long before. [quote user="YoHo1975"]Was sticking with the 710 a wrong decision? They were working on an engine their customers wanted to keep buying...so maybe not.[/quote] In hindsight it was a wrong decision. It cost them development costs for two engines. And it should have been clear that a Tier 5 would be too much for the 710. I think GE and EMD had equal chances when Tier 2 was announced. Afterwards GE was better off but that doesn't matter for an agency like EPA: Regards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag