EMD Tier 4 Locos appear

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
1 of 2 2 »
KngtRider Chief Commissioner

Location: http://www.nitroware.net

Saw this in todays TRAINS e-newsletter

http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/198915.aspx?PageIndex=1

http://gaboy31601.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2803264

The SD59MX is a quite a pro-gunzel loco in that its 'new' guts in a 'old' attractive shell  however this new derivtve has gunzels up in arms as per the comments above.

Though if we consider the addon blisters its basically a 21st century interpretation of a SD45/GP40X/etc in *appearance* only so I do not see what the fuss is about really, versus some of the arabian EMDs with their giant filters on the roof or other 'ugly' locos

 
UP9372 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Banned

Probably built on a former SD60 (or SD50) with something similar to what N&S call an Admiral's cab. Looks like a super SD90MAC. If you like US diesels it is beautiful.

 
M636C Minister for Railways

All the UP SD59M locomotives are rebuilds of SD60s retaining their original cab, but with larger radiators to provide enough cooling for the 12-710ECO engine to meet Tier 2 emissions requirements.

The illustrated locomotive, as described, has been further modified as a prototype to test exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) as a means of meeting Tier 4 emission requirements. The equipment above the engine cools the exhaust gas for recirculation. The thread in the Trains Magazine forum makes some interesting comments on exhaust gas recirculation, which is an alternative to carrying urea which must be injected into the exhaust as part of selective catalytic reaction (SCR) treatment.

It looks like SCR will be used by GE at least, but EMD hope that they will meet Tier 4 with EGR.

I was told recently by an insider that GE won't meet Tier 4 with the GEVO engine, but I'm not sure whether I understood the comment correctly.

M636C

 
Big J Chief Train Controller

Location: In Paradise

It looks like SCR will be used by GE at least, but EMD hope that they will meet Tier 4 with EGR.

M636C

- M636C

Sorry M636C, what do SCR and EGR mean?

 
M636C Minister for Railways

It looks like SCR will be used by GE at least, but EMD hope that they will meet Tier 4 with EGR.

M636C

- M636C

Sorry M636C, what do SCR and EGR mean?

- Big J

SCR = selective catalytic reaction.

The urea is injected into the exhaust gases in a catalytic converter (as used in cars without any additional fluid) and eliminates specific gases.

EGR = exhaust gas recirculation

The exhaust gases are (apparently) cooled and added to the intake air, again with the intention of removing specific gases from the exhaust.

I've added the acronyms in brackets after the references in my original post.

M636C

 
Mike_in_the_west Chief Commissioner

Location: Perth, WA

This is a hot topic over in the US (excuse the pun)

GE are about 6 months away from launching a Tier 4 loco prototype which will be experimented with before Jan 1 2015.    The GEVO engine will need heavy modifications and larger radiators, but overall, will meet the Tier 4 standards.  

More proof that the GEVO engine will be Tier 4 compliant is the contract with MPI for new HSP46AC's for MBTA in Boston.    The contract needed to specify a Tier 4 compliant engine.   MTU engines were considered, but MPI ruled it out.    After Jan 1 2015, the HSP46 will be the stable diet of commuter railroads across the USA as I doubt the MP36PH-3C will be out of production...from what we can see.

Interesting to note that the past 300 ES44's built since August for BNSF, UP & NS are Tier 3 compliant already.   EMD is producing 15 of it's T3 EMD's for UP by end of the year.

....Can't see this happening in Australia though, where will NSW put their ridiculous silencing equipment?

UP9372 - There are 2 types of cabs which NS (not N&S) are working with.

Some of the ex high hood SD40-2's are getting the admiral cab fitted.   To the average joe, they are hardly any different from a conventional EMD cab which donned locos from the GP35 up to the SD70 spartan locos.  Except the cab windows are tilted slightly to prevent debris smashing through the cab in the event of a collision.

NS are rebuilding a fleet of it's SD60's with 12-710ECO engines, fitting new cabs to them, which looks like Frankenstien is having a go at modelling a GE comfort cab.

 
KngtRider Chief Commissioner

Location: http://www.nitroware.net



GE are about 6 months away from launching a Tier 4 loco prototype which will be experimented with before Jan 1 2015.  

- Mike_in_the_west

Another demonstrator, nice. Add it to the growingcollection rusting at erie.

Wonder if they will still use the Dash8 safety cab or they have a new carbody idea. Given the SD/GP/C/Uboat went for 40 yrs perhaps we are stuck with the current design of EMD and GE for another 20 yrs.

The current EMD hood designs the styling of the cab are only a refinement of the previous cowls if u put them side by side really

More proof that the GEVO engine will be Tier 4 compliant is the contract with MPI for new HSP46AC's for MBTA in Boston.    The contract needed to specify a Tier 4 compliant engine.   MTU engines were considered, but MPI ruled it out.    After Jan 1 2015, the HSP46 will be the stable diet of commuter railroads across the USA as I doubt the MP36PH-3C will be out of production...from what we can see.

- A user

So that explains the artists impression of an updated GENESIS that I saw on the GE site under passenger. Cross between a Bombardier rounded nose with the P42 nose

Amtrak want to replace heir fleet also.

The MPI EMD pasenger locos saved EMD imo. If you discount those licensed locos, the last passenger locos EMD made were either exports or the F59s.  Now you and others are saying that has changed due to PRC, where does that leave EMD now with passenger locos. NREC 1100 class ?...

....Can't see this happening in Australia though, where will NSW put their ridiculous silencing equipment?

- A user

Isn't the quesiton more when are we going to see a GEVO powered loco on the SG network first let alone Tier 4 compliants

NS are rebuilding a fleet of it's SD60's with 12-710ECO engines, fitting new cabs to them, which looks like Frankenstien is having a go at modelling a GE comfort cab.

- A user



Geee I wonder who invented the idea of a full width cab with a overhang over the windows. Aussies. Of course the amount of overhang varies between model.  

How long before someone over there realises the 82/90 class cab might be somehting worh trying.

Although this is an EMD topic and propbably should be renamed to future locos or something at the rate this is going, anyone interested in the hardware should check out this site

http://www.gevirtualrailexpo.com/

its pretty much filled with factory videos . Its bizzare seeing a brasilian, CIS and American loco running together on shakedown.

You can see video of all of GE's export products being manufactured tested and launched. Usually the docs on 'how to build a loco' do not show export units.

Its not like EMD is keen on showing their wares these days - at least to the general public . GE is really keen on the marketing recently. There was even ads on australian tv not that long ago.

Remeber GE is opening a new factory in Austin Texas also, given all the things discussed it seems as they want to (and can) have a monopoly on the market.

 
Big J Chief Train Controller

Location: In Paradise

It looks like SCR will be used by GE at least, but EMD hope that they will meet Tier 4 with EGR.

M636C

- M636C

Sorry M636C, what do SCR and EGR mean?

- Big J

SCR = selective catalytic reaction.

The urea is injected into the exhaust gases in a catalytic converter (as used in cars without any additional fluid) and eliminates specific gases.

EGR = exhaust gas recirculation

The exhaust gases are (apparently) cooled and added to the intake air, again with the intention of removing specific gases from the exhaust.

I've added the acronyms in brackets after the references in my original post.

M636C

- M636C

Thankyou.

 
BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

I know its a bit more involved but my preference would be the Urea fluid inject before the converter . In my opinion recirculating spent exhaust gasses to basically pollute the air fuel mixture in an effort to cap combustion temperature is a bit backwards . The idea of the lower combustion temps is to reduce the NOx emissions but it does have some performance and consumption issues .

Doing it the urea injection method means you get to burn fresh air and dieseo in the chambers and correct the NOx emissions via the urea reacting with the exhaust gasses in the cat so you get nitrogen and water out the stack .

So I read , over in the States the trucking industry likes the urea option because the performance and fuel consumption negatives are less than the cooled EGR system . It just remains to be seen the complexity and running costs of the urea injection system .  Please don't confuse diesel and petrol EGR systems because recirculated exhaust gas in a petrol engine is one way to reduce combustion temps AND supress detonation in lean mixture hot running automotive engines .

 
M636C Minister for Railways

There is no doubt that urea injection is the simpler process. The problem is that it costs more in the long run, with an additional fluid to be topped up and one more thing to be checked before operation. Trucks are monitored a bit more often than locomotives since they would refuel more often and would often have a single regular driver.

If exhaust gas recirculation can be made to work reliably it will be cheaper in the long run. EMD are certainly justified in testing it. If they can't make it work, they just go with SCR like everyone else with no comparative disadvantage.

But I understand that EGR wouldn't even work theoretically on the GE, so they don't have a decision to make in that regard.

It is possible the answer I got about the GEVO was that GE originally expected it to meet Tier 4 WITHOUT SCR...

I did ask whether they expected to use the GEVO engine in Australia for locomotives on the ARTC network but got no clear answer. The GE website mentioned above does show the size of the air to air intercooler in their rotating 3D images of the Evolution series. That that was problem was, I think, agreed and that using water intercooling required too large a radiator.

The Powerhaul would be available with standard gauge bogies for anyone that wanted one. They could use a 20 cylinder version of the Jenbacher engine for more power but this wasn't seen as the way ahead.

There was a development plan for the future of the AC44aci series but they would keep selling it with the FDL while customers were buying.

M636C

 
BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Yes EGR is simpler in that there is no shortage of exhaust gas supply but the problem as I mentioned is that you lose some combustion efficiency along the way . The cost of the urea fluid would be interesting to know .

This actually makes me wonder if water injection is viable because it can be made to work with petrol engines and its not like water is terribly expensive or highly corrosive .

I think the real issue will be can GE and EMD further develop their power assemblies to be less reliant on aftertreatment to meet the exhaust emissions standards . Maybe GE needs to take a look at two stroke systems if they have advantages with emissions .

As far as we are concerned it remains to be seen what will happen with locomotive exhaust emissions standards , I'd say whilever the FDL is acceptable here United will keep using it . Possibly its only issues are lack of furthyer development and cracking which I've yet to hear menting here - outside the Pilbra anyway .

We do have issues with axle loads and our smaller loading gauge appears to be limiting the water and charge air cooling systems its possible to fit .

Obviously we are using same or similar power assemblies but cooling systems weight and packaging is a big issue .

I have noted that alternative prime movers are being looked into and opportunities may be there to find something that has a better power to weight ratio . Some of the problem I think is the slow reving nature of the current ones because very high torque output in a low reving engines means the structure of the engine has to be very strong to cope with the power loads . The answer could lie in someting a bit smaller and lighter with a higher rev ceiling . I think the Paxman engines in the XP power cars were always intended to be light weight high speed diesels and while I know roughly the external dimensions of the Valentas I can't remember what they revved to . Pretty sure it was higher than the 9-1100 rpms of EMD and and GE diesels but not sure the difference . Were ours "good" for 1900 ?

Interesting times .

 
jmt Assistant Commissioner

Not a problem in Australia, but certainly in the US, Canada, and Europe. Urea in a 32.5% solution as used for exhaust injection, freezes at -11 deg C. So in Northern Hemisphere winters, liquid urea in transit, in storage tanks, and post dilution in both storage, and on the locomotive, requires heated tanks.

http://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/MB10033.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea

 
M636C Minister for Railways

The thread on the Trains forum is at:

http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/198915.aspx?PageIndex=1

A recent post in that thread suggested that in trucks, one gallon of urea was carried for every eight gallons of diesel, so we are talking about hundreds of litres in a locomotive at a similar cost to the fuel, I believe.

The Paxman Valentas ran at 1500 RPM, as do the present Paxman VP185 engines, although they are capable of running at 1800 rpm, the limiting factor being the existing alternator and the output frequency, since the trains use the output AC directly at up to 75 Hz.

The current Powerhaul is 190 mm bore, between the 200mm of the Valenta and the 185mm of the current XPT engines. The details in the GE brochure, from their website, are very good, considering how difficult it was to get GEVO details when they were new.

The 16 cylinder P616 would be limited to about 3600HP into the alternator, which is of course less than the FDL16.

M636C

 
SPSD40T2 Chief Commissioner

Location: Platform 9-3/4 and still waiting !!

Can someone explain what the differing resultant exhaust is as per the various treatments.

i.e   What is the chemical exhaust of a diesel loco with and without urea ?

cheers

 
M636C Minister for Railways

While this doesn't address tier 4, this might be some help:

From the GE website:

"Tier 3 is a continuation of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s program to monitor and lower exhaust emissions by locomotives. It follows, naturally, Tier 0, 1 and 2 emissions standards, and marks a 50 % reduction in acceptable particulate matter levels from Tier 2 levels.

The process of enhancing locomotive emissions standards began with Tier 0: all locomotives built after 1972, be they new or overhauled, must be up to those standards. Then, from 2002-2004, all new locomotives were built to a Tier 1 standard. Locomotives built between 2005 and December 31, 2011 were held to Tier 2 standards—and when it comes time to overhaul those locomotives, they will be brought to the most regulatory level.

The new regulations will be implemented in two phases: on new locomotives built starting in 2012; and starting this year, via overhauls to locomotives that were originally built between 1973 and 2004. Tier 3 locomotives will emit no more than 0.1 grams of particulate matter (PM)—tiny particles that escape from the exhaust after the combustion process—per horsepower hour. Furthermore, they will have maximum nitrogen of oxides (NOx) levels of 5.5 g/bhp·hr.

So how do they do it? There are various aspects to the enhancement process—the exact process depends on factors such as the type of locomotive, its age, etc. But ultimately, improvements are made in four areas: the turbo charger, which controls the volume and temperature of the air that goes into the engine; the cam shaft, which controls the timing of fuel injection and the opening and closing of the engine valves; the injectors, which determine how much fuel is injected; and the ring pack, which help keep the oil used to lubricate the pistons from entering the combustion chamber.

When a locomotive comes in for an overhaul—which takes place, on average, every seven-to-10 years—the railroad or GE removes the engine from the locomotive, then ships the engine off to GE’s manufacturing facility in Grove City, PA. There, the GE team rebuilds the original engine to one that is completely upgraded to the new regulatory requirements, which then becomes part of the pool that will be used to replace the next engine scheduled for overhaul. That way, locomotives are back on the rails after minimum downtime, instead of remaining out of operation for weeks while GE rebuilds the engine. All that’s left from there is to upgrade the locomotive’s software, which can be taken care of by either GE or the railroad, and the locomotive is good to go.

As a part of the Tier 3 program for new locomotives built after 2005, GE has begun to implement a high-pressure common rail fuel system. With this advanced system, high pressure fuel is available at all times, allowing for more control over how much, how long and when fuel can be injected. With more control of the combustion event, the locomotive is able to produce fewer emissions, meet EPA standards and, most importantly, reduce their impact on the environment."

Anyway, as far as it goes now with Tier 3:

particulate matter is now reduced to 50% of the previous Tier 2 level, tp 0.1 grams per horsepower hour.

similarly, nitrogen oxides are reduced to 5.5 grams per horsepower hour.

Tier 4 will require a greater reduction in these figures, certainly in nitrogen oxides, and this is to be acheived by burning urea in the exhaust stream over a catalyst which will give the lower levels required. Particulate filters have been mentioned, too.

Note that these standards do not directly address carbon dioxide emissions except by reducing fuel consumption.

M636C

 
SPSD40T2 Chief Commissioner

Location: Platform 9-3/4 and still waiting !!

Ill need to reread a few times but thanks M636C

 
BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

The engine rebuild process is easier with a unitised engine - where the cylinder liners pistons and heads are removed and replaced by new and at times superior components . Turbocharger development is a constantly changing field generally with most of the improvements at the compressor end . Better aero tech compressors put less heat into the charge air and any turbine efficiency improvements tend to increase volumetric efficiency through reduced reversion and pumping losses . NOx or NO"1" to use a technically incorrect term is always going to be a problem primarily because of the Nitrogen content in the atmosphere - 78% . The best performance comes from the most heat possible per unit of fuel burnt because heat energy leads to thermal expansion and thus cylinder pressure to drive the pistons down on the power strokes . High combustion temps are what causes nitrogen and oxygen to bond in equal numbers giving NO"1" in the exhaust gasses . Fuel injection systems should hold a lot of promise and the ultimate system would use a purely solenoid or maybe pneumatically driven injectors to have virtually intinite control of injection timing and volume/duration . There is a huge amount of development going on in this field for direct injection automotive petrol and diesel engines and legislation is driving it onto larger engines nowdays . Really high fuel pressures is helping with atomisation though I imagine its a challenge with big cylinders and big injectors . Something I wonder about at times is the engine speed transients , increases anyway , and if emissions could be improved if the revs stayed reasonably high and the alternator loads changed to suit the drive requirements . M I don't know if you rememner the notch nullifier the Hunter based 81s used to have to get around the 2-3 notch rev thumps in built up areas . I think in one notch they went to 4 notch engine revs and stepped the excitation up 2-3-4 then as per normal . Possibly not the best thing for fuel consumption but then again no big diesel engine ever liked being at really low revs I think because they don't develop enough heat to burn efficiently anyway . Who knows , maybe we'll start to see double overhead cam diesel engines with variable cam timing and possibly even valve lift . Maybe multiple turbochargers and or compound turbo systems like I think the Paxman VP185s use . Its all possible .

 
KngtRider Chief Commissioner

Location: http://www.nitroware.net

UP-EMD SD70ACe Tier 4 test mule

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=396022&nseq=11

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=396019&nseq=14

EDIT: I think the white module is EMD La Grange's house test rig and not part of the target loco, I may have seen it before on one of their test beds it just looks a bit familar

 
vxII4u Station Master

Interesting pictures.  Looks like an EGR set-up orange hose across the roof with a Diesel Particulate Filter. It appears to have a blue hose from the fuel tank to regen (clean) the DPF.  The black drum may contain urea for SCR.  Most diesel engines installed in trucks in the US have both EGR & SCR as we will have in 2014/15 with ADR 80(04); North American engines anyhow. 

 
KngtRider Chief Commissioner

Location: http://www.nitroware.net

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=397458&nseq=11

My guess is as good as yours?

Extra box on catwalk , repaint from cascade green, ACe cooling?

Interestingly the switcher is PRLX (Progress Rail ?) but they used the old old EMD logo...

 
GT46C-ACe Assistant Commissioner

Location: QLD

Wow, old news that one. EMD SD60MAC #9501 rebuilt into an engine test rig, the 70ACe rear end section goes right to the edge of the anticlimber at the rear end. Not sure what it's got to do with Tier 4 these days as I don't believe it has a connection between the engine and wheels anymore.

 
Draffa Chief Commissioner

The blister on top doesn't look all that different to the old Dynamic Brake blisters on older locos.  Dunno what the complaints are for.  If anything, it looks like something has fallen off a passing starship and landed on the loco. Smile

 
16-265-H7 Station Master

Location: united states,maryland

It looks like SCR will be used by GE at least, but EMD hope that they will meet Tier 4 with EGR. M636C

- M636C

Sorry M636C, what do SCR and EGR mean?

- Big J

SCR = selective catalytic reaction. The urea is injected into the exhaust gases in a catalytic converter (as used in cars without any additional fluid) and eliminates specific gases. EGR = exhaust gas recirculation The exhaust gases are (apparently) cooled and added to the intake air, again with the intention of removing specific gases from the exhaust. I've added the acronyms in brackets after the references in my original post. M636C

- M636C

add these to the dictonary::.....DPF- Diesel Particulate Filter,,,,,,....DEF Diesel Exhaust Fluid-(urea 33 percent,water 66 percent)

 
16-265-H7 Station Master

Location: united states,maryland

The blister on top doesn't look all that different to the old Dynamic Brake blisters on older locos.  Dunno what the complaints are for.  If anything, it looks like something has fallen off a passing starship and landed on the loco. :)

- Draffa

:D i'd love that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

 
16-265-H7 Station Master

Location: united states,maryland

Wow, old news that one. EMD SD60MAC #9501 rebuilt into an engine test rig, the 70ACe rear end section goes right to the edge of the anticlimber at the rear end. Not sure what it's got to do with Tier 4 these days as I don't believe it has a connection between the engine and wheels anymore.

- GT46C-ACe

on other photos of that loco,looking closely at that fuel tank is actually 2 tanks: 1 for fuel, the other-could it be for DEF-Diesel Exhaust Fluid????? cheers,michael.

 

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
1 of 2 2 »
 
Display from:   
 

Don't forget to LIKE us on Facebook at: Railpage Facebook Feed