DRS considering re-engineering Class 68s & 66s

[XCTurbostar]

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/could-class-68s-be-re-engineered

Aren’t the 66s young enough?

Direct Rail Services is giving preliminary thought to the feasibility of re-engineering its pre-Class 68 traction. Francis explained that trends in emissions reduction might affect existing diesels, as it may be unrealistic to rely on grandfather rights continuing in the future.

Even Class 66s might require modification, and while this class is currently a great performer, DRS must consider whether this will still be the case in ten or 20 years’ time.

There is currently a blank sheet in terms of which locomotive type, or types, to select. For example, two diesel engines might substitute for the present one, with the number under power being determined by load factors.

Work of this nature takes time to plan and execute, but can be more cost-effective than buying new traction. Francis said she would not rule out the relatively straightforward conversion of Class 88s to Class 68 or vice-versa, if this is what the market requires in ten years’ time.

Three key factors will drive any re-engineering programme: emissions, speeds, and drivers’ comfort. Cab air-conditioning is one such factor. This marks a change from the 1970s, when drivers preferred opening windows and strong fan heaters to air-conditioning in Class 56s.

 

[Mag_seven]

I'm slightly confused by this article as it specifically states "pre class 68" implying only those loco classes below that number will be modified.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm slightly confused by this article as it specifically states "pre class 68" implying only those loco classes below that number will be modified.

How about this interpretation.
“All the locos older than the 68s might have to be considered for new engines, even the 66s.”
Also, conversion of 68s and 88s may also be needed.

 

[43096]

Diesel Repainting Services looking to find new ways to p*** taxpayers’ money up the wall...

 

[USRailFan]

Aren't the oldest 66s 20 this year?

 

[DarloRich]

Diesel Repainting Services looking to find new ways to p*** taxpayers’ money up the wall...

eh? Perhaps a more sensible statement could be: DRS undertakes study to try and identify future challenges to the operation of their diesel fleet and devlop methods to overcome them.

It seems a sensible business planning / continuity of service operation to me.

 

[TwistedMentat]

Yeah. This seems quite sensible forward planning. At some point a future government may remove the grandparented rights and require all traction to meet current pollution regs. By doing the initial leg work now they will be ready for such an eventuality or even when they reach a point of needing to reengine anyways.

It sounds less like the beginning of a project and more the initial exploration work to create a skeleton for a future project to use.

 

[Skymonster]

I suspect DRS want to be ready to do some work on their locos - relatively quickly if needed - as an assurance against any future tightening of emissions regulations not including similar grandfather rights and loopholes for re-engineing that are available in the present rules (and are now being exploited by GBRf with the 56s).

 

[LOL The Irony]

Aren't the oldest 66s 20 this year?

They were, in June. The design dates back to 1985.

 

[swt_passenger]

How dare they take sensible medium term precautions to ensure continued operation.

The thrash and clag fans won’t like it at all...

 

[mushroomchow]

Yeah. This seems quite sensible forward planning. At some point a future government may remove the grandparented rights and require all traction to meet current pollution regs. By doing the initial leg work now they will be ready for such an eventuality or even when they reach a point of needing to reengine anyways.

It sounds less like the beginning of a project and more the initial exploration work to create a skeleton for a future project to use.

I was going to say that no right-thinking government would dare take such a move, given the potential economic hit to the whole country of a railfreight industry suddenly unable to operate half or more of its locomotives... but then I remembered just how clueless politicians actually are! So much railfreight is still diesel hauled that any government is going to have to decide if they want A) additional widespread electrification with a focus on freight terminals or B) a continuation of the current system with old locos progressively replaced or re-engined. Yet, paradoxically, the available market for new compliant locos is ever-shrinking as the rest of the world applies electric traction with none of the reluctance we in this country seem to pride ourselves on. Until a technology like hydrogen or battery power can be proven reliable in terms of range and power output, there's no prospect of diesels being withdrawn or restricted from railfreight in the UK.

All that said, it's absolutely sensible of DRS to take this approach now rather than down the line when legislation changes. Even if they don't outright ban locomotives with high emissions, there's already a move towards cities implementing clean air zones which would prevent regular operations through major urban arteries. That will be the major problem, rather than legislative changes to grandfather rights.

 

[CosherB]

Diesel Repainting Services looking to find new ways to p*** taxpayers’ money up the wall...

Quite - my precise sentiments as well. Unbelievable, as I thought their 'new' MD was supposed to be reigning in costs ....

 

[LWB]

I'm at a bit of a loss here. Assuming Brexit goes ahead, who is to tell us what emissions regulations we have to adopt?

 

[furnessvale]

I'm at a bit of a loss here. Assuming Brexit goes ahead, who is to tell us what emissions regulations we have to adopt?

Indeed we should be in a position to set our own standards.

Not necessarily worse than EU ones but framed differently. For example, I find it ridiculous that we are setting such tight standards on UK rail that it could theoretically mean freight moving to road because rail just cannot meet the emission standards within UK loading gauge.

I have long espoused an emission standard across ALL modes of transport based on grams per tonne/km moved rather than the current system which takes no account of the ability of rail to move freight three times as far as road using the same amount of fuel.

 

[GrimShady]

Indeed we should be in a position to set our own standards.

Not necessarily worse than EU ones but framed differently. For example, I find it ridiculous that we are setting such tight standards on UK rail that it could theoretically mean freight moving to road because rail just cannot meet the emission standards within UK loading gauge.

I have long espoused an emission standard across ALL modes of transport based on grams per tonne/km moved rather than the current system which takes no account of the ability of rail to move freight three times as far as road using the same amount of fuel.

Fully agree.

 

[cav1975]

Indeed we should be in a position to set our own standards.

Not necessarily worse than EU ones but framed differently. For example, I find it ridiculous that we are setting such tight standards on UK rail that it could theoretically mean freight moving to road because rail just cannot meet the emission standards within UK loading gauge..

Unfortunately no engine manufacturer will be interested in such a small market for bespoke engines given the engineering cost of meeting any emissions standards. The UK industry have a de facto choice between EU or US compliant engines.

 

[ainsworth74]

Assuming Brexit goes ahead, who is to tell us what emissions regulations we have to adopt?

The promises we made as part of the Paris Climate Agreement we freely signed up to?

 

[CosherB]

I'm at a bit of a loss here. Assuming Brexit goes ahead, who is to tell us what emissions regulations we have to adopt?

Whatever happens with Brexit, we will initially continue with existing EU regulations that will have been absorbed into UK law. I doubt changing locomotive emission regulations will be very high on the Governments priority list when we topple over the edge of the cliff and the economy bombs on 29th March next year.

 

[CosherB]

Unfortunately no engine manufacturer will be interested in such a small market for bespoke engines given the engineering cost of meeting any emissions standards. The UK industry have a de facto choice between EU or US compliant engines.

Spot on. As we will likely be following a "Common Rule Book" for frictionless trade with the EU, it's business as you were.

 

[hwl]

Unfortunately no engine manufacturer will be interested in such a small market for bespoke engines given the engineering cost of meeting any emissions standards. The UK industry have a de facto choice between EU or US compliant engines.

And the EU rail standards are more sensible than the latest current US ones...

 

[ac6000cw]

They were, in June. The design dates back to 1985.

No it doesn't - that's for the class 59.

The class 66 is quite different 'under the skin' - different diesel engine, alternator, traction motors and bogies, for starters. The 59 is a 'heavy-haul' orientated design, the 66 is a 'mixed/fast freight' design with higher fuel capacity (using a lower-rated alternator and motors saved weight to allow more fuel to be carried). It's much more of an 'export' design than the class 59, which is more-or-less a re-packaged SD40-2 (minus the dynamic braking).

 

[DarloRich]

Quite - my precise sentiments as well. Unbelievable, as I thought their 'new' MD was supposed to be reigning in costs ....

but that is exactly what this idea is about. Any sensible business should be "war gaming" future challenges and coming up with a way to overcome them. Doing that now saves money. In any event a fairly basic engineering concept by an engineering consultancy wont cost that much in the grand scheme of things. DRS are not suggesting they drop new engines in locomotives any time soon!

Unfortunately no engine manufacturer will be interested in such a small market for bespoke engines given the engineering cost of meeting any emissions standards. The UK industry have a de facto choice between EU or US compliant engines.

exactly - and Brexit wont change that no matter what the taking back control/soverinty lot suggest!

 

[apk55]

In many respects I like the "genset" approach that some American railways are using. Also Bombardier have made some 4 engine TRAXX locos for German railways. Instead of using one large engine, several smaller engines are used, some of which can be shut down for light duty. They claim fuel savings of typically 20% as well as reduced reduced emissions, also maintenance savings as most of the time only one engine is running. Small 400 to 600KW diesels are quite cheap as they are mass produced for the truck and bus market and of course comply with the latest standards.

 

[ac6000cw]

And the EU rail standards are more sensible than the latest current US ones...

My understanding was that Euro IIIb and US Tier-4 are basically the same emissions standards (they have been slowly 'harmonising' the standards)?

I'm not convinced the 'no SCR here' approach of the major US railroads to Tier-4 is the right one, personally - they seem to be ending up with more complex and expensive to buy, run and maintain locos as a result, versus taking a one-time financial hit on providing the Urea/DEF supply infrastructure at the refueling points if they went with SCR on the engines.

(SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction = diesel exhaust after-treatment using Urea/DEF to reduce NOx emissions)

 

[hwl]

In many respects I like the "genset" approach that some American railways are using. Also Bombardier have made some 4 engine TRAXX locos for German railways. Instead of using one large engine, several smaller engines are used, some of which can be shut down for light duty. They claim fuel savings of typically 20% as well as reduced reduced emissions, also maintenance savings as most of the time only one engine is running. Small 400 to 600KW diesels are quite cheap as they are mass produced for the truck and bus market and of course comply with the latest standards.

The US genset reliability has been very bad so that approach has dried up.

 

[ac6000cw]

...and they haven't proved very suitable for some of the intended uses e.g. yard switching.

 

[hwl]

My understanding was that Euro IIIb and US Tier-4 are basically the same emissions standards (they have been slowly 'harmonising' the standards)?

I'm not convinced the 'no SCR here' approach of the major US railroads to Tier-4 is the right one, personally - they seem to be ending up with more complex and expensive to buy, run and maintain locos as a result, versus taking a one-time financial hit on providing the Urea/DEF supply infrastructure at the refueling points if they went with SCR on the engines.

(SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction = diesel exhaust after-treatment using Urea/DEF to reduce NOx emissions)

EU IIIb (or V as they are the same) is stricter thena US Tier 4 on PMs 0.025g/kWHr vs 0.040g/kWHr (bigger PM filters or probably ultra low sulphur fuel being the difference) but far easier to meet on NOx.
IIIb (or V as they are the same) have combined a HC+NOx allowance of 4.0g/kWHr vs Tier 4's HC of 0.19g/kWHr and 1.74g/kWHr (total 1.93g/kWHr). As HC tend to be far below the limit any way with 4 strokes it means permitted NOx in the EU is far higher than the US hence far less need for SCR as the EU limits were designed to be sensible to achieve in practice.

As one former class 1's chief locomotive engineer said to me recently on US vs EU standards and the issues with Tier 4 (in jest but not far from the mark): "tier 4 is a bit silly, the exhaust air can be cleaner than the inlet air. There are cheaper ways to build air filters."

Background average urban NOx level in UK cities is effectively about 10% of the US Tier 4 limit when looked at in real terms e.g. total volume of exhaust gas/ hour (at Idle - worst case, not going any where). NOx being sucked into the engine matters!

The purchase cost of a US tier 4 loco is about a 5-10%* more than if you were they to meet StageIIIB/V instead.

*Even more is you discount unnecessary R&D

 

[ac6000cw]

EU IIIb (or V as they are the same) is stricter thena US Tier 4 on PMs 0.025g/kWHr vs 0.040g/kWHr (bigger PM filters or probably ultra low sulphur fuel being the difference) but far easier to meet on NOx.
IIIb (or V as they are the same) have combined a HC+NOx allowance of 4.0g/kWHr vs Tier 4's HC of 0.19g/kWHr and 1.74g/kWHr (total 1.93g/kWHr). As HC tend to be far below the limit any way with 4 strokes it means permitted NOx in the EU is far higher than the US hence far less need for SCR as the EU limits were designed to be sensible to achieve in practice.

As one former class 1's chief locomotive engineer said to me recently on US vs EU standards and the issues with Tier 4 (in jest but not far from the mark): "tier 4 is a bit silly, the exhaust air can be cleaner than the inlet air. There are cheaper ways to build air filters."

Background average urban NOx level in UK cities is effectively about 10% of the US Tier 4 limit when looked at in real terms e.g. total volume of exhaust gas/ hour (at Idle - worst case, not going any where). NOx being sucked into the engine matters!

The purchase cost of a US tier 4 loco is about a 5-10%* more than if you were they to meet StageIIIB/V instead.

*Even more is you discount unnecessary R&D

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with you that the US emissions standards have got a bit silly, and it's having the (probably unintended) consequence of producing an orgy of serious rebuilding of older power instead of selling it off/returning it to lessors and buying new. I gather that (in the US) rebuilds only have to retain 25% (by value) of the original loco to qualify as rebuilds - so we've got at least two major railroads rebuilding/having rebuilt old DC-drive GEs into AC-drive locos, involving replacing almost everything except the frames and some/most of the diesel engine. I don't think this was quite what the legislators intended to happen...even allowing for the diesel engines in the rebuilds being modernised to improve their emissions and fuel consumption - 7FDL-16 engines rule OK!