The 9900 is in Roseville today for some inspection or maintenance. This is a SD59MX with the extra option or test option of an exhaust scrubber.
CZ
If I am remembering correctly, that locomotive has a Tier 3.5 rating. I do not know if that is with the scrubbers running or not, but it is very close to hitting Tier 4.
I also know that Cummins has just made an engine that has the potential to hit Tier 4, so I guess we will just have to see what happens.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Ugliness to a higher level, but.....
the slant of the hood, cab roof and the uh, hmmm..... mega-wart are similar-----somebody tried or was it a clearance diagram limitation?
Lehigh Valley 2089 If I am remembering correctly, that locomotive has a Tier 3.5 rating. I do not know if that is with the scrubbers running or not, but it is very close to hitting Tier 4. I also know that Cummins has just made an engine that has the potential to hit Tier 4, so I guess we will just have to see what happens.
You are probably correct that it is Tier 3.5. I have read both numbers and do not know for sure what the scrubber version is rated. It probably will be a maintenance nightmare since it will have to be cleaned to remove the carbon trapped in the exhaust scubber.
One of two Tier 4 testbeds for EMD the other is a UP SD70ACe with a similar hump. They are equipped with EGR, not an catalytic converter.
beaulieu One of two Tier 4 testbeds for EMD the other is a UP SD70ACe with a similar hump. They are equipped with EGR, not an catalytic converter.
Interesting. Do you know the road number of the SD70Ace that has the hump??
thanks
Is there a credible report on that happening somewhere? I haven't heard it and I've been watching.
Not that I'd be surprised, but I would think that if such a thing happened it would be bigger news on this board.
I wonder who knew a year ago that EMD's taxpayer funded (wasted) "research" on EGR only 2 cycle Tier 4 wasn't going to fly...Oh yea, me. LOL.
Time for CAT to get that new 4 cycle locomotive engine they have been working on ready for production, complete with the Pig Pee tanks.
CAZEPHYR Lehigh Valley 2089: If I am remembering correctly, that locomotive has a Tier 3.5 rating. I do not know if that is with the scrubbers running or not, but it is very close to hitting Tier 4. I also know that Cummins has just made an engine that has the potential to hit Tier 4, so I guess we will just have to see what happens. You are probably correct that it is Tier 3.5. I have read both numbers and do not know for sure what the scrubber version is rated. It probably will be a maintenance nightmare since it will have to be cleaned to remove the carbon trapped in the exhaust scubber. CZ
Lehigh Valley 2089: If I am remembering correctly, that locomotive has a Tier 3.5 rating. I do not know if that is with the scrubbers running or not, but it is very close to hitting Tier 4. I also know that Cummins has just made an engine that has the potential to hit Tier 4, so I guess we will just have to see what happens.
You're not kidding! Anyone who has tried to clean that built up carbon knows it is hard as rock. Hot tanking and steam cleaning doesn't do a thing. Solvent and acids don't do a thing. Even the wire wheel has little effect on it. About the only good solution is burning it off with a acetylene torch and even that takes hours. Better build those scrubbers out of stainless steel.
It sounds as though new scrubbers will have to be installed at a regular basis, because the old scrubbers will be out for a long time.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I'm an environmentalist but I'm also a mechanical engineer and I am wondering what the percentage of emission improvement tier-3 to tier-4 will be? I know that full implementation of tier 4 is still a few years away, but it appears that it would be more effective to modify older engines to tier 2 or even tier 3 levels than to implement tier 4 at this stage.
Tier 4 should definitely remain in R&D but at the current state of development it is too expensive, too inefficient and it would hobble fleets and probably double or triple the maintenance budgets.
Cleaning up the environment is needed, but there is also a limit of diminishing returns and it seems that tier -4 is pushing those technical limits. The amount of emission reduction might be too small to be economically viable. The railroad industry is already quite green and it shouldn't be hobbled with new and possibly unproven technology for only a small improvement.,
IMVHO.
Episette,
I can certainly understand as to why the government wants the railroads to rebuild the engines so they have fewer emissions. But I agree with you that the government may be rushing it a little (mabye more than a little) with the results costing more than they are worth (it may be the same situation with PTC, but I won't get into that). I think that the government should handle emmision standards in baby steps, like with the proposed Teir 4 deadline be the deadline for Tier 2, for instance.
I found this link that explains some of the exhaust limits of tier 1 through tier 4.
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php
Cleaning carbon from the internal bits of locomotives has a century of history, used little labor, was very low tech. and I concede, a procedure that would greatly challenge an attempt to adapt it.
The process required opening the combustion air intake when the engine was working hard and holding a small shovel of sand in it.
Sanding the flues.....works for 844 an 3985.
episette I'm an environmentalist but I'm also a mechanical engineer and I am wondering what the percentage of emission improvement tier-3 to tier-4 will be? I know that full implementation of tier 4 is still a few years away...
I'm an environmentalist but I'm also a mechanical engineer and I am wondering what the percentage of emission improvement tier-3 to tier-4 will be? I know that full implementation of tier 4 is still a few years away...
It may be closer to decades away if there is a big shakeup in D.C. this November...
episette ...but it appears that it would be more effective to modify older engines to tier 2 or even tier 3 levels than to implement tier 4 at this stage. Tier 4 should definitely remain in R&D but at the current state of development it is too expensive, too inefficient and it would hobble fleets and probably double or triple the maintenance budgets. Cleaning up the environment is needed, but there is also a limit of diminishing returns and it seems that tier -4 is pushing those technical limits. The amount of emission reduction might be too small to be economically viable. The railroad industry is already quite green and it shouldn't be hobbled with new and possibly unproven technology for only a small improvement., IMVHO.
...but it appears that it would be more effective to modify older engines to tier 2 or even tier 3 levels than to implement tier 4 at this stage.
What you say makes perfect environmental and economic sense. Get everything up to Tier 2 or 3, and you have a fleet of locomotives that produce minimal pollution, are extremely reliable, and cost effective to maintain.
However, the current "powers that be" in Washington don't care about the economics, reliability, or technical limits of their mandates.
efftenxrfe Cleaning carbon from the internal bits of locomotives has a century of history, used little labor, was very low tech. and I concede, a procedure that would greatly challenge an attempt to adapt it. The process required opening the combustion air intake when the engine was working hard and holding a small shovel of sand in it. Sanding the flues.....works for 844 an 3985.
Sanding the flues was an action that was pretty much limited to oil-burners, cinders and fly ash performed the same function on coal-burners.
Environmental down side of sanding the flues, all of that unburned carbon went up the stack and into the atmosphere, where we all got to inhale it.
episette I found this link that explains some of the exhaust limits of tier 1 through tier 4. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php
Looks like the big hurdle from Tier 3 to 4 is NOx and particulates.
NOx is a smog creator. Smog is generally an urban problem and most RR diesel is burned outside of urban areas. This seems to me to be a solution to a non-problem (a government specialty...) Better they pursue incentives to shift traffic from road to rail through urban areas than do Tier 4 NOx.
Particulates are a problem for RR employees as well as residents of urban areas. If you want to burn diesel, you are pretty much left with having to trap the particulates mechanically from the exhaust stream which is ugly business. Switching fuel to nat'l gas or electrification would be the top alternatives.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Is biodiesel any better? I know that trucking companies are using it, and I'm wondering if that could help hit Teir 4 standards, or if it's really more of an alternative to diesel, and not really better on the emissions.
So then, no actual verifiable source that the EGR unit has been removed an replaced then?
I apologize, I don't have any idea how well the poster that stated it is connected, but I couldn't find a picture of the unit with the part removed. Loconotes has been silent on it as far as I can tell. Was it in the Trains newswire?
James
The Union Pacific had a press conference yesterday about the new 9900 technology.
It was on the news last night.
http://www.kcra.com/news/Experimental-train-rolling-in-Roseville/-/11797728/16223784/-/w8k09a/-/index.html
UGLY!
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
That scrubber addition to the top is impressive.
It looks like a shuttle craft for the aliens on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Voyager.
GP40-2 I wonder who knew a year ago that EMD's taxpayer funded (wasted) "research" on EGR only 2 cycle Tier 4 wasn't going to fly...Oh yea, me. LOL. Time for CAT to get that new 4 cycle locomotive engine they have been working on ready for production, complete with the Pig Pee tanks.
Just as GE announces that they will not need Urea to meet Tier 4
GE Announcement
In today's Trains Newswire, GE introduced their Tier 4 compliant locomotive prototype. It uses no EGR, DPF or DEF according to the news release. That release follows for those of you who are not subscribers.
Mike
beaulieu GP40-2 I wonder who knew a year ago that EMD's taxpayer funded (wasted) "research" on EGR only 2 cycle Tier 4 wasn't going to fly...Oh yea, me. LOL. Time for CAT to get that new 4 cycle locomotive engine they have been working on ready for production, complete with the Pig Pee tanks. Just as GE announces that they will not need Urea to meet Tier 4 GE Announcement
Yep, I knew all about that too, but couldn't say too much about it until now.
In a nutshell, here is the issue:
EMD simply can't find a way to clean up the combustion process in the 2 cycle. They have no choice but to add all the after-treatment garbage found on the the UP 9900.
GE has the ability to actually control the combustion parameters in the GEVO. They found the "sweet spot" that reduces emissions from being formed in the fist place. Less emissions formed in the cylinder, less to clean up in the exhaust.
The other interesting result of the GE approach is not only will the Evolution Series easily meet Tier 4, but it actually increased the fuel efficiency, while maintaining the 4,400 HP traction rating.
EMD had to put a smaller engine in the 9900 to find room for all the after-treatment junk. The 9900 is only rated at 3,200 HP for traction with a decrease in fuel efficiency.
Needless to say, this isn't going to end well for EMD and the 710 engine.
Being an OTR driver with one of the new DPF + DEF trucks, allow me to throw in my nickel's worth:
Considering that the last manufacturer of truck engines has admitted that they cannot meet emissions with EGR alone, and is adding DEF to their MaxxForce engine line, that should give the locomotive builders an idea of what they are getting into if they are trying to meet Tier 4. My 2012 Kenworth with the Cummins engine has exceeded my expectations so far, mainly in the area of fuel economy, getting about 1MPG better compared to the previous generations. DEF has not been as much of an issue as I thought it was going to be, I fill the tank about once a week, it lasts about 3000 miles. After reading the engine operator's manual, though, I do have to pay attention where I decide to do a parked regeneration of the DPF, as I have an asphalt burner exhaust (yep, the exhaust gets hot enough during a regen to actually set fire to asphalt).
Getting back to Locomotives, should be interesting to see what the life cycle of the DPF on these engines are, and the costs of repair and replacement, both in time and money. The railroads may find out that in the long run, the costs of setting up DEF fueling at all refueling points on the system may outweigh the costs of constantly changing out coked up EGR valves and plugged DPFs.
Cummins may wind up getting a chunk of the locomotive market yet, one of it's bigger advantages is that it manufactures their own DPFs and DEF catalysts for its engines in house, rather than contracted out. My company has hauled a few loads of these, the racks they are strapped down to are heavier than the parts themselves......
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
GP40-2:
I also forsee the end of the 2-stroke engine due to emissions as well, and am surprised Cat has not tried to swap in one of their big 4-stroke engines in place of the 710 yet. Although, then that would mean that Cat has to get one of their big engines to meet emissions again, they left the OTR truck market in 2010 after admitting defeat (and pi$$ing off a lot of truckers and companies in the process).
Of course, the way this country is going, I'm not betting money on anything anymore......
rvos1979 ...and am surprised Cat has not tried to swap in one of their big 4-stroke engines in place of the 710 yet.
...and am surprised Cat has not tried to swap in one of their big 4-stroke engines in place of the 710 yet.
The one big issue with that is it is not as easy as it seems. Remember, these locomotives are essentially electric locomotives that have their own take along power plant. The locomotives electrical system must work in concert with the characteristics of the chosen prime mover.
EMD's current electrical system, which is already inferior to GE's, was made to operate with the performance curve of 2 cycle diesels. That's why they had so many problems with the 4 cycle SD90. It wasn't so much the 4 cycle engine, but the locomotives electrical system.
If CAT wants to fix this, and really fix it right, they would need to design a 4 cycle capable of severe railroad duty AND an electrical system to work efficiently with that engine. The problem is that CAT/EMD knows next to nothing about engineering the electrical side of locomotives with 4 cycle power plants.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.