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.
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.
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?
EntropyThat 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shadow the Cats owner 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.
I haven't heard of fires caused specifically by aftertreatment, not that its impossible. If it was an issue atleast one railroad I know of runs an automatic fire system, in the engine hood. Basically a fire extinguisher that turns on at a specified heat.
EntropyYou'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 stated: I think that is the reason why Progress Rail offers all 4-axle rebuils with Cat high-speed diesels.
I didn't understand your response "Progress has also made the PR30C, six axle" to my above statement Therefore I mentioned that the PR30C has a high-speed Cat engine too, a 3516C-HD.
The locomotives have to have some ballast to balance the locomotive. But that can't be removed. If you are right with the ballast why did ATSF not buy a cowl GP60?Regards, Volker
Entropy Shadow the Cats owner 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. I haven't heard of fires caused specifically by aftertreatment, not that its impossible. If it was an issue atleast one railroad I know of runs an automatic fire system, in the engine hood. Basically a fire extinguisher that turns on at a specified heat.
Prior to the 2016 model year my boss lost 7 tractors to DPF fires from a cracked filter. So our shop started looking at the failure points of when the fires occured and mileage and regen cycles on the filters. They have a failure point when they flat out crack and fail and then become a bomb underneath the truck. For us it is right around 450K miles so at 400k regardless of how few cycles the thing has gone thru the filter is replaced with a NEW one we don't even risk running a remanned unit in that spot. Why we tried a couple of the remanned units out they failed in half the time of the new ones and the cost savings were not worth it for our drivers safety in the shops eyes or the owners eyes. A DPF filter during a regen hits 1800 degrees internal temp. If it fails in anyway the truck it is on is going up in flames.
The biggest issue with running DPF with SCR is it requires 2 complete new systems on end product using it. First you have the DPF that requres routine maintainace regardless of what the manufactors claim real world has shown otherwise. Then you have another system that is filled with a very smelly trust me you do not want to get DEF on you and also fluid that freezes at just over 40 degrees F and requires heating below that. Then to make it even more fun it eats the sensors and injectors needed to use it along with the pumps in the system it loves to eat seals on everything it touches. Yeah what fun stuff to work with.
Volkner to even get the weight where it was safe on the axles EMD had to put a smaller fuel tank on the GP60M to even make it work 3200 gallons instead of 4000 gallons and then the Santa Fe could only fill the tank to 2800 gallons of fuel. They have minimal ballast in the nose and rear already.
Shadow the Cats ownerThen you have another system that is filled with a very smelly trust me you do not want to get DEF on you and also fluid that freezes at just over 40 degrees F and requires heating below that.
According to the Cummins Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) Q & A the 12 deg F (-11 deg C): https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/sites/default/files/MB10033.pdf
Regards, Volker
The Railroads' Primary problem with urea is the infrastructure needed. UP will run an engine from Chicago to Roseville to Hinkle to Colton to Houston to Denver to .... The logisitcs are hell. The Urea doesn't empty at the same time as the Fuel so flexibility is reduced. This is why I am specifically discussing captive service locomotives. The Rocklin Rocket or the Redding Turn which run out and back and are ever only at Roseville would not have the same issues.
YoHo1975The Urea doesn't empty at the same time as the Fuel so flexibility is reduced.
The engine manufacturers and railroads know the DEF consumption in percentage of diesel fuel consumption. If DEF consumtion is 10% of diesel fuel make the DEF tank 15% of the fuel tank size. Than fill up DEF each time you refuel diesel.
The whole infrastructure at refueling stations remains the great cost factor.Regards, Volker
They may say it is 12 degrees but our experience has shown it to be 40. Why the difference where the tanks are mounted in testing compared to our stuff. Ours are out in the wind forward of the fuel tanks and exposed to everything. At below 42 the mechanics have the tank heaters set to turn on to warm it back up. Also below 40 degrees the stuff is less effective than it should be.
Is the “DEF” some different formula from ISO standard?
It is not random that standard DEF is 32.5 nominal % urea in distilled water - that is the low-freezing azeotrope, and as it happens the urea in solution crystallizes at the same rate as the water freezes so there is no phase separation and potential concentration or dilution if the solution freezes, which it WILL not do until low temps... not just ‘wind chill’ from slipstream heat transfer... are reached for some time. If you’re needing DEF tank heat at 40F someone is giving you a real screwing on what they’re pretending to sell as DEF.
There are alternative formulations (e.g. with ammonium formate) that are far lower-freezing, and you might want to adopt one of those if for some reason there is a legitimate concern with standard DEF or tank heater integrity.
I don’t know why any engineer would quote “10%” as an example for DEF mixing. I have never heard of more than 3% as an extreme hypothetical case, with most engine architectures only requiring 1 to 2% at most. That puts the range of required tank size for a given refueling volume or distribution of practical refueling points in better perspective.
I'm going off our maintance shops records on what has happened to our trucks in the past and also on why they want it warm. The reasoning behind keeping it above 40 degrees for us is simple thru 10 years of running it we have found less issues with the system overall with that temp of DEF meaning less repairs. Oh as to windchill not being a problem tell that to driver that had his full fuel tanks gell going down the road in the middle of winter in Wyoming with winter blended fuel. Even with hot return fuels it does happen and the reason is the wind blowing makes the fuel so freaking cold it will gell regardless of what temp the outside air is.
OvermodI don’t know why any engineer would quote “10%” as an example for DEF mixing. I have never heard of more than 3% as an extreme hypothetical case, with most engine architectures only requiring 1 to 2%.
I found your 1 to 2% in a Cummins broschure for truck motors and 5% in another one. I didn't find the consuption for a railroad engine.
The intention was to show that there are measures to work with the different consumtion rates of fuel and DEF. I said " If DEF consumtion is 10% of diesel fuel make the DEF tank 15% of the fuel tank size." Perhaps I better would have sait "if it were".
I didn't pretend that 10% is the DEF consumption I just took an arbitrary number to make point. At least that was the intention. I know what I want to say but sometimes the result is a bit different in a foreign languageRegards, Volker.
Edit: I found numbers for a Caterpillar C175-16 Tier 4 generator set:- Fuel consumption at 100% load: 174 gal/hr- DEF consumption at 100% load: 12 gal/hrSource: s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10332678
The numbers are on page 4. The DEF consumption is 6.9% of fuel consumption
I am not sure the C175 in generator service (where as designed it was run at 2000rpm) is fully representative of required DEF consumption for the locomotive version of that powerplant over the required duty cycle. I confess I had assumed that DEF for medium-speed locomotive engines would involve less, rather than more, percentage by mass, and i will go back and look more carefully at how proportioning and tuning is done — in the meantime, we have several locomotive-engine experts here who, while they may not want to give specific numbers from proprietary information, might want to take up the amount of reduction necessary for engines in different services.
A related issue which we have covered before involves the intentional design of engines to maximize fuel efficiency, minimize HC/CO, etc. by using a hotter burn, higher CR and the like, then using proportionally “more” after treatment to knock down as much of the NO as necessary. I confess I would strongly expect the modern high-speed engine adaptations to use this ‘approach’, with of course higher specific DEF consumption being one consequence.
I have looked for information about DEF consumption and found some for the Cat 3516C-HD.
Locomotive: PRLX 3004 PR30C: https://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/prlx3004_final-report_public-domain_05_20_2011.pdf
Genset 3516C-HD Tier 4 interim: s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/EPD0028E
The locomotive DEF consuption can be found on page 33, the Genset consumption on page 4.The following broschure shows on page 2 the DEF consumption for a Genset Tier 4 final at maximum 13.4 gal/hr: https://emc.cat.com/pubdirect.ashx?media_string_id=LEHE0359-01.pdf
This is particularly interesting because to my knowledge there are no actual PR30Cs running for customers at Tier 4. I would like to know if possible what firsthand testing was done on the 3516 to generate these consumption numbers or, as I suspect more likely, how they were calculated from known engine parameters.
The 1 to 3% are as you noted specific to engines that already have been optimized for inherent low-NO emissions, particularly including the use of EGR. I would be suspicious that Progress is using the SCR feed to knock down not only average but also peak NO emissions, net of what may be intentionally hotter peak temps to reduce the need to regenerate the DPF, and this for the 3516 might likely result in the higher consumption numbers Progress proposes.
I am on a phone that does not like the navigation on the Progress site; it would be useful to see the counterpart interpreted figures for the PR43C’s C175 (it may take some work because as I understood it they never run the C175 ‘by itself’; and the C18 has already been reported to do ‘a little too much’ of its programmed running at higher speed and load where conditions might require more fluid...
It would be interesting to confirm that EMD — or people at the AAR — are reluctant to adopt DEF if EGR can do most of the job because they know consumption in some operating regimens would be comparably high. The EPA might think that the incremental cost to provide SCR on top of EGR ‘just to make Spec’ is comparable to the percentage gain: of course it is not, and I suspect detailed if not particularly open-minded analysis has been done by both camps to determine what the cost-effective answer is.
Overmod I would like to know if possible what firsthand testing was done on the 3516 to generate these consumption numbers or, as I suspect more likely, how they were calculated from known engine parameters.
The title of the linked report the PR30C numbers come from is called: Progress Rail PR30C-LoNOx Locomotive with DOC and Urea based SCR: 12-Month Field Demonstration and Emissions Testing at 0, 1500 and 3000 Hours of Operation
Progress Rail provider UP with five locomotives for one year testing. CARB provided funding for testing and evaluating of PRLX 3004. During tests beside emissions fuel and DEF consumption were measured. Without aftertreatment the PR30C was Tier 2 compliant.
I have googled for the same information for the Cat C175-20. All I found were the data for the C175-16 genset. I haven't found DEF consumption figures on the C175-20. So I settled with the 3516C-HD.Regards, Volker
Here is the link to PDF of the PR30C-LoNOx project report
https://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/prlx3004_final-report_public-domain_05_20_2011.pdf
(In between incompetence at Apple and at Kalmbach’s ‘programmers’ it is now completely impossible to access the buttons on the ‘insert link’ utility, an achievement even a Doofenschmirtz might have difficulty with, so the link may not be fully ‘live’ for everyone)
Do you read posts and their links?
Here is what I wrote in the post with the consumption table:
What they call the crystalzation temp is the point where the DEF is frozen solid as a brick in your tank. It starts to slush up at 32 and gums the injectors used for it at 25. Hence the reason why at where I work at my boss makes the decision to keep it heated above 40 degrees. Yes SCR works wonders however you better have the infastructure in place to service the needed usage. Also you better have the spare parts and emergency supply when needed.
I cannot read all of the information in some of these posts clearly on the phone. I thought the information you linked had come directly from the Progress Web site. Since you only provided the name of the report in your more recent post, I provided the link to it as a convenience.
As a perhaps interesting aside, a contractor put together a genset proposal for a city in Florida and, as one of his exhibits, included the technical material for the 3000kW version of the C175 (red-x’ed out but still very readable). I think you may find some of the details of practical interest, especially Caterpillar’s somewhat slipshod presentation of the chemistry involved and the role of the DOC in nitrogen oxide emissions.
http://purchasing.codb.us/documents/Addendum%204%20ITB%200316-1730%20Attachment-1.pdf
I also have too bad a migraine to do the necessary extraction and analysis on this dimwit phone, but the proposed Jordan’s Cove LNG terminal is slated to use C175s for its blackstart generation and the resource report (#9) in early September 2017 goes into specific detail of its notrogen-oxide emissions (which in turn set a lower bound on DEF consumption if there is assumed no ammonia slip).
The description of the the chemistry looks quite interesting but I haven't studied it yet.
The diesel consumption on page 11 of your link is the same as in my table or the following link from the same post: s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/EPD0028E
Sorry, I can't get it clickable.
The DEF consumption on page 61 of your linkare the same as in in the last link in my post: https://emc.cat.com/pubdirect.ashx?media_string_id=LEHE0359-01.pdf
Shadow the Cats owner What they call the crystalzation temp is the point where the DEF is frozen solid as a brick in your tank. It starts to slush up at 32 and gums the injectors used for it at 25. Hence the reason why at where I work at my boss makes the decision to keep it heated above 40 degrees.
What they call the crystalzation temp is the point where the DEF is frozen solid as a brick in your tank. It starts to slush up at 32 and gums the injectors used for it at 25. Hence the reason why at where I work at my boss makes the decision to keep it heated above 40 degrees.
That makes sense. I had been wondering if viscosity was an issue above the freezing point, so keeping the stuff at 40F or higher appears to be a wise move.
The tricks our shop has learned in the last 13 years and then some with both DPF and SCR since they been introduced the railroad chief maintenance officer's would kill to get their hands on. They've learned how to maximise revenue minimize downtime and start to get back reliability and mpg back. All while working with goalposts that kept moving courtesy of the EPA and other government agencies.
A useful background article in my opinion (although now a bit dated) is
http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20131202_094628_77883_CLDDAPT00406.pdf
which brings up a number of points sometimes glossed over or assumed in some of the other analyses of these technologies.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.