My Boss is running a 80/20 blend of it and all we are getting out of the 20% now that our Fuel Tanks are used to it and CLEAN is a lot more Lubrictity from the Fuel. All Biodeisel does is make sure the Fuel lubricates the Injectors like they need to and Oh Yeah it WILL and I Mean WILL Clean out ANYTHING that will clog a Fuel Filter. Our 1979 Yard Dog well lets just say the Shop Foreman was swearing like a Marine Gunnery Sargent Chewing out a Bunch of New Privates at their First Assigment under Fire. He spent 4 Days replacing Any and ALL Fuel Lines Filters and even had to Steam Clean the Tanks to make sure she would keep running. I would hate to think what would happen to some of those Older SD 40’s the Class Ones have if they switched to it.
It does Nothing to Lower Emmisions. The EGR systems Help BUT you have to maintain them on a Set Mileage and or Hour Schedule or they will Fail and cause the Engine to Fail in an Extreme Way. EGR with DPF or Exhaust Scrubbers like the 9900 and 8934 have help but are NOT Enough as the DPF Plugs up will need to do a so called REGEN and when it does it gets to over 1500 Degrees and will burn anything it touches under the hood will take the Paint Right off the Units. That Blister they have it in will not be Enough. Our latest units we got have a DPF with DEF with NO EGR and when the DPF needs to REGEN what happens then is the DEF is injected INTO the DPF and then a Catyalist in the DPF reacts with the DEF and exhust in the DPF and it converts it into CO2 and Water and Nitrogen GAS only. I do not know how it works but it Works.
I need to Refill the Blue Tank about every 400 Gallons and I hold 20 gallons of DEF. So it is about a 20 to one Mix. So on a 5K gallon Locomotive your going to be needing about 250 Gallons of it.
So then, no actual verifiable source that the EGR unit has been removed an replaced then?
I apologize, I don’t have any idea how well the poster that stated it is connected, but I couldn’t find a picture of the unit with the part removed. Loconotes has been silent on it as far as I can tell. Was it in the Trains newswire?
I watched that News Clip on what EMD is using 11 DPF’s all I have to say is HOLY CRAPOLA on that one. Sorry but combine that with 4 EGR’s that I know they are trying plus the DEF and they better have at least 1 or better yet 2 Spare Locos Every 100 Miles as when those engines will fail and derate YOUR SCREWED.
Sorry but when the Largest by Number of Units out there OTR is getting away from EGR as fast as Possible when Schiender Skipped EGR with DPF JB Hunt did the SAME thing it should have told EMD something. GE does have an Advantage they could see what was blowing up via their GE Captial Fleet Services and figured out Real Fast Not to go the EGR route I bet. Sorry but my bossman flat out said you can not make a Diesel Engine Breathe its OWN Exhaust and LIKE IT they will BLOW UP.
In today’s Trains Newswire, GE introduced their Tier 4 compliant locomotive prototype. It uses no EGR, DPF or DEF according to the news release. That release follows for those of you who are not subscribers.
GE unveils Tier 4 emissions prototype locomotiveBy Greg McDonnell
Published: August 24, 2012
ERIE, Pa. – GE Transportation unveiled the first new production prototype Tier 4 emissions capable locomotive today at its manufacturing facility in Erie. As part of a kickoff event attended by GE employees; federal, state, and local officials; and print and television journalists, the Tier 4 prototype ES44AC, appropriately numbered 2015 and decked out in GE’s “Ecomagination” colors, burst through a large banner to make its debut.
This next-generation Evolution Series locomotive meets Tier 4 requirements that take effect in 2015 with the existing GEVO12 prime mover and without the need for urea-based after-treatment, a condition that the railroad industry has been insistent upon.
No. 2015’s extended-height engine hood and massive radiator section are a hint at the extensive technological advancements necessary to meet Tier 4 emissions requirements and to achieve the mandated 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2015
Yep, I knew all about that too, but couldn’t say too much about it until now.
In a nutshell, here is the issue:
EMD simply can’t find a way to clean up the combustion process in the 2 cycle. They have no choice but to add all the after-treatment garbage found on the the UP 9900.
GE has the ability to actually control the combustion parameters in the GEVO. They found the “sweet spot” that reduces emissions from being formed in the fist place. Less emissions formed in the cylinder, less to clean up in the exhaust.
The other interesting result of the GE approach is not only will the Evolution Series easily meet Tier 4, but it actually increased the fuel efficiency, while maintaining the 4,400 HP traction rating.
EMD had to put a smaller engine in the 9900 to find room for all the after-treatment junk. The 9900 is only rated at 3,200 HP for traction with a decrease in fuel efficiency.
Needless to say, this isn’t going to end well for EMD and the 710 engine.
Being an OTR driver with one of the new DPF + DEF trucks, allow me to throw in my nickel’s worth:
Considering that the last manufacturer of truck engines has admitted that they cannot meet emissions with EGR alone, and is adding DEF to their MaxxForce engine line, that should give the locomotive builders an idea of what they are getting into if they are trying to meet Tier 4. My 2012 Kenworth with the Cummins engine has exceeded my expectations so far, mainly in the area of fuel economy, getting about 1MPG better compared to the previous generations. DEF has not been as much of an issue as I thought it was going to be, I fill the tank about once a week, it lasts about 3000 miles. After reading the engine operator’s manual, though, I do have to pay attention where I decide to do a parked regeneration of the DPF, as I have an asphalt burner exhaust (yep, the exhaust gets hot enough during a regen to actually set fire to asphalt).
Getting back to Locomotives, should be interesting to see what the life cycle of the DPF on these engines are, and the costs of repair and replacement, both in time and money. The railroads may find out that in the long run, the costs of setting up DEF fueling at all refueling points on the system may outweigh the costs of constantly changing out coked up EGR valves and plugged DPFs.
Cummins may wind up getting a chunk of the locomotive market yet, one of it’s bigger advantages is that it manufactures their own DPFs and DEF catalysts for its engines in house, rather than contracted out. My company has hauled a few loads of these, the racks they are strapped down to are heavier than the parts themselves…
I also forsee the end of the 2-stroke engine due to emissions as well, and am surprised Cat has not tried to swap in one of their big 4-stroke engines in place of the 710 yet. Although, then that would mean that Cat has to get one of their big engines to meet emissions again, they left the OTR truck market in 2010 after admitting defeat (and pi$$ing off a lot of truckers and companies in the process).
Of course, the way this country is going, I’m not betting money on anything anymore…
The one big issue with that is it is not as easy as it seems. Remember, these locomotives are essentially electric locomotives that have their own take along power plant. The locomotives electrical system must work in concert with the characteristics of the chosen prime mover.
EMD’s current electrical system, which is already inferior to GE’s, was made to operate with the performance curve of 2 cycle diesels. That’s why they had so many problems with the 4 cycle SD90. It wasn’t so much the 4 cycle engine, but the locomotives electrical system.
If CAT wants to fix this, and really fix it right, they would need to design a 4 cycle capable of severe railroad duty AND an electrical system to work efficiently with that engine. The problem is that CAT/EMD knows next to nothing about engineering the electrical side of locomotives with 4 cycle power plants.
GP40-2, I forgot about that, I remember the issues several roads had when they swapped in Cat engines. I think that when it comes down to it, Cat/EMD will probably have to start from scratch with several test beds, working on both engine and electrical. Problem there is the cost, and I’m not sure if Cat would be willing to sink that much money into R&D…
Cat already has a System that can Handle the Loads if Not MORE than a Locomotive would be putting out. Their Heavy Mining Trucks already are aroun 4-5K HP use an AC Drive System and run 24/7 except for Scheduled Maintance and in all types of Weather. They are used in the Diamond Mines in Canada to the Copper Mines in AZ plus all over the World. Powerplant is a 3516 with a ALT they would just need to design a Tracton Motor and Cooling System For it. The EPA standards are where they are going to be Behind the 8 Ball at first but they can play Catch up fast IF THEY WANT TO.
The engineering requirements for a locomotive’s electrical system are a whole different ball of wax than what’s needed for a mining truck. If it was that easy, CAT would have done it by now.
Fuel vaporization is the answer. I’m sure most are unfamiliar with this process. No need for non-sense exhaust after-treatment hardware, throw all that; EGR, DEF, DPF garbage out the window. Emissions reduction mandates, another fluke for dummies to pay more money to operate. For as long as man has been burning hydrocarbons, now its an issue? It was never an issue in the first place! Nobody see’s the sublimity of the situation. So keep believing in that horse hockey know as greenhouse gases, and other money scam’s.
That may well be true but anyone who think’s CAT is just playing in the locomotive market and will be reluctant to make a massice R&D investment underestimates them…
I also question the implication that diesel electric systems for offroad applications are not applicable to the rail industry: If that is the case that why is Siemens (who suppiled the AC traction components for all of EMD’s AC locomotives up until relatively recently) a market leader in both business segments?
I do realize however, Caterpillar is a newcomer to designing and building AC traction systems in house so they are having to play catch up with GE.
As far as the emission control systems go, I realized that there might be an issue with the non -urea system when Navstar recently announced that they are stopping production of their OTR engines (using a similiar non-additive based system) and the company is having huge financial issues because of it(interestingly the Navstar engines are based on CAT’s discontinued OTR engine line, but NOT so the emissions control system which was NAVSTAR’s own design)…
Come on the CAT 797AC model Mining Truck weighs CARRIES 400 Tons of Materials Every Trip 24/7 for days at a time. They have Dynamic Brakes uses 3 Phase AC Motors that are Brushless and most Grades in Mining Pits are 10% that they are climbing Loaded. Those trucks are not easy to make. The Control System is made my Mitsubishi so they are robust and strong. Why Navistar is stopping their Engine line is Simple as Pie called 3 Letters the EPA is refusing to certify anymore of Navistars Engines. Anymore it is Not the Engineers that run how Compaines are run it is the EPA that makes a Decsion for the Bigshots. Remember this as my BOSS found out his Trucks got 30% better Mileage than the Newest ones. What happened the EPA said sorry change your Design.
