Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Thanks for the details and the great photo links.

What I meant was that, would Vossloh be incapable to produce the proper extra equipment to fit on the EMD engine (new radiators, engine motor cooling, stricter temperature control, exhaust filters), it could go shopping for suppliers.

However, let's at last have a look at European and US emissions standards in comparison. The Euro 4000 complies with EU Stage IIIA (2004/26/EC). For locomotive diesels above 2000kW, that standard is HC: 0.4 g/kWh, CO: 3.5 g/kWh, NOx: 7.4 g/kWh, PM: 0.2 g/kWh. Converted to the units of the US standard, that's  HC: 0.3 g/bhp-hour, CO: 2.6 g/bhp-hour, NOx: 5.5 g/bhp-hour, PM: 0.15 g/bhp-hour.

EPA Tier 2 for line-haul locos is HC: 0.3 g/bhp-hour, CO: 1.5 g/bhp-hour, NOx: 5.5 g/bhp-hour, PM: 0.2 g/bhp-hour. The near-identity is not by accident (from the first link above):

Regulatory authorities in the EU, USA, and Japan have been under pressure from engine and equipment manufacturers to harmonize worldwide emission standards, in order to streamline engine development and emission type approval/certification for different markets. Stage I/II limits were in part harmonized with US regulations. Stage III/IV limits are harmonized with the US Tier 3/4 standards.

(However, for switchers, interestingly, the US standard is less strict while the EU one is more strict than for line-haul - must be due to the many downtown freight yards and passenger station service here.)

If my short read-up was correct, the primary emission effect of air intake temperature reduction/regulation is in NOx emissions, with the second effect being a general one in improved fuel efficiency. Can you tell me what part of the locomotive machinery impacts the one emission in which the US standard is (much) stronger, CO?

Finally, I found this Vossloh presentation on development to meet new emissions standards (unfortunately a technologically shallow 'managerial' one), which confirms something I read earlier in a non-authoritative source: that the NJT PL42AC is homologated for EPA Tier 1, but designed for Tier 2 (p13).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jul 9th, 2009 at 05:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, service club meeting last night finished late. Re-thinking my position EMD would have to be involved with the Vossloh bid anyway. The big problem is everything keeps getting heavier, bigger radiators, more coolant, I shouldn't have said it wasn't possible.  I wonder what would have happened if EMD lead the consortium in Name for the bid, even if Vossloh did most of the work? The MPI locomotives are roughly 136 tonnes on 4 axles.
by jfbeaulieu on Fri Jul 10th, 2009 at 09:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder what would have happened if EMD lead the consortium in Name for the bid, even if Vossloh did most of the work?

You mean, politically? In the decision, it seems the crucial problem was Vossloh's insistence to assemble the first two units in Valencia/Spain.

BTW, what engine would the MPI locomotives use? EMD, GE, or neither?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 at 01:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The funny part is MPI offers two choices, either the 710G3C rated at 4000hp. from EMD or the EMD designed 3600hp 645F3B built by MPI using a crankcase assembly manufactured by GE. MPI and GE are the two largest suppliers of replacement parts (mainly remanufactured) for EMD 645E and F series engines. MPI is a subsidiary of WABTEC (formerly Westinghouse Air Brake Co.).
by jfbeaulieu on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 at 06:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
MPI and GE are the two largest suppliers of replacement parts (mainly remanufactured) for EMD 645E and F series engines

Heh, I noticed the oddity on GE's page, wanted to ask about that too...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 02:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Generally speaking, carbon monoxide is the result of incomplete combustion. In gasoline automotive engines, three methods of limiting it are:
  • Combustion chamber shaped to promote swirling of the gasses.
  • Lean mixture (more air per unit of fuel).
  • Catalytic converters to convert CO to CO2.

I'm not sure that swirl techniques are practical on direct injection engines (including diesels), because the burning happens on the surfaces of the fuel droplets before they get a chance to evaporate.
by asdf on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 09:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From that, I take, it is only influenced by the engine and the fuel?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 11:03:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm at the limit of my knowledge on the subject, but for example, the engine temperature influences the combustion, so the cooling system indirectly affects the CO production.

Here's an interesting article on the Honda Insight hybrid, where they went "all out" in trying to meet low emission and high economy targets. There are a LOT of tricks in use...not all applicable to railroad engines, obviously, but there is an interesting parallel between the two.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/771011-FszVdC/native/771011.pdf

by asdf on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 10:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series