EMD fading away?

I would think Caterpillar is very serious about staying in the game.  They have a bit of a challenge but they know the market for locos is competitive and that brand loyalty is not a high priority with most railroads: if Cat comes out with a good loco in a couple of years people will buy it even it Cat has been away for a couple of years.  Until they get something competitive they won't be selling anyway, so it makes sense.   

I respect their decision: not an easy one but the right one, it seems. 

EMD lost time also because of change in ownership during the increases of the "tiers".

May be 70/80 plus years of two cycle diesel engines is gone for ever.  It will be interesting to see how long we rebuild and repair existing two cycle diesels.  Emission limits can't be obtained with add on pieces.  IMO.  Two cycle lawn mower and small power equipment is also to be limited, I believe. 

Maybe EMD should consult with BRP on two stroke technology.

2 stroke diesels are not the same as 2 stroke gassers. 

I think EMD is pretty well versed on 2 stroke  diesel technology. They probably didn't want to use urea in the exhaust and filters like some systems do.  EMD was a part of GM for a long time and now owned by Progress Rail and CAT only time will tell-depends on the bean counters.  There are, literally, thousands of EMDs in service and will be for a long time yet. There is a lot of money in the parts business, ask people in the industrial equipment business. Get the units out there and sell the parts.

I know.

But BRP has some pretty leading-edge technology that can be applicable to any two-stroke application. They really went outside the box in their development of CARB compliant power units. The use of ceramics, with scavenging, timing, and injection technology that even defies stoichiometric logic has really paid out for them.

You are NOT kidding at all here... this is the "bread & butter " for EMD for the time being.

Particularly because, for a while, it will be just what many of us did when the pollution control first hit automobiles.  I bought two of the last really good high-compression cars (a '72 Olds and a '72 TR6 right before the big mandated change and kept both going for far longer than I normally would, until the technology and performance got reasonable (well, half reasonable) again.  I bought a lot of parts during that time.  

I expect the RRs will go much the same thing. 

Yeah there is NO doubt we'll find a solution to this mess. I mean really.  Consider the alternative......I'd go steam, or get a piggy-back ride before embracing Laurence Park !

Are these same Tier 4 standards being required out of trucks as well? To be fair!

I have heard comments about urea and exhaust after-burners even in heavy duty diesel pick-up trucks.

I don't know exactly what tier 4 means for a locomotive but I'm pretty sure it not the same as OTR trucks. Which is also not the same as construction equipment and farm equipment. 

With OTR trucks, early DPF exhaust systems severely hurt diesel performance and efficiency. In fact VW, with its super economical TDI engine, stopped selling it in the US until they could figure out a way to maintain economy and meet EPA standards. 

Then urea injection systems were developed for cleaning up diesel exhaust. These were a lot better than the DPF systems and didn't hurt performance. 

But there is a problem with the urea system. 

The truck performs great both with and without the urea in the exhaust. So what's to prevent the truck owner from conveniently forgetting to buy urea and filling the urea tank?

Well, the OEMs program the onboard computer to shut down the engine wen the urea tank goes empty. 

Now let's apply this to a locomotive.

 How much urea should a locomotive be required to carry?

What will happen to the locomotive when it runs out of urea?

Also, actual diesel emissions testing is performed by individual States. And only 5 or 6 states actually require emissions tests. 

So who is going to test these locomotives to ensure they are actually running with clean exhaust?

Most commercial trucks, if not all that require DEF, have a gauge just like a fuel gauge which lets the driver know when DEF levels are low. After that, the engine de-rates and you'll run at 1/2 power.

I can't imagine such a concept being applied to freight trains.

The emissions standards in this country are ridiculous. There should be emissions-control devices placed on legislators for all of the hot air and gases they spew.

My uncle drives a Ford F-350 that requires DEF and without DEF the truck will not go above 1 MPH when the tank is empty.

Obviously, the tiers are structured differently, and there is not a direct corelation between locomotives and big rigs, but the trucking industry has been subjected to about four levels of emissions standards since 1998, with more to come.  One of the problems associated with the last two generations (1-Diesel particulate filters and 2- DPF AND diesel exhaust fluid) is that what works OK on long haul trucks does not always work well on vocational (garabage truck, dump truck, school bus etc) engines, and my company even has some REAL issues with road tractors that generally only make very short runs and don't run long enough, or get the system hot enough to do a proper regeneration cycle. Typical of ANYTHING the government devises is theory and practicality often do not meet.

Trucks and locos should not have to meet the same exact requirements because they are different, and you would hope regulations would recognize and allow for that.  You see in Dieselbob's comments that those for the trucking industry have not even recognized the very different roles and running cycles different types of trucks and construction equipment have.  Over time flawed regulations like this tend to get fixed although its always at the expensive of even more complexity and paperwork,  but its frustrating.

I must be crazy, but none of the clean-up addresses the largest exhaust gas Carbon Dioxide, (CO2), which appears to be the greenhouse gas of demise.   I could be wrong and often,  Mike CT

This thread started about EMDs survival now it is off topic talking about air pollution-which could be talked to death.

Not really off topic.

Its the EPAs pollution control regulations that are hurting EMDs ability to build new locomotive engines.

Eventually EMD will find a solution.

What's off topic, there is a reason current technology appears to be at a stand-still. Is there something magic out there that allows the sun to shine and keep 7 billion people fed??

The true effects of CO2 and how to control CO2 emissions is debatable.

CO2 is the natural product of combustion and any living thing that inhales oxygen, exhales CO2.

Do you like campfires?

When you cook on the grill, do you prefer charcoal or gas?

(both produce CO2)

Do you enjoy breathing?

Even the tiny yeasts in my beer fermentor produce CO2.

(Okay, now i have officially taken this thread off-topic )

How much can you get for a used politician at your local scrapyard????

Then they will find out that urea is a haz-mat, produces more pollution, or causes cancer.

Remember when we ere told plastic bags were GOOD for the eco system in the 1970's!  Same people think it is BAD now.

Debatable?   They only aspect that is truly debatable is how quickly we will get to a state of climate change that has major effects on world weather patterns and subsequently water availability and farm production.  No reputable climate scientist debates this.     Your comparisons are invalid.  Yes, CO2 is naturally occurring.  No, CO2 loads from fossil fuel combustion are not.  It is this ADDITIONAL CO2 load that causes concern.  

I have an acquaintance who is not very---ah, shall I say his elevator does not reach the top floor.  He drives a truck that requires urea.  His take on the gauge is when it nears empty he refills the "urine" tank with, you guessed it!  Apparently the computer is not capable of differentiating between urea and the real thing?

Tony

I thought urea is a chemical found in MANURE!

Urea from Wikipedia.  Click to access.  chemical formula CO(NH₂)₂

Automobile systems[edit]

Urea is used in SNCR and SCR reactions to reduce the NO_x pollutants in exhaust gases from combustion from Diesel, dual fuel, and lean-burn natural gas engines. The BlueTec system, for example, injects a water-based urea solution into the exhaust system. The ammonia produced by the hydrolysis of the urea reacts with the nitrogen oxide emissions and is converted into nitrogen and water within the catalytic converter. Trucks and cars using these catalytic converters need to carry a supply of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF, also known as AdBlue), a mixture of urea and water.

 Note added:  Informative discussion, thanks to all who contributed.

Mike CT

Caterpillar quit making OTR truck engines because of the increasing emissions standards.

If they never made another locomotive it would not be unprecedented.

Well, in attempt to bring the dialog back to topic, EMD brought this situation upon themselves.  At the time that EMD was working on the 16 cylinder 6000HP 265H engine for the SD90MAC-H locomotives they were also developing 12 cylinder 4500HP version for the SD89MAC.  At the time (early 2000's) it was felt that the 710G diesel couldn't be modified to make Tier 2 emission standard, hence the 12 cylinder 265H, which would replace the SD70MAC.  When EMD found a way to make the 710G meet both the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards development on the 265H was dropped.  Whether this was because of the changing ownership of EMD, or complacency that the 710G could be modified to make Tier 4 I don't know.

Stuart

Somehow I do not believe that the U.S.Government would EVER allow THAT to happen, as that would leave ONLY GE in the domestic locomotive business. Also, for what it's worth, the CEO of General Electric has made some unusual comments about possibly "getting out of the diesel locomotive business" due to ever increasing costs and government regulations.

Go figure.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...-in-locomotives.html

It looks like GE has sold a 1000 of the new tier 4 locomotives, at least that is what is stated in the business article above.

A year and a half ago it was decision time. Analysts were predicting poor growth for the US rail market. GE and Cat made their bets using the forecasted growth predictions. Cat made the decision based upon the predictions to put off the development of a new system. GE rolled the dice and decided to invest $200+ million into a new locomotive that would meet tier 4. That roll of the dice that GE made has turned into $3 billion or more in sales.

Why would the US Government get involved in such a small industry? Boeing is much larger and the US Government not only does not get involved, but enthusiastically gives them billions. As far as I know, Boeing is the only US manufacturer of commercial large jets. There are some smaller private jet manufacturers, but nothing along the lines of Boeing. Of course, elsewhere in the world there is Airbus. I'm sure that its not in the railroad's best interest to have a single supplier and they know that. That is why the RR's fed scraps to GE decades ago to keep them going in wake of EMD's dominance. There are other quality locomotive manufacturers in the world and products. If it is important, perhaps it time to look at other manufactures in the world.

If both EMD and GE are suffering under the Government environmental regulations why would you think that overseas manufacturers who have tailored their designs to less stringent requirements would be able to or want to redesign their locos to meet US requirements? 

If US diesel engine manufacturers, with their years of exposure to ever tightened requirements have experienced difficulties, why would a new importer be able to leapfrog US technology and successfully compete?

Tony

I heard a statistic somewhere that the new EPA regulations would cost American businesses $250 billion to be in compliance for 2015. That's $250 billion more money they will need to make to operate at current capacity next year.  Money that cannot be spent to hire new employees or invest in new R&D. Just to met new regulations that were not put in place with legislation but with committees.

Other countries of the world have stringent emissions:

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/nonroad.php

I do not see how GE is suffering through this. They made the right decision and its going to pay handsomely for them. 

What is next?

Are all locomotives going to have to generate electricity from one of those Zero-Point-Modules like on Stargate: Atlantis?

Andrew

Even if "somewhere" is a reliable source, that statistic is MEANINGLESS unless we know the costs of the pollution prevented.

Compliance with fire and electrical codes costs a lot more than that - do you think it's a waste of money?   Only if you ignore the costs of fires and electrocutions prevented.

Hello Professor Chaos.............

I think the EPA is (corrupted) and trying to drive EMD out of business as they have done that to many other companies and ended up going over seas. Pretty SAD I say !!!

Maybe in near future railroad companies may have to buy Chinese made SD70's or other diesel locomotives. What will EPA do next ? Please I HOPE I am wrong !!!!

the woman who loves the S.F.5011,2678,2003,200

Tiffany

I don't think the EPA is corrupted.  I don't think they have singled out CAT or anyone else to drive out of business.  

I do think they are incompetent.  I think they have a very inflated view of their own worth and a warped perspective as to their mission, to the point they are hurting America's economy a lot while doing no real good for the environment.  That are just out of control.  But they aren't out to ruin anyone - they just think they are the only thing that is important.