I stumbled on this this just now and haven't read much of it yet . Looks interesting at a glance .
Enjoy .

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/locoemissrep.pdf

Had a quick sift through and yep the data looks interesting . It remains to be seen how aggressive our EPA wants to be with the changes that look like coming .
If they insist on Tier 4 emissions with new locomotives then the choices from the US would appear to be the latest spec GE and EMD engines . That would involve some interesting alterations to our latest National standard gauge style units if they are to use the Gevo and EMD 1010J type power assemblies .
Also rebuilds get a mention and at least there is somewhere to go with say older spec 710s , should be upgradable to the later Tier 3 spec like later Two Stroke 70ACEs have .PN lucked out with their NR re power grogram that came with later computers and injection for the ageing FDL engine design . Their 93s were an update on the original 92 and I think some of the differences may have been inverter and computer related .
I can see this being the death warrant for Alco powered units in the long term if the EPA pushes it .
Not sure where you'd go with the EMD 645 powered units needing a rebuild , don't know if the local operators are interested in 710 Eco type upgrades .

I stumbled on this this just now and haven't read much of it yet . Looks interesting at a glance .
Enjoy .

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/locoemissrep.pdf

My head is spinning.  I have not been convinced that rail freight has a significant impact on total pollution in either urban or regional environments, in Australia. To me this appears to be  a bureaucracy in search of a problem. As a base line I think it is appropriate that there is some comparison between the emissions produced by(for example) one 4500 tonne coal train travelling between Airly and Inner Harbour  and the road transport equivalent. I'd be surprised if 4X82s or 3x93s emit more emissions than 60 B-doubles. Does a thirty year old two-stroke on rail produce bad stuff? Absolutely. Is the road transport alternative cleaner? It doesn't seem to have been considered.
        The options that seem to have been considered are old power and new power. For some customers the options will be old power and road transport. i suspect that the community won't be the winner if the latter option is utilized.

Had a quick sift through and yep the data looks interesting . It remains to be seen how aggressive our EPA wants to be with the changes that look like coming .
If they insist on Tier 4 emissions with new locomotives then the choices from the US would appear to be the latest spec GE and EMD engines . That would involve some interesting alterations to our latest National standard gauge style units if they are to use the Gevo and EMD 1010J type power assemblies .
Also rebuilds get a mention and at least there is somewhere to go with say older spec 710s , should be upgradable to the later Tier 3 spec like later Two Stroke 70ACEs have .PN lucked out with their NR re power grogram that came with later computers and injection for the ageing FDL engine design . Their 93s were an update on the original 92 and I think some of the differences may have been inverter and computer related .
I can see this being the death warrant for Alco powered units in the long term if the EPA pushes it .
Not sure where you'd go with the EMD 645 powered units needing a rebuild , don't know if the local operators are interested in 710 Eco type upgrades .

You may have seen the documentation for the tier 0+ upgrade kits fitted to 8113 and a 90 class. From memory, the upgrade didn't really meet the manufacturers claims and there was a significant increase in consumption.  I can see huge expense for operators, that will likely result in more road transport and more pollution, not less. You and others, have recently mentioned alignment improvements, on other threads. I can't imagine the EPA would be interested as these would be a cost to government rather than cost to private enterprise.

No I didn't know about the 81 or 90 class Tier 0 experiment . I was originally searching for fuel consumption differences between tier 2/3 and Tier 4 in the US . 81s were never exactly economical from new and 90s I wouldn't know because I never worked on them .
I don't remember reading that Tier 1/2/3 caused the American operators that much grief fuel consumption wise but I did read that the tier 4 newbys had something like a 5 to 10 percent fuel penalty over Tier 3 units .

No I didn't know about the 81 or 90 class Tier 0 experiment . I was originally searching for fuel consumption differences between tier 2/3 and Tier 4 in the US . 81s were never exactly economical from new and 90s I wouldn't know because I never worked on them .
I don't remember reading that Tier 1/2/3 caused the American operators that much grief fuel consumption wise but I did read that the tier 4 newbys had something like a 5 to 10 percent fuel penalty over Tier 3 units .

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/diesel-locomotive-emissions-report.pdf

Yeah I was just reading that one . Looking at the 90 section now .

A typical consultants report.

They borrow your watch, misread it and tell you the wrong time...

Why is the NSW EPA interested in the Pilbara?

How old is this report? (OK, 2013...) That explains a lot...

It isn't clear how much of the cost is to be borne by the state government.

What was the Federal Government's response?

Peter

Yes, a lot to criticize in this report. Out of date, based on inaccurate forecasts, dodgy extrapolation of data from Europe to Australia that is crucial to the findings. I mean, the methodology that diesel locomotives cause $65 million in additional health expenses is ludicrous. How do emissions from the iron ore railroads affect public health costs in an area that is largely uninhabited?
Bears all the hallmarks of a stitch up designed to deliver the outcomes that some greenie bureaucrat wants.

I would have assumed the current GT42CU-ACe and GT46C-ACe models operating in Australia would meet Tier 1, Tier 2 and maybe Tier 3 standards like their SD70ACe counterparts?

My question is where is the equivalent report for trucks, and one that including the social costs of trucking (e.g. long haul drivers being away from home etc.

Because the N$W EPA are stupid!!!

These government instrumentalities do these sort of things and introduce all manner of other dargs, artificial speed restrictions and curfews etc because at the end of the day they can stand over/blackmail the rail industry into submission. Rail will either cave in or abandon ship to road. Either alternative suits the government.

What would happen if government did the same report on road transport? All hell would break loose.

The point of this thread is not social or vs road going diesel powered vehicles but be very sure that road standards for diesels is alive and well and currently quite tough . When you can look at the exhaust tip of a 12 month old truck and the inside is the same colour as the outside that says something .

If it's the EPAs will costs to operators on road or rail will mean zip . The American operators had no say in the advent of Tier 0/1/2/3/4 emissions standards and neither does Joe Average motorist - of car or truck .
It isn't difficult now to see why there has been large rebuild programs going on in the US , the cost of Tier 4 units and maintenance to keep them legal as well as fuel consumption . Unlike here they've had locos with adequate performance for a long time and it isn't like the new ones will do the job that much better - except emissions wise .
I doubt an AC4400 performs much short of a 70ACE in the real world where an Australian GT46ACE wipes its dot all over an AN and probably a 90 as well . There isn't too many older 4000 odd horsepower units here available to upgrade so if you want equal or better than a C44ACi or GT46ACE it means buy new , and if the EPA gets a say it could possibly mean to new standards .

Yeah I was just reading that one . Looking at the 90 section now .

Interesting the differences in exhaust and inlet or charge air temperatures .

The point of this thread is not social or vs road going diesel powered vehicles but be very sure that road standards for diesels is alive and well and currently quite tough . When you can look at the exhaust tip of a 12 month old truck and the inside is the same colour as the outside that says something .

If it's the EPAs will costs to operators on road or rail will mean zip . The American operators had no say in the advent of Tier 0/1/2/3/4 emissions standards and neither does Joe Average motorist - of car or truck .
It isn't difficult now to see why there has been large rebuild programs going on in the US , the cost of Tier 4 units and maintenance to keep them legal as well as fuel consumption . Unlike here they've had locos with adequate performance for a long time and it isn't like the new ones will do the job that much better - except emissions wise .
I doubt an AC4400 performs much short of a 70ACE in the real world where an Australian GT46ACE wipes its dot all over an AN and probably a 90 as well . There isn't too many older 4000 odd horsepower units here available to upgrade so if you want equal or better than a C44ACi or GT46ACE it means buy new , and if the EPA gets a say it could possibly mean to new standards .

There's lot's we don't know and not much we do. Can we assume that GT46ACE, C44ACi and MP33C are Tier 3 compliant? Can we also assume that no-one, (Chinese included) can supply Tier 4 to fit our loading gauge? Sounds like Tier 3 should be the standard for new stuff.
   You mentioned that American operators were forced to adopt standards by their EPA. Hopefully the American experience is enough to convince our mob that there are many un-intended consequences in holding a gun to operators and manufacturers  heads. 2 I can think of are EMD withdrawing from the domestic market and the explosion in re-builds. IIRC some re-builds were carried out with prime-movers in place, because that was the only way to maintain "old"status. It's the type of stupidity that only bureaucracy can come up with.
    I suspect that ECP may have just as big an influence on Australian fleet renewal as the EPA. In spite of some difficulties, it would appear that PN are heading down the ECP path. I wonder if SSR/Fletchers knew they would be running 6000 tonnes down the mountains, if they would have spent the extra. If you have ECP wagons you need ECP locos so there's another reason why you wouldn't bother stuffing around with anything thats pre-710.

As far as I can tell, none of the UGL built GEs would be Tier 1 compliant as they still use the older16-cylinder FDLs. GE developed the 12-cylinder Evolution Series to meet the Tier 1, 2 and 3 standards.

Getting back to basics, will locos equipped with the US sourced GE and EMD Tier 4 medium speed diesels fit within the ARTC loading gauge? If they do, GE will probably be a non starter as a package with a Tier 4 GEVO, including the additional cooling modules required, will possibly be too heavy to meet the 134 tonne limit

You will have noted that GEVO equiped locos for South Africa (132 tonnes) and Pakistan (137 tonnes), are not Tier 4 compliant. The Transnet ES40ACi use air to air for charged air cooling (hence 4200HP), not air to water, to keep weight/size within limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Class_44-000

Europe appears to be using high speed engines with exhaust treatment to meet their Tier 4 equivalent

If Urea were used Tier 4 wouldn't be an issue. It depends which way local operators would want to go if these regulations were enforced here.

Getting back to basics, will locos equipped with the US sourced GE and EMD Tier 4 medium speed diesels fit within the ARTC loading gauge? If they do, GE will probably be a non starter as a package with a Tier 4 GEVO, including the additional cooling modules required, will possibly be too heavy to meet the 134 tonne limit

You will have noted that GEVO equiped locos for South Africa (132 tonnes) and Pakistan (137 tonnes), are not Tier 4 compliant. The Transnet ES40ACi use air to air for charged air cooling (hence 4200HP), not air to water, to keep weight/size within limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Class_44-000

Europe appears to be using high speed engines with exhaust treatment to meet their Tier 4 equivalent

Those Class 44s are an attractive looking thing. I'm particularly fond of the wire mesh on the side windows, to keep the crew in. I wonder if any local operators have thought of that.

Well truth be known ECP isn't that hard to fit to any locomotive if you have the space and adequate power supplies .
I think it was 16 NRs fitted out for ECP , the advantage being they had an electronic brake rack standard though updated with the repower .
You can actually fit pass through ECP cabling to locomotives that won't lead or be DPU leaders . Don't quote me but I think some or all of the 92s may have originally only had pass through cabling to trail or run between two ECP equipt units .
Fitting NYAB EP60 to such a unit means fitting another power supply box and a Trainline Coms Control box , plus the cabling and that's almost it . OK a few more circuit breakers , and computer software updates .
NYAB have desktop and AAR control stand electronic controllers so got most things covered .

Thinking back the latest mainline units I used with 30A CDW (26L on its side) were DLs 82s and ANs . Prior to that 26L which from memory dated back to 1969 build Jumbos (442s) . A7 and B7 ELs the real dinosaurs .
I think the first NRs turned a wheel in late 1996 or more than 20 years ago , doubt very much you will ever see a non electronic brake fitted again to a mainline locomotive .

Its doubtful that anything in Australia short of Roy Hills Evos would come close to Tier 4 . The 2012 and later SD70ACEs may do Tier 3 if they are basically same as USDM units . Maybe with software updates .
The NR rebuilds may be actually capable of running cleaner than production era Dash 9s because they may have more modern computers than production era ones . May be struggling to get the original computer bits . FDL yes but later controls and fuel systems - than OE anyway .

Just back to that 81/90 experiment . I don't think either had any major cooling upgrades and the lack of electronic injection wouldn't have helped .
From what I read larger radiators and split cooling systems make quite a difference to performance and potentially emissions .
Running coolant direct from radiators to water/air intercoolers made a significant difference to inlet (charge air) temperatures .
That 81 had higher capacity heat exchangers but no reduction in coolant temps into them . I have not looked at a 90 for quite a while but I don't think they have the flared radiators which appeared in EMDs SD70s and became more pronounced on the 70ACEs . These have a BIG radiator cab that looks like it was modeled off the SD80/90MACs .
Electronic injection control allows you to have multiple smaller injections per cycle and far better injection timing control .
In other words you have a bit more say in what comes out the stack .

It isn't all doom and gloom because later technology often realizes greater efficiencies . The road to the future is modern high horsepower diesel electrics with Microprocessor Control/Electronically Controlled Fuel Injection and in places ECP braking .
I also reckon AC drive fits in here because of our limited axle loads and the difference AC makes with that , think GT46ACE vs 90 class . Lighter cleaner quieter more versatile .

Tier 4 and the EMD 710 ......

https://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/final_report_emd_tier_4_pm_aftertreatment_upgrade_83112_final_v1.pdf

A bit of a squeeze for Australia!

TW

Tier 4 and the EMD 710 ......

https://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/final_report_emd_tier_4_pm_aftertreatment_upgrade_83112_final_v1.pdf

A bit of a squeeze for Australia!

TW

The 12-710, the same basic engine as used in UP 9900 is available certified to Tier 4 using aftertreatment of the exhaust, and I think there was a link to that engine earlier in this thread which requires some extra length but no greater height or width than a current 710. There is no reason for any Australian locomotive to follow US Class 1 Tier 4 practice which was a requirement of some US Railroads. EMD and Siemens have sold Tier 4  locomotives using aftertreatment to a number of US passenger operators.

UP 9900 was not certified to Tier 4. I have personally inspected that locomotive and it was certified to Tier 0 , the same as all the other SD59MX locomotives.

The brochure for the three GT46C ACe units states that they meet tier 3 as do EMD brochures for SD70ACe LCi units sold to BHPB and Fortescue.

But does this 2013 report to the NSW Government have any significance now, inside or outside NSW? The figures about the costs of adoption of Tier 4 must be estimates based on no real data.

Peter

I think its just a matter of time , one day the right person with the right audience will point the figure at rail diesels and the EPA will have to act .
In the day when coal fired power stations are being shut down supposedly for emissions reasons rail diesels won't get away with little to no emissions regulation forever .
That aside I'm interested to know about power and potentially consumption improvements that may have come with Tier 3 spec EMDs and GEs . It is good not to see locos spewing out huge clouds of black smoke when they open up like many of our old Alcos did .

It seems at a glance that lots of the EMD family (in the US) from SD50 onwards is a potential rebuild candidate , and heaps of DC GEs , assumes Dash 9s .
NS is updating lots of locos and pleasingly those SD60s are getting or being rebuilt with Tier series EFI 710 16s rather than the wuzy 710 12 Eco .

Had that Tier 0 90 class been serious it would have grown later EM2000 computers , EFI and an electronic air brake system .
I believe the Yanks are claiming a 7% fuel consumption reduction but I think NS also add their own brand of split cooling as well .
I think the SD60 DC had a similar poverty pac 3800 Hp 710 16 as the 90s and upgraded they crank out 4000 odd .
A 90 could use a more serious alternator and traction motors and with electronic AB probably have the ECP fit out as well .
The 5000/5020s weigh more than 90s so an axle load increase may not be an issue .

Maybe not a cheap exercise but it would future proof the smallish fleet , make them potentially cleaner more reliable/economical and available to pull the ECP coal rakes . I can't see an export GT46ACE being cheaper landed here .