Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[GM228]

Presumably these will be the first 68's to meet the Euro IIIb emissions regulations ?

Wasn't there something about being fully IIIA compliant with a relatively easy modification to IIIB for their Caterpillar engines?

 

[ac6000cw]

Wasn't there something about being fully IIIA compliant with a relatively easy modification to IIIB for their Caterpillar engines?

That is my understanding as well - the first batch are IIIa, the second batch will be (by virtue of the diesel engines being in the EU before the IIIa cut-off date), but since the new batch are a new order I assume the engines are not already in the EU so will have to be IIIb compliant. (But this is conjecture - I haven't seen any hard info other than Vossloh have said in the past that they thought a IIIb compliant 68 was possible).

 

[Sunbird24]

The number of IIIA compliant locos was always dependant on how many engines could be supplied before the deadline. The second batch order was based on this figure to be at least 10, perhaps an extra 7 were finally delivered before the deadline hence the extra order...
The problem with IIIB is that an additional very large module is required to be fitted in place of the silencer and this module takes up a lot more space than the amount available so a major redesign is/was necessary to squeeze everything in.
Look at the bottom picture here http://www.cat.com/en_US/support/operations/technology/tier-4-technology.html where the guy is holding 1 filter element and there are to be 8 of them so gives an idea of the extra amount of room needed.
More info here https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=...Rx5DuzhPw&sig2=lMpFo6nOAKgTa7MyesTI8Q&cad=rja

 

[Emblematic]

The number of IIIA compliant locos was always dependant on how many engines could be supplied before the deadline. The second batch order was based on this figure to be at least 10, perhaps an extra 7 were finally delivered before the deadline hence the extra order...
The problem with IIIB is that an additional very large module is required to be fitted in place of the silencer and this module takes up a lot more space than the amount available so a major redesign is/was necessary to squeeze everything in.
Look at the bottom picture here http://www.cat.com/en_US/support/operations/technology/tier-4-technology.html where the guy is holding 1 filter element and there are to be 8 of them so gives an idea of the extra amount of room needed.
More info here https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=...Rx5DuzhPw&sig2=lMpFo6nOAKgTa7MyesTI8Q&cad=rja

The flexibility scheme for tier IIIB introduction meant they were also limited in number, as well as by by cut off date, and I think Vossloh had sold 25 of the 26 permissible between Jan 2012 and Dec 2014. The final 9 are UK only, as the limit in the rest of the EU was 16.

 

[Loki]

Where are the 88s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The flexibility scheme for tier IIIB introduction meant they were also limited in number, as well as by by cut off date, and I think Vossloh had sold 25 of the 26 permissible between Jan 2012 and Dec 2014. The final 9 are UK only, as the limit in the rest of the EU was 16.

I'm generally speaking in favour of improving the efficiency of the railway, and reducing harmful emissions, but it does seem that just as manufacturers manage to find a way of meeting the latest standards within the restricted UK loading gauge, the goalposts get moved again. Given that there's a workaround by ordering the engines in advance anyway, it seems counter-productive to update the regulations so often. :roll:

Where are the 88s?

Still on the drawing board, I think. Perhaps our friend from España knows otherwise?

 

[Emblematic]

I'm generally speaking in favour of improving the efficiency of the railway, and reducing harmful emissions, but it does seem that just as manufacturers manage to find a way of meeting the latest standards within the restricted UK loading gauge, the goalposts get moved again. Given that there's a workaround by ordering the engines in advance anyway, it seems counter-productive to update the regulations so often. :roll:

Really? Stage III/IV standards were adopted by the EU in 2004. Stage IIIA came into force in stages from 2006 to 2009, applying to smaller engines first. Stage IIIB, which essentially is stage IV as far as rail is concerned, took effect from January 2012, but because of the economic turndown, a flexibility scheme allowed manufacturers to supply an additional 15 existing-design engines (25 in UK) until December 2014. There are no further changes expected until 2021. As the anticipated levels of Stage V are already known, it's not as if these regulations are being sprung on manufacturers out of the blue.
At least rail vehicles have not (so far) been required to retro-fit emissions control equipment, which has been required for large road vehicles in many cities - there are no grandfather rights for trucks and buses in the London LEZ for example.

 

[jopsuk]

It's also vital to remember that the standards boards that devise these restrictions will have industry representatives on them. The regulations are a balance between what is politically desired and what is forecast to be technically feasible.

 

[Sunbird24]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki View Post
Where are the 88s?
Still on the drawing board, I think. Perhaps our friend from España knows otherwise?
The first 88 was started a few months ago with the rest following at approx 2-week intervals. While it is assumed that the almost completed loco parked at the back of the yard a week ago is probably 68016 it could also be 88001 as only the front end was visible. Delivery for the 10 68s is scheduled for October 2015 thru February 2016, followed by the 88s at the same rate starting in March. The first 88 will require testing either at Velim or Old Dalby before production deliveries commence so is likely to appear at one of those locations late this year or early next year.
Vossloh is very secretive about what goes on inside the premises, my info is based on what I actually see from the surrounding roads but as they also build lots of trams and are putting up several new buildings it is becoming more difficult to see what is appearing on the loco front. 68's and 88's are smaller due to the loading gauge so tend to stay hidden amongst all the larger sized locos. Even the South African Cape gauge locos have European sized bodies and on top this are mounted on adaptor trollies so are even higher off the ground, thus obscuring some of the Europorte 4000s, the next batch of which are now appearing.
Don't expect much news during August as the factory is almost closed for the month with just a skeleton staff on site.

 

[Loki]

Thanks for the news!

 

[Sunbird24]

Update today, 30th July, 68018 has appeared (marked as UKLIGHT order B.03510 No.3) and the one with the white front shell is also more visible, no pantograph so still no idea if it is another 68 or an 88. Several bodyshells can be seen inside on the production line through the open doors. Also all 4 Europorte 4000s are nearing completion, these will be 4035-4038.

 

[Domh245]

I'd have thought that if it were an 88, there would be some form of pantograph well over one of the cab ends which should make it easier to id.

 

[Sunbird24]

I'd have thought that if it were an 88, there would be some form of pantograph well over one of the cab ends which should make it easier to id.

Currently I have only been able to see the No 2 end which has 2 cooling fans visible on top and beyond those I don't see the normal large "box" which is present on the 68s, but that may just not be fitted yet. I suspect there is more room for a pantograph at the No 1 end which remains hidden at the moment. The other locos are coming out of the erecting shop with end mouldings already dark blue with yellow panels, this one has a white moulding. The No 1 end remains hidden from view at the moment. I have not seen anything to confirm it is not a 68 yet, it could be No 1 or No 2 (68016/68017). Currently I have only seen the No 2 end and half of one side.

 

[furnessvale]

It's also vital to remember that the standards boards that devise these restrictions will have industry representatives on them. The regulations are a balance between what is politically desired and what is forecast to be technically feasible.

Given that railfreight is more efficient in fuel use than road by a factor of three, it seems quite ridiculous that rail is being pushed into a corner where compliance is almost impossible.

Rather like overall safety levels, once road has caught up with rail THEN is the time to tighten the screw on rail and not before.

 

[WatcherZero]

There is a difference between energy use and pollution. Larger engines are exponentially dirtier without increasing deployment of cleaning technology with corresponding mass and size penalties.

 

[Sunbird24]

There is a difference between energy use and pollution. Larger engines are exponentially dirtier without increasing deployment of cleaning technology with corresponding mass and size penalties.

One large locomotive with a 1500 ton load produces a lot less pollution than 40 large lorries with the same load over the same distance! Recent estimations rated 1 heavy-haul locomotive equal to about 9 heavy-haul road trucks on average. "The energy cost of carrying one ton of freight a distance of one kilometer averages 337 kJ for water, 221 kJ for rail, 2,000 kJ for trucks, and nearly 13,000 kJ for air transport." These are old US figures, are there any recent figures for the UK?

 

[Peter Sarf]

One large locomotive with a 1500 ton load produces a lot less pollution than 40 large lorries with the same load over the same distance! Recent estimations rated 1 heavy-haul locomotive equal to about 9 heavy-haul road trucks on average. "The energy cost of carrying one ton of freight a distance of one kilometer averages 337 kJ for water, 221 kJ for rail, 2,000 kJ for trucks, and nearly 13,000 kJ for air transport." These are old US figures, are there any recent figures for the UK?

Makes sense except I wonder what type of water transport it is. I suspect a barge going slowly down a canal might even be less than rail. A faster coastal/ocean going ship might be worse than rail. Of course some of these modes are subject to much higher energy usage at higher speeds. Obvious how energy hungry air and even road is. They are in a completely different league !.

Anyone want to consider how less energy hungry a slow plane might be .

 

[WatcherZero]

One large locomotive with a 1500 ton load produces a lot less pollution than 40 large lorries with the same load over the same distance! Recent estimations rated 1 heavy-haul locomotive equal to about 9 heavy-haul road trucks on average. "The energy cost of carrying one ton of freight a distance of one kilometer averages 337 kJ for water, 221 kJ for rail, 2,000 kJ for trucks, and nearly 13,000 kJ for air transport." These are old US figures, are there any recent figures for the UK?

As i said cleanliness of the engine not energy use. For example a diesel locomotive produces about 500ppm sulfur whereas a lorry produces 15, that means the locomotive produces as much sulfur as 35 lorries.

 

[CosherB]

As i said cleanliness of the engine not energy use. For example a diesel locomotive produces about 500ppm sulfur whereas a lorry produces 15, that means the locomotive produces as much sulfur as 35 lorries.

Use low sulphur diesel?

 

[Sunbird24]

Anyone want to consider how less energy hungry a slow plane might be .

I can tell you! I have been flying one for more than 50 years with an average flight time of 3 hours over the last 10 years since I stopped giving instructional flights. Of course it is a glider with an average payload of one pilot and one passenger and the only energy cost is that of getting airborne after which it is all solar and/or wind energy. Cost of getting airborne varies from using 6 people and a bungee from a hill top to using a light aircraft to tow high enough to reach rising air.

 

[Emblematic]

I can tell you! I have been flying one for more than 50 years with an average flight time of 3 hours over the last 10 years since I stopped giving instructional flights. Of course it is a glider with an average payload of one pilot and one passenger and the only energy cost is that of getting airborne after which it is all solar and/or wind energy. Cost of getting airborne varies from using 6 people and a bungee from a hill top to using a light aircraft to tow high enough to reach rising air.

Sad to say, very little freight travels by glider. For powered flight, a significant proportion of the power is used to generating lift, and a slow flight means the same mass is lifted for longer. Planes fly close to their optimum speeds - see http://www.withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml - brilliant site, BTW.

“would air travel consume significantly less energy if we travelled in slower planes?” The answer is no: in contrast to wheeled vehicles, which can get more efficient the slower they go, planes are already almost as energy-efficient as they could possibly be. Planes unavoidably have to use energy for two reasons: they have to throw air down in order to stay up, and they need energy to overcome air resistance. No redesign of a plane is going to radically improve its efficiency.

 

[Sunbird24]

Planes unavoidably have to use energy for two reasons: they have to throw air down in order to stay up, and they need energy to overcome air resistance. No redesign of a plane is going to radically improve its efficiency.

Not strictly true. What you have stated applies more to rockets. Planes do not throw air out in order to stay up. Jet engines suck in air, mix some of it with fuel, ignite the mixture and eject it out of the back horizontally, with the help of some fans. This provides thrust to move the aircraft forwards which in turn creates an airflow over and under the wings whose shape is designed to generate lift in an upwards (perpendicular to the top surface) direction. Propeller driven planes use fuel to turn propellers which thrust the air backwards. They do not use energy to overcome air resistance, they fly higher where the air is thinner so has less resistance. They also fly slowly, not much above their high altitude stalling speed once they reach their cruising height. hence you would notice as a passenger the reduction in engine noise when levelling off at this height, which increases as fuel is burnt off. On long distance flights aircraft will often make step increases in height as fuel weight decreases. Design improvements are ongoing, your last statement has been made many times before since the dawn of rail transport when it was stated that the human body could not withstand speeds above 25mph and flying in anything other than a balloon was unheard of.
Now we should go back to the Class 68s, I have also been having a "holiday" but will go back to the factory in a week or so to check on the situation there.

 

[Emblematic]

Not strictly true. What you have stated applies more to rockets. Planes do not throw air out in order to stay up. Jet engines suck in air, mix some of it with fuel, ignite the mixture and eject it out of the back horizontally, with the help of some fans. This provides thrust to move the aircraft forwards which in turn creates an airflow over and under the wings whose shape is designed to generate lift in an upwards (perpendicular to the top surface) direction. Propeller driven planes use fuel to turn propellers which thrust the air backwards. They do not use energy to overcome air resistance, they fly higher where the air is thinner so has less resistance. They also fly slowly, not much above their high altitude stalling speed once they reach their cruising height. hence you would notice as a passenger the reduction in engine noise when levelling off at this height, which increases as fuel is burnt off. On long distance flights aircraft will often make step increases in height as fuel weight decreases. Design improvements are ongoing, your last statement has been made many times before since the dawn of rail transport when it was stated that the human body could not withstand speeds above 25mph and flying in anything other than a balloon was unheard of.
Now we should go back to the Class 68s, I have also been having a "holiday" but will go back to the factory in a week or so to check on the situation there.

That's a quote from Professor David McKay, former Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, that you've chosen to misquote and argue with. He said, throw air down, not out, and that's correct. Go to the site I linked, read the relevant pages, understand more thoroughly the mechanics and forces of flight. You may then stop making broad, factually incorrect statements like "They do not use energy to overcome air resistance."
Prof. McKay's assertion, that you contend is comparable one of Prof. Dionysius Lardner's pronouncements, contained the key term "radical" which again you ignored. Nowhere is it contended that small incremental improvements will not occur, but modern planes are already very efficient, and a radical increase in efficiency simply is not possible because the physics of flight define a minimum energy expenditure for lift and drag.
Back to the 68 watching though - that's much appreciated!

 

[furnessvale]

There is a difference between energy use and pollution. Larger engines are exponentially dirtier without increasing deployment of cleaning technology with corresponding mass and size penalties.

Deleted

 

[richieb1971]

Can someone confirm if a class 68 flashes its headlights with the naked eye?

All video footage of a class 68 shows a very distracting flickering which may or may not be pulsating at the same frequency as the video.

 

[al.currie93]

Can someone confirm if a class 68 flashes its headlights with the naked eye?

All video footage of a class 68 shows a very distracting flickering which may or may not be pulsating at the same frequency as the video.

Not from what I've seen of them. That would be due to the LED headlights used and the electronics used to control their brightness - they basically turn on and off very quickly and the percentage of 'On' time to 'Off' time determines the brightness. The frequency of turning on and off would be faster than the eye can detect (25 times a second), but cameras can detect a greater frequency so may be detecting the 'flickering' and displaying it for the eye to see on the video. Hope that provides some interest

 

[GM228]

Not from what I've seen of them. That would be due to the LED headlights used and the electronics used to control their brightness - they basically turn on and off very quickly and the percentage of 'On' time to 'Off' time determines the brightness. The frequency of turning on and off would be faster than the eye can detect (25 times a second), but cameras can detect a greater frequency so may be detecting the 'flickering' and displaying it for the eye to see on the video. Hope that provides some interest

Very common for LED destination boards to also flicker on videos and even show as blank/distorted on still shots even though fully lit the whole time.

 

[glbotu]

Not strictly true. What you have stated applies more to rockets. Planes do not throw air out in order to stay up. Jet engines suck in air, mix some of it with fuel, ignite the mixture and eject it out of the back horizontally, with the help of some fans. This provides thrust to move the aircraft forwards which in turn creates an airflow over and under the wings whose shape is designed to generate lift in an upwards (perpendicular to the top surface) direction.

Which is sort of throwing air down.

What you're actually doing most of the time is generating a positive pressure gradient across your wings (at 1/2 v**2 dp/dn). This is less of a "throwing down", more of a "small change in direction at very high velocity". The problem comes in that "very high velocity".

The problem lies mostly with the fact that most of the fuel is used in take-off and landing. Making those more efficient is very hard. You're still effectively lifting a large amount of metal/plastic/ceramic/fuel/payload into the sky, combating gravity, which really wants you to go down at 9.81 m/s/s.

Propeller driven planes use fuel to turn propellers which thrust the air backwards. They do not use energy to overcome air resistance, they fly higher where the air is thinner so has less resistance. They also fly slowly, not much above their high altitude stalling speed once they reach their cruising height. hence you would notice as a passenger the reduction in engine noise when levelling off at this height, which increases as fuel is burnt off. On long distance flights aircraft will often make step increases in height as fuel weight decreases. Design improvements are ongoing, your last statement has been made many times before since the dawn of rail transport when it was stated that the human body could not withstand speeds above 25mph and flying in anything other than a balloon was unheard of.

The major development these days is in open rotor jet engines. These are almost going back to prop style designs, but effectively realising that given that the physical size of the engine is one of the key things improving jet engine efficiency (you can only throw so much air backwards, the more air you throw back, the greater force your engine can generate at a given speed), you might as well make your casing infinitely big (ie: not have one). So long as your fan rotors are good enough (and there's a lot of work being done in open-rotor fan blade design), you can make a real improvement.

Notably, these planes are slower, because you need less velocity to get them off the ground in the first place, any extra acceleration doesn't need to happen. This could give up to around 20-30% efficiency improvements, which aren't to be laughed at, but aren't going to beat ground-based transport solutions, which don't have to lift their payload into the sky first.

Now we should go back to the Class 68s, I have also been having a "holiday" but will go back to the factory in a week or so to check on the situation there.

Agreed

 

[D365]

Not from what I've seen of them. That would be due to the LED headlights used and the electronics used to control their brightness - they basically turn on and off very quickly and the percentage of 'On' time to 'Off' time determines the brightness. The frequency of turning on and off would be faster than the eye can detect (25 times a second), but cameras can detect a greater frequency so may be detecting the 'flickering' and displaying it for the eye to see on the video. Hope that provides some interest

This effect is very noticeable in video footage of the McLaren P1, the rear running/braking lights appear to flicker - to give one more example.

 

[atsf_fT]

For still cameras use a shutter speed of1/25
Will stop the flicker and show the lights
Has being on for a photo shot.
Of course this only good for stationary shots.

For video if your video has manual control
Useing 1/25 Useing a video In normal light
The camera will use a higher rate of frame
.
If you do nor have manual control over
Your frame rate then Useing two or three
Polarizing filters will cut the frame rate
Down to 1/25.