The tier 4 story is far from over. It appears that GE and MTU have tier 4 compliant engines. EMD/Cat is working hard to get one. Cummins has decided to go with SCR.
What we don't know is how these tier 4 engines will do in service. There is a substantial price increase for tier 4 locomotives. If they are so complicated that they become roundhouse queens and are unable to turn off the required mileage to pay for themselves, or burn through prime movers , the railroads may have to take another look at urea. I know they don't want it. However, if the non urea units can't cut it, they may have to. The trucking industry didn't want it either, but now urea dispensers are going in everywhere they sell diesel.
Just think with urea and some tweeking, EMD might just get another decade out of the 710.
BaltACD It would appear that GE features they have Tier 4 solved http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/ge-transportation-completes-first-production-test-of-tier-4-engine.html?channel=35
It would appear that GE features they have Tier 4 solved
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/ge-transportation-completes-first-production-test-of-tier-4-engine.html?channel=35
Reading that article it states that GE has not yet received official Tier IV certification from the EPA, which they must have before delivering any production locomotives to a customer.
But, you are correct that they appear to be confident that they have the bugs worked out of the system and expect to get that certification very soon..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Responding to Yoho 1975
I posted above a link to a paper that indicated that UP 9901 at least, as well as 9900 had exhaust gas recirculation. I checked the compliance decals on three 9900s including 9900 itself and they all state "Tier 0"
EMD are definitely building the Tier 4 units right now. I asked a friend at EMD about another project and he said "It was delayed while the factory turns out the Tier 4 units". So they are being built and have some priority. Whether they appear in June is another matter.
My reading of the Tier 4 arrangements about Tier Credits suggest that EMD could deliver Tier 3 units under Tier Credits, if like GE they build the same number of units meeting Tier 4 in the same year. The text didn't seem to suggest that this arrangement was limited to the 2015 year.
M636C
The Rail Industry is well aware of what was seen in the OTR truck industry, and the still have no use for Urea. It isn't going to happen unless they are forced. The 9900 was the only unit outfitted to come close to Tier IV. It failed. The rest (25 total, not 12.) are straight Tier 2 ECO v12s. UP did order a few more a thought, but I haven't heard anything about them.
as for GE, they've received Certification for the locomotive under CFR 1033 for Tier IV. So, no idea how it will survive in real use, but according to the EPA et al, it meets tier 4. They MUST, by LAW build one of them for each Tier 3 unit they build this year, so we'll see.
I didn't catch the blog entry that EMD will have demo units out this year. The last blog entry from him I read related to tier 4 was so riddled with factual errors that it couldn't even be posted on Loconotes until it had been fixed. So I'm not sure I trust him on this topic.
Nobody wants SCR, neither did the trucking industry till they saw its fairly easy to maintain and overall had less issues than other options.
Entropy I'm sure in a well engineered setup they could have a DEF tank that could match the engines usage rate in DEF/Urea to the locomotives fuel tank. So they're filled on the same scheudle. Typically its about 10:1 , for every 10 gallons used to 1 gallon of DEF. Don't think a 'dirtier' engine uses more DEF, interestingly the dirtier the exahust the easier it is for Urea to find NOx in the exhaust. It looks like its a foregone conculsion the 265H engine will be used going forward. The C280/3600 has a poor history in rail applications. Could the 265H become the C265? The synergy within Caterpillar could have them build the 265H at Layfayette, IN, I believe CAT produces 3500 series engines in Griffin, GA now too, which free's up space at Layfayette, also with the complete lack of petroleum customers buying engines at the moment, typically a heavy buyer of 3500/3600 CAT engines (Oil industry). When CAT purchased MWM, they rebranded their engines as CAT. MTU has been digging away at CAT's marketshare, the 265H is identical bore size to an MTU 8000 series engine typically used in large Catamarans and "fast ferrys". If EMD/CAT could bring non Urea Tier 4 to Marine/generator app and Rail, thats a win win. CAT 3600 engines offer Tier 4 with Urea/SCR. Just some observations, its going to be an interesting year.
I'm sure in a well engineered setup they could have a DEF tank that could match the engines usage rate in DEF/Urea to the locomotives fuel tank. So they're filled on the same scheudle. Typically its about 10:1 , for every 10 gallons used to 1 gallon of DEF. Don't think a 'dirtier' engine uses more DEF, interestingly the dirtier the exahust the easier it is for Urea to find NOx in the exhaust.
It looks like its a foregone conculsion the 265H engine will be used going forward. The C280/3600 has a poor history in rail applications. Could the 265H become the C265? The synergy within Caterpillar could have them build the 265H at Layfayette, IN, I believe CAT produces 3500 series engines in Griffin, GA now too, which free's up space at Layfayette, also with the complete lack of petroleum customers buying engines at the moment, typically a heavy buyer of 3500/3600 CAT engines (Oil industry). When CAT purchased MWM, they rebranded their engines as CAT.
MTU has been digging away at CAT's marketshare, the 265H is identical bore size to an MTU 8000 series engine typically used in large Catamarans and "fast ferrys". If EMD/CAT could bring non Urea Tier 4 to Marine/generator app and Rail, thats a win win. CAT 3600 engines offer Tier 4 with Urea/SCR.
Just some observations, its going to be an interesting year.
You do make a good point about SCR being a mature technology with the rest of Caterpillar's engine lines and if GE experiences major technical issues with the upgraded GEVO it may give EMD an edge.
But I haven't read a single blurb anywhere saying that any of the Class I's want SCR if there is another option available which is why I doubt you'll see an SCR equipped EMD freight locomotive demonstrator in the near future.
Of course Cat/Progress/EMD will be demonstrating the SCR based emissions control technology in the new passenger units they are building..
I believe the SD59MX employed 3 different types of emissions aftertreatment designs, over various road numbers. Not all have the same emissions equipment.
Here's a presentation on installing Miratech's Diesel Oxidation Catalyst on EMD 710 engines.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arb.ca.gov%2Frailyard%2Fryagreement%2F112807fritz.pdf&ei=krUKVYqpCouggwSiy4HwBg&usg=AFQjCNHarNvS-RAL4Oj4uwwp82N80B4nIw
Here are some interesting figures on the SD59MX
http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/final_report_emd_tier_4_pm_aftertreatment_upgrade_83112_final_v1.pdf
Note that 9901 is indicated to have everything except the particulate filter, and that the test on 9900 was to get PM down to Tier 4 standards, not all of the emissions.
To return to the topic, the new EMD engine is based on the 265 but it isn't a 265H, because numerous changes have been made to the engine, including common rail fuel injection, exhaust gas recirculation and different intercooler arrangements, just to mention those things visible from the outside...
MTU are offering the 4000 series as meeting Tier 4 without aftertreatment but I haven't heard whether the 8000 can also meet those standards.
I wonder if a lightweight version of the 8000 would work in US Domestic locomotives....?
BaltACD The duty cycle that railroads expect out of their locomotives - Only adding fuel, sand, brake shoes and emptying the toilet for the 92 days between required inspections where they then get shop attention.
The duty cycle that railroads expect out of their locomotives -
Only adding fuel, sand, brake shoes and emptying the toilet for the 92 days between required inspections where they then get shop attention.
The modern engines now go 6 months between MIs.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Entropy carnej1 According to what I've read the experimental SD59X could not quite meet Tier IV emissions standards but it came very close. Presumably with some more development time and money it could.. The SD59MX i'd say is beyond expiriamental theres 12 of them I think, they're in revenue service, gathering data sure. I'm not aware of GE being apart of a similar program. But on point, SD59MX doesn't have SCR. Uses EGR valve, DOC (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst) and DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). Similar emissions equipment to a 2007-2010 on road truck. carnej1 The Class 1 railroads deal with a very different duty cycle on their diesel engines than an OTR trucking operator (or construction company,mining outfit) does and that is why they are being so insistent on a non-SCR solution. I don't agree with that; OTR trucking they put 1 million miles on their engines, hows that different from 1 million kWh on a 710? The trucking industry knew it was an SCR truck or Navistar cooled EGR when 2010 came. carnej1 The question about GE is an interesting one;they are taking orders for Tier IV locomotives but time will tell if their system is a good as they state.. Very true, they can take orders for something that doesn't actually exisit sure. Is that ethical? I believe GE knows how to play the media and they spun Tier 4 right, they just have to make good on it. At this time, its March 2015, I still see Tier 4 GE on a test track. For one, if GE is on top of Tier 4 they should already be delivering BNSF order. Negative, GE is using credits to sell locomotives currently.
carnej1 According to what I've read the experimental SD59X could not quite meet Tier IV emissions standards but it came very close. Presumably with some more development time and money it could..
According to what I've read the experimental SD59X could not quite meet Tier IV emissions standards but it came very close. Presumably with some more development time and money it could..
The SD59MX i'd say is beyond expiriamental theres 12 of them I think, they're in revenue service, gathering data sure. I'm not aware of GE being apart of a similar program. But on point, SD59MX doesn't have SCR. Uses EGR valve, DOC (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst) and DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). Similar emissions equipment to a 2007-2010 on road truck.
carnej1 The Class 1 railroads deal with a very different duty cycle on their diesel engines than an OTR trucking operator (or construction company,mining outfit) does and that is why they are being so insistent on a non-SCR solution.
The Class 1 railroads deal with a very different duty cycle on their diesel engines than an OTR trucking operator (or construction company,mining outfit) does and that is why they are being so insistent on a non-SCR solution.
I don't agree with that; OTR trucking they put 1 million miles on their engines, hows that different from 1 million kWh on a 710? The trucking industry knew it was an SCR truck or Navistar cooled EGR when 2010 came.
carnej1 The question about GE is an interesting one;they are taking orders for Tier IV locomotives but time will tell if their system is a good as they state..
The question about GE is an interesting one;they are taking orders for Tier IV locomotives but time will tell if their system is a good as they state..
Very true, they can take orders for something that doesn't actually exisit sure. Is that ethical? I believe GE knows how to play the media and they spun Tier 4 right, they just have to make good on it. At this time, its March 2015, I still see Tier 4 GE on a test track. For one, if GE is on top of Tier 4 they should already be delivering BNSF order. Negative, GE is using credits to sell locomotives currently.
IIRC, only one of UP's SD59X was fitted with the full suite of experimental Tier IV (really Tier 3.5) compliant equipment (UP9900)
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2804724
The discussion wasn't about how many SD59's UP has (it's more than 12 by now,isn't it?) but about the applicability of the technology to a hypothetical new build Tier IV compliant 710 powered locomotive.
You also seem to be misunderstanding what I meant by Duty cycle:the service and maintenance intervals for a line haul diesel electric locomotive on a Class I railroad are very different than for an OTR truck engine and are the major reason that the industry is telling the manufacturers that they do not want to deal with SCR.
As far as GE goes, I agree that if they can't achieve Tier IV with their new systems in a production locomotive they may very well wind up with an even worse position in the market than where EMD is at the moment (and it would be to EMD's advantage)..
EntropyNegative, GE is using credits to sell locomotives currently.
I don't see how selling as many copies of their already proven product as allowed by law, if the customers want them, has any bearing here.
Railroads are basically only going Tier 4 because they have to, not because it's a superior product where the most important metrics for them are concerned. The locomotives coming out of Erie that are Tier 4 will cost more, be more complicated, surely have teething troubles, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're slightly less fuel efficient along with other slight decreases in performance compared to the existing Tier 3 product as sacrifices are made in the system in order to get the necessary numbers for the stack emissions.
That these are being built doesn't infer anything about the quality or status of the Tier 4 design. If anything, it's the opposite since I'm sure there are some stiff penalties in place if they don't outshop a Tier 4 example for every Tier 3 credit unit outshopped this year.
GE must have zero doubt that they will be able to fully meet that mandate this year, if they're building these Tier 3 credit units in the meantime.
Entropy YoHo1975 1: Don't blame Ainsworth for things that land squarely at the feet of the General Motors Corporation. They mismanged EMD for at least a Decade prior to the sale if not 2. This is known and has been reported on. 2: Cat doesn't have a non-Urea Tier IV engine either. So they can't solve the problem. In fact, if Urea were an acceptable solution to the Railroads, we probably wouldn't need new engines. I'd bet the 710 could meet standards with Urea. Could be wrong, but wouldn't be surprised. I'd have to agree, looking at the SD59MX, add Urea/SCR to that emissions package and i'm sure it would get the 710 into Tier 4 range. However the Class 1's don't want the added expense/infrastructure of Urea. What the Class 1's should be thinking about, if Tier 4 could be met without SCR, whats the next step... Tier 4 Final, Tier 5? They will need Urea, maybe they can get around that for the next few years. Cooled EGR takes a fuel penalty, SCR doesn't. From what I saw in the trucking industry, SCR trucks had far less problems than the cooled EGR trucks. CAT's emissions strategy for yellow engiens has been SCR. If I was a Class 1, i'd say give me an SD59MX with Urea, keep the 710 simplicty, 4300hp, servicablity, parts interchage, and familiartity. Does GE actually have a CERTIFIED Tier 4 locomotive? The Marine Tier 4 i'm sure was achieved with Urea, Rail engine is a different game.
YoHo1975 1: Don't blame Ainsworth for things that land squarely at the feet of the General Motors Corporation. They mismanged EMD for at least a Decade prior to the sale if not 2. This is known and has been reported on. 2: Cat doesn't have a non-Urea Tier IV engine either. So they can't solve the problem. In fact, if Urea were an acceptable solution to the Railroads, we probably wouldn't need new engines. I'd bet the 710 could meet standards with Urea. Could be wrong, but wouldn't be surprised.
1: Don't blame Ainsworth for things that land squarely at the feet of the General Motors Corporation. They mismanged EMD for at least a Decade prior to the sale if not 2. This is known and has been reported on.
2: Cat doesn't have a non-Urea Tier IV engine either. So they can't solve the problem. In fact, if Urea were an acceptable solution to the Railroads, we probably wouldn't need new engines. I'd bet the 710 could meet standards with Urea. Could be wrong, but wouldn't be surprised.
I'd have to agree, looking at the SD59MX, add Urea/SCR to that emissions package and i'm sure it would get the 710 into Tier 4 range. However the Class 1's don't want the added expense/infrastructure of Urea. What the Class 1's should be thinking about, if Tier 4 could be met without SCR, whats the next step... Tier 4 Final, Tier 5? They will need Urea, maybe they can get around that for the next few years. Cooled EGR takes a fuel penalty, SCR doesn't.
From what I saw in the trucking industry, SCR trucks had far less problems than the cooled EGR trucks.
CAT's emissions strategy for yellow engiens has been SCR.
If I was a Class 1, i'd say give me an SD59MX with Urea, keep the 710 simplicty, 4300hp, servicablity, parts interchage, and familiartity.
Does GE actually have a CERTIFIED Tier 4 locomotive? The Marine Tier 4 i'm sure was achieved with Urea, Rail engine is a different game.
Several of the Big railroads are remanufactuing large numbers of older locomotives as a hedge against any problem with OEM tier iv units so the industry doesn't seem to be staking everything on the EGS technology..
carnej1 [re: exhaust-treatment tender] There is a startup companmy that holds a patent for exactly that: https://www.google.com/patents/US8820060?dq=locomotive+exhaust+treatment+tender&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cciqVJzpLIGwyASdu4GoAw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ
[re: exhaust-treatment tender]
There is a startup companmy that holds a patent for exactly that:
https://www.google.com/patents/US8820060?dq=locomotive+exhaust+treatment+tender&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cciqVJzpLIGwyASdu4GoAw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ
Now, that is something clever.
I saw something like this on over-the-road trucks on the New York State Thruway in the 1980s but I never could tell for sure if they were studying exhaust treatment or using the exhaust to heat the cargo. I still don't know what was going on. The exhaust stack was piped into the bottom of the trailer.
YoHoHo 1975,
I am well aware of the damage that Roger Smith (the worst CEO GM of all time) did to GM, EMD included. Smith spent 85 BILLION on the auto business...only to result in a precipitous decline in automotive market share.
What exactly is YOUR background in relation to the locomotive business ?
aegrotatio creepycrank At the recent Work Boat Show in New Orleans a Tenneco Company introduced their exhaust after treatment scrubber that would make any tier 0 engine tier 4 compliant. Just cut out the exhaust pipe and weld it in. This is great for marine and industrial engines where there is plenty of room overhead but these things are rather bulky,about the size of a marine engine muffler or at least a third the size of the engine. The dinky size of locomotive size mufflers shows that there isn't much room above the engine. I know, they can make an exhaust-treatment tender!! I mean, think about it, they are happy with CNG and LPG tenders, and Bunker C fuel tenders in the recent past, this is an idea that has legs, I think! Seriously, though, even a casual glance at two-stroke engines intuitively suggests to me that it just can't meet any modern emissions standard without power-robbing EGR, excessive aftertreatment, and inevitable fuel wasted as it is removed in the scavenge stroke.
creepycrank At the recent Work Boat Show in New Orleans a Tenneco Company introduced their exhaust after treatment scrubber that would make any tier 0 engine tier 4 compliant. Just cut out the exhaust pipe and weld it in. This is great for marine and industrial engines where there is plenty of room overhead but these things are rather bulky,about the size of a marine engine muffler or at least a third the size of the engine. The dinky size of locomotive size mufflers shows that there isn't much room above the engine.
I know, they can make an exhaust-treatment tender!!
I mean, think about it, they are happy with CNG and LPG tenders, and Bunker C fuel tenders in the recent past, this is an idea that has legs, I think!
Seriously, though, even a casual glance at two-stroke engines intuitively suggests to me that it just can't meet any modern emissions standard without power-robbing EGR, excessive aftertreatment, and inevitable fuel wasted as it is removed in the scavenge stroke.
Leo_Ames carnej1 I am sure that back when the U25B was introduced there were many railfans (and probably a few professional railroaders) who wished the GE would have stuck to toasters and refrigerators... Railfans welcomed it after losing three major builders during the 1950s. Any dislike only appeared after the U25B's production run when Alco started to be viewed as threatened and eventually ceased manufacturing. But when it was new, it was only adding to the variety that railfans could expect to see at the front of trains.
carnej1 I am sure that back when the U25B was introduced there were many railfans (and probably a few professional railroaders) who wished the GE would have stuck to toasters and refrigerators...
Railfans welcomed it after losing three major builders during the 1950s. Any dislike only appeared after the U25B's production run when Alco started to be viewed as threatened and eventually ceased manufacturing.
But when it was new, it was only adding to the variety that railfans could expect to see at the front of trains.
GE had quite a lot of experience in building their own diesel locomotives by the time they introduced the U25. Queensland Railways purchased ten six axle hood units with FVBL-12 engines rated at 1200 HP in 1951. This was laid out exactly like a (scaled down, 3' 6" gauge) U25. Because the Cooper-Bessemer engine wasn't competitive on a horsepower basis compared with the Alco 244 (1500HP and soon 1600HP compared with 1200HP from the same bore and stroke) GE built many units with Alco engines, but by the late 1950s the power was improved and an extensive range of export units was available. The U25 came out of this work. It was innovative and both EMD and Alco took careful note. Reliability came later, as it did to some extent with EMD.
creepycrankAt the recent Work Boat Show in New Orleans a Tenneco Company introduced their exhaust after treatment scrubber that would make any tier 0 engine tier 4 compliant. Just cut out the exhaust pipe and weld it in. This is great for marine and industrial engines where there is plenty of room overhead but these things are rather bulky,about the size of a marine engine muffler or at least a third the size of the engine. The dinky size of locomotive size mufflers shows that there isn't much room above the engine.
YoHo1975 1: Don't blame Ainsworth for things that land squarely at the feet of the General Motors Corporation. They mismanged EMD for at least a Decade prior to the sale if not 2. This is known and has been reported on.
"General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money."
Thomas Murphy, former CEO of GM
Change "cars" to "locomotives" and you will understand the entire history of EMD...
CPM500 Ainsworth and company were/are junk merchants, plain and simple. No doubt the basics and the nuances of running an enterprise such as EMD were well outside the scope of his comprehension. The private equity ownership did 'a bit of work on EMD' in order to 'polish it up' for the sale. What GM did or didn't do is besides the point. PR bought EMD for approximately one dollar of purchase price per dollar of sales. Cheap..cheap..cheap. The only 'business technique' Ainsworth seems to be familiar with is cost cutting. Not exactly cutting edge business mechanics. To be a viable competitor, understaffing the engineering functions won't be of any value when you are a distant number two in the marketplace...and fading to black in a few days. Odd that when PR was sold to CAT, the PR management team wasn't kicked to the curb. Not doing so is contrary to what usually happen one company buys a smaller outfit. Given all the above, it appears that CAT senior management is not all that sharp, either. When your competitor is none other than GE, Nos. 1 thru 6 loom even larger !! CPM500
CPM500
Time will tell if Cat's acquisition of EMD grows their market share in North American locomotive market...
I am sure that back when the U25B was introduced there were many railfans (and probably a few professional railroaders) who wished the GE would have stuck to toasters and refrigerators...
I'm not sure that all the blame can be sheeted home to EMD management.
With the SD59MX test unit UP 9900, EMD had a locomotive demonstating the currently preferred means of meeting Tier 4 (exhaust gas recirculation plus diesel particulate filter) but 9900 couldn't get NOx down to tier 4 levels.
Remember that GE built an ES44 with SCR and urea injection, which might have been a "Plan B", but just maybe the EGR+DPF was the "Plan B" that finally worked.
Caterpillar build a lot of engines, the majority for non railroad applications, and Cat management would not be keen to develop what would be a completely different engine just for railroads. Had GE (and MTU) not been able to build a compliant non urea engine, or not in time for the Tier 4 deadline, railroads would be using SCR and urea just as most other engine buyers are doing.
You could argue that Cat hadn't had EMD long enough to understand the particular conditions of the market. The C175 equipped with EGR and DPF might have given EMD a freight locomotive engine while the new engine was developed. It works, after a fashion, in the PR43, and some PR43 problems are probably due to trying to match the C175 with the C18 in a meaningful way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.