Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Overmod"]Find me ANY reference in a WABTEC brochure to a locomotive with greater than 74 ton axle load — which is specifically what you are still claiming — and I will believe there is no confusion between English and metric.[/quote] I deleted my wrong response and apologize for my mistake [quote user="Overmod"]In any case, how did this discussion get onto four-axle passenger locomotives using the 710? That was never a real concern here, for some of the reasons now being discussed including the whole issue of why we have A-1-A C44s instead of modern B40/44s and “GP70s”. [/quote] Sometimes threads evolve. A1A trucks might be a solution for freight locomotive but B trucks track better on high-speed passenger locomotive. [quote user="Overmod"]The concern with any revision of NO emissions is with freight power almost completely, as is the ‘damage’ EMD suffered as a result of the arbitrary limit in the final standard. I am far from the only person that has analyzed the rule making and the fundamental science that should have gone into its application to locomotives and found it slightly ... if circumstantially ... wanting.[/quote] I said before emission standards can look arbitrary but when EPA signed the Tier 3 and 4 requirement in 2008 the truck builders had proven that they can build heavy-duty highway engines to much stricter requirements since 2007. From my point of view EMD hasn't suffered damage from the regulations but from their own decisions. When the EPA emission regulations started GE and EMD had equal chances. GE realized early the limited potention of the FDL and went the Gevo route EMD realized the limits of the 710 too late. EPA could be sure in 2008 that GE and EMD would be able to reach Tier 4 when SCR. The truck engine manufacturers proved it since 2007. And EMD proved it with its E23 engine, the 710 engine for the marine sector with SCR for Tier 4. What made complicated for EMD weren't the EPA requirements but the demand from class 1 railroads not to use exhaust aftertreatment. The EPA expected the use of DPF and SCR as shown in <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-30/pdf/R8-7999.pdf">https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-30/pdf/R8-7999.pdf</a> On page 41: We believe that locomotive and marine diesel engine manufacturers will benefit from the extensive development taking place to implement DPF technologies in advance of the heavyduty truck and nonroad PM standards in Europe and the United States. and: As described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the RIA, we expect locomotive and marine diesel engine manufacturers will choose to use Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to comply with our new standards. Regards, Volker Edit: Blue text added and previous text deleted
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