When you look at my previous post, the 710 could have been made Tier 4 compliant but EMD deemed it impractical.
Even if the Tier 4 regulations would be changed to let the 710 pass I think it wouldn’t hold in court. For me that would look like preferential treatment of on competitor.
Giving incentives for rebuilds to lower standards than Tier 4 (which is required now) would be OK I think.
Regards, Volker
Why build a new Tier 3 unit when the SD70ACe (Tier 3) unit is as easy to make as pulling out the old blueprints and filing some new part orders?
There’s been some discussion about another round of “cash for clunkers” which might also apply to trucking, shipping, and railroads, potentially in the next few years. That would in theory get the railroads to retire a lot of their Dash8 types in favor of new Tier 4 or maybe, depending on the law, Tier 3 units. It’s just political theory right now, but there’s been some noise about encoraging the older non-emission-controlled stuff out of service without penalizing those who remain attached to them. Incentive to ditch, not penalty to keep.
We shall see…but at this point, there’s not much use in going back. Tier 4 has proven to eat slightly more fuel and be slightly less reliable, but no so terrible as to make them worse than the older units they’re replacing - such as the Dash8s. Tier 3 appeared to be, with today’s tech, the best “bang for your buck” in terms of fuel consumption and emissions, but the government will never actually care.
They don’t even need to pull out the blueprints, they’re still building them right now. You think those credit units were sitting in a warehouse?
I agree with this.
The carrots and sticks of the policy are a little misaligned.
One of t
The H engine started in 1984, then was 854H 854 ci per cylinder, when it came time for practical use the application became 60
I don’t think so. EMD admitted that they would have been able to get the 710 Tier 4 compliant but deemed it impractical for the reasons mentioned in the above linked article.
Lowering standards when compliant locomotives are already in production is not a good idea. OK EMD could fall back to the 710 but GE would have to stay with the GEVO-T4. That is what I called preferential treatment of a single competitor.
Even to reach 90% Tier 4 the EMD 710 would have needed at least EGR and a perhaps paticulate matter filters I think. According to the article EMD had testet the 710 for 3 g NOx from the off-road rule. When EPA came out with the final rule of 1.3 g they had to use more EGR and DPF. So they used EGR for the 3.0 g.
According to GE the Gevo is not the HDL but they used as a basis. Same for the 1010J and the 265H, EMD denies that the 1010 is a retread. The EMD engines you listed are different engines with same basic design fom the 1930s.
I think the Gevo-T4 is mostly like the Gevo-T2 with the changes I described in a former post.
The only objective test results I know of are UP 9900 a Tier 2 locomotive with added EGR, DOC, DPF that reached 3.387 g/bhp-hr instead of 1.3 for Tie
I think the Gevo-T4 is mostly like the Gevo-T2 with the changes I described in a former post.
The GEVO-T4 shares the same bore and stroke with earlier GEVO engines, but is an entirely different engine. The crankshaft is longer with larger bearing surfaces and as a result the crankcase is significantly longer so these major components are no longer interchangeable. There have been changes to the power assemblies, but I don’t know if these are still interchangeable. The tier 4 GEVO engine weighs 8000 lbs more than the tier 3 engine. I think this information was in “Railway Age” about the time EMD announced the 1010 series and both new engines were being discussed.
Caterpillar are currently marketing the 710 as the E23 for marine use. It is available with aftertreatment to meet Tier 4 requirements. The aftertreatment is part of an integrated package with the aftertreatment equipment mounted above the auxiliary rack at the free end of the engine.
Both 12 and 16 cylinder versions are available. Since most recent passenger locomotives use aftertreatment, there would seem to be no reason not to use the Tier 4 710 in passenger locomotives.
Peter
You run into size restrictions on a locomotive. Beyond a certain size your getting to heavy on your axles and also long for the shops. Everything you add to an engine adds weight and is something that needs to come off for repair and maintance at times. Also at sea they have a huge advantage over locomotives when it comes to cooling capacity they are not restricted to the amount of water they can carry on board they have the entire waterway they are in to use to cool their onboard heat exchangers instead. If you can eliminate the need to carry 30 tons of water around for cooling and their radiators and use the ocean to cool the engine instead your golden.
The aftertreatment Peter describes packages relatively neatly in existing locomotives (I believe he can even provide pictures or diagrams that show this). The system that was difficult to package was the ‘all EGR’ system for Tier 4 final on 710s that would not involve the use of DEF or other consumables – that was the thing that was ‘so close, yet so far’ in meeting the standard. I don’t recall there was ever much difficulty, or much doubt, in getting the 710 successfully through Tier 4 final NOx cycle testing, if catalytic and DEF were used.
My argument about ‘walking back’ the NO standard despite its “helping a competitor” is largely based in the (to me, thoroughly equitable) notion that setting the arbitrary number just a smidge past what EMD happened to be able to do is the original “inequity” – I think the dollar amount of this ‘unfairness’ is quite easily calculated over the last several years! – and all we’re discussing is relieving the existing unfairness. Were the NO numbers scientifically chosen, or if there were indication that the lessening of photochemical adjuvants was not also considered when deciding on draconian reductions in NO combustion emissions, I might think closer to H. Landwehr’s argument, but my research did not indicate that level of competence.
GE Tier 4 engine is nothing close to previous tier levels design, has common rail injection, so fuel system and cylinder head is 100% new design.
If the F125 can carry the SCR equipment and supplies for a 20C175 and the “Charger” can carry the SCR equipment for a QSK95, I would expect that either locomotive could also carry a 16-710 with the SCR equipment and supplies.
In the marine version, the SCR equipment increases the combined weight by around 8000 lbs.
I’d expect that the diagrams of the E23 (without SCR) and E23B (with SCR) would be found on Caterpillar’s marine engine website. I have one of their pocket guides. The height shown is increased by 12 inches to provide for the duct carrying exhaust back to the SCR equipment from the turbo charger. This measurement does not give the full picture, since a small stack on the non SCR turbo engine is included in that height measurement. But I believe it would fit in a locomotive and I’d be surprised if a locomotive package was not already designed.
Peter
The EMD E23 uses SCR to get Tier 4 marine compliant (1.33 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0,011 g/bhp-hr, approximately Tier 4 locomotive)
http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170712-52832-51137
What was the “inequity” for EMD? That they weren’t able to sell Tier 4 locomotive for a few years while GE did? I would call this the consequences from a wrong business decision. Both companies had the same chance. GE decided early on that the FDL had not enough potential left.
I don’t see any unfairniss against EMD. The Carb even tested a Tier 2 EMD locomotive (UP9900) with aftertreatment for Tier 4 compliance. But I’m neither a EMD or GE fan.
Regards, Volker
I think you can’t compare a SD 70ACe with SCR to the F125 and SC44. Both have smaller and lighter high-speed diesel engines and more space for aftertreatment. Even with SCR the SC44 is only 12’-6’’ high.
Here is a E23 broschure: http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170712-52832-18322
But what does a 710 with SCR help when the class 1 railroads aren’t buying locomotives with aftertreatment? And for passenger locomotives the 710 package is too heavy for B-B trucks. In a request for information for a dual power locomotive according to PRIIA 305 specifications MPI offered the Gevo-T4 on a six axle chassis.
Regards, Volker
That the NOX requirements are unscientific and blocked EMD by an exceedingly small margin. And that that ultimately lead to fewer T4 units being purchased, more rebuilding of older locomotives and thus a result exactly the opposite of intended.
By “the Carb”, I’m assuming California Air Resources Board (CARB). FWIW, American practice is to capitalize all letters in such an acronym, OTOH the California Indepedent System Operator usually shortened to CalISO.
One advantage that relaxing the Tier 4 standard a bit for EMD’s sake would have been having two manufacturers making Tier 4 compliant locomotives with the resulting competition making the railroads more secure about buying Tier 4 locomotives. There is very little benefit from the Tier 4 standards if the eadditional first price cost and running costs discourage purchase of new locomotives.
What does it matter if requirements are scientific or not? Both , GE and EMD, have shown that the Tier 4 NOx requirement are managable even without SCR.
EMD wasn’t blocked by a small margin. They were blocked by a wrong decision to stay with the 710. GE and EMD had the same chances. GE decided not to use the “old” FDL but design a new engine to reach Tier 2. If the numbers I read are correct, GE investet about $500- $600 million to get the Gevo from start to Tier 4.
If it was a political wise decision to install these requirement is a complete different question.
I understood that you don’t believe cited EMD’s statements in the linked Railway Gazette International article. EMD said they would have been able to get the 710 Tier 4 compliant but it was impractical with just EGR. That is the reason why EMD sells the 710 as E23 Tier 4 with SCR in the marine sector while GE sells the Gevo as 12V250 Tier 4 with EGR but without any exhaust aftertreatment.
Regards, Volker
One can discuss if the Tier 4 requirements were wisely chosen but that is hindsight. And tweaking the NOx requirement to make the 710 Tier 4 compliant is no enduring solution. I think it is not a question if the stage will come but only when. So EMD is better of using the 1010.
Regards, Volker
In this thread, we’re talking about theoretical best choices at the EPA and CARB Combined with the market and engineering realities at EMD and GE. it’s a system not siloed decisions.
Having a standard intended to create positive externalities for airquality, it certainly is fundamentally important that they be based in science. Both science of the NOX admissible, but also the social and economic science of the market.
The GOAL is to get fleet emissions down.
As for EMD’s investments
1: They were in a different financial pla
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think some posters want to turn the clock back and revision the requirements in a way that the 710 can be used again.
For me it is science enough when the heavy-duty highway engines need to complain to stricter requirements (0.2 [1.3]g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.01 [0.03]g/bhp-hr PM) since 2007 and it worked. requirements Tier 4 locomotives.
The EMD E23 marine engines fulfill Tier 4 with SCR. IIRC the EPA chose the limits so manufacturers would have to use SCR. I searched but didn’t find the source again. So don’t blame EPA, blame the class 1 railroad for insisting on non-aftertreatment solutions.
I know EMD’s financial situation at the time. I posted it sometime ago in this thread: 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 don’t have to repeat your response.
I don’t know how much they spent but with the right the decision at the right time they could have sold Tier 4 locomotives from the beginning.
I don’t know how marginal that difference is. The UP 9900
I wasn’t discussing freight locomotives, only passenger locomotives. As I said, all new passenger locomotives that meet Tier 4 use SCR, so I’d suggest that there is an upgrade market for existing EMD powered passenger locomotives to meet Tier 4.
Having checked Wikipedia, the SC-44 is indeed said to have a “roof height” of 12’6" but the locomotive is 14’4" high over the “Roof Shroud”. I assume the “roof” is a structural support for some equipment, possibly part of the SCR equipment well inside the locomotive profile.