Shadow the Cats ownerThe problem is the railroads themselves have flat our said we will not buy anything that requires SCR or DPF on it to meet emission standards. They saw how badly via their heavy service trucks how those engines preformed when they first came out.
I don't think this was the main reason. The Class 1 railroads estimated $1.5 billion costs to build the necessary DEF infrastructure.
But what is the better way? EGR led to problems with PM emissions and EGR valve failures on trucks. I haven't seen any reports about such failures on GE and EMD Tier 4 locomotives. But perhaps they were newly design from scratch with the primary focus on emissions.
The problem without aftertreatment is you need lower ignition temperatures to reduce NOx but that increases PM. So there are a number of additional measured needed to keep PM in check.
With aftertreatment you can use higher ignition temperatures to get rid (as far as possible) of PM and use SCR to comply to NOx standards. The EMD E23 engine, the 710 for the marine sector, is Tier 4 marine compliant with just SCR, no DPF needed.Regards, Volker
I'm not sure if the Class 1s refusal of exhaust aftertreament was wise in the long term. When the next emission stage comes and CARB already pushes for a Tier 5 or GHG reduction gets required, aftertreatment might be the only way to go.
I think it is just a question of when not if.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Entropy That was introduction of the radial truck, gave the same rail and wheel wear of a 4 axle. The ATSF GP60M weighs 282,000 lbs with an axle load of 35.25 tons. With cowl it would have been 305,000 lbs. Source: http://qstation.org/GP60M_135/ Railroads have lived with non-steering C-trucks before and are still doing it. Entropy Progress has also made the PR30C, six axle. I'd say thats more customer demand driving that. 4 axle is typically the preferred way of switching and gets paired with these high speed engine combinations. Notwithstanding the 710ECO repowers. Would you tell me please what this is meant to mean in regards to my cited sentence? BTW the Progress Rail PR30C has a Caterpillar 3516C-HD engine.Reagards, Volker
Entropy That was introduction of the radial truck, gave the same rail and wheel wear of a 4 axle.
The ATSF GP60M weighs 282,000 lbs with an axle load of 35.25 tons. With cowl it would have been 305,000 lbs. Source: http://qstation.org/GP60M_135/
Railroads have lived with non-steering C-trucks before and are still doing it.
Entropy Progress has also made the PR30C, six axle. I'd say thats more customer demand driving that. 4 axle is typically the preferred way of switching and gets paired with these high speed engine combinations. Notwithstanding the 710ECO repowers.
Would you tell me please what this is meant to mean in regards to my cited sentence? BTW the Progress Rail PR30C has a Caterpillar 3516C-HD engine.Reagards, Volker
You're trying to say PR uses CAT 3512C-HD exclusively in 4 axle repowers, presumably in T4 combination because the axle load would be too high in any other engine combination with after treatment ie 710 T4 etc?
I dont think so. The frames have ballast on them. If you were overweight could pull out ballast. When you show a railroad you have a tested Tier 4 combination there's a better possibility for demand, thats why these high speed diesels are finding their way onto GP frames, whether its PR, KLW, NRE.
Those engine companies (CAT, MTU, CMI) had Tier 4 before Tier 4 came to Rail. In the intrim they already have Tier 4 engine combinations. Tier 4 710 hopefully will find its way into a locomotive, without clean air funding will take longer.
The problem is the railroads themselves have flat our said we will not buy anything that requires SCR or DPF on it to meet emission standards. They saw how badly via their heavy service trucks how those engines preformed when they first came out. Even now they are not 100% they are better but still not pre 2004 level of reliabilaty for anyone. On an OTR truck having a DPF crack and catch fire is bad enough but one on a Locomotive could be catastrophic in an enviromential sensitive area. Your talking about a fire that could burn a trestle down.
EntropyThat was introduction of the radial truck, gave the same rail and wheel wear of a 4 axle.
EntropyProgress has also made the PR30C, six axle. I'd say thats more customer demand driving that. 4 axle is typically the preferred way of switching and gets paired with these high speed engine combinations. Notwithstanding the 710ECO repowers.
Right, but Top Speed matters more. Or at least it does on the RFP. An F40 cruising along at 79 as they did 30 years ago is not what people wanted.
Still curious about medium horsepower locos. Especially given the questions raised about the T4 standard. Progress's assorted offerings have been a mixed bag. Gensets were almost all bought with subsidies and I've yet to hear of a mechanical department that doesn't hate them. Heck, UP now runs them in sets of 3. Not, because they need the power in trim and hump service, but because they aren't sufficiently reliable to run as pairs. So 3 700HP engines always on. UP again has been cycling through the SD40-2s into the SD40N program along with assorted other projects. they did the SD59MXs and then stopped...presumably because they remain in Ca and now they're using SD70Ms with them. Clearly the Cat powered PR engines haven't made much of a dent in that market. Would an aftertreatment 710? Again V8 engine the T2/T3 ECO kit with Urea? ~2000HP. If we were to believe the Wikipage for the EMD645E3B (we probably shouldn't, but hey, it's a place to start), the V8-645E3B is around 14,000lbs lighter than the 16-645E3B. We can I think presume that the 710 is not too far different. Between that and the extra space opened up, Aftertreatment based T4 in a 2000HP road switcher seems quite doable. Certainly, plenty of V8 and V12 710s are going into medium HP road switchers right now. NS, UP and CP with KCS as the original buyer all have some flavor of ECO. It strikes me that, were say CARB to start enforcing a stricter rule for older locomotives, these would be prime candidates for Aftertreatment would they not?
YoHo1975 I don't think hep is a factor. The F40 had an inverter and solidered on for decades. Still does. I had forgotten the 125MPH requirement.
I don't think hep is a factor. The F40 had an inverter and solidered on for decades. Still does.
I had forgotten the 125MPH requirement.
F40PH is geared for top speed of 103mph, only has around 2300hp for tractive effort when HEP is switched on. Does great on commuter track that runs low speed, while its screaming run 8, even when stopped.
F125.... 125mph. 4700hp. So yes HEP matters.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I'm not sure if this would be suitable. When EMD introduced the GP60 ATSF wanted a cowl version. That exceeded the axle load limits and the stayed with a wide cab unit, the GP60M. When AC traction got introduced the four-axle locomotives disappeared as with the AC equipment the axle load limits were exceeded.
I'm not sure if this would be suitable. When EMD introduced the GP60 ATSF wanted a cowl version. That exceeded the axle load limits and the stayed with a wide cab unit, the GP60M. When AC traction got introduced the four-axle locomotives disappeared as with the AC equipment the axle load limits were exceeded.
That was introduction of the radial truck, gave the same rail and wheel wear of a 4 axle.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I think that is the reason why Progress Rail offers all 4-axle rebuils with Cat high-speed diesels.
I think that is the reason why Progress Rail offers all 4-axle rebuils with Cat high-speed diesels.
Progress has also made the PR30C, six axle. I'd say thats more customer demand driving that. 4 axle is typically the preferred way of switching and gets paired with these high speed engine combinations. Notwithstanding the 710ECO repowers.
But Progress doesn't just offer those. They also offer the ECO...though not in Tier 4 obviously. But none of that really addresses the question. The GP60 had a 16 cylinder engine. The GP60M was built explicitly for high speed Intermodal. Those engines are irrelevent to my question. I'm asking about an engine with half the cylinders. 2000HP for yard and other medium speed service.
YoHo1975Also, not directly related...what's the need for 4000+ pony's in the service the Chargers and Spirts are running in?
Besides HEP as mentioned before the high horsepower is needed to accelerate a specified train to 125 mph. You remember that EMD accused Siemens that the Charger didn't have enough horsepower for 125 mph? Is it necessary? I think it was a political decision.
YoHo1975So, a 12-710G3C-T3 with Aftertreatment what's the axle loading on 4? Not as a rebuild, but as a new locomotive. Monocue construction etc etc?
The EMD 16-E23 Tier 4, the marine version of the 710 weighs including SCR 49,800 lbs, the 16-710 without aftertreatment 39,700 lbs. The Cummins QSK95 weighs 29,300 lbs without aftertreatment. So a locomotive will get about 10,000 lbs heavier with a 16-710. But that is not more than an estimated guess.
Put in a Charger has now 34.25 tons axle load. Add 10,000 lbs and you get 35.5 tons. Additionalle the locomotive would have to get about 7' longer. I would have liked to compare to the Cat C175-20 in the F125 but I only found data for a C175-16 engine.
YoHo1975Circling back to CARB. Regardless of the future of the 1010j. Would not an 8-710G3B-T2 eco with aftertreatment be a viable option in a 4 axle in Yard and local service.
I'm not sure if this would be suitable. When EMD introduced the GP60 ATSF wanted a cowl version. That exceeded the axle load limits and the stayed with a wide cab unit, the GP60M. When AC traction got introduced the four-axle locomotives disappeared as with the AC equipment the axle load limits were exceeded. I think that is the reason why Progress Rail offers all 4-axle rebuils with Cat high-speed diesels.Gruß, Volker
YoHo1975 Circling back to CARB. Regardless of the future of the 1010j. Would not an 8-710G3B-T2 eco with aftertreatment be a viable option in a 4 axle in Yard and local service.
Circling back to CARB. Regardless of the future of the 1010j. Would not an 8-710G3B-T2 eco with aftertreatment be a viable option in a 4 axle in Yard and local service.
Yes, but keep in mind the premise of this thread. Repower projects are typically subsidised in EPA funding, under the current administration those funding grants have been curtailed.
YoHo1975 I get WHY the move to high speed to get 4000HP, but is that actually a need? Just the ability to get more cars up to speed?
I get WHY the move to high speed to get 4000HP, but is that actually a need? Just the ability to get more cars up to speed?
no doubt. Though that's not something you often hear of in line haul locos. Did we calculate it above? What's the theoretical Axle loading of a 16-710G3C-T3 with a plausible tank of aftertreatment on a 4 axle?
I smell RFP check box feature (something that is not at all important or needed, but will be rejected if it isn't included)
Also, not directly related...what's the need for 4000+ pony's in the service the Chargers and Spirts are running in? Commuter and corridor passenger has been running with 3000HP engines for 40 years now. The MPX locos had 1 model with that much power and I don't think it was the top seller was it?
So, a 12-710G3C-T3 with Aftertreatment what's the axle loading on 4? Not as a rebuild, but as a new locomotive. Monocue construction etc etc?
These are the first time a QSK has been in heavy revenue service. Cummins and Siemens might be demanding engines pulled at certain hours points to see how they look inside to see if they can make improvements to the design. We have a couple trucks doing the same for Cummins now in our fleet. They will take the truck down to the Cummins shop in Bloomington and over the weekend pull the motor and drop in a brand new one for our driver. It is called real world R&D time you find stuff that a test cell can not show you.
Shadow the Cats ownerThere is going to be almost zero way to have a 4 axle locomotive while having an SCR engine onboard.
That is the reason why EMD as well as Siemens went with a smaller and lighter high-speed diesel engine for their F125 and Charger. They weigh 280,000 lbs (F125) and 274,000 lbs with axle loads of 35 tons and 34.25 tons respectively.Regards, Volker
Overmod I did some digging on this issue here are the specs length width and height and weight first for the QSK95 Cummins in the listings then for a 16 cylinder 710 series engine. For the QSK length is 145 inches width is 65 inches and height is 95 inches. The weight of the engine complete is 29,300 lbs dry weight. For the 710 series the length including the cooling and air intake system is 26 feet 10 inches alone so twice the length width is 5 feet 8 inches or 68 inches wide. The height is 102 inches. The killer on it however is the weight 36,425 lbs dry and that does not include the main Alt installed on either engine. So your already almost 4 tons heavier already than the Cummins engine before even adding the DPF onto the engine. Also Cummins system thanks to 10 years experience in the OTR industry they have almost gotten it 100 percent trouble free. Our new trucks the 2018 models so far we are seeing zero issues with their SCR and DPF or EGR systems with the Cummins engines. Still the issue is going to be weight overall with SCR on locomotives. There is going to be almost zero way to have a 4 axle locomotive while having an SCR engine onboard.
M636CLet's take it one step at a time; The loco weighs 279 000 lbs
We have talked about upgrading a MPXpress locomotive with 710 engine to Tier 4 complance with SCR. Only the MP40PH-3C carries a 710 engine and weighs 289,000 lbs according to the broschure: https://web.archive.org/web/20160204001255/https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/MPXpress_QuickSpec_A.pdfOtherwise it took some time to understand what you meant. You are right in some way I mixed metric and imperial dimensions by dividing by 1,000 instead of 2,000.
In the metric system you divide kg by 1,000 to get tonnes. Perhaps it happened because I posted at 12 pm but that is not an excuse.
Sorry for my mistake and that I didn't understand earlier. I apologize for my harsh reactions. I'll correct the involved posts.Regards, Volker
Entropy M636C In the USA, I don't think weight would be a problem if adding SCR to an existing unit such as an F59PHI, nor is the extra height likely to be a problem. Peter Have you been in an F59PHi? Its pretty tight specially if you have the 3412/C27 HEP generator. I must say some people here need to submit resumes to be systems engineers...
M636C In the USA, I don't think weight would be a problem if adding SCR to an existing unit such as an F59PHI, nor is the extra height likely to be a problem. Peter
In the USA, I don't think weight would be a problem if adding SCR to an existing unit such as an F59PHI, nor is the extra height likely to be a problem.
Peter
Have you been in an F59PHi? Its pretty tight specially if you have the 3412/C27 HEP generator.
I must say some people here need to submit resumes to be systems engineers...
I haven't been inside an F59PHI.
I did spend some time inspecting the "Amtrak California" F59PHI units in Sacramento in 2013 that had been upgraded to a higher emissions level. The radiator fans and their mounting had been raised by about a foot, bringing the closer to the top of the stainless cowling on each side. I think at least one Metrolink straight F59PH had been similarly altered in LA. In doing so I gained the impression that there was spare space at the rear of these units, but I might be wrong.
However, the Cat diagrams show the SCR equipment to be above and at the free end of the engine above the auxiliary rack. My recollection is that the HEP generator is forward of the main alternator at the front of the engine. The SCR equipment might interfere with the radiators or the air compressor, but not the HEP generator, I think.
Incidentally, I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and have been working as such for 46 years.
Regarding locomotive axle loads:
Volker wrote:
Peter,
I don't think so. I have taken the weight from Wabtec's MPI MPXpress brochure:
Let's take it one step at a time;
The loco weighs 279 000 lbs
Add 15000 lbs = 294 000 lbs
Divide by four for four axles = 73500 lbs
Divide by 2000 to convert to tons = 36.75 tons per axle
If you prefer:
Divide by 2204 to convert to Metric Tonnes force = 33.34 tonnes
This would probably cause European track engineers to go a shade of green but it isn't 74 tons in any system.
Why the Railroads do not want SCR with DPF on their engines is simple enough. The test engines that UP was running could not make it thru the 92 day minimum shop times between failures of either the DPF equipment or the SCR equipment on the engines. Now for commuter trains that are at a shop each day or near one all the time it is not a big deal same thing with the Chargers that where bought. They run in a captive service to where they were assigned not in Amtrak general passenger pool running all over the place. They will stay in either Washington state or Illinois and be right near shops all the time.
However a freight engine in an entire new animal they have to conquer they have to come up with a system that is going to require zero maintance except for adding fluid to it for 92 days at a minimum and in the OTR industry we barely get 2 months at a normal service level between either a sensor failure or something else that requires shop time with our SCR equipment 10 years after it was introduced. So the problem boils down to the equipment can not meet the demands of the industry yet. That is why the Railroads do not want SCR on locomotives they don't want to have shop queen locomotives they need them running.
OvermodFind 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.
I deleted my wrong response and apologize for my mistake
OvermodIn 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”.
Sometimes threads evolve. A1A trucks might be a solution for freight locomotive but B trucks track better on high-speed passenger locomotive.
OvermodThe 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.
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 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-30/pdf/R8-7999.pdf
On page 41: We believe that locomotive and marine diesel engine manufacturers will benefit from the extensive development taking place to implement DPFtechnologies in advance of the heavyduty truck and nonroad PM standards inEurope 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 CatalyticReduction (SCR) to comply with our new standards.Regards, Volker
Edit: Blue text added and previous text deleted
[quote user="VOLKER LANDWEHR"]
[quote user=“M636C“]Volker, You are confusing the American and Metric systems...[/quote]
Peter, I don’t think so. I have taken the weight from Wabtec's MPI MPXpress brochure...[/quote]
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.
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”. 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.
Here is a photo of an IDOT Charger: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/IDTX_SC-44_4601_%2827231590613%29.jpg
I can't see any shroud. The following shows a F59PHI leading a Caltrans Charger with spoiler. The F59PHI is 15'-4.5'' high to the top of the engine hood:https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4274/35222938612_7d10d19f60_b.jpg
Here is another one. Left is the aft end of a F59PHI: https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4490/37714572396_eb4fe939c9_b.jpgI don't know what would be the resuilt when a rebuilt F59PHI has to comply with the FRA crashworthiness standards.Regards, Volker
Edit: I deleted awrong statement
Heck in order to get at some parts related to the Emissions controls on the fleet our mechanics have to basically take half the engine apart to even get to them. Yeah the era of fast and quick repairs are gone. The more junk that gets added the harder it gets to repair the problem according to our shop manager.
Just a little reminder here on the weight issue. A 60 series DD a very popular glider kit engine weighs in dry at 2640 lbs. My fleets ISX Cummins is 3093 with just the DPF Let alone the weight of 40 gallons of DEF we carry for the SCR system. The tank is about another 40 lbs with 320 lbs of fluids in it. So about 500 lbs in emmisions equipment and fluid on a class 8 semi. I'm hearing the new Chargers carry about 6 tons of emissions equipment to meet standards. 12K lbs is alot of dead weight to carry around people.
"The MPI MP40PH-3C, the only one with a EMD 710 engine, already weighs 289,000 lbs according to Wabtec specifications. Put additional 8,000 lbs on the frame and axle load get to 74.25 tons. Is this acceptable?"
Volker,
You are confusing the American and Metric systems:
289 000 lbs on four axles gives an axle load of 36.125 tons. That is quite a lot but it won't break 136RE rail, for example.
An Amfleet coach is 12'8" tall. Photos show the Charger to be more than a foot taller than an Amfleet coach. There are a number of photos in the midwest on Horizon cars which are about the same height as Amfleet.
Thank you for the Siemens presentation: My German is good enough not to need a dictionary to read it. Looking at page 22, it is clear that the flat "roof" sits above the engine but below the SCR equipment, as I surmised earlier. The SCR equipment is covered by the "roof shroud". There are many Bombardier diesel railcars and electric multiple units with this type of structure.
M636CHaving checked Wikipedia, the SC-44 is indeed said to have a "roof height" of 12'6" but the locomotive is 14'4" high over the "Roof Shroud".
I think the shroud is a kind of spoiler at the end of the SC44 on Caltrans unit:https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4512/23909956368_0867c0b1bc_b.jpg
Here is a link to a Siemens presentation about their North American passenger locomotives held on railway vehicle conference in Graz Austria in April 2016. www.schienenfahrzeugtagung.at/download/PDF2016/MoN01_Schieber.pdf
The Charger starts on page 18. It contains interesting renderings showing how cramped the locomotive is.
M636CThere are a lot of four axle locomotives with 16 cylinder 710 engines, including the Wabtech MP series. I'm sure that these could be upgraded with a railroad version of the E23B SCR equipment, particularly in California where such things are taken seriously.
The MPI MP40PH-3C, the only one with a EMD 710 engine, already weighs 289,000 lbs according to Wabtec specifications. Put additional 8,000 lbs on the frame and axle load get to 74,25 37.125 tons. Is this acceptable?
The other locomotives in the MP XPress series have EMD 645 engines. With a 710 engine there are the F59PH and F59PHI, the DM30AC (282,000 lbs), and the Alstom PL42AC (287,000 lbs). The weights are without SCR.
I think weight might be the stopper.Regards, Volker
Edit: On Metra the MPI MP36PH-3C are banned from some routes because of weight issues. The F59PHs might be better canditates. I think there is a different issue. If I understood correctly rebuild locomotive have to comply with the current FRA crashworthiness standards since 2009.
Edit 2: I corrected the underlined number
VOLKER LANDWEHR M636C If the F125 can carry the SCR equipment and supplies for a 20C175 and the "Charger" can carry the SCR equipment for a QSK95, I would expect that either locomotive could also carry a 16-710 with the SCR equipment and supplies. I think you can't compare a SD 70ACe with SCR to the F125 and SC44. Both have smaller and lighter high-speed diesel engines and more space for aftertreatment. Even with SCR the SC44 is only 12'-6'' high. Here is a E23 broschure: http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170712-52832-18322 But what does a 710 with SCR help when the class 1 railroads aren't buying locomotives with aftertreatment? And for passenger locomotives the 710 package is too heavy for B-B trucks. In a request for information for a dual power locomotive according to PRIIA 305 specifications MPI offered the Gevo-T4 on a six axle chassis.Regards, Volker
M636C If the F125 can carry the SCR equipment and supplies for a 20C175 and the "Charger" can carry the SCR equipment for a QSK95, I would expect that either locomotive could also carry a 16-710 with the SCR equipment and supplies.
I think you can't compare a SD 70ACe with SCR to the F125 and SC44. Both have smaller and lighter high-speed diesel engines and more space for aftertreatment. Even with SCR the SC44 is only 12'-6'' high.
Here is a E23 broschure: http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170712-52832-18322
But what does a 710 with SCR help when the class 1 railroads aren't buying locomotives with aftertreatment? And for passenger locomotives the 710 package is too heavy for B-B trucks. In a request for information for a dual power locomotive according to PRIIA 305 specifications MPI offered the Gevo-T4 on a six axle chassis.Regards, Volker
YoHo1975In 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.
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.
YoHo1975Having a standard intended to create positive externalities for airquality, it certainly is fundamentally important that they be based in science.
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.
YoHo19752: 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.
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.
YoHo1975The difference between what IS practical on the 710 and what isn't is extremely marginal.
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.
YoHo1975That these changes also benefit EMD over GE is a minor issue. GE would have saved money and time on the GEVO as well.
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.
YoHo1975Was sticking with the 710 a wrong decision? They were working on an engine their customers wanted to keep buying...so maybe not.
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
VOLKER LANDWEHR YoHo1975 That the NOX requirements are unscientific and blocked EMD by an exceedingly small margin. What does it matter if requirements are scientific or not? Both , GE and EMD, have shown that the Tier 4 NOx requirement are managable even without SCR. EMD wasn't blocked by a small margin. They were blocked by a wrong decision to stay with the 710. GE and EMD had the same chances. GE decided not to use the "old" FDL but design a new engine to reach Tier 2. If the numbers I read are correct, GE investet about $500- $600 million to get the Gevo from start to Tier 4. If it was a political wise decision to install these requirement is a complete different question. I understood that you don't believe cited EMD's statements in the linked Railway Gazette International article. EMD said they would have been able to get the 710 Tier 4 compliant but it was impractical with just EGR. That is the reason why EMD sells the 710 as E23 Tier 4 with SCR in the marine sector while GE sells the Gevo as 12V250 Tier 4 with EGR but without any exhaust aftertreatment.Regards, Volker
YoHo1975 That the NOX requirements are unscientific and blocked EMD by an exceedingly small margin.
What does it matter if requirements are scientific or not? Both , GE and EMD, have shown that the Tier 4 NOx requirement are managable even without SCR.
EMD wasn't blocked by a small margin. They were blocked by a wrong decision to stay with the 710. GE and EMD had the same chances. GE decided not to use the "old" FDL but design a new engine to reach Tier 2. If the numbers I read are correct, GE investet about $500- $600 million to get the Gevo from start to Tier 4.
If it was a political wise decision to install these requirement is a complete different question.
I understood that you don't believe cited EMD's statements in the linked Railway Gazette International article. EMD said they would have been able to get the 710 Tier 4 compliant but it was impractical with just EGR. That is the reason why EMD sells the 710 as E23 Tier 4 with SCR in the marine sector while GE sells the Gevo as 12V250 Tier 4 with EGR but without any exhaust aftertreatment.Regards, Volker
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.
Having a standard intended to create positive externalities for airquality, it certainly is fundamentally important that they be based in science. Both science of the NOX admissible, but also the social and economic science of the market.
The GOAL is to get fleet emissions down.
As for EMD's investments
1: They were in a different financial place than GE. Under GM, Venture Capital and then finally Cat.
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.
I don't disbelieve that EMD's statement that there was no practical way to get 710 to Tier 4. I never said that. What we're talking about is what EMD COULD get the 710 to practically based on their testing and the UP 9900. And what the difference between that value and the Tier4 requirements were. It is certainly better than Tier3
The difference between what IS practical on the 710 and what isn't is extremely marginal.
And yes of course the 710 was never going to get to a theoretical Tier V, but what would be better for the market, and the environment, 2 players selling highly clean modern diesels or 1?
And combine that with tweaks to the rebuild requirements. We could have had a much cleaner locomotive fleet and much stronger sales than we do now.
That these changes also benefit EMD over GE is a minor issue. GE would have saved money and time on the GEVO as well.
Also, let's be clear here. EMD turned around a loco faster than anyone here seemed to expect and that loco included far more changes than just a new engine/exhaust/cooling package. EMD clearly had a lot of the work done on the 265H. They were to some extent ready for this. They made a business decision, driven by their customers, to sell and iterate on the 710 design that the customers wanted. I work in the tech industry. We do the same all the time. You need to make money now to afford to be playing in that future.
And there's actually some benefit to the work EMD did for themselves and the market. EMD sellsa Tier 3 capable rebuild kit. Presumably they COULD look at selling an SCR Tier 4 capable 710 rebuild kit. They can get the 710 to that unofficial Tier 3.5 Whether it's worth it for a customer to do that.
CARB could come back and demand that rather than pushing Tier V, they want fleet emissions for CA captive locomotives (locals, yard, turns) to meet Tier 3. At which point you'll see a lot more UP 9900 style locomotives.
To sum up,
Was sticking with the 710 a wrong decision? They were working on an engine their customers wanted to keep buying...so maybe not.
710G and 265H both had the lab work done. The difference was that 710G was an engine US buyers wanted. That's a business decision that is hard to second guess
ESPECIALLY given how close they got to Tier 4. That they got so close on a 2 cycle engine that nobody thought was possible is simply impressive.
Then they turned out the 1010j Demonstrator in what? a year? I'm not sure they made the wrong decision at all. But I do think that their were mismatched incentives and other externalities that were misaligned to the goal and detrimental to EMD.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.