Trains.com

Union Pacific Tier 4? Scrubber on Exhaust 9900

39685 views
95 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:43 PM

YoHo1975

The SD59MXs have been coming out over the past year, 9900 was not among them..or at least, not as a Tier 4 test bed. That is a new development and that is why they just started with the hoopla.

The EMD ECO rebuilds themselves have gotten press as well, but they aren't new, so they get less press.

All 25 seem to be an experiment with the 9900 being modified with a special scrub type exhaust.   It will be on display this weekend at Sacramento for the 150 anniversary party at the CSRM along with a tunnel motor several F units and the 844.  I don't believe the 844 will pass the Tier anything but we certainly like it.  

 

This is the press release they presented with the 9900 viewing.

Union Pacific Railroad investing $20 million to test emissions-reducing locomotive technology

Union Pacific Railroad is investing $20 million to test new technology designed to reduce diesel emissions from freight locomotives in California. A series of 25 experimental locomotives will be based in two Union Pacific rail yards in California as part of a rigorous test of emissions-reducing technologies.

The investment represents Union Pacific’s latest effort to further reduce emissions and move closer to the U.S. EPA’s Tier 4 locomotive emissions standards for new locomotives starting in 2015. The experimental locomotives are intermediate line-haul units, with an operating range of approximately 200 miles, and will be used exclusively in California.

“The testing and analysis of these locomotives is part of an ongoing initiative at Union Pacific to develop and use technology in pursuit of emissions reductions,” said Mike Iden, Union Pacific general director, car and locomotive engineering. “This effort is emblematic of our continued commitment to provide environmentally responsible freight transportation.”

One locomotive in this series of 25 will be based in Roseville to test the combined use of exhaust gas recirculation, diesel oxidation catalyst and diesel particulate filtering. In testing the combined benefits of these three technologies on one freight locomotive, this Union Pacific unit is the closest an Electro-Motive Diesel locomotive has come to achieving Tier 4 standards. The move toward Tier 4 is made up of a 45 percent reduction in the oxides of nitrogen emissions compared to the current Tier 2 standard and an 85 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions based on preliminary analysis. Union Pacific and the California Air Resources Board will jointly analyze the emissions reductions capability of this locomotive over the next 18 months.

Nine of the experimental units fitted with the EGR technology are based in the Colton area and will be tested through operations in the southern California region.

The remaining 15 experimental units will work out of Roseville for operations in northern California. These locomotives have the capability to be retrofitted with EGR and other emissions reduction technologies as testing progresses. The Proposition 1B – Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program is partially funding this set of locomotives.

Testing on all 25 locomotives is scheduled to last through 2014.

In partnering with EMD to develop these experimental locomotives, Union Pacific continues working to upgrade and improve the fuel-efficiency of its locomotive fleet. Since 2000, Union Pacific has invested approximately $6.56 billion to purchase locomotives that meet the EPA’s updated emissions guidelines and an additional $200 million to upgrade older locomotives in the fleet to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency. That’s nearly 3,800 new, fuel-efficient locomotives in all. These purchases allow Union Pacific to retire older, less-efficient locomotives, thus improving overall fleet fuel economy and reducing Union Pacific’s emissions rate.

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:01 AM

The SD59MXs have been coming out over the past year, 9900 was not among them..or at least, not as a Tier 4 test bed. That is a new development and that is why they just started with the hoopla.

The EMD ECO rebuilds themselves have gotten press as well, but they aren't new, so they get less press.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:47 PM

CPM500

The amount of hoopla surrounding the introduction of 2015 indicates (to me, at least) that GE will be taking  orders on the design.

When (if) the design was still in the test mule stage, it would not have been publicized.

The UP 9900's were completed last year...and received no publicity until recently. This says something...

The forthcoming fleet of 30 GE demos (probably for validation testing) also speaks volumes...

True, the GE design is probably firmed up and will be tested on railroads prior to 2015.   The 9900 is a rebuild of the SD60M units so they can be used for local service in California, at least for now.  The 9900 received the 12 cylinder 710 motor with heavy duty cooling along with the computer controls to validate this exhaust scrubber type of design. This unit has been running the Redding local for the past three weeks now along with two other standard SD59MX rebuilds. 

It will be interesting to find out if a 4 stroke motor will be installed in another test unit by EMD to meet the new regulations for 2015.  There is one SD70Ace being retrofitted also from what I have read.

CZ 

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:35 AM

The amount of hoopla surrounding the introduction of 2015 indicates (to me, at least) that GE will be taking  orders on the design.

When (if) the design was still in the test mule stage, it would not have been publicized.

The UP 9900's were completed last year...and received no publicity until recently. This says something...

The forthcoming fleet of 30 GE demos (probably for validation testing) also speaks volumes...

  • Member since
    February 2011
  • 52 posts
Posted by episette on Saturday, September 8, 2012 8:56 AM

IronEagle. Class 7-8 trucks are different than street cars. I assume that you had  to pass a smog test for the year of production, but evidently that isn't enough for CARB. California emission regs are weird.

 

Ive been out of the heavy truck industry for a few years but I did spend some time working for Volvo doing production engineering on their vocational trucks.

7.9 MPG for a W900L is doing quite well, especially with a large Cat.  Congratulations on your new T660.

  • Member since
    February 2011
  • 52 posts
Posted by episette on Saturday, September 8, 2012 3:38 AM

CZ. CAFE fuel regs.

The current CAFE requirements will not hurt the domestic automakers and the technology to meet the 35mpg fleet average already exists. These regulations are good for the industry and they also create engineering jobs. It is very likely that if we had the current 35 MPG CAFE regs in place in 2006 that GM and Chrysler would not have needed the bailouts because consumers wouldn't have have purchased more efficient foreign cars when the price of gas hit $4.00 a gallon in 2006.

Please do not listen to the scare tactics because the people spreading those rumors do not understand the technology, the finer points of the regulations or the auto industry. You can be assured that pickups and large cars are not going to disappear but they will get much more fuel efficient. Ford and Chrysler make most of their profit from the sale of pickups so they aren't going away, ever.

The regulations also do not affect vehicles already on the road so don't believe the lies that the government will confiscate your pickups and older cars.  

  The proposed 50+MPG CAFE regulations don't take effect until 2025, if they take effect at all.

 

Many of the foreign automakers don't meet the current regs and those cars are still for sale in the US because the automaker simply passes on the gas guzzler tax to the consumers that they happily pay to own a Porsche, Ferrari, Rolls or Lamborghini.  

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Friday, September 7, 2012 9:00 PM

Randy

Interesting about the mileage.  I knew it was around 7 or so but if I remember correctly, that figure would have to increase a lot to meet the new standards for future years.  10 mpg would be extremely good for the trucks today, but I would guess that experimental rig getting 10 is advertising better days rather than real mileage.  Under perfect conditions on flat land at 50 maybe.  I did not realize they were using composite drums on the drivers and front wheels also?  

The railroads have the same problem with getting fuel mileage since they are using run 6 unless the dispatcher allows the Z train to go faster.  I hear them asking on the scanner if they have permission to go faster or do they have to stay in the conserve fuel mode.

I watched the 9900 today come into the yard with two other units and you can hear the motor noise over the exhaust of that unit.  That unit really does not make exhaust noise and that system must cut back on HP also.

CZ

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Friday, September 7, 2012 5:46 PM

CZ:  We do have new GHG (GreenHouse Gas) emission rules that take effect in 2014 and 2017 (I think), where they want the fuel economy bumped up.  What I had heard was that they want to make the Smart Way volunteer program mandatory.  I know Freightliner had an experimental rig running around that was getting 10mpg loaded, not sure about any other truck maker getting that right now.....

Ironeagle:  So far, with my T700, I'm averaging 7 to 7.5 mpg loaded, I have 120,000 on the meter now, no issues with the powertrain at all.  The rest of the truck, not so good, have a few things I need to have fixed by Kenworth (and they still can't figure out how I'm breaking the dust covers off the rear drive axle shocks every 25,000 miles!)....

Oh, and don't spec the composite drums, they warp badly......

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Friday, September 7, 2012 2:58 PM

CPM500

The bottom line is this: GE has a technical solution for Tier IV that they can sell  to the railroads immediately. Apparently, EMD does not...

The GE was announced but I have not read anything about it being approved or tested.  Is it ready for marketing to sell it???   I noticed it has a small hump on its back also!   Sort of a mini camel.

CZ

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Friday, September 7, 2012 2:56 PM

Ironeagle2006

I am an O/O so I would be able to Answer that Question for you.  I last bought a New Truck in 2001 and I keep them for about 11 Years I paid 110K Plus FET of 4%  for a Fully Loaded W900L with a 86 Studio Sleeper VIT interior with a 550 Cat and all the Bells and Whistles I could get on her.  I just Ordered her Replacement 2 Weeks ago and about had a Heart Attack when I got the Price I ordered a T660 need to save on Fuel with a Truck Payment and a Cummins ISX as CAT is out of the OTR industry 86 inch Sleeper with all the Bells and Whistles is now going to set me back close to 170 Grand plus my FET if I had gotten a Freightliner Glider Kit with a Pre Emmisions Motor in it I would have saved 60K and also since it is considered a Reman Unit there is NO FET on it. 

 

So for the Privilage of running Certain States like NY CA NJ and others I have to pay 60K more for my Truck and Pray like hell the Engine and other Emissions stuff is Reliable on it. 

 

Ouch!!! I knew that the cost would be expensive but that cost has to make your profit smaller. 

  That is a big increase even with the normal inflation!! 

What is next?   He has mandated the new EPA rules to increase the car mileage to 54.5 in just a few years and that will eliminate the rest of the home town cars and possibly trucks also.  Do the long haul trucks have to meet any mileage numbers?    Good luck with the new truck!

 

CZ

 

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Friday, September 7, 2012 8:50 AM

The bottom line is this: GE has a technical solution for Tier IV that they can sell  to the railroads immediately. Apparently, EMD does not...

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:21 PM

CAZEPHYR

Thanks for the input.   How much more has this new 2012 truck cost with the changes over the previous model?  I was wondering what the extra cost was and if this is going to be sufficient to meet the new Tier regulations for trucks.

CZ

CZ:  I don't know what the difference between the 2007 and 2010 emission models was, but on the day I received my truck, I had a chat with the president of the company I drive for.  He told me I was driving a $130,000 tractor, I promptly said 'ouch!!'..........

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:48 AM

rvos1979

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......

Thanks for the input.   How much more has this new 2012 truck cost with the changes over the previous model?  I was wondering what the extra cost was and if this is going to be sufficient to meet the new Tier regulations for trucks.

CZ

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:43 AM

Interesting comments about EMD.

The web site below has pictures of the SD59MX and the 9900 special version around Roseville and on the mainline.

CZ

http://s806.photobucket.com/albums/yy345/Trainsforyou/UP%20SD59MX%20Diesels/?albumview=slideshow

 

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:10 PM
  1. The current EMD management team stinks. Clueless. Billy Ray Redneck and company ought to be sent packing. Send them back to the junk business-where they belong.
  2. On account EMD's instability due to three different owners over a very short period of time, a lot of white-collar talent ran for the door.
  3. The four-stroke H engine was a tacit acknowledgement that the 710 was at the end of the line with respect to emissions development. This point was directly alluded to in published materials about the H engine.
  4. Due to development issues with the H engine, the program was shelved as far as North American applications were concerned. 
  5. The AC drive has nothing to do with emissions issues. The current Mitsibushi AC drive is bulletproof !! In fact, CAT was planning to have various sub-assemblies fabricated by EMD for CAT equipment.
  6. The one invertor per axle version of the ACe was done to get the attention of a former customer who has not purchased any new EMD locos in years.

CPM500

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Monday, September 3, 2012 6:33 PM

carnej1

As far as the emission control systems go, I realized that there might be an issue with the non -urea system when Navstar recently announced that they are stopping production of their OTR engines (using a similiar non-additive based system) and the company is having huge financial issues because of it(interestingly the Navstar engines are based on CAT's discontinued OTR engine line, but NOT so the emissions control system which was NAVSTAR's own design)..

If I remember correctly from the reports, the only MaxxForce engine to be based on a Cat engine is the MaxxForce 15, the block is based off of Cat's C-15, everything else is Navistar.

Based on the rumbling I have been hearing, Navistar seems to be having more warranty issues with the MaxxForce engines then the other manufacturers, but all the makers have had sharp increases in warranty claims.

Was a news item in the October Trains that EMD's new demonstrators have one inverter per axle, matching GE's system......

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

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • 380 posts
Posted by Gary UK on Monday, September 3, 2012 1:28 PM

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. Whistling

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.

Its not actually 'pig pee' but i think you said that in jest anyway Laugh

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, September 3, 2012 10:30 AM

GP40-2

Ironeagle2006

...Their Heavy Mining Trucks already are aroun 4-5K HP use an AC Drive System and run 24/7 except for Scheduled Maintance and in all types of Weather.

The engineering requirements for a locomotive's electrical system are a whole different ball of wax than what's needed for a mining truck. If it was that easy, CAT would have done it by now.

 That may well be true but anyone who think's CAT is just playing in the locomotive market and will be reluctant to make a massice R&D investment underestimates them...

 I also question the implication that diesel electric systems for offroad applications are not applicable to the rail industry: If that is the case that why is Siemens (who suppiled the AC traction components for all of EMD's AC locomotives up until relatively recently) a market leader in both business segments?

I do realize however, Caterpillar is a newcomer to designing and building AC traction systems in house so they are having to play catch up with GE.

 

 As far as the emission control systems go, I realized that there might be an issue with the non -urea system when Navstar recently announced that they are stopping production of their OTR engines (using a similiar non-additive based system) and the company is having huge financial issues because of it(interestingly the Navstar engines are based on CAT's discontinued OTR engine line, but NOT so the emissions control system which was NAVSTAR's own design)..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:49 PM

Fuel vaporization is the answer. I'm sure most are unfamiliar with this process. No need for non-sense exhaust after-treatment hardware, throw all that; EGR, DEF, DPF garbage out the window. Emissions reduction mandates, another fluke for dummies to pay more money to operate. For as long as man has been burning hydrocarbons, now its an issue? It was never an issue in the first place! Nobody see's the sublimity of the situation. So keep believing in that  horse hockey know as greenhouse gases, and other money scam's.

Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:49 PM

Ironeagle2006

...Their Heavy Mining Trucks already are aroun 4-5K HP use an AC Drive System and run 24/7 except for Scheduled Maintance and in all types of Weather.

The engineering requirements for a locomotive's electrical system are a whole different ball of wax than what's needed for a mining truck. If it was that easy, CAT would have done it by now.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:16 PM
GP40-2, I forgot about that, I remember the issues several roads had when they swapped in Cat engines. I think that when it comes down to it, Cat/EMD will probably have to start from scratch with several test beds, working on both engine and electrical. Problem there is the cost, and I'm not sure if Cat would be willing to sink that much money into R&D......

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

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:28 PM

rvos1979

 ...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.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:22 PM

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......

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:08 PM

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

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, August 25, 2012 11:43 AM

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. Whistling

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Central New York
  • 335 posts
Posted by MJChittick on Friday, August 24, 2012 9:12 PM

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.

GE unveils Tier 4 emissions prototype locomotive

By Greg McDonnell
Published: August 24, 2012
ERIE, Pa. – GE Transportation unveiled the first new production prototype Tier 4 emissions capable locomotive today at its manufacturing facility in Erie. As part of a kickoff event attended by GE employees; federal, state, and local officials; and print and television journalists, the Tier 4 prototype ES44AC, appropriately numbered 2015 and decked out in GE's "Ecomagination" colors, burst through a large banner to make its debut.

This next-generation Evolution Series locomotive meets Tier 4 requirements that take effect in 2015 with the existing GEVO12 prime mover and without the need for urea-based after-treatment, a condition that the railroad industry has been insistent upon.

No. 2015's extended-height engine hood and massive radiator section are a hint at the extensive technological advancements necessary to meet Tier 4 emissions requirements and to achieve the mandated 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2015

Mike

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Friday, August 24, 2012 2:41 AM

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. Whistling

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Vicksburg, Michigan
  • 2,303 posts
Posted by Andrew Falconer on Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:53 PM

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.

Alien

Yes

 

Andrew

Andrew

Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Norfolk Southern Lafayette District
  • 1,642 posts
Posted by bubbajustin on Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:47 PM

UGLY!    Dead

The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 3,264 posts
Posted by CAZEPHYR on Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:02 AM

The Union Pacific had a press conference yesterday about the new 9900 technology.

It was on the news last night.

CZ

 

http://www.kcra.com/news/Experimental-train-rolling-in-Roseville/-/11797728/16223784/-/w8k09a/-/index.html

 

 

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy