Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by ECML125, 6 Jan 2019.
And stage V for rail is effectively the same as IIIB
Nothing wrong with a log burner, they are great in winter.
AFAIK, the current Class 68 don't use it - they were built at the tail end of the IIIa emissions era.
I always thought it strange that electrification of London's last remaining non electrified terminal, Marylebone, never seems to get mentioned.
All new black cabs have to be Zero Emission Capable.
New licensing requirements from 1 January 2018
Since 1 January 2018, taxis presented for licensing for the first time have needed to be ZEC. This means having CO2 emissions of no more than 50g/km and a minimum 30 mile zero emission range
First-time taxi vehicle licences are no longer granted to diesel taxis. ZEC taxis with petrol engines need to meet the latest emissions standard (currently Euro 6)
Are those new black cabs plug in hybrids?
The thread is badly titled, and the poll part fairly superfluous. AdBlue isn’t actually a “system”, it is a consumable, as explained earlier. (Eg post #33) It is also already in use on the newest engines, as we have seen.
The only question is surely therefore, “should existing Diesel engines be retrospectively modified to the latest standards?”, and the probable answer (given the figures mentioned) is that it won’t be cost effective for their limited remaining life.
Exactly - Hundreds of better way to spend the cash to reduce emissions
But the existing ones are exempt from the ULEZ requirements, very surprising given how bad they are in the real world.
I think they're more like EVs with a range extending engine. A bit of semantics I suppose but they have a decent electric-only range and are intended to drive as EVs until the battery runs down whereas PHEVs have a shorter electric range and frequently start the engine. Also, PHEVs usually drive the wheels mechanically when the engine cuts in while a taxi is always powered electrically - the engine runs an alternator just like a diesel electric rail vehicle.
AdBlue is pretty expensive and need's replacing at every service. That'd be about once a week. It would just be better to electrify lines or find alternate fuel's.
Work through the economics and that isn't true. AdBlue usage is about 0.06 L per litre of diesel for commercial vehicles. Long distance coaches are expected to use 15L AdBlue per day for what, 250L of diesel, conservatively? Source
Bulk AdBlue is about 25 ppl Source
Bulk red diesel is about 62 ppl Source
The stoichiometry should be similar regardless of application
Cost of 250L red diesel at 62 ppl = £155
Cost of 15L AdBlue at 25 ppl = £3.75
So the diesel is far more costly and needs refilling more often. You are right that it's better to electrify but not at astronomical costs. Much cheaper to run the diesel train you already have on infrastructure that's already capable!
Interestingly, one of the reasons why the EMD two-stroke locomotive went out of production in the US was because the operators were very adverse to the use of SCR additives. This was little to do with cost, but operational convenience. Whenever a large freight is running low on fuel, they just despatch a local fuel tanker to intercept it at a convenient depot or siding, they don't bother arranging diagrams and the like for such things as refuelling. With SCR, you also need to arrange a delivery of a couple of thousand litres of additive with each tanker load of fuel, which the local suppliers are not set up for - Urea additives typically being distributed in smaller containers for truck use. GE were able to meet the Tier 4 requirements with their 4-stroke offering, albeit with a complex EGR system. This, together with a few other misjudgements on EMDs behalf, has pretty much handed the US locomotive market to their competitor, they now have an uphill battle to get back their market share with a largely-unproven four stroke engine.
Ad-Blue is a trademark registered by the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) to designate AUS32.
For clarity, AUS32 is 32.5% Urea solution in deionised water (67.5%), by weight. It is the internationally standardised Urea additive. Exhaust systems can inject the solution directly, or decompose the solution separately and inject the resultant gasses.
To provide a bit more detail how far shipping is behind even filthy old sprinters, new rules come into force later this year known as IMO 2020 that will force shipping to move onto cleaner fuels such as ..... diesel! There is a fear this will cause a spike or permanent rise in diesel prices that may impact those sprinters. It would be an interesting trickle down if a move in shipping improves the economics of either conversion of EMUs to bi-modes or the introduction of alternative fuels.
What does shipping use now then?
Bunker oil, in some cases. It's something like the dregs left when you refine oil. It's a viscous oil that has to be heated to get it into an engine. Some ships have flex fuel engines which use diesel where regulations apply and bunker oil out at sea.
Diesel is the future then, doubt electric ships will ever become a thing.
According to a report in the Financial Times today the 15 biggest ships in the world produce more sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide (both are greenhouse gases) than all cars on earth. I have also read that a large cruise ship emits the same particulate matter as a million cars. So if you are sat enjoying a drink in Venice or walking through Southampton when a couple of ships turn their engines on at the same time, or leave their engines on for hotel power, well you can do the maths.
I actually think the most urgent reason to get rid of older diesel engines on trains is the health of platform staff. I am not sure if anybody has worked out how this might affect somebody performing a role such as a dispatcher but considering the well understood and direct relationship between some of these emissions and health, I am surprised the unions are not more vocal on the point. This is one of rare times I could get behind the RMT kicking up a fuss as it could accelerate a switch to newer and better quality traction.
It's notable that shipping is only now addressing sulfur emissions, some quarter century after low sulfur fuels for road vehicles became commonplace. Much of this so-called improvement will be effected by exhaust gas scrubbing, which just diverts the pollutants into the immediate marine environment. There is no real sign of shipping tackling NOx or particulate emissions.
Sweden already has large electric ferries. Range is the issue but I understand there is work ongoing to develop hybrid systems that would run electric out of port and then on LNG. Carnival launched the world's first LNG cruise ship last year and LNG is much much better than the fuel currently used.
There are also other opportunities to shift shipping to rail. Only about of 1 per cent of cargo from China comes over by rail. Bearing in mind the huge quantity of fast fashion and product for ever tax avoiding Amazon that comes from China, there must be massive scope to move more by rail. We could stop buying as much rubbish as well I suppose. Not sure whether the locomotives moving that 1 per cent run with AdBlue though. That is an electrification project that would definitely be beyond Network Rail!
Shipping is outside the Paris Agreement. There has been some progress but not enough. The article in the FT today said that there is no dry dock capacity to install scrubbing technology on shipping until 2020 and there is apparently a loophole where they can dump the scrubbed suplhur into the sea. That is like fitting scrubbing to trains and letting them lob the suplhur into the river Ouse as they approach York.
Cruise ships are the one that really get me. I was in Cozumel in Mexico last year and 4 massive cruise ships turned on their engines at the same time. That is a beautiful island of 100,000 suddenly having the same pollution as a city with 4 million cars moving at the same time. Nuts and totally unnecessary.
I agree cruise ship pollution in ports is a disgrace. Long overdue that they should all be connected to a shore supply.
GWR trains don't either because the CCZ is east of the Edgware Road and the 158/59 could be replaced with hybrid Flex-type trains. As for London Bridge - Uckfield, that's hardly a problem being only 1tph.
Yes of course Paddington is outside - excuse the brain fade. All fantasy anyway
Would fitting adblue mean the end to clagging exhausts on locos such as on class 37’s?
That is if such a system could be “squeezed” inside the loco.
Can’t see the move been popular with enthusiastic types that enjoy seeing a loco clearing its lungs.
Then again if it helps Johnny polar bear reach a grand old age it’s worth doing eh
No, SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction, the mechanism that AdBlue enables) is solely about reducing NOx emissions. A more basic particulate filter would reduce the visible particulates. Polar bears really need the climate to stay cold, which nothing short of decarbonisation of the global economy will really help with (although particulate deposits do darken arctic ice, which contributes to melting.)