When were diesel particulate filters first used on Britain's trains?

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by PaxmanValenta, 28 Apr 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PaxmanValenta

    PaxmanValenta Member

    Messages:
    122
    Joined:
    11 Apr 2015
    When were particulate filters first used on diesel locomotives and DMUs and what classes used them first?

    Do loco and DMU particulate filters have similar problems to the DPFs on cars with recharging etc? and do engineers often have to thrash the engine for a while to clear the filter?
     
  2. 5920

    5920 Member

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2012
    Location:
    Surrey
    Do any of our locos have them?

    I know the MTU 4000 has for the Euro IV emissions standard but aren't we running to Euro III which doesn't need a DPF?

    They are god awful things anyway in a car. So many people buy a diesel because of the fuel economy but only scuttle round on local journeys, this quite often means a regen won't happen. The DPF then shags up.

    When mine went on a Focus, the cost was astronomic £475+vat, plus labour. Ford slyly list it as a 75,000 mile service extra. Mine went at 83,000.
     
  3. ac6000cw

    ac6000cw Established Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Joined:
    10 May 2014
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    I suspect almost no railway rolling stock has DPFs - it's only just been required to meet Euro IIIb (as of this year) so *possibly* the Class 800/801 may have them (and the emission standards don't mandate filters anyway - they just set particulate limits, it's up to the engine suppliers to decide how to meet the requirements).
     
  4. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,546
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    Class 800?
     
  5. asylumxl

    asylumxl Established Member

    Messages:
    4,252
    Joined:
    12 Feb 2009
    Location:
    Hiding in your shadow
    I believe Class 172 has filters, though I am not entirely sure.
     
  6. Jonny

    Jonny Established Member

    Messages:
    1,293
    Joined:
    10 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Walking distance to CLS
    <sarcasm> Probably </sarcasm> not - unless they were to be retrofitted.
     
  7. Domh245

    Domh245 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,921
    Joined:
    6 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    The 800s have got at least 1 engine (possibly more) to act as last mile engines. I can't remember the specifics though
     
  8. Mikey C

    Mikey C Established Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    Joined:
    11 Feb 2013
    I presume that most diesel trains will go at high enough speeds to not get the DPF problems that urban cars suffer from.

    Will the diesel D78s have DPF fitted, seeing that they'll be using Euro VI(?) Ford Transit engines?
     
  9. Emblematic

    Emblematic Member

    Messages:
    555
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2013
    What's more to the point, the emissions system on a rail vehicle is built for reliability and whole-life cost, for a service life far in excess of a road vehicle. For example, it will have late-stage injection (after the engine) for any regeneration required, rather that a low-cost modification of the engine's fuel cycle (which is the source of many of the DPF problems in cars.)

    The engine is the industrial derivative of the auto engine, which may differ significantly from the road version particularly in terms of engine management and emissions setup. However, the engine will be identical in most respects, particularly mechanical parts, for economy of production. It may well need filter to meet emissions requirements, but it could well be a larger/longer life/lower maintenance component than fitted to the Transit.
    Euro VI for road vehicles is a very different standard from Stage IIIB for rail.

    In what application? There is no Stage IV for rail vehicles, the next increment will be Stage V which is anticipated for 2021. Stage IIIB (in force since 2012) is quite severe, hence the rush to maximize the 'transitional' orders which allowed a limited number of IIIA engines to be produced until 2015.
    You're right for road vehicles though - Some EU3 diesel cars had filters, they became almost universal at EU4, trucks also typically had some exhaust treatment from around EU4 (2005.)

    A perfect illustration of why the automotive DPF would be unsuited to rail use - it's built to be cheap as the primary consideration. Your 'astronomic' is actually a tiny cost for a sophisticated component, and for rail application you would pay many times the price for this component to get reduced maintenance and low in-service failure rates.
     
  10. Jamesb1974

    Jamesb1974 Member

    Messages:
    596
    Joined:
    20 Mar 2006
    That made my chuckle. Why? 'cos the bloody things aren't suited to automotive use either!
     
  11. 5920

    5920 Member

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2012
    Location:
    Surrey
    I am fully aware of the costs to the railway. If it's the railway double it and add a zero on the end............
     
    Last edited: 2 May 2015
  12. mph1977

    mph1977 Member

    Messages:
    940
    Joined:
    10 Mar 2013
    they are suited to automotive use when used correctly , the issues appear to b ewith misuse or mis specfication of the vehicles in question.
     
  13. Emblematic

    Emblematic Member

    Messages:
    555
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2013
    In my car, over a 12-year life, I am expecting to pay some £1500 just for the maintenance of the DPF and emissions system - this is on top of routine service costss. This includes a scheduled DPF exchange at 75,000 miles and EOLYS fluid top-ups every third year which roughly doubles the servicing cost in those years. I also paid a premium for having a diesel, which includes this additional equipment. I'm not complaining, I did my research and was aware of these costs before I chose, I still recon to be much better off than with petrol. But with these sort of costs to be factored in even with no misuse or failures I can see why people used to older, simpler maintenance regimes grumble. Being a city dweller, I think its a necessary cost to improve the environment.
     
  14. mph1977

    mph1977 Member

    Messages:
    940
    Joined:
    10 Mar 2013
    all the people complaining about clogged DPFs etc is down to never getting the engine warm enough to regen when required so that;s misuse ( steering wheel operative not driver) or they were suckered into buying a disel for work better suited to a petrol or hybrid
     
  15. theageofthetra

    theageofthetra Established Member

    Messages:
    2,290
    Joined:
    27 May 2012
    Most DPF issues can be resolved by driving for 20mins at 3000rpm or above. It gets the exhaust gasses hot enough to burn off the clogging particulates. It is worth remembering that many cars had DPFS (to reduce company car taxes in France/Germany) before it became mandatory in the UK and they can be removed and the vehicle can still pass its MOT. I would imagine the continuous high speed running in rail use wouldn't cause this issue anyway.
     
  16. Emblematic

    Emblematic Member

    Messages:
    555
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2013
    You've conflated two things here:
    1. If the car is designed to meet a certain emission standard (for example, EU4) then it is illegal to modify that vehicle such that it no longer meets that standard, irrespective of whether that standard was in force in the UK at the time of sale. Specifically, it is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3)). Few have detailed enough information to prove that DPF removal is safe in this respect, as typically a whole line of engines is only produced with one setup (hence French/German manufacturers not producing a UK-version without the DPF.)
    2. If a car was originally fitted with a DPF, current MOT guidance is that if the DPF is not present at time of testing, this will result in the vehicle failing the test. The test criterion is nothing to do with emission standards, if the vehicle was originally fitted (and there's very clear records as to what vehicles were and were not) it has to be there to pass.
    3. As happened to a colleague of mine, even if you think you can get away with the above points, there's a good chance (almost certain for anything EU5 and later) of failing the MOT smoke test with the DPF removed. Having paid one of these back-street merchants to have the DPF on his Jag de-cored and the ECU modified, he then had a large bill from the dealer for replacement of DPF and reprogramming ECU back to standard. Wouldn't pass smoke test. Oh how we laughed...
     
  17. itsjamierawr

    itsjamierawr Member

    Messages:
    92
    Joined:
    2 Jun 2013
    Location:
    Canterbury, Kent
    Tad bit off topic (apologies) but SNAP! Mine went almost bang on 83,000 miles too and right as I was going up a steep hill (car went into a kind of safe mode so I had some power but it was slow). I'm all for cutting emissions but having to blast it down a motorway for an hour a week to keep it in good shape can't be an improvement verses not having a filter! Cost me £1864.98 since some engine sensors needed replacing too (roughly 50/50 split between parts & labour on DPF and parts & labour on sensors from total price) - and it's only an 08 plate!
     
  18. cjmillsnun

    cjmillsnun Established Member

    Messages:
    2,598
    Joined:
    13 Feb 2011
    If you're needing to blast it down a motorway for an hour a week just to regen the filter then really you should be driving a petrol. Your wallet will thank you as they're cheaper to buy and the fuel economy on a modern petrol is almost as good.

    Seriously, diesels on anything below 20k miles a year aren't worth it. You won't make the extra outlay back.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    As has been previously stated, if the car was fitted with a DPF as standard, it must be present or the car will fail the MoT.

    Just for clarification

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/366187/mot-special-notice-7-14.pdf

     
    Last edited: 7 May 2015
  19. theageofthetra

    theageofthetra Established Member

    Messages:
    2,290
    Joined:
    27 May 2012
    I was not aware of that special notice in 2014- it was quite common to remove them on my model of car (I didn't bother myself)
     
  20. Royston Vasey

    Royston Vasey Established Member

    Messages:
    1,211
    Joined:
    14 May 2008
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Not really comparing apples with apples. The automotive DPF is designed to last 100,000km (hence the 75k mile service item) as a minimum certified design life, not really the same as "built to be cheap" though it's certainly a competitive market and cost is a driver for the OEMs. I agree with you that £500 for the part is pretty cheap as a retail cost given the sophisticated materials and precious metals with which they are impregnated.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page