Thought regarding emission standards

[pemma]

The number of trains delayed and the average delay are different things.

I experienced being on a Voyager not moving for an approx 2 hour 20 minutes due to the ECML wires coming down.

In contrast I experienced an approx 20-25 minute delay on Merseyrail due to a problem with the the electrics on the Wirral line. Wanting to get to Chester from Liverpool Central, we were told to alight at Rock Ferry where a replacement bus was waiting. Before boarding the bus we were told to reboard the train which would be going to Ellesmere Port with a connecting shuttle from Hooton for Chester. In total I got to Chester around 20-25 minutes late.

 

[HSTEd]

As someone who spent 5 hours stuck on a 91 when it managed to pull the wires down I don't think I'm entirely convinced of that, and train with a Diesel engine to power the Aircon would have been very welcome, especially compared with the state of the art solution used at the time of opening the doors and getting staff and BTP to guard them.

Have you some stats you can share to show that?

The stats are available on the Network Rail website and speak for themselves.
You can also go back and check through the history of this forum and see that the number of "wires down" incidents in the past several years is far less than many people think. (The way people talk about you'd think the wire came down every five minutes).
I have made a large number of trips on both the ECML and WCML, and while I have never actually been delayed by a wires-down on the ECML, I have in fact been delayed for over an hour by one on the WCML.

And even if the ECML wiring is inferior in reliability terms, that does not mean it was a worse deal - in many cases its cheaper to accept the lower availability. Especially considering NR's "proper" electrification has now blown the budget so badly it may have killed the electrification programme entirely.

As to generators - that is an entirely separate matter, and it is likely that there is no reason a suitable set could not be fitted to the DVT of the existing train-sets if it was necessary. (As was done on Chiltern).

 

[Class 170101]

I thought the Class 68 locomotive was only 3A compliant not 3B compliant?

 

[WatcherZero]

Class 68 is Rail locomotive 3A, I think it just missed implementation of 3b in 2012
Class 88 is 3B ordered in 2013

Main difference between 3A and 3B is you need to improve particulate parts per million from 0.2 g/kwh to 0.025 which means exhaust filtering or a fuel additive to reduce emissions.

There is no Class IV for rail but class V kicks in from 2021 and further strengthens it to 0.015 while also requiring multiple unit engines to emit half as much Nitrous oxide as 3B locomotive regs (this was actually proposed for 3B but not sure if it made it in or not).

 

[TheKnightWho]

Class 68 is Rail locomotive 3A, I think it just missed implementation of 3b in 2012
Class 88 is 3B ordered in 2013

Main difference between 3A and 3B is you need to improve particulate parts per million from 0.2 g/kwh to 0.025 which means exhaust filtering or a fuel additive to reduce emissions.

There is no Class IV for rail but class V kicks in from 2021 and further strengthens it to 0.015 while also requiring multiple unit engines to emit half as much Nitrous oxide as 3B locomotive regs (this was actually proposed for 3B but not sure if it made it in or not).

"Bimodes spell the end of electrification! Electrification is too expensive!"

Frankly, if these regulations keep getting stricter and stricter we'll have a fully electrified network in no time!

 

[ac6000cw]

Class 68 is Rail locomotive 3A
Class 88 is 3B ordered in 2013

Correct.

I'm fairly sure that Vossloh have said that a IIIb compliant version of the engine could fit in the class 68, but would require some re-arranging the interior (so it's not a trivial exercise, implying they would cost more to cover the development costs).

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Are the speed limiters on large vehicles actually to do with emissions standards? And have manufacturers actually said that building DMUs is difficult due to emissions standards? Or is it a combination of misunderstanding, hearsay, over-simplification of the facts and (often) a desire to blame something on the dastardly EU?

speedlimiters on road vehicles predate the Euro standards for emissions

it;s utter rubbish

however i suspect the current moaning on such topics is despite the easing of the speed limites for for formerly 40/50/60 NSL LGVs siome operators are sticking to a policy of 40 on SIngle carriageways for fuel economy reasons ...

 

[Pigeon]

Diesel emissions improvements are really into lots of diminishing returns though.

This emissions stuff is the same regulatory ratcheting that did in the nuclear industry.

And I doubt there will be many units ordered with this special ultra-compact emissions gear before the standard changes again and requires yet more R&D.

I agree. It seems like no sooner have the engine manufacturers figured out how to design an engine that complies with the latest standards that the EU move the goalposts again - although railway engines have been subject to fewer iterations than other off-road applications, as documented here (scroll to the bottom for rail-specific information). The next standard is due in 2019. According to that page, Stage IIIB was designed to force manufacturers to fit particulate filters, and Stage V will supposedly catch the ones who managed to meet IIIB without using filters, so we have less than four years to build any diesel-powered stock without the redundant bulk.

And I would strongly question the value of continually squeezing particulate emissions at all. We are after all already way beyond the installations in 1950s DMUs with their exhaust resonance that caned the cylinder filling efficiency and caused them to belch out vast clouds of clag as they accelerated through the critical rev band, or Deltics accumulating oil in the exhaust drum and blowing it out as they revved up. It seems to be based on omg particulates cause cancer thinking without regard to whether it will achieve a worthwhile result. I would bet that people's intake of polyaromatics from burnt bits on food is already much greater than that from diesel particulate emissions, so unless you ban cooking... I think the UK would do well to take some lessons from the French on how to deal with inconvenient EU regulations

 

[WatcherZero]

They arent being continually rewritten, a long term progressive regime running into the next decade including the exact standards were agreed with industry more than a decade ago. They also didnt pull the numbers out of a hat, they were based on what the industry said they had or would soon have the technology to meet.

We are also making a difference, last year for the first time ever worldwide emissions didnt rise.

 

[Pigeon]

I can't readily find anything useful on worldwide emissions, but UK emissions of VOCs and NOx have been falling since 1990, and SO2 and particulates since 1970 - though the particulate figures are levelling off, partly because we are well into the realm of diminishing returns as regards methods of reducing them, and partly because of an increase in use of wood stoves and wood fires cancelling out reductions from other sources. Particulate emissions from diesel engines are already as low as we can make them by improving combustion efficiency, and the order-of-magnitude reductions called for by the next stage of the emissions standards can only be achieved by some form of exhaust filtration. This is a problem because of the amount of space it takes up, and my point is that it simply isn't worth doing and we should not have committed to doing it.

 

[HSTEd]

We are also making a difference, last year for the first time ever worldwide emissions didnt rise.

This is largely due to deployment of 'western' grade engines in places like China and India that before were using stuff designed in the 50s (and in the Soviet Union in China's case).

Particulate emissions from railway engines in Britain are tiny already - and I am not convinced what we gain by constant regulatory ratcheting like this.
It just leads to lots of old engines from the 60s and 70s remaining in service because the replacements have been made overly expensive or entirely impractical by said ratcheting. I can't imagine how much clag is put out by something like an EE 8SVT. But that is what we are using instead of QSK-19s or similar.

They allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

It is just like the insane ratcheting of LWR design standards after TMI and Chernobyl that killed the industry, even though a first generation BWR/PWR is still ridiculously safe compared to almost all other forms of generation - even in cases of catastrophic mismanagement and beyond design basis accidents.

 

[Mikey C]

Particulates from trains are far less of a health issue than those from buses and commercial vehicles, as buses in particular spend their time in built up areas, where pollution lingers, whereas most of the time trains are in the countryside or are on viaducts where pollutants can be dispersed. London's Oxford Street has very bad pollution for example, as the tall(ish) buildings keep all the pollution trapped, and this is a road with no private cars most of the time!
Particulate filters need a decent burst of speed from time to time to keep them working properly, again not a problem with trains, but far more of an issue with diesel road vehicles used exclusively in town,

 

[TheKnightWho]

Particulates from trains are far less of a health issue than those from buses and commercial vehicles, as buses in particular spend their time in built up areas, where pollution lingers, whereas most of the time trains are in the countryside or are on viaducts where pollutants can be dispersed. London's Oxford Street has very bad pollution for example, as the tall(ish) buildings keep all the pollution trapped, and this is a road with no private cars most of the time!
Particulate filters need a decent burst of speed from time to time to keep them working properly, again not a problem with trains, but far more of an issue with diesel road vehicles used exclusively in town,

These regulations apply to road and rail vehicles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These regulations apply to road and rail vehicles.

Not equally. There are different specifications for road and non-road.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not equally. There are different specifications for road and non-road.

True, but my point is that making out like it's pointless for rail to do this or that they're being hard done by is silly.

Indeed, the regulations are more frequent and harsher for road I believe.

 

[Hophead]

And yet, while we are told that the regulations make it "impossible" to fit a diesel engine under the floor of a British gauge rail vehicle (unless the floor level is raised a few foot), a bus engine will, these days, fit in a small cupboard under the stairs.

 

[DownSouth]

And yet, while we are told that the regulations make it "impossible" to fit a diesel engine under the floor of a British gauge rail vehicle (unless the floor level is raised a few foot), a bus engine will, these days, fit in a small cupboard under the stairs.

The standards for road and non-road engines are different, and the performance demanded on the railways has moved on significantly from the 1950s when you could just bung in any old bus engine and put up with the poor performance.

 

[HSTEd]

A bus engine will not normally be called upon to cycle repeatedly between full power and idle, all day, every day for 30 years.

That sort of duty is, rightfully, known as an engine-killer.

 

[jopsuk]

As far as I understand, the modern bus hybrid systems have the engine running more and more at a smooth revs to keep the battery topped up

 

[notadriver]

A bus engine will not normally be called upon to cycle repeatedly between full power and idle, all day, every day for 30 years.

That sort of duty is, rightfully, known as an engine-killer.

I think a bus engine might not but a coach engine might especially on national express when they are near fully loaded and at motorway speeds.

 

[HSTEd]

A coach engine in those circumstances would normally run at constant revs for long periods - those revs will probably not be particularily close to full power because that would imply they would have seriously poor acceleration performance.

 

[notadriver]

How about trucks then ? They would surely be at full power for more of the time ?

 

[AM9]

How about trucks then ? They would surely be at full power for more of the time ?

Not likely, except when dragging up long hills, so by definition, less than 50% of their running time. Most trucks are capable of speed in excess of their govenor settings so will spend much of the time just cruising.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Particulates from trains are far less of a health issue than those from buses and commercial vehicles, as buses in particular spend their time in built up areas, where pollution lingers, whereas most of the time trains are in the countryside or are on viaducts where pollutants can be dispersed. London's Oxford Street has very bad pollution for example, as the tall(ish) buildings keep all the pollution trapped, and this is a road with no private cars most of the time!
Particulate filters need a decent burst of speed from time to time to keep them working properly, again not a problem with trains, but far more of an issue with diesel road vehicles used exclusively in town,

I was in New Street today. I hate to imagine how the levels down there compare with Oxford Street at its worse. Now just consider how many people spend even a few minutes in that atmosphere every working day.

 

[Mikey C]

Not likely, except when dragging up long hills, so by definition, less than 50% of their running time. Most trucks are capable of speed in excess of their govenor settings so will spend much of the time just cruising.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was in New Street today. I hate to imagine how the levels down there compare with Oxford Street at its worse. Now just consider how many people spend even a few minutes in that atmosphere every working day.

I would accept New Street as being an appalling place for pollution (well appalling for lots of other reasons as well!) but very few other major stations are like that, and commuter lines into Britain's second city should surely have been electrified years ago, taking out 95% of the diesel trains...

 

[M7R]

I witness emission testing as part of my day job, I have only done light vehicles I.e. Cars, vans etc but these all drive a set route on a chassis dyno and the emissions are measured and analysed from driving that route, this give you your emissions and MPG.

For trucks and other heavy duty stuff they have a different standard. The engine is attached to a engine dyno, and then basically there is a set procedure of engine revs and loads applied to the engine and the emissions are measured from what comes out of the exhaust.

The big engines are having more exhaust after treatment, euro 5 was adblue which helps the particles to be burnt up in the DPF Cat, and euro 6 just takes it a step further. The exhausts are getting bigger but not that much bigger..

This is all simplified but it gives you an idea of the diffrence between car emissions and heavy duty emissions..

It should be possible to have a 3b spec engine under a DMU, but it will be challenge of make sure the right size engine is picked, I.e a huge 600bhp monster under a commuter is over kill in size, and it will also mean a bit of thought will be needed on the placement on the DPF unit as it needs to be close to the engine, but where there's a will there's a way.

 

[ac6000cw]

I can't help thinking that Vivarail have the right idea - small 'rafts' using low-cost automotive engines (albeit modified for horizontal use) in conjunction with electric transmission. It makes it easier to do intelligent engine usage management (gen-set style) and thus keep engines operating in their optimum efficiency range. Provided the overall reliability is good enough for everyday use, it doesn't really matter if the engines don't last as long provided they are cheap to replace. Also using electric transmission opens up energy recovery opportunities (as jopsuk mentioned).