Emmission Standards - How Much Longer Before?

Hendo · Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:46 pm

MJJA,

You make quite a vaild point about much of the issue being the need for longer/larger production runs of loco's that meet all of a companies needs. This obviously brings up the other problem for the industry in the track, structure and loading gauges and capacity of lines across the inherited networks, which brings on the need for everthing from 60 tonne loco's for Western Qld to our Hunter and Pilbara loco's.

We really have needed national standards for one set of strucutre, loading and track guages for all new work and rebuild, to increase productivity and the benefit of larger/single type loco's.

cheers,
hendo

DBclass · Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:56 pm

Well i for one believe in turbo's for a cleaner exhaust, more air has to be a good thing. Its possible that the engines dont get the kind of attention they require ie, injector servicing. However upon accelerating and drivers who like to skip notches doesnt help either, on old locos. Modern trucks engines can also have additional control systems, i think the ARG ng S class has a similar system, where by the engine will not be given any extra fuel than it can burn efficiently. So it will accelerate a little slower than most engines, preventing an excess of fuel. I read that in an article about manual versus automatic transmissions. The automatic because of the torque converter the engine is constantly powering, where as the manual cuts in and out during gear changes, and due to the control system of the engine, it does not accelerate as fast an automatic, as well as the obvious automatic advantage.

DB Class. Locomotives with attitude.

Radial bogies, the future is now.

Draffa · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:08 am

Edith · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:28 am

The smoke in a smokey exhaust is particulate matter. In trucks there are standards for how much is permitted and what size the particles can be. If a truck was as smokey as some of the locos that I have seen, then the EPA would put it off the road.

I concede that a loco usually lasts for 40 years or so, but in that time it might go through about 5 engines. I would like to see a regulatory system whereby when an engine is changed over, it goes to a 'cleaner' model with lower levels of emissions and better fuel efficiency. I do not believe that this is impossible, as we have seen it with some of the upgrades that have been done here and also that the US manufacturers are now producing the Tier 2 models.

"The future depends on what we do in the present" - Gandhi

Boss · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:25 am

M636C · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:16 am

Hendo · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:57 am

Thank you M636 for the informative post. The idea GE are researching for regenerative braking and rechargeable batteries is also interesting as is the Freightliner/GE Project Genesis, whatever that may be, but I suspect it will be ther regen/battery.

Tier 3 engine replacement here in Australia, I can hear the Alco-holics keening and wailing and the kitchen draws opening now!

Boss · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:11 pm

M636 I enjoyed reading your post on diesel engines and their development. Good to read an informed article.

I never make mistakes. I thought I did once, but I was mistaken.

Edith · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:06 pm

M636 thanks for such an informative and heartening post. Let us hope that Aussie operators get on board.

"The future depends on what we do in the present" - Gandhi

M636C · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:22 pm

It is possible that a system using the injection of LP gas might allow the 645E3 engines to meet current or even future emission requirements. A system like this is in use on one of the IRA MZ III locomotives now but apart from seeing photographs showing the "gas" symbols on body.

The US locomotive fleet is so heavily dependent on 645E blower engines and 645E3 Turbocharged engines that if an economical add-on to meet the emission requirements can be found, it will be adopted on a large scale.

EMD would prefer to sell new engines and the locomotive builders would prefer to sell new "Gen Set" locomotives.

If this can't be done, the replacement parts market for the EMD 645 will dry up more or less overnight, since export sales are unlikely to be viable on their own.

In that case, Australia would in time follow the USA to the use of new engines, the EMD 710 and the Cummins QSK 19 and similar.

Either way, the technology would be available for Australia.

There have been relativel derogatory things said about the 80 class regarding emissions, but the 80 has the 251CE engine which uses a turbocharger suitable for a more powerful engine (the 251E of about 2600 HP) on an 2000 HP engine. If suitably maintained and driven by a moderm microprocessor controller, the 251CE should be able to meet relatively stringent emission requirements and the extra air should minimise the fuel air mismatch at acceleration.

With the demand for more powerful units, upgrading to a full 251E with steel capped pistons might give 2500 HP while retaining reliable operation.

The 80 class have been the locomotives that PN (and Freight Corp before them) have given the least maintenance attention but a couple were recently overhauled when things were getting tight.

Coote now have a fleet of these that might be overhauled and upgraded if the demand is there, and Coote's subsidiary GTSA in Maddington, WA have the ability to fully overhaul the 251 engines to whatever standard they want.

The 251 was always economical on fuel, and the LP gas injection system was tested on a 44, with claimed good results. These could help support the smaller operators for some time, again if the demand is there.

PN's withdrawal from grain traffic might provide jobs for a number of 80 class, if (or when) the drought ends.

M636C