Dose anyone think that EMD/Progress rail will build a SD70Ace with the Tier 3 1010 motor without all the emissions crap now that Trump has relaxed the emission standard in the country?
Ed
Let me respond to your question with a question: does anyone think Progress would go to the time and trouble of DFMing a 1010-based design like that when the Trump administration might not persist past, effectively, 2020?
I, personally, think the ‘sense’ would be to rationalize NO emission standards for locomotives, particularly in light of the present disconnect in classical atmospheric conversion of combustion NO to NO2 … but since the very first effect of this would likely be to allow legal use of 710 engine architecture, it is little if any help toward introducing the 1010 domestically.
I beleve the 1010J 12 cylinder is the future with the isolated prime mover, cab and other improvement. I would be testing this motor without the emissions equipment . do to slow sales of tier 4 units.
One very questionable assumption with respect to changes in emissions regulations is that the changes will not significantly affect sales. It isn’t out of the question that dropping tier 4 regulations for a while and sticking with tier 3 may result in lower emissions as it would be more likely that the pre-tier 3 units would be replaced by tier 3 unts.
Did I miss something? All I read here in Germany was that the Trump administration considered to relax the greenhouse gas emission standards for new cars.
Regards, Volker
Emission standards are still Tier 4 for locomotoves. Its just Trump may have stalled CAFE regulation for a few years, which only applies to automotive.
Funny I was recently thinking about this, if the UP Tier 4 credit loco’s are any indication, I dont foresee enough demand to create a Tier 3 version of the “T4 ACe”, its not as easy as taking the “emissions crap” off as you call it. You would have to certify it to Tier 3, develop tier 3 parts, Progress already has a Tier 3 loco with 710, work was already done.
Entropy, I had the same evil worry about the government minions requiring essentially ‘de novo’ documentation from a Tier 3 version of an accepted Tier 4 design. As erikem said, there is overall “benefit” (by government-official standards) if older and lower-tier units are preferentially retired in favor of new tier-3-compliant hp equivalent. In addition to the adjustment of formal NO target level I mentioned, seems to me there should be legislation that (1) gives at least streamlined and perhaps largely pro forma review and approval to lower-tier versions of designs derived from proven higher-tier units and their test data; and (2) provides some real incentive (not just more annoying sticks and mandates) for railroads to retire ‘worse’ power in return for some calculated replacement basis of Tier 3, not higher, power. I tremble to mention the ‘permanent prime-mover retirement‘ methods as used in Obama’s original new-car stimulus, but perhaps scrapping older blocks would be enough…
Dose Canada and Austraila have tier 4 regulations ? No. just beleve that they should be doing some testing like higher milliage , lower emissions with the 1010J over the 710. “just spit balling here”. Why so serious! lol
Ed
Why just spitball when you can take up all the issues involved with just a bit more ‘spressin?[;)]
Yes, I would expect meaningful improvement in fuel economy for the 1010 family, and I think at least some testing of it ‘overseas’ has been done in detail; meanwhile there ought to be an enormous amount of data from the Chinese on the 265H, much of which should be applicable to the metric-disguised engine…
Here’s part of it, too: the 710 with at least one version of EGR-only came within something like 2/10 of a percent of meeting the nominal Tier 4 final NOx standard, and that was primarily due to emissions under stressful or transient conditions — there are people on list who might PM you specific information on ‘how close’ and where the specific performance-envelope issues were observed. I don’t recall any ‘hard’ problem other than the artificially low NOx including ordinary particulates that EMD failed to address.
This does not bode well for plans to sell the 1010 overseas anywhere there are emissions standards even a trace lower than North American Tier 4; the 710 and existing approaches would work there. So the engine needs to have proven better efficiency, reliability and durability, and perhaps lower perceived noise to become ‘better enough’ to be chosen under those circumstances. Now come the concerns that the single medium-speed approach to large freight locomotives might be obsolescent in some places if the difficulties with the C175 or QSK engine families in that service get worked out…
If you take a 1010 Tier 4 and use it as Tier 3 there is no problem. But reducing the 1010 to Tier 3 standard means to take some Tier 4 measures off the engine. How do you make sure it reaches Tier 3? I think there has to be a certification.
Regards, Volker
And certification costs money and R&D time. If the standards are relaxed, then EMD could turn right back to the 710 at effectively zero cost and if the standards become something akin to Tier 3.5, then that work has already been done in the guise of UP9900 SD59MX. 1010 would no longer solve a problem. What reason other than Tier 4 is it the future?
I think you are right, EMD would go back to the 710. A 80 year old design gets to its limits some day and that has happened with Tier 4 regulation. Using it again would be a bad move as it furthers the advantage of GE. When Tier 4 would return and I think it would, EMD has the 1010 but GE has refined the GEVO in the meantime.
Regards, Volker
Canada does not have Locomotive emissions regulations like the US. What Canada does have is a binding agreement between CP and CN with the Canadian Government that the two companies will only buy new locomotives that meet the US regulations in effect at the time of their manufacture. So both CP and CN have Tier 3 locomotives, while CN has Tier 4 Credit and Tier 4 locomotives. CP has not bought any all new locomotives since Tier 4 went into effect.
CN did buy 25 Tier 3 ES44AC locomotives after Tier 4 went into effect, and those locomotives are banned from operation in the US. They are kept in a captive pool on the former British Columbia Railway to avoid them accidently wandering into the US. I don’t know how that works with the agreement with the Canadian Goverment.
That’s a little unfair to the 710 Engine design and I think a little overly Rosey on the GEVO. As has been discussed in here before, the GEVO engine and the T4 GEVO engine are not the same motors. GE would have every incentive to go back to their previous engine too. For the fuel economy if nothing else. And as pointed out, it’s not like either the 710 or the T2-T3 GEVO was stagnant. Plenty of Engineering work could be done.
Could you explain why it is unfair, please?
EMC once choose the two-stroke design as it promised the lowest weight per horsepower ratio. Later it was developed for higher horsepower and then fuel economy. The 710’s underlying design is nevertheless approximately 80 years old.
GE realized that it would be possible to make the FDL Tier 2 compliant but at the cost of fuel economy and not much development potential for further emission stages. So they developed an engine with the focus on emission reduction and fuel efficiency.
I think that tells themain differences.
The Gevo Tier 4 has development potential for stricter standards, the 710 not.
EMD didn’t switch to a four-stroke design because it was impossible to get the 710 Tier 4 compliant. It was impractical loosing too much fuel economy.
When EMD decided to try the 710 for Tier 4 they lacked the money to develop a new engine other as GE. With Caterpillar as new owner that changed that and might have influenced the decision for the 1010.
I haven’t found a discussion of the two GEVOs. What I remember, the GEVO Tier 4 has EGR, two instead of one turbocharger (12 cylinder), higher firing pressure, and better computer engine control.
Regards, Volker
Completely disregard the thought or idea of emissions standards being changed from Tier 4, its not even worth the discussion. Even with the changes in the EPA, I don’t see them putting effort into revising non road Tier 4 standards. Cars and Trucks maybe, they’re much large focus of the EPA. If anything I would expect non road Tier 5 to be indefinatly delayed.
If i’m wrong feel free to one day say “I told you so”.
Interesting never thought of it that way, retire say -8’s and 60’s for Tier 3 versions from either manufacture, as a credit unit, I think theres some merit to that idea. I don’t see much effort coming from Washington on that.
One aspect though, the emissions standards for repower, for line haul or transit locomotives 1973+ only option is Tier 4 or overhaul to Tier 0+. Theres large ground between the two. Switch Cycle repower has to be Tier 3 or overhaul Tier 0+, what if you have a 4 axle switcher Tier 0, you want to upgrade, say 8-710 engine, but you can’t go Tier 1 repower, either Tier 0+ or Tier 3. I think that needs to be looked at.
EMD developed the engine in the 1990s. the 1010j is a 265H engine. It’s a new engine in the same way that the 710 was a new engine and you just told me that that was developed 80 years ago. So by the same logic, the 1010j is the 265H engine. And it was in continuous production for export in the interveneing years AND went through Tier 4 test work in the lab. It may or may not have cost more to develop the 1010 than the 710, but you’re misreading the tea leaves I think. EMD was behind GE by a lot. The 265H had a bad reputation in the US so switching to it was going to cost EMD good will it couldn’t afford to loose. The 710 had a stellar reputation and tons of units in the field. Given their position, even at equal cost of investment, 710 makes much more sense.
user M636 has stated as much multiple times.
I find I actually disagree … but in a highly qualified sense. What I’m pushing for is very slight revision of the nominal Tier 4 final NO emission standard — justified, politically, by reference to concomitant Tier 4 reduction of photochemical adjuvants causing NO2 conversion in the atmosphere — by just that tenths-of-a-percent that allows the 710 to be built practically to pass. Then make sure this level is preserved for as many applicable service classes as possible into Tier 5 and later when they come.
Then establish fast-track cert for ’newer’-Tier-compliant designs adapted for lower-Tier compliance - in the specific case of the 1010J at Tier 3, little more than submission of a pro forma request accompanied by verifiable (perhaps peer-reviewed) load cycle testing. This would be the framework for design in setting up an incentive program to replace older power. The Democratic Party approach, requiring fully ‘Tier 4 or the highway’ for anything new, but permitting rebuilds only if there is no improvement, has had just the predictable results that rational expectations would expect.
Perhaps the great pity is that railroads could ‘secretly’ modify engines for lower emissions, but not advertise it or even admit it to the FRA … when no good deed goes unpunished, it’s a sign something needs to be fixed as opposed to having a fix put in.
The 1010J has the same bore and stroke but according to Railway Gazette International December 2015 “Tier 4 locomotive take to the tracks” EMD engineers deny that it is a retread of the 265H: https://web.archive.org/web/20160616053215/http://media.getransportation.com/sites/default/files/RGI-Dec-00-15-p28-31.pdf
I think it was posted before but the old link is broken. I think EMD has learned from the 265H as GE hs from the HDL. So you are right both date back to the mid 1990s.
The same article states: EMD successfully got the 710 engine up to Tier 4 requirements. But while the tests were successful, the resulting design was too heavy, too cumbersome and not cost competitive enough to be marketable. In particular, the fuel economy was worse than for Tier 3.
and:
Two years after the start of testing with the 710 engine, EMD’s new parent Caterpillar decided to rethink the quest for a Tier 4 engine.
Regards, Volker