How will the "new" EMD deal with Tier 3?

[MEC407]

1. When will the Tier 3 emission standard come into effect?

2. Does anybody know if EMD will be able to get the 710 engine to meet Tier 3? I know some people said they didn't think the 710 would be able to meet Tier 2, but apparently EMD was able to do it. However, if for whatever reason they're unable to get it to Tier 3, is it likely that they'll try to pursue Tier 3 with the 265H? (presumably a 12-cylinder version?)

[*istDS]

1) I wasn't aware that Tier 3 requirements had been mandated.

2) How about exhaust after-treatment in the form of particulate filters and oxidizing catylitic reduction ?

The technology exists. One of the challenges will be incorporating this equipment within the envelope of the locomotive carbody.

JFD

[trainiac]

The technology exists. One of the challenges will be incorporating this equipment within the envelope of the locomotive carbody.

I think there would be room for this inside the carbody. In the current EMD units, there's a lot of space above the engine block--the top of the engine compartment is more than a foot below the level of the radiator fans.

[Komachi]

*istDS asked...

"... How about exhaust after-treatment in the form of particulate filters and oxidizing catylitic reduction ?

"The technology exists. One of the challenges will be incorporating this equipment within the envelope of the locomotive carbody."


trainiac responded...

"I think there would be room for this inside the carbody. In the current EMD units, there's a lot of space above the engine block--the top of the engine compartment is more than a foot below the level of the radiator fans."


Well, I would think they would either a.) stretch the frame and create a place for the filters within the carbody itself, or b.) add a "hunchback" (or some such similar nomenclature and/or design) to the current design to accomodate the equipment. (Not that a "hunch" would detract much from the current design schema...)

[RailBus63]

I think the bigger question regards the new owners' ability to finance such major design changes. The advantage of a major conglomerate like GE or GM is that they have deep pockets to underwite major engineering efforts when necessary - will the financiers who now own EMD be willing to dig deep as well?

JD

[Nasadowsk]

With GE's position in the market, plus the $$$ they have on tap, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you see a tier III emissions standard 'proposed' sooner rather than later. I doubt the GEVO is anywhere near agressive, and I wouldn't be surprised if GE 'held back' a bit on it.

Then again, maybe GE knows something everyone else doesn't - the GENx aircraft engine is supposed to emit something like 10% the emissions of existing engines, and be 15% more efficient...

When your competition is down, regulating them out of business looks better than running them out, and in any case, who's going to oppose tougher emissions standards - the idea is so politically correct these days...

[trainiac]

EMD has stated that the 710 has not reached the end of its development and that, if need be, further emissions reductions could be made. I assume more emissions reductions could be made to the GEVO as well--and I don't know just how far either engine could be pushed.

The 710 may have a lot of potential left. Then again, it may not--but EMD does have a lot of experience with 2-stroke engines and has refined them greatly since their early days--to the point where the Tier-1 710 was very competitive with the later FDL in terms of horsepower, fuel efficiency and emissions (it's 15 to 20% more fuel-efficient than a 3000-hp 16-645)

[trainiac]

Time will tell indeed! But if EMD does switch to the 265-H engine (or a derivative of it) then really it will be very similar to what GE has already done with the GEVO: Take an engine that's been around for a few years that doesn't have a huge reputation (HDL) chop off 4 cylinders to bring it down to current HP standards, and modify it to be more efficient, clean and reliable. GE has been very successful in doing so, so I don't imagine there would be negative reaction to EMD basing future designs off the 265-H. However, I think it was a good idea for EMD to stick with the 710 for the moment, as it had only just formed its strong reputation.

[*istDS]

Since locomotives are built to a standard clearance diagram, incorporating the aforementioned devices within the outline of the existing carbody would represent a substantial design challenge. Lengthening the carbody to incorporate these devices may create a whole new set of problems relating to overall weight and traversing tight radius curves. Who knows ? In any event, the UIC countries currently have a much tighter spec on particulates than the US. So, I would guess that exhaust aftertreatment devices will appear within the outlines of locomotives built for those countries.No one has mentioned the possibility of a penalty against fuel economy or the additional incremental cost of maintaining these devices.

Three hundred EMD H engined locomotives have been sold to China. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for emissions R&D to be done overseas for export back to North America. The Chinese don't have much repsect for IP laws to begin with.

JFD