• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

68019 diesel fumes/emissions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ohgoditsjames

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
379
Location
Sheffield & Shipley
At Leeds and TPE 68019 pulls into platform 15, first thing I noticed was the amount of fumes it was kicking out, it was creating a haze and covering those passing by with what felt like a thick cloud of fumes, the smell was overpowering and it was difficult to breathe without inhaling it, decided to hold my breathe instead of subjecting my lungs to this stuff as I walked passed.

Got me wondering if it was simply the way it stopped directly under the bridge and the bridge was causing the fumes to circulate around the adjacent platforms or is 68019 poorly? Do the 68’s normally kick out that much?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
At Leeds and TPE 68019 pulls into platform 15, first thing I noticed was the amount of fumes it was kicking out, it was creating a haze and covering those passing by with what felt like a thick cloud of fumes, the smell was overpowering and it was difficult to breathe without inhaling it, decided to hold my breathe instead of subjecting my lungs to this stuff as I walked passed.

Got me wondering if it was simply the way it stopped directly under the bridge and the bridge was causing the fumes to circulate around the adjacent platforms or is 68019 poorly? Do the 68’s normally kick out that much?

Sounds wonderful!
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,556
Sounds wonderful!
Sounds like a good way of getting even tighter regulation against railways and a transfer of traffic to electric cars.

Whilst a steam loco, in its day, may have had a certain romantic appeal, there is nothing romantic about stinking diesel fumes.
 

The_Train

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2018
Messages
4,285
Whilst a steam loco, in its day, may have had a certain romantic appeal, there is nothing romantic about stinking diesel fumes.

To me there is no romantic appeal to a steam engine. Yes, I like to see them as a) they are where the railways came from and b) it's something different to the multitude of boring units now on the network but I certainly don't have any sort of feeling towards them. However, a dirty, noisy diesel will easily bring all sorts of emotions to me.

I suppose this thread will just be another platform for the anti-diesel brigade (probably people who've spent the last 30-40 years hanging out of train windows to take in the sight, sound and smell of a 37) to vent their frustration that there are still locos working passenger services.

As for the OP, I assume they've reported this potential issue to TPE so that they can get their technicians to check for any problem on 019?
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
Sounds like a good way of getting even tighter regulation against railways and a transfer of traffic to electric cars.

Whilst a steam loco, in its day, may have had a certain romantic appeal, there is nothing romantic about stinking diesel fumes.

There is nothing romantic about getting soot out of your nostrils !

Seriously, I was a little 'shocked' having witnessed the sight and smoke of 60009 Union of South Africa waiting for 15 minutes under the canopy at Edinburgh Waverley a year or two back. To think that this used to be a regular thing with numerous steam locos .... no surprise that people died younger in them days.

I'm sure that the particulate pollution created by steam was far worse (although, naturally, not as bad as wood burning stoves which are the singularly greatest source of early death ever and require punitive legislation to rid the world of their evil discharges).
 

yrreb

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2016
Messages
80
Location
Manchester
Questions have been raised (as per local news stations) regarding said emissions and noise, though I don't think there's an awful lot to do when it's one massive engine!
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
To me there is no romantic appeal to a steam engine. Yes, I like to see them as a) they are where the railways came from ...

I find this whole area very fascinating (cos I'm a bit of a saddo). I feel no romantic appeal to a steam engine, I guess, because I don't feel an emotional attachment to them. I am mid-50s but they are not part of my personal history. I wonder why those younger than me go to heritage railways in their droves ... the steam engine as a symbol of a simpler age ?
 

The_Train

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2018
Messages
4,285
I find this whole area very fascinating (cos I'm a bit of a saddo). I feel no romantic appeal to a steam engine, I guess, because I don't feel an emotional attachment to them. I am mid-50s but they are not part of my personal history. I wonder why those younger than me go to heritage railways in their droves ... the steam engine as a symbol of a simpler age ?

I'm of the diesel age as well so I never saw a steam working a mainline service. When I started spotting as a kid it was Brush and English Electric diesels that were the big thing and that's why I'm attached to them.

As for why the younger generation head out to see steam, my first instinct is that of it being a YouTube generation that thrives on views and likes for photos and videos and steam will generate that interest compared to a Pendolino. But I do think that the 2nd point I made will also play a part in this in the respect of it being an actual noisy, dirty locomotive and, irrelevant of how it's powered, that is much more appealing than the same old boring units that are all over the network
 

Mitchell Hurd

On Moderation
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
1,648
On YouTube, I've seen 68's - for a diesel locomotive new in nearly / virtually 2020, the emissions aren't brilliant. Even MTU-powered HST's are good on the emissions side!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,679
Location
Glasgow
Could they not fit a filter to the exhaust? A catalytic convertor or something similar?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of after-treatment (be it oxidation catalyst or particulate filter) on them already. However, given that they didn't have enough room in the bodyshell to fit the necessary aftertreatment to make it Euro IV compliant, I'd be surprised if they could fit any additional stuff on it to improve it!
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
636
Euro VI demands exhaust after-treatment (AdBlue) but Euro III/IV don't - assuming the descriptions are the same for both road and railways but that the latter don't need to comply to Euro VI yet?

Euro 5 was DPF (I think).

However, I'd be surprised if DPFs ad other traps weren't fitted for such a large motor used in close proximity to human beings.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Euro emissions standards just set a maximum permissible limit for different pollutants, although you are correct that in order to achieve them manufacturers effectively need to use certain devices (particularly the use of DPFs from Euro 5a and then AdBlue or a Lean NOx trap from Euro 6). The standards for non-road mobile applications are different to road vehicles* and are currently going to Euro V with full enforcement of that from 2021. To further complicate it, Euro IV apparently isn't enforced for Rail, but there was instead Euro IIIB which was strictly enforced from 2016 (and is near enough identical to Euro V when looking at locomotive engines that I can tell)

Being IIIA compliant, 68s need to achieve less than 7.8g/kWh for HC & NOx combined and 0.2g/kWh for particulates. IIIB roughtly halved the allowance for HC&NOx (4g/kWh), and reduced the PM by about a factor of 10 (0.025g/kWh)

*which is why passenger cars and LGVs are described with Arabic numerals whilst HGV, Bus, and offroad applications have roman numerals!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,348
Euro emissions standards just set a maximum permissible limit for different pollutants, although you are correct that in order to achieve them manufacturers effectively need to use certain devices (particularly the use of DPFs from Euro 5a and then AdBlue or a Lean NOx trap from Euro 6). The standards for non-road mobile applications are different to road vehicles* and are currently going to Euro V with full enforcement of that from 2021. To further complicate it, Euro IV apparently isn't enforced for Rail, but there was instead Euro IIIB which was strictly enforced from 2016 (and is near enough identical to Euro V when looking at locomotive engines that I can tell)

Being IIIA compliant, 68s need to achieve less than 7.8g/kWh for HC & NOx combined and 0.2g/kWh for particulates. IIIB roughtly halved the allowance for HC&NOx (4g/kWh), and reduced the PM by about a factor of 10 (0.025g/kWh)

*which is why passenger cars and LGVs are described with Arabic numerals whilst HGV, Bus, and offroad applications have roman numerals!

NRMM also uses Roman numeral and there is no link to the HD road standards or numbering!

Rail wasn't originally in scope for the NRMM directives (and NRMM rules only originally applied to engines under 560kW).
The UIC developed their own parallel standards (UIC1 & 2) which were compulsory in some countries and voluntary in others like the UK (Some manufacturers like EMD and MTU would only sell compliant engines in the UK).

Each NRMM sectors has different standards which often apply to different engine sizes.

Rail was brought into NRMM scope ~15 years ago and the then draft UIC-3 standard was rebranded as Euro IIIA rail as an initial quick measure with some changes to align with other NRMM to become Euro IIIB Rail (Equivalent to EuroIV for other NRMM) which dilute the apparent reductions you see in the numbers.
There never has been Euro IV rail so enforcement is rather academic!

The only change between IIIB Rail and V Rail is introduction of PN standards which needs a bigger better DPF.

NRMM rules only require the emissions to have got worse by less than 10% above standard after what equates to 18-24months use in rail...

DPF and SCR effectiveness degrades with time.

It is 7.4 not 7.8g/kWh for "large" engines NOx (HC not included as the UIC kept them separate unlike the EU).

Diesel.net is a good introduction but not always accurate or complete. (It is a lot more complex in reality and they need to pick a complexity level and stick to it).
 
Joined
20 Nov 2019
Messages
693
Location
Merthyr Tydfil
As for why the younger generation head out to see steam, my first instinct is that of it being a YouTube generation that thrives on views and likes for photos and videos and steam will generate that interest compared to a Pendolino

As someone part who's part of the "YouTube generation", I go to see steam locos because they remind me why I became a railway enthusiast in the first place. For me seeing such a powerful and majestic machine like Tornado or an A4 is, to use the word in it's original definition, awesome.

I don't get that with modern trains. I still love watching and travelling on trains, and I look upon the likes of HSTs with a nostalgic fondness, but nothing else can evoke a similar feeling.

I don't think it's anything at all to do with social media, at least in my experience. I have never even once met an enthusiast the same generation as me, or seen an instagram or YouTube vlogger rave about how amazing trains are.

I understand why people don't get it because of the fumes and steam that trains can emit, and there's no doubt it's dangerous, both for humans and the environment. But that's why I think it's important we go out to see steam trains now- they aren't gonna be around forever. The needs of the environment will soon take precedent, and we'll probably only be able to see them in museums.
 

JohnMcL7

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2018
Messages
860
Euro VI demands exhaust after-treatment (AdBlue) but Euro III/IV don't - assuming the descriptions are the same for both road and railways but that the latter don't need to comply to Euro VI yet?

Euro 5 was DPF (I think).

However, I'd be surprised if DPFs ad other traps weren't fitted for such a large motor used in close proximity to human beings.

The first DPF's I'm aware of were fitted to Euro 4 although not to every diesel only those that couldn't fit under the limit. I'm most familiar with Skoda whose 1.9 and 2.0 TDI 140bhp diesel engine were under the Euro 4 limit and had no DPF but the 2.0 TDI 140bhp fitted to the Scout and the 2.0 170bhp engine fitted in the VRS model were both over the limit and required DPFs. The limit was lowered for Euro 5 which meant all diesels needed a DPF.

I've generally no interest in steam engines and much prefer seeing a diesel locomotive but at the same time, I'll still try and see a steam engine if there's one coming by and I don't think anyone can deny they are an impressive visual spectacle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top