I do not understand why there have been reports that the tier 4 locomotives are less fuel effiecent than the tier 3 models. They both use the same orime mover, alternator and rectifiers. The only real difference is the cooling of the exhaust gases.
Caldreamer
They also involve lower peak combustion temperature, part of controlling NO emission in the absence of SCR/DEF, which lowers engine thermal efficiency (hence increases fuel per hp/hr). If there is a DPF requiring regen, expect about 6% fuel penalty for operating rich to provide enough afterheat to burn off the trapped particulates during regeneration.
What he said…
Avoiding the hassle of DEF was a big mistake which the RRs are already starting to walk back to some degree.
The interesting promise of ‘modern’ SCR with DEF is that it can easily be used to reduce any quantity of NO in the exhaust. Therefore once it is present the Diesel engine can easily be adjusted for much higher CR (or peak CR in a VCR engine) and any vestige of EGR removed or plated off. In all probability the higher achievable firing temperature will reduce particulates, particularly the medically-significant nanoparticulates currently overlooked by nanny-state weasels (like those who attempted to ‘game’ tier 4 final to eliminate the GM two-stroke… but I digress) if a little air injection pre-or post-turbo is used, so the idiotic and largely pointless DPF that is largely for feel-good soot opacity reduction should also be removable, along with its regen penalties (or the need to be swapped out periodically for cleaning and reconditioning if not actively regenerated).
Research into very high CR via staged turbos and ceramic coatings and components allowing much higher EGT was actively pursued at Ford in the '70s. This produced at one point (IIRC 1977) a Ranger-size pickup that easily got over 80mpg loaded at 55mph cruise. (This goes well with the Chrysler experiment a few years later that, very reasonably to me, used the lightweight construction techniques of the early Prius and Insight on a full-size 6-passenger car, and could get in the 70mpg range even without twins.) Ah, the roads not taken on the way to today’s crop of 22mpg pregnant running shoes – why can’t we have more like the Ford Flex with light CIDI and twins instead of just GDI at lower variable boost…
Anyway, it’s interesting to contemplate the lower emissions and probable fuel saving from the optimizations practical with modern SCR that controls ammonia slip correctly in all operating regimens. I expect
To digress for a moment. How diffenent would a SD70ACe-T4 ro an ES44AC-T4 with SCR and DEF added or would there be no external differences?
Caldreamer
I was hired back as a contractor at EMD in August 2010 on the day that Progress Rail took over to design the Tier 4 SD70ACe incorporating the 710 engine with a full package of DOC, DPF, and SCR which was thought at the time to all be required to meet the reg with the 710. In order to fit the emissions equipment over the engine, I had to drop the engine about 8" to meet Plate C which was the goal. To lower the engine that much required a fishbelly underframe and an integral fuel tank for strength and weight reduction. The length over endplates increased 30". The 600 gal capacity DEF tank was to be above deck inside the carbody to prevent freezing in cold weather and to preserve fuel capacity. The engine was to be isolation-mounted using rubber mounts on an extended oil pan that included support for the alternator which required spreading the centersills further apart and the integral fuel tank for support and to counter the increased weight of the isolation arrangement. To keep the weight at 420K lbs., the weight budget required a lighter truck and to make room for fuel, a 4" shorter truck wheelbase.
So needless to say, the changes to the SD70ACe for Tier 4 with 710 were extensive. While we were at it, we designed the cab to slope the windows and improve the visibility while rigidly mounting it again since we had engine isolation. The cab made it to the final T4, not much else did.
Together with an expert CAD designer, we had a workable arrangement using what was known at the time. The emissions equipment hadn’t been tested at that point and would have undoubtedly gotten more compact but it was roughly 30" tall, 6 feet wide, and the length of the engine and w
Thanks. that is a great answer from an expert.
Caldreamer
The immediate question is whether the prime-mover isolation was kept in the 1010-engined version, or what other measures were incorporated to keep out of a “Thundercab” situation. What was actually done? Is there lower inherent NVH with the four-stroke engine?
It was my observation that the test results with the ‘last’ test version of the 710 were within something like 0.2 percent of the mandated (and apparently arbitrarily set) NOx mandate, and that ‘miss’ only occurring on a relatively small part of the overall test cycle. Was this the engine with unworkable EGR implementation (which might explain why GM did not petition to have the standard reviewed and revised) and was there any attempt to have EPA revisit the assumptions for the Tier 4 final NOx to keep a cost-effective non-SCR version of the 710 ‘legal’ for some applications (even just for repowers of Tier 0 or 0+ locomotives)?
Here is the promise of a definitive answer: My understanding of the ‘problem’ with the 265H engine was that it largely involved ultrasonic-vibration ‘cavitation’ (likely sonobubble collapse effect) issues in parts of the relatively thin-wall block. Was that a factor in redesign, and what were the actual design changes made to produce a workable J-block?
Progress lists the isolated powertrain as one of the improvements in the SD70ACe-T4 promotional material. At any rate, whatever they did it sure seems to have worked. While I have not yet gotten to operate any of the demonstrators CN has tested, everyone who has raves about how quiet they are.
Here is the SD70ACe-T4 brochure:
http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-63120-29009
So it IS based on the H-engine, just like how the GEVO rose from the HDL’s ashes.
What “design expertise” did CAT contribute to the J-engine’s design? Their EGR sy
EMD reluctantly accepted that engine isolation was needed for the next generation of locos. The isolated cab caused many troubles although they were quiet. There is actually an SD60 running around Pueblo that has a 12-710 with an elongated oil pan supporting and maintaining alignment with the alternator that is sitting on isolation mounts. That was to be the arrangement with the 710 going forward. Actually, our first application of engine isolation was the DE/DM30AC that I led the mechanical design on. The first iteration of a skid there had fatigue problems brought on by the new firing order 12 but a skid redesign fixed it.
For the 1010J, the design requirement was to mount the alternator to the cast block like GE has done since day one and put isolation mounts under both the alternator feet and engine feet and this is what was done to make them so quiet. I firmly believe getting the engine vibration off the loco frame will improve the reliability of the electronics and most other systems as a side benefit.
I can’t really speak to the specific troubles on the H engine but they are working on 300 locos in China since about 2007.
So the 1010J really is a new engine with the basic cylinder geometry carried over but completely new turbos (3 of them) and extensive intercooling, aftercooling and EGR cooling plus common rail injection. When I left in 2015 engines were running in test cells but hadn’t made it into a locomotive yet. CAT engine experts did look over the EMD engineer’s shoulders and were part of all major milestone reviews but the design was done at EMD.
Dave
For those of us who aren’t “insiders”, what is SCR and DEF?
SCR is selective catalytic reduction, this website describes it much better than I can:
https://www.dieselforum.org/about-clean-diesel/what-is-scr
DEF is Diesel Exhaust Fluid, the blue liquid most diesel trucks require now that is injected ahead of the SCR to reduce the NOx in the exhaust. It is basicly urea.
Dave
It’s because of DEF and SCR in the OTR side of Diesel engines my boss has seen our fleet average go from just over 5 MPG just 5 years ago to this year we are slamming over 8 MPG with bigger engines and running a faster truck speed also. Why the 2020 engines basically only have EGR on them when they are idling. When going down the road the computers let more DEF be used to convert the NOX into CO2 and Nitrogen.
It seems to be well established that EGR was, and is a failure in the on-highway and smaller diesel engine markets.
GE seems to have gotten reasonable reliability out of the Tier-IV GEVO engine, but it does use more fuel than its Tier-III counterpart. It remains to be seen how well they will do in the long term.
The Class I’s still want nothing to do with SCR and DEF.
Amtrak and their state partners are going to SCR/DEF on the Charger locos with Cummins engines and Progress Rail did the F125’s for Metrolink with CAT engines with SCR. GO Transit in Toronto has the MP54’s with dual Cummins QSK60’s with SCR so there will be plenty of experience gained on RR’s in North America, just not on Class I’s. Before I went back to EMD in 2010 I was working as a consultant for MPI and did the first layouts of the MP54AC retrofit to the MP40 and was able to make it all fit as the Cummins SCR package was much smaller than what EMD was proposing. My guess is that the Class 1’s will eventually accept SCR for fuel savings and reliability but it won’t be soon.
Dave
How well did the 710 run with a SCR/DEF setup added on? Was there any increase in fuel consumption?
I wasn’t close enough to the engine guys to know for sure, but EMD 2-strokes are always negatively impacted by exhaust backpressure and surely the extra piping would add significant backpressure. Prior to Tier 4, the limit on backpressure for turbo engines was 5 inches of water for industrial/marine applications, the straight thru silencer on locomotives added very little. IIRC, at 5" H20, there was a couple of percent increase in fuel consumption.
For the Tier 4 710, they were looking at two smaller turbos or at turbo compounding, which they are doing on the 1010J.
Dave
Bogie that mirrors what we have found in the 4 stroke side in the OTR industry. Heck at the start of the EGR without SCR and DPF era at one point these engines were using 30% Exhaust gas in the next charge at times to make the emisson standards. Then we added DPF and needed to add regenerations to the mix which took on average 6 gallons of fuel to complete. We had EGR coolers that would make engines into boat anchors when they failed mixing oil into the coolant and hydrolocking the block normally doing about 1500 RPM tends to make a heck of a mess of the rotating assembly. Then throw in the Sulphric acid that is created from the buring of diesel and the ablation of the valves from the carbon leftover.
One would only hope that Cat learned from their mistakes with the 2007 emissions fiasco…
Lots of drivers still remember that, and the International MaxxForce boat anchor that followed a few years after…
Getting back to trains, I wonder if the backpressure could be reduced by using turbochargers feeding a Roots blown style 710, like the old Detroit two stroke engines, but I suspect that packaging the whole works would be an issue…
Dave,
I would like to thank you and your fellow engineers for your design work on the SD70ACe-T4. The sloped windows and very quiet cab are huge improvements over the SD70ACe.
The vertically mounted windows on the SD70ACe (just like the SD60M triclops) force you to look through the reflection of the rear window on the other side of the cab. This can be very distracting, especially at night, when you see lights streaking across your field of vision. Many times over the years I momentarily thought someone was racing across the tracks just ahead of me.
The original, non-isolated cab SD70ACe design is horribly loud in high throttle settings – perhaps even worse than many of its predecessors. The engine isolation on the SD70ACe-T4 has made for a wonderfully quiet cab. Now you can actually have a cross cab conversation, while in Notch 8, without yelling at each other.
When I started railroading in '94, I was a dyed-in-the-wool EMD fan, especially of the SD40-2s, even though they were getting long in the tooth. Eventually though, I came to prefer GEs, any GE, from the Dash 8s on. The SD70ACe-T4 has changed my opinion about EMD for the better. Thank you!
Allan
Locomotive Engineer
UP Seattle Sub