Have read some news on the Tier IV deadline, but cannot substantiate.
GE has been testing their prototypes, any word on the success?
EMD may be shutting down domestic production from 1-1-2015 until X-X-2017 because of the inability to meet the standards? Any word?
This is extra, and “NW”, I’m not addressing your queries.
EMD, a division of General Motors and monster force in locomotive production when steam locomotives went away, doesn’t exist. It is now a portion of Caterpillar, Progressive Rail…
To say that, by itself, it’s “shutting down domestic production,” perpetuates the idea that the “monster force” exists.
It doesn’t, it doesn’t.
Firstly, Tier IV has little to do with locomotive CO2 emissions or the Global Warming/Climate Change debate, So if that is what you are trying to make a political statement about, you are incorrect…
EMD was a division of GM who sold it to an investment firm who then sold it to a subsidiary of Caterpillar.
It most certainly still exists:
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/emd_index.jsp
If you’re not addressing the question posed by the Original poster than why are you responding to the thread?
Say hello to 4 cycle CAT designed engines in EMD products, and goodbye to the 710.
I suspect that Cat has more technical ability to deal with emissions from large displacement diesels than GM ever had.
Cat does have another powerplant with about the same rating as the 12-710 available, that is the C175-20 which is a 20 cylinder high speed engine. This is what they are offering for the proposed F125 passenger locomotive.
The engine can be made Tier IV compliant, but only by the use of Urea based Exhaust Gas Treatment, something the Class 1 railroads having been telling the OEM firms they do not want.
So General Electric may have a market cornering advantage in their system, which avoids the use of the “pig pee” EGT fluid.
A few years ago EMD was being touted as in the lead in the race to get Tier IV compliant locomotives to the market as they were testing an Exhaust Gas Circulation system that reduced emissions without the use of urea, but apparently there were technical issues with the system that they have not been able to overcome…
I thought so. Will we see a version of the 265 return sort of like how the GEVO was based on the HDL?
The GE tier 4 demo units use Urea.
TO my knowledge, the only engines out there that are Tier 4 without Urea are UP 9900 the SD59MX with the added Tier 4 conversion and from what I understand it doesn’t quite make Tier 4 and at least the guy I know in Roseville shops says it’s no bueno. And the SD70ACe Tier 4 test units. I’m not sure where they are at the moment. I have heard nothing suggesting that EMD would shut down. That would be pretty ridiculous. Why would Cat let that happen? If they were that worried, they’d have a different solution already or they’d be shopping the division.
No, the GE Tier 4 demo’s which currently are testing on UP do NOT use urea. This was mentioned in the press release by GE when announcing the demo units.
UP SD59MX is considered as Tier 3.5, meaning it is cleaner than Tier 3 but does not quite meet Tier 4.
There are no EMD Tier 4 SD70ACe demo units. The various EMDX 1201 series SD70ACe, SD70ACe-P4 and SD70ACe-P6 units were all Tier 3. EMD has not released any Tier 4 demo’s.
Bryan Jones
IIRC, EMD did some engineering work on upgrading the 265 when they were working on the Exhaust Gas Re-circulation System for the 710, but the failure in the EGR system shelved the project.
I am not certain that the problems with getting the 710 engine to meet Tier IV are simply because it’s a 2 cycle engine so I don’t see why the 265 would be a logical option.
Besides, as another poster pointed out if EMD goes the 2 cycle route they have access to the newer Cat engine families, the 265 engine series at this point is kind of an orphan, I’m unsure that any are operating in North America nowadays…
That’s what I’ve read.
I do seem to recall that GE did test some GEVO units with a Urea based emissions control system early in their development program.
That main technical issue is the 710 is a 2 cycle. The power stroke is too short to allow a complete burn of the fuel charge to meet Tier 4. EMD tried to get around that by testing a complicated, expensive, and unreliable EGC system that was doomed to fail.
Everybody knew the 710 would never make Tier 4. I stated that on this forum years ago. EMD got some federal grant money to test their Frankenstein EGC system, which they even believed would never work. But hey, it was wasting taxpayer’s money and not theirs, so what the heck…
Like I said, get ready for the 4 cycle EMD products.
Not shutting EMD down, just selling stuff to export markets that have little to no emission regulations…then hoping they can actually find a 4 cycle solution for the domestic market.
Either that, or they are hoping with the upcoming mid-term elections that the EPA gets reigned in by Congress and Tier 4 gets pushed back for years or is killed for the domestic locomotive market…
Doesn’t Tier IV cover all off-road ,mobile diesel engines?
Am I correct that it includes construction equipment as well? One would think that that would give Cat a leg up on developing a solution (and supports your contention that future road locomotives will be powered by Cat 4 cycle engines).
On the other hand, from what I’ve read the construction and mining industries may be more accepting of a Urea fluid based Tier IV solution than the Class 1 railroads will be…
The problem is not developing a 4 cycle Tier 4 engine, the problem is developing an engine that works seamlessly with the complex electronics and traction control for a locomotive that operates over a large speed and tonnage range. Two things a piece of slow moving construction equipment doesn’t have to deal with. At this point, GE has close to a Billion dollars invested in the GEVO design…
For What It’s Worth, had discussions with several EMD family employees (direct, relatives and recent retires still working as consultants) this weekend. No one knew anything about not meeting the standards with a potential shutdown. So either upper management is holding this VERY close to the vest or it 'ain’t just so!
Thanks. Please keep us updated as we near the deadline.
Edit: I saw no need for a new post. I suspect what we will see is the adaption of the Caterpillar C175 for all new EMD locomotives.
Due to similar emissions issues, Vossloh has begun to start building their Eurolight locomotives, which use the 16-C175 at 1740 RPM for 3800 HP. (And ABB traction equipment, not EMD.)
http://www.vossloh-innotrans.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/vrv/Vossloh_EUROLIGHT_us.pdf
British version, Class 68: http://www.vossloh-innotrans.com/media/downloads/pdfs/vrv/Vossloh_UKLIGHT_us.pdf
It looks like their 710-powered Euro series is on the way out.
I am curious as to the class 1’s objection to EGF is. I am a Class “A” CDL driver, and have been using DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid, AKA Urea) for over a year now. My issues with DEF are: 1 Our shorter wheelbase day-cabs, the DEF Combustion Chamber and tank (not as much a problem) use up valuable frame length, restricting me to a pair of 60 gallon fuel tanks, with shorter range between fuelings. 2 When we got our first DEF equipped tractors we were fueling at CFN and Pacific Pride cardlock stations, and VERY FEW of them were equipped with DEF pumps, so getting DEF was a Major inconvenience. For the RRs, a locomotive DESIGNED to use EGF would avoid many of these problems. A locomotive built using EGF, would likely be able accommodate the equipment that our 185" wheelbase 3 axle tractors simply can not. The exhaust combustion chamber on my 350HP Cummins fits in the space of a standard step-box, how much larger and where it would be located in a locomotive, I can’t say, but when accommodating new equipment from the design stage, it is much easier than retro-fitting it into an already built locomotive. I typically burn less than 10 gals of DEF a week, while burning over 300 gallons of fuel, for a greater than 30 to 1 ratio. I can’t say if a locomotive would use the same ratio or not, but at that ratio a typical 5000 gallon fuel capacity would require approximately a 150 gal EGF capacity. We eventually went to a Comdata Card, and have Love’s truck stops as our preferred vendor so now I have DEF available at every fueling center that I have been to(plus I earn Rewards points for every gal of fuel or DEF that I pump, GRIN) The RRs, owning their own fueling depots wouldn’t have the trouble of finding EGF, they would have to install tanks and pumps at each location, but I wouldn’t think that that would be that large of an issue, at least compared to the possibility of not being able to purchase new motive power. Don’t get Me wrong, I MISS the Pre-DEF days,
Can’t speak for any carriers, including my own; however, mine has closed as many fueling facilities on the property as possible, preferring to service truck fueling at most locations around the property thus eliminating all the infrastructure necessary at a designated fueling facility. How they will handle EGF and/or DGF remains to be seen; as currently the service trucks only handle fuel and sand for the locomotives they service…
The railroads simply don’t want the cost. They don’t want to deal with the fluid if they don’t have to. It requires setting up equipment to add the fluid, and remove the used product.
(No problem on the paragraphs, sometimes they work, but not always.)