daveklepperSo a clogged filter or clogged filters MAY have been the stall problem.
A lot of things might have caused this failure, from software problems to mechanical problems with everything in between.
I still don't buy that the F125 has a DPF. The EMD and EGR only engines don't require DPF though the produce more PM than an engine without EGR. The solved the problem with cleaner burning measures like common rail injection.
So why should a SCR aftertreatment engine with the same cleaner burning measures but less PM need a DPF? If a SCR can clogg I don't know.
To say a locomotive engine with SCR needs a DPF because a truck needs it doesn't work. The locomotive's PM limits are at least three times higher.Regards, Volker
Thanks --- all. So a clogged filter or clogged filters MAY have been the stall problem.
Hope that is so. Setting up a regular cleaning process might be preferable to rebulding the lomotives.
Volkner the SCR is a catalytic converter on a diesel engine that is instream of the exhaust. Everyone of my bosses 250 trucks has one of those on it except for the spotters except ours are in our Particulate Filters that are in the exhaust stream also. Cummins and Cat both are trying some selective wording to get around the Railroads not wanting to buy DPF's for their engines. You can not have anykind of Catalytic converter without it having a microscopic honeycomb design in it for the exhaust to pass thru the catalyst. The catalyst itself acts like a filter and yes Felica to borrow a phrase from my daughter they DO CLOG UP. That is when you have to REGEN the freaking thing and at least on our trucks even at our standards we still have to regen both our DPF's and our SCR's. Cat better admit the SCR on their engines need regens or they are going to be in a heap of trouble with the F125 model. Cummins is smart enough that when the SCR is doing its thing it gets almost hot enough to burn out the carbon loading however it still requires a peroidic regen to clean it.
Does the technology used in the SC44 differ from that used in the F125?
The SC44's seem to be successful.
Shadow the Cats ownerSCR stands for Selective Catalyst Reduction in Diesel technology. You spray DEF in the diesel exhaust stream over a catalyst to convert the exhaust into more enviromentially friendly compounds.
Agreed, but nevertheless I stay with the statement from Metrolink and Siemens that the F125 and SC44 don't have DPF. And there are reasons.
- usually the DPF is before the SCR in the exhaust stream to keep PM out of the SCR catalyst.- EMD 1010-T4 and GE Gevo-T4 use solely EGR to comply with locomotive Tier 4 emmisions. The cooler combustion temperature reduces NOx but increases PM. But still both locomotive get away without DPF through cleaner combustion (common rail injection).- Cummins writes in a broschure: The QSK95 is ready to meet Tier 4 and other very low emissions standards, using in-cylinder clean combustion to reduce Particulate Matter (PM) emissions and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) aftertreatment to reduce Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions. EMD and GE were able to reduce PM by clean combustion why should Cummins not be able to do the same.- Last but not least: Truck PM Tier 4 limits are 0.01 g/bhp-hr, locomotive PM Tier 4 limits are 0.03 g/bhp-hr, three times the truck limit.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Edit: There is another thread covering the same topic in the Transit Forum: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/742/t/266291.aspx
Edit: There is another thread covering the same topic in the Transit Forum: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/742/t/266291.aspx
It was also already mentioned in the other F125 thread before this thread was started.
Which is probably why they didn't sticky the news wire. We were already talking about it in 2 places...now 3.
SCR stands for Selective Catalyst Reduction in Diesel technology. You spray DEF in the diesel exhaust stream over a catalyst to convert the exhaust into more enviromentially friendly compounds. That catalyst has to be in a honeycomb structure to react with both the DEF and the Exhaust itself to have it flow thru it and convert into CO2 and other compounds from what it was. On OTR trucks we do it in our DPF filters itself since they are part of our exhaust system hence the term DPF with SCR. We also regenerate our DPFs and hence the catalyst about every 40 hours of running time. Trust me the SC44 has an intergal DPF as part of its exhaust system they have changed the name to confuse the railroads and call it a flow thru catalyst trust me they tried the same freaking thing about 10 years ago to the OTR industry and said oh we got rid of the DPF and replaced it with a flow thru cat system. It is a DPF under a different name and they will admit that they require regens like the OTR engines in a few months when the so called no regen ones keep causing breakdowns like what we saw in CA.
Shadow the Cats ownerIf you have anykind of SCR on the engine you have a type of DPF that can clog.
Could you explain then please why Metrolink for the F125 as well as Siemens for the SC44 state that the locomotives don't have DPF?Regards, Volker
If you have anykind of SCR on the engine you have a type of DPF that can clog. It has to be sprayed on a wide area catalyst think like in the converter honeycomb in your car. They do clog and are a royal pain the butt to clean out when they do. So even though they are claiming they don't have a DPF on them yes they do.
"Each day we had a catered lunch - sandwich, chips, cookie, fruit, and soft drink"
Well now isn't that lovely. The most important thing to any government representative in attendance is the free lunch. What no buffet?
zugmannThere are lots of things that can go wrong. And many of them have nothing to do with it being a tier 4.
Or engined with a C175, either, which is why Mr. Klepper changed the topic line of this thread and why I'll be changing mine over in Transit if necessary to reflect what the actual failure causes turn out to be.
I was amused (although with a hefty dose of schadenfreude) watching the Metrolink CEO, because in another thread we were discussing aspects of 'lightweight trains of the future' and I was thinking about the Baldwin RP210 that clogged rush-hour traffic for hours, with the executive responsible saying 'another ten minutes and I would have been a hero...'
No plan survives contact with the enemy, and Finagle is ever vigilant.
K. P. HarrierI think the incident that Mr. Klepper was referring to was the absolutely embarrassing humiliation the Metrolink CEO received in the F125 failure by the Newhall Metrolink station.
First law of railroading - if it's going to break, it's going to break at the worst place and/or time.
That's why for big public things like that - you should always have a protect engine and crew nearby.
there are lots of things that can go wrong. And many of them have nothign to do with it being a tier 4.
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
K. P. HarrierSomehow I have to believe the failure was caused by a totally clogged emissions filter, but I have NO official word on it.
The question is what kind of emissions filter as the F125 doesn't have a diesel particulate filter (DPF): http://trainweb.org/carl/2017CaliforniaPassengerRailSummit/Slides/Tripoli/IMG_6236.JPG
The picture is from a presentation held by Rick Tripoli (Metrolink) on the 2017 California Passenger Rail Summit. Here is the link to the complete presentation: http://trainweb.org/carl/2017CaliforniaPassengerRailSummit/Slides/Tripoli/index.html
And here a link to a description of the conference: http://trainweb.org/carl/2017CaliforniaPassengerRailSummit/
Regards, Volker
I think the incident that Mr. Klepper was referring to was the absolutely embarrassing humiliation the Metrolink CEO received in the F125 failure by the Newhall Metrolink station.
https://signalscv.com/2017/11/metrolinks-tier-4-locomotive-unveiling-stopped-in-its-tracks/
Somehow I have to believe the failure was caused by a totally clogged emissions filter, but I have NO official word on it.
Part of the confusion in this thread, I believe, was caused by TRAINS failure to duplicate the Newswire article on the subject in the “Locomotives” forum. I had to find and get someone else in the office here, a subscriber, to sign in and pull up the Newswire article. Why TRAINS didn’t bait the forum with such an important Newswire is beyond me. I guess the West Coast to Wisconsinites is a communist evil empire …
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
This Thanksgiving Day I was briefly by the Metrolink South Perris end of the 91 / Perris Valley line terminus. Four train sets were laying over for the holiday, NONE of which had an F125 unit! Were all F125’s somehow laying over on other Metrolink lines, or does the original thread poster, Dave Klepper, know something that we all don’t?
Yeah, what problems?
Is this in reference to the F125 failure at the unveiling in Los Angeles? If so, those units had been running for a while and I hadn't gotten word on what failed. In either case, there is already a thread here and one in Transit covering that issue.
The SD70AC-T4s seem to be doing fine turning the revenue miles.
Which problems?Regards, Volker
Anyone have the information on whst the problems are and what directions the fixes are taking?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.