Tier(s) 4 Fears

[Murphy Siding]

     In the latest Trains Magazine-which I can't for the life of me find right now to quote- Fred Frailey suggests something along the lines of:Tier 4 locomotives aren't selling because they're not worth the investment. Rather than buy new Tier 4 compliant locomotives, why wouldn't the Class 1s just buy up up those zillion and one locomotives that CSX took out of service? 

     Note to moderators: Please don't move this to the Locomotives Forum. It would just die a quick death over there. This is less about locomotives and more about railroad business practices.

[kgbw49]

Norfolk Southern has been backpeddling from Tier 4 faster than Deion Sanders in press coverage. SD60E, SD70ACU, and AC44C6M units are all attempts to avoid Tier 4 units, and they will have more opportunities in the future to extend out any future Tier 4 purchases by acquiring more used units and modifying them.

[tree68]

While I'm all for clean air, I have to wonder if Tier 4 isn't a step too far.  It's like they want the exhaust to be cleaner than the intake air.

The "wannabe steam engines" early ALCOs were a bit much, but some adjustments took care of most of that.

[Leo_Ames]

I wonder if Norfolk Southern will be considering a GE designed modernization of their still busy C40-8W fleet now, rather than following their standard cab contemporaries to scrapyards and regional railroads. 

For several tiers now, locomotive exhaust in more polluted areas like California cities is actually cleaner than the intake air in several important parameters like particulate matter.

You still don't want to breath it in obviously, but it's fascinating to know that the air leaving the engine at times is actually less polluted in some ways than what it's drawing in.

[samfp1943]

kgbw49

Norfolk Southern has been backpeddling from Tier 4 faster than Deion Sanders in press coverage. SD60E, SD70ACU, and AC44C6M units are all attempts to avoid Tier 4 units, and they will have more opportunities in the future to extend out any future Tier 4 purchases by acquiring more used units and modifying them.

 

    Would not the purchasing of the various diesel types, listed above [essentially, non-tier 4 compliant types, as built]  speak more to a level of frugal corporate financial management?     As well as, the 'faith' that the NS has in their Engineers at Altoona, to deliver power and savings; under what is most probably, a 'target' set by Washington Bureaucrats ?  Just a thought.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

There is the same thing in the OTR industry.  We have fleets that refuse even over a decade after the EPA mandated it have zero engines in their fleets with either DPF EGR or SCR on their trucks.  How do they get around the regulations that mandate these little issues.  They buy glider kits remove the engines overhaul them with all new parts then drop them into brand new trucks.  As long as your staying out of California your legal as sin for doing it also.  See California has banned any OTR truck with an engine older than 2007 from crossing their state lines.  They are now fining brokers for issuing loads to carriers that do not meet those requirements.  That will backfire on them in a couple months.   

 

Tier 4 engines from what I have gathered are about 5-10% less efficent than tier 3 engines for the Railroads.  Why would the railroads want to buy an engine that burns up to 10% more fuel to move the same amount of frieght down the road.  Just wait until they start blowing EGR coolers under load then the real fireworks will begin with the railroads and makers of them.  First time one of these cracks a cooler for its EGR and makes a 20 ton anchor out of its engine block the shops are going to want the head office idiot that ordered them on a platter.

[BaltACD]

Shadow the Cats owner

There is the same thing in the OTR industry.  We have fleets that refuse even over a decade after the EPA mandated it have zero engines in their fleets with either DPF EGR or SCR on their trucks.  How do they get around the regulations that mandate these little issues.  They buy glider kits remove the engines overhaul them with all new parts then drop them into brand new trucks.  As long as your staying out of California your legal as sin for doing it also.  See California has banned any OTR truck with an engine older than 2007 from crossing their state lines.  They are now fining brokers for issuing loads to carriers that do not meet those requirements.  That will backfire on them in a couple months.   

A year or so ago - I came across a NASCAR race that was titled 'The Fitzgerald Glider 400' or something similar.  At the time my only understanding of 'gliders' was a unpowered aircraft that flew in the air.

Went Googling on 'Fitzgerald Glider' and low an behold I found out what gliders are in today's trucking parlance.

[Euclid]

If Tier 4 is a legal mandate, won't the government eventually get around to banning all forms of evading the mandate? 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

If Tier 4 is a legal mandate, won't the government eventually get around to banning all forms of evading the mandate? 

With Scott Pruit as head of the EPA?

[kgbw49]

samfp1943, I am all for NS doing what they are doing from a motive power standpoint with the fantastic shop forces at Altoona. I actually think they are doing the smart thing for the long term. It would be great to see them be able to buy all the SD9043MACs still out there (are the CP units too far gone, or already scrapped?)and convert them to more SD70ACUs, and more SD60s to SD60E units, etc. There are a lot of SD60s being retired but they sure would have a lot of life left in them with Altoona TLC. Tier 4 with its much poorer fuel economy does not make sense - I understand that it was going after specific types of emissions but burning more fuel per mile to do so just does not make sense. It is absolutely great to see Altoona carrying on the tradition of the Pennsy and, indirectly, Roanoke in providing first class power for their railroad with in-house expertise! It is going to be fun to watch and see what they cook up next!

[Anonymous]

EPA classified three types of locomotives with in the beginning different emission limits-

Freshly manufactured: new builds or remanufactured using less than 25% used parts by value.

Refurbished: A remanufactured locomotive using 25-50% used or reconditioned parts by value with a new regulated engine (more new than old)

Remanufactured: EPA’s definition of remanufacturingis“To replace each and every power assembly of a locomotive or locomotive engine, whether during a single maintenance event or cumulatively within a five-year period.” Replacement power assemblies can be new or reconditioned.
By value it isn't allowed to fall into the refurbishing category.

Freshly manufactured and refurbished locomotives have to comply to the Tier 4 new locomotive emission limits since 2015.

Only remanufactured locomotives don't have to follow Tier 4 limits depending on year of original manufacture. Only Tier 0 locomotives have stricter NOx and PM limits after remanufacture, Tier 0+ = Tier 1. Though the Tiers after remanufacture are called 1+, 2+ they are the same as 1, 2 regarding NOx and PM limits.

So there are regulations for rebuilding locomotives. How the NS rebuilds fit into the remanufacture category cost wise I don't know especially all remanufactured locomotives have to comply to the FRA Crashworthiness rule in 49 CFR 229 Subpart D.
Regards, Volker

[kgbw49]

I also left out the AC44C6M units where NS has Altoona taking standard cab C40-9 units and basically converting them in to the equivalent of an AC4400CW.

The hits just keep on coming out of Altoona!

[Anonymous]

kgbw49

Tier 4 with its much poorer fuel economy does not make sense - I understand that it was going after specific types of emissions but burning more fuel per mile to do so just does not make sense.

This thesis comes up every so often. We had a thread in the locomotive sections without any proof either way.

I'm not sure that Tier 4 locomotives are less fuel efficient than Tier 3. EMD switched to a new 4-stroke engine that is usually more fuel efficient than a 2-stroke. The auxilliary equipment management is completely different and there is the idle management. It is the whole package.

THE GE Gevo-Tier 4 for is a completely reworked engine with common rail injection added IIRC.

Both engines only use EGR not DPF. So the combustion is more complete.

It would be nice if someone could provide relyable data.

I think there are reasons that the class 1 railroads don't order Tier 4 locomotives:

Most have a surplus of locomotive before they ordered Tier 3 locos above the real need to avoid the Tier 4 costs. I expect Tier 4 locomotive to have higher maintenance costs because of EGR.

Even if the fuel efficiency might be less than Tier 3 and maintenance cost higher, it were the railroads damning SCR.
Regards, Volker

[Shadow the Cats owner]

Well I can offer what happened here when EGR was rammed sideways up our exhaust pipes in this industry.  We saw on average 30% losses in fuel economy on our engines both on the computer and at the fuel pump verified with our IFTA filings.  Even when we got SCR in the mix we still are about 10-15% below what we had at a maximum for mileage even with better aero on today's equipment.  Yeah we are still getting about 7 to 9 tenths of a MPG less than our best days.  Thanks EPA for adding to the costs of everything.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps trucking engines (>2,000 rpm) and railroad engines (<1,000 rpm) are not comparable?

Caterpillal/EMD provided a broschure for the 710 engine that shows that the fuel consumption was reduces by 20% from 567C to 710G3C-T3. Within the 710 engine alone is were 8%: s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-60253-59723
Regards, Volker

Edit: Sorry I can't make the link clickable

[tree68]

BaltACD

At the time my only understanding of 'gliders' was a unpowered aircraft that flew in the air.

Gliders have been around for quite a few years in the fire apparatus business.  Assuming the "core" is viable, what gets replaced is mostly the sheet metal.

[zugmann]

Murphy Siding

In the latest Trains Magazine-which I can't for the life of me find right now to quote- Fred Frailey suggests something along the lines of:Tier 4 locomotives aren't selling because they're not worth the investment.

Or is it simply a case of the class 1s currently having a surplus of locomotives?

 

I don't think there's ever been a new locomotive design that hasn't had teething issues.  Nothing new with the Tier 4s.

[BaltACD]

zugmann

 

Murphy Siding

In the latest Trains Magazine-which I can't for the life of me find right now to quote- Fred Frailey suggests something along the lines of:Tier 4 locomotives aren't selling because they're not worth the investment. 

Or is it simply a case of the class 1s currently having a surplus of locomotives? 

I don't think there's ever been a new locomotive design that hasn't had teething issues.  Nothing new with the Tier 4s.

I get the feeling Tier 4 with diesels is much like the implementation of 'smog controls' on gasolene engines was in the 1970's.  A gross, uneconomical, performance sapping 'solution' to create clean air.  In the ensuing 4 decades automotive engineers have learned and implemented many 'tricks of the trade' that make the gas engines of today far better machines, in all aspects of their operation, than anyone could have believed in the 70's.  During those 4 decades, most of the engineering time and money were expended upon gas engines as the regulations for diesels were next to non-existant; now diesel regulations have become more stringent and it is now time for the engineering time and money to get expended in creating new solutions for diesel emmisions.

[zugmann]

BaltACD

During those 4 decades, most of the engineering time and money were expended upon gas engines as the regulations for diesels were next to non-existant; now diesel regulations have become more stringent and it is now time for the engineering time and money to get expended in creating new solutions for diesel emmisions.

Diesel was always the industrial distant cousin, not really used by the public.  But now, diesel has become popular (the new rice), and now it is time for the regualtions to catch up.  

[BaltACD]

zugmann

 

BaltACD

During those 4 decades, most of the engineering time and money were expended upon gas engines as the regulations for diesels were next to non-existant; now diesel regulations have become more stringent and it is now time for the engineering time and money to get expended in creating new solutions for diesel emmisions. 

Diesel was always the industrial distant cousin, not really used by the public.  But now, diesel has become popular (the new rice), and now it is time for the regualtions to catch up.  

Likewise for directed diesel engineering to catch up with the regulations.

[Overmod]

zugmann

Diesel was always the industrial distant cousin, not really used by the public. But now, diesel has become popular ...

Well, no, it was made obsolete very promptly when GDI became a practical proposition, and its only hope as an American popular technology outside coal-rollin' teens in oversize pickin'ups will go away as soon as the medical consequences of nanoparticulates are better explained.  (Of course GDI produces these, too, so there may be some come-to-Jesus moments; have your popcorn popper cleaned and ready.)  The big shoe that has recently fallen is that Mazda has successfully demonstrated hybrid-ignition engines that work effectively, with nothing more than a medium-size starter/generator system giving them smoothness when the operating regimen changes.

You can run the numbers for the actual changes in 'pollution' going from Tier 4 to prospective Tier 5; I agree with Volker Landwehr that even in Tier 4 there is legislative intent to 'mandate' SCR with DEF, and when that failed to succeed on the railroads with Tier 4, the twentysomething policy fabricators will ensure it does not with the next round of arbitrary targets.

Now, this can be justified, but not quite in the direction the regulators see coming, because most of the ghastly efficiency compromises on diesels substantially go away if all the NOx abatement possible with acceptable levels of slip is done with SCR.  You then go right back up to lean, extremely hot, extremely high CR combustion with very high boost and modulated/pilot injection (which among other things gives you a fighting chance to oxidize the nanoparticulates in the afterburn) and then use proportionally more DEF to knock down the dramatic increase in NO emissions this induces.  The key here is that only the marginal cost of the DEF volumetric increase factors against the improved thermal, operating, and maintenance efficiencies, so 'if you are made to bite the bullet' and install the whole DEF distribution architecture on your railroad and locomotives, you will likely get more 'back for your dollar' in a Tier 5 environment than you would with Tier 4 and a bunch of EGR and other kludging.