I'm not an expert on anything related to railroading, but I can spot a crank when I see one and the ranting about CARB and the EPA is just that.
Ed, you are just wasting your time on this. I know you are right, you know you are right. However, the internet has a funny way of making certain people "experts" on everything, even though they never worked a day in their life in trucking or railroading.
Give CARB time they just recently hammered the Containerships Remember where they have to take on Shore power when they are Docked instead of running any APU's trust me they will come after the RR's next. They already are going after Reefer Units and there are NO Federal Regs on them. Now anything older than a 1999 can not go into California. CA will become the state that destroys the Industry with Overegulation give them time. Right now they are going Balls out on OTR let them see one GE or EMD blow a turbo someplace and All Bets are OFF. Also there are not as many Trains as there are Trucks in CA so they are Background right now. So Give them TIme say 5-10 Years MAX and you will see how bad CARB can be. I went to their website and they are saying 14.4 Billion for the Railroads to Dedicate 1200 Lococs to California would NOT be a BURDEN TO THE RR's and to do it in a Year. Excuse me that is more than the BNSF and UP spend on Capital Improvements for a YEAR COMBINED.
Really, so how is it that BNSF and UP operate all those 15-20 year old Dash9s and SD70s in California, how do they run all those 25-30 year old GP60s?
That's great that we can't compare Airquality today to that from 40 years ago You know why they can't be compared? Because of CARB and the EPA!
Your not getting teh Point at all. Under CARB rules the APU's that the RR industry Uses if the RR ever goes to a DEF filter they will have to have a Seperate Unit on the APU also and NOT route it into the Main Exhaust System. Also under CARB rules all locomotives will be Limited to a 10 Year Max SERVICE life thanks to a rule that their Appointed leader has slipped into the Mix. IIRC from what my buddies have told me on the OTR side it is no Engine that is used in CA for Hauling Frieight or Doing Work of anykind can be more than 10 Years old if there is a Regulation on how much exhaust limits there are in the last 10 years on said Engine type. What that means for the RR's is in 2023 Tier 3 will no longer be allowed in CA. So have fun dealing with the CARB board and since engines are Interchanged Nationwide it will be fun.
Also comparing the Exhaust from 40 Years ago to know even is not even close. OTR trucks emit 99% less now than they did 20 Years ago and still it is not enough.
If you think trucker's comfort in their rigs is worth Southern California having horrible air quality, then...well, I guess that's your opinion. I'll be polite and say I don't agree with it...emphatically. Put that trailer on a TOFC train to get it to California.
Just remember that when the Driver of the Semi Next to you had to try and SLLEP in a truck made out of Metal and the Outside Air Temp is over 100 Degrees and he Could not Run his AC to Cool his Enviroment to a Comfortable Level. Yep that is a CARB rule 5 mins of Idle Per hour MAX even if it is over 100 Degrees with NO allowance for HEAT or Cold. Even New Jersey will let you Idle a truck if it Heat Index is over 80 degrees. Your talking a e3nviroment that can reach well over 150 Degrees and you are expecting People in Charge of a veichle that weighs 40 Tons to Sleep in that enviroment. Even our Soldiers in the Desert get AC at Base Camps. Yet these drivers live for Weeks in those trucks and as soon as they cross into CA forget getting AC to sleep in any condtion.
Fine Yoho next time the Temp hits 100 Degrees Plus Shut off your AC at your House for 10 Hours and and see how you will like it. Also Open all your Windows and No Fans since they draw Power and see hope no one steals all you own.
I understand that 6% is a big deal when talking about millions of gallons of fuel.
I believe the upshot of the previous discussion was that even though it was an independent source, the study that GE quoted was not sufficiently stringent to make the 6% statement universal in all environments and in fact it would be near impossible to make that statement at all.
All you can say is that the 12 Cylinder GEVO was 6% more efficient than the 16-710G3C-T2 under the very specific conditions of that test.
And when looked at that way, that 6% doesn't amount to much.
Also, As for the EPA and CARB, I'm sorry, but anyone who lived in the LA basin in the 60s and 70s and goes back in 2012 will see the incredible stark difference. The air quality has improved. If Industry thinks they are being picked on, because Southern California doesn't want to have brown air, well, I'm hard pressed to feel sorry about industry.
Suppse a major Class I, says"
We will electrify 50% of our ton-miles if you wave our going from Tier 3 to Tier 4?
Eric if there is one thing people should know by now is the EPA and the CARB boards do NOT CARE about Industry at ALL. Remember CARB in California has now decreed that all Machines used in the OTR industry have a Service life of 10YRS Max. Yet there are Thousands of trucks made in the 80's still hauling Freight and Grain Nationwide in the USA. They also have decreed that all APU's must have DPF's on them and you can not Route the APU into the Exhasut system of the truck to use the one there. Excuse me a Motor that burns less than a Gallon of Fuel a Night you want a DPF on it.
The EPA is about as bad after that Region Director was caught saying his way of getting Compliance was to Crucify Companies EVEN IF THEY WERE OBEYING the LAW.
EMD#1 One thing to keep in mind is that the Tier 4 regulations do not kick in until 2015. I would expect to see a whole lot of new purchases from all major railroads between now and then. If the class ones can get their rosters filled with new Tier 3 locomotives it may be a while before Tier 4 engines are needed. Also, if Republicans take over Congress and the Presidency in 2012 then the Railroads may be able to get the EPA under a Republican administration to drop the Tier 4 requirement.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Tier 4 regulations do not kick in until 2015. I would expect to see a whole lot of new purchases from all major railroads between now and then. If the class ones can get their rosters filled with new Tier 3 locomotives it may be a while before Tier 4 engines are needed. Also, if Republicans take over Congress and the Presidency in 2012 then the Railroads may be able to get the EPA under a Republican administration to drop the Tier 4 requirement.
Interesting points on Tier 3 vs Tier 4.
If the initial and operational cost increases associated with going from Tier 3 to Tier 4 are high enough to cause a significant decrease in Tier 4 purchases, then there would be environmental advantages advantages to either postponing Tier 4 or lessening the changes between Tier 3 and Tier 4. Tightened emission standards for new products (be it cars, planes, locomotives, power plants, etc) only work if the users of said products are willing to buy the new products to replace old products.
- Erik
Here on the NS we don't have any PR30C locomotives, however we have tested one. We did lease some PR43C locomotives though. I haven't had a chance to run one for myself but I have heard from another engineer that the cat powered PR43C didn't perform as well as hoped. The EMD ECO repower units are more familiar with the mechanical department and more dependable from everything I've gathered.
Other factors that may go into using EMD ECO repower units is costs and technical expertise. I imagine that it is cheaper to re-engine an SD40-2 or SD60 with a EMD ECO unit than to use Cat power with all of their accessories. Plus, many mechanics and electricians were hired and trained to work on 20th century technology, not 21st century technology such as these Progress Rail locomotives and Genset engines. Talking to an electrician the other day he told me you almost have to have a Computer Engineering degree to work on them.
My advice to anyone wanting to work for the railroad is to go out there and get at least a two year degree from a Technical school specializing in diesel engine repair or better yet an Electrical engineering degree. There is definitely a need for qualified individuals such as these in the company so if you have one you will have a leg up on the competition!
YoHo1975 Is there more recent data confirming the fuel burn differences. We've discussed this before and the 6% less fuel use between the ES44AC and the ACe was not considered to be a huge difference.
Is there more recent data confirming the fuel burn differences. We've discussed this before and the 6% less fuel use between the ES44AC and the ACe was not considered to be a huge difference.
In the quantities of fuel that locomotives use - 1% is a big difference - 6% is a absolute game changer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One other thing,
CAT is going to kill the EMD 2 cycle in North America. I've heard several different timetables for this to take place. The biggest problem for CAT isn't just the emissions issue, but the fuel usage issues against the 4 cycle GEVO. Diesel isn't going to get any cheaper, so railroads can save $ millions in fuel costs using the GEVO and CAT knows this.
The emissions issue may not be as pressing depending on the 2012 elections, and how much of the current EPA mandate gets stripped away or pushed back in time. However, the 2 cycle fuel cost / usage issue isn't going away any time soon.
Edbenton is 100% correct on this issue. EGR valves have not worked, and will not work on a turbo diesel, if you want any sort of real world reliability and uptime.
The only reason EMD is still wasting their time on this is because they got a federal grant for the research. They know it is not going to work, by hey, when the taxpayers are giving you "free" money to blow on useless "research" what do they care.
The Union Pacific leased for testing but never bought a group of 5 PR30C locomotives from Progress Rail, the testing is over and the locomotives have been returned. EMD has converted 25 SD60Ms to SD59MX locomotives for the Union Pacific, one has been bailed back to EMD for testing in a Tier 4 configuration, the other 24 are now in service, with all or most in California.
Canadian Pacific has ordered 30 SD30C locomotives from Progress Rail and has sent 30 SD40-2 cores to Progress Rail at Mayfield, KY for conversion.
On a Volvo they shoehorned them under the Exhaust Manifold and behind the Turbo. On a Cummins they put them down low on the Block connecting them with EGR tubing that plugged big time. DD was about the only one that Shoved them up high on the Engine. Cat had the Acert System that had it Internally in the Head.
Why is DEF more Expensive simple another set of Tanks Sensors on the Truck But IT WORKS. Europe has used this Seup for 20 Years in all diesel motors with next to Zero Issues. It worksand Works WELL. I at first was against it but after seeing Drivers rave FOR it compared to what they had for the last few years now I understand why they are loving it. Look for GE to Increase its lead on EMD if EMD sticks with EGR. Why Cummins was the First company to get away from EGR in the OTR side and they can Barely keep up with demand now. Also with Cummins NEW motor they are Bringing out for Locos why are they Not using EGR if it was the Cureall for Emissions that should have told you something right there.
When a company has not basically Changed their PT Fuel System in 90 Years you know they are not going to go with something that DOES NOT WORK.
edbenton Do not start Counting the Chickens Before they Hatched as my Grandmother used to Say. just Because the Engineers in a Computer and Test Cell say Tier 4 can be Meet with only EGR when they are only being run with Filtered Air Clean Air Filters and the Cleanest Fuel that can be found oh Yeah and they are Freshly Overhauled Before EACH test Run. See the OTR industry was using EGR also in the Years 2007-2011 just a 4 year Span and here is what they learned from it. IT WILL NOT WORK in a Diesel MOTOR regardless of WHAT the Engineers say. The Manufactors were seeing Turbos Blow Heads Crack not to Mention EGR failures so often that it Forced CAT out of the OTR side of their Industry that they used to Dominate. With EGR you are Forcing a motor to Reburn already Burned Fuel and that will lead to Excessive carbon on the Valves and then to the Failure of the ENGINE. Engines that in OTR were getting 1M before needing to be Overhauled Dropped to less than 500K before Exploding like a Roman Candle. One Driver I am very close Friends in one year went thru 6 EGR Valaves in 100K miles. He replaced everything on the Truck in the EGR system then he finally found the Problem his motor went BOOM. Luckily it was under Warrenty. The 710 is a Decent Motor but I have a Buddy at the Test lab were they are testing them under Real World Conditions and they are not as good as you think. Right now they are getting about 40 Hours between Failures on the Engines in the Test cells. 40 Hours and it does not matter what they do. The biggest issue is Light loading they are finding out so unless EMD is going to figure out a way to run the Prime Mover at Notch 8 all the time they are Screwed. We found that out in the OTR side also. Idle Kills the EGR valves so fast it is amazing. When Cummins and DD Switched over to the Urea Injection System and Dumped the EGR guess what Fuel Usage Dropped 15% overall and MPG went back to Pre EGR days for customers. So also EMD better get ready increase their Fuel Usage 15% to account fo the EGR system. These are Real World Numbers Everyone from the OTR industry I know most of you will hate to hear them but. This industry had to deal with this Crap FIRST and now we have a system that works BIG TIME with Urea and DPF and drivers and the SHOPS are happy why are the Shops happy they are not Swamped changing EGR Valves off of IMPOSSIBLE locations.
Do not start Counting the Chickens Before they Hatched as my Grandmother used to Say. just Because the Engineers in a Computer and Test Cell say Tier 4 can be Meet with only EGR when they are only being run with Filtered Air Clean Air Filters and the Cleanest Fuel that can be found oh Yeah and they are Freshly Overhauled Before EACH test Run.
See the OTR industry was using EGR also in the Years 2007-2011 just a 4 year Span and here is what they learned from it. IT WILL NOT WORK in a Diesel MOTOR regardless of WHAT the Engineers say. The Manufactors were seeing Turbos Blow Heads Crack not to Mention EGR failures so often that it Forced CAT out of the OTR side of their Industry that they used to Dominate. With EGR you are Forcing a motor to Reburn already Burned Fuel and that will lead to Excessive carbon on the Valves and then to the Failure of the ENGINE. Engines that in OTR were getting 1M before needing to be Overhauled Dropped to less than 500K before Exploding like a Roman Candle.
One Driver I am very close Friends in one year went thru 6 EGR Valaves in 100K miles. He replaced everything on the Truck in the EGR system then he finally found the Problem his motor went BOOM. Luckily it was under Warrenty. The 710 is a Decent Motor but I have a Buddy at the Test lab were they are testing them under Real World Conditions and they are not as good as you think. Right now they are getting about 40 Hours between Failures on the Engines in the Test cells. 40 Hours and it does not matter what they do. The biggest issue is Light loading they are finding out so unless EMD is going to figure out a way to run the Prime Mover at Notch 8 all the time they are Screwed. We found that out in the OTR side also. Idle Kills the EGR valves so fast it is amazing.
When Cummins and DD Switched over to the Urea Injection System and Dumped the EGR guess what Fuel Usage Dropped 15% overall and MPG went back to Pre EGR days for customers. So also EMD better get ready increase their Fuel Usage 15% to account fo the EGR system. These are Real World Numbers Everyone from the OTR industry I know most of you will hate to hear them but. This industry had to deal with this Crap FIRST and now we have a system that works BIG TIME with Urea and DPF and drivers and the SHOPS are happy why are the Shops happy they are not Swamped changing EGR Valves off of IMPOSSIBLE locations.
By way of contrast my truck (2008 Freightliner w 60 Series) I had run it 560K miles. Initially the EGR system was causing no end of trouble. At 45K I had some time to get into Freightliner & harrass them to get it right. Ended up Detroit had to come out and in the end they changed out the engine computer & did some other things.
After that EGR valve every 160K miles. The fuel mileage was not good but better than my previous truck( 5mpg vs 5.5 mpg). I'm told that drivers with the Volvo's with DEF were getting over 6.5 mpg.
The other thing about my truck was that it did not use any oil between service. (at times I went over 40K between oil changes) . Also do not understand about the EGR as on mine was very accessable and could be changed in under an hour.
The big difference between EGR & DEF trucks cost . The 08 Freightliner was about $90K against about $120K for the Volvos.
I would love to know what kind of discussions RR shop people are having on this issue.
Rgds IGN
How many PR30C's have been built - 7 total? And the UP sponsored conversion of old SD60M's to SD32ECO or SD59MX - a total of 8 units. I think the final judgment is still out. What is interesting is that CP is contracting EMD to do up to 500 conversions of older GP/SD units to 710ECO power plants.
Now that EMD is firmly in the CAT family, I think the CAT folks are quite impressed with EMD's medium speed/2 stroke power plant that seems to meet all of the EPA Tier requirements as they are implemented. The current 710 is Tier 3 compliant, and EMD feels that they can go to Tier 4 without using the urea exhaust solution. And a V12-710ECO will 'drop in' on a SD40-2 chassis just fine.
I am still waiting to see if GE gets any action on their 'Straight Six' GEVO repower offering.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Is there a significant price difference?
YoHo1975 I'm curious, does anyone have a sense of why a railroad would choose a PR30C over an SD32ECO? As far as I know, right now, the only company that has bought either is UP and they haven't bought enough of either to say they prefer one verses the other and its pretty clear why Caterpillar wants to build both. They I'm sure would like to sell PR30Cs with Cat engines versus EMDs. But from the Railroad's perspective how do these units compare? I know PR30Cs have been built on SD40-2 frames and SD32ECOs have been built on SD60M frames, but could not an ECO be built on the SD40-2 frame? They both have bigger radiator sections. Is the PR30C using an EM2000 computer or do they use the Wabtec computer? Is there a difference in the tractive effort?
I'm curious, does anyone have a sense of why a railroad would choose a PR30C over an SD32ECO?
As far as I know, right now, the only company that has bought either is UP and they haven't bought enough of either to say they prefer one verses the other and its pretty clear why Caterpillar wants to build both. They I'm sure would like to sell PR30Cs with Cat engines versus EMDs.
But from the Railroad's perspective how do these units compare? I know PR30Cs have been built on SD40-2 frames and SD32ECOs have been built on SD60M frames, but could not an ECO be built on the SD40-2 frame?
They both have bigger radiator sections. Is the PR30C using an EM2000 computer or do they use the Wabtec computer? Is there a difference in the tractive effort?
Comparison is exactly what UP is doing with the limited number of each that they have converted.
From my observations the Cat powered versions would have to out perform the EMD powered engines by a signifigant margin in order to justify the purchase of the required spare parts and training necessary to service a different make/model of prime mover.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.