Stop-start 66s

[Topgun333]

I see from the front cover of the current Rail magazine that one of the freight operators is going to have stop-start 66s that will shut down and start up as required to reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably NOx and PMs too) like a VW Polo Blue Motion at traffic lights (my poetic licence on the last bit).

Perhaps someone else has more detail. It's an interesting idea and worthy if it can work but I know that others here have previously gone on about the need (and possibly company policy) to keep diesel locos and units idling for the next job, particularly in colder weather and in locations away from mechanics, to make sure that they are ready and available rather than refusing to start up when required...

 

[Daz9284]

I see from the front cover of the current Rail magazine that one of the freight operators is going to have stop-start 66s that will shut down and start up as required to reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably NOx and PMs too) like a VW Polo Blue Motion at traffic lights (my poetic licence on the last bit).

Perhaps someone else has more detail. It's an interesting idea and worthy if it can work but I know that others here have previously gone on about the need (and possibly company policy) to keep diesel locos and units idling for the next job, particularly in colder weather and in locations away from mechanics, to make sure that they are ready and available rather than refusing to start up when required...

Hi there

I read in RAIL yesterday that 66174(?) had been fitted with this technology since February, and it has been on the China Clay workings in Cornwall since fitting with SS, and has saved about 20,000 litres of diesel.

It also mentions that some flows will not save as much fuel due to some services having short or no 'stop' periods in yards/loops etc. Then engine switches off after a time when the temperature and voltage reaches certain pre-determined values, but not all equipment is switched off. and the engine will take 10-20 seconds to start up again.

they hope to fit the technology to a further 10 66's by the end of the year, and all of the DBS 66's in the UK by the end of 2106.


regards,
darryl

 

[bigdelboy]

....

they hope to fit the technology to a further 10 66's by the end of the year, and all of the DBS 66's in the UK by the end of 2106.


regards,
darryl

Great to hear the sheds are expected still to be going after 100 years (2106) ...
I would have thought 2016 was a more realistic target myself.

Engine Startup/Shutdown can be expensive on wear on engine ... but I assume this has been taken into account.

 

[ExRes]

The theory was discussed in the late 90s and EWS were quite keen, it was pointed out at that time though that Drivers would be less than happy if the shutdowns were for any length of time and it left the cab with no heating, EWS servicing was also a great concern as there was no knowing whether the locos would actually restart when required, a highly expensive train failure against the cost of a few gallons of diesel and the odd brownie point with the Green lobby

No doubt technology has moved on though and I would hope that DBS are a far better run company than EWS ever were

 

[cj_1985]

AIUI the kit is already fitted to the newest 66s that have been delivered for GBRf. It was mentioned/explained in a recent issue of "Railway Herald", that it can be fitted to any 66.

 

[Daz9284]

Great to hear the sheds are expected still to be going after 100 years (2106) ... does nothing stop them except derailments towards a lake?

I would have thought 2016 was a more realistic target myself.

Engine Startup/Shutdown can be expensive on wear on engine ... but I assume this has been taken into account.

oops yes i meant 2016

regards,
darryl

 

[Yew]

After living next to a place where 66,s idled for hours waiting to move on, I can say I'm glad of this change.

 

[bigdelboy]

After living next to a place where 66,s idled for hours waiting to move on, I can say I'm glad of this change.
__________________
Please send all complaints to /dev/null

echo Turn off class 66 engines if idling for a long time > /dev/null

 

[455driver]

I wonder how long it will take them to rebuild the air when it all leaks off!

Scenario-
Train pulls into loop and engine shuts down,
air leaks off because driver is reading Razzle* and doesnt notice,
signal turns green so driver restarts engine,
train sits there (with a green signal) for 5 minutes while the asthmatic compressor tries to build air up,
two passenger trains are now standing at red signals because the signaller cannot reset the route,
queue lots of phone calls and a huge bill landing on <the freight companies> desk for the delay minutes to the passenger trains,

Or

Train stops on main line just before a junction waiting for a slot and engine shuts down,
signal clears and driver attempts to start engine but it wont start,
queue 1Z99 and a big bill landing on the desk.


SS equipment is quietly isolated because a few gallons of diesel isnt worth the hassle!

 

[daikilo]

The theory was discussed in the late 90s and EWS were quite keen, it was pointed out at that time though that Drivers would be less than happy if the shutdowns were for any length of time and it left the cab with no heating, EWS servicing was also a great concern as there was no knowing whether the locos would actually restart when required, a highly expensive train failure against the cost of a few gallons of diesel and the odd brownie point with the Green lobby

No doubt technology has moved on though and I would hope that DBS are a far better run company than EWS ever were

Well, my diesel car has stop/start amd I probably asked all those questions, especially for winter with headlights on. I'm now well into my second year of running and it has been perfect with up to 20 minutes of shut-down on an extended 50 minute journey. I still do not understand how it works, but it does.

 

[carriageline]

I have it on my new motor, and the list of parameters that must be true before it shuts off is mahhooosive. Some of them I can remember:

Battery voltage above X volts
Oil + coolant temp above X degrees
No engine management light




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[al.currie93]

oops yes i meant 2016

regards,
darryl

Given the amount of time it's taking to repaint their fleet, it may well be 2106

 

[Emyr]

I wonder how long it will take them to rebuild the air when it all leaks off!

Scenario-
Train pulls into loop and engine shuts down,
air leaks off because driver is reading Razzle* and doesnt notice,
signal turns green so driver restarts engine,
train sits there (with a green signal) for 5 minutes while the asthmatic compressor tries to build air up,
two passenger trains are now standing at red signals because the signaller cannot reset the route,
queue lots of phone calls and a huge bill landing on <the freight companies> desk for the delay minutes to the passenger trains,

Or

Train stops on main line just before a junction waiting for a slot and engine shuts down,
signal clears and driver attempts to start engine but it wont start,
queue 1Z99 and a big bill landing on the desk.


SS equipment is quietly isolated because a few gallons of diesel isnt worth the hassle!

I expect the Stop-Start capability will have an overriding switch and operational guidelines issued to drivers of Stop-Start enabled Class 66 locos to ensure it is not allowed to activate (or rather deactivate ) at signals.

The practical usecases for this technology are during wagon loading, when the loco will be static most of the time, and at yards where the loco is moving between stands before stabling or after destabling.


What's the peak pressure of the reservoirs on your units, what's the minimum pressure for reliable operation, and how fast does it normally drop?

 

[Rugd1022]

If our FLHH 66s are ever fitted with S/S I 'll certainly be using the overide button in the Autumn and Winter months, the cabs become cold very quickly once the heater fan goes off.

 

[edwin_m]

The air pressure should stay up for a couple of hours at least, unless some of the brake equipment is really ropey. And the compressor could be driven off the battery if necessary.

 

[Daz9284]

In the TPEx 185's does the driver turn the individual coach engines off or are they controlled by electronics?

As I have been on numerous journeys where the engine hasn't been running then it's started up mid journey, or it has been on and turned off mid journey.

regards,
darryl

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In the TPEx 185's does the driver turn the individual coach engines off or are they controlled by electronics?

As I have been on numerous journeys where the engine hasn't been running then it's started up mid journey, or it has been on and turned off mid journey.

regards,
darryl

On the North TPE routes, a single 185 (assuming my sources are correct) running Liverpool to Scarborough will have traction power from 2 cars, with the third car idling for hotel power between Liverpool and Stalybridge. On leaving there, the third engine will be fired up (not sure if the driver would do this or if it switches over automatically) to provide the power needed to race up over the hills. At the Eastern portal of Standedge the unit is now heading downhill, so once again does not need the full whack of its power range, so one of the engines switches to idling again. If the service is running late, all engines will be kept at full power in order to improve acceleration in places, to make up time.

 

[O L Leigh]

I read in RAIL yesterday that 66174(?) had been fitted with this technology since February, and it has been on the China Clay workings in Cornwall since fitting with SS, and has saved about 20,000 litres of diesel.

It also mentions that some flows will not save as much fuel due to some services having short or no 'stop' periods in yards/loops etc.

20000 litres sounds like a lot, but actually it's hardly anything. Given that the fuel tank capacity is 6400 litres this engine has, in about 7 or 8 months of operation, saved approximately 3 tanks full of fuel. I don't know what these locos consume on average each week but I suspect that the figure is more than 20000 litres per week, so this figure probably only represents a saving of around 3%. Granted it's better than nothing, but it's hardly worth holding the front page for.

And why trial it on china clay workings? Are they typical in the amount of time they spend idling or do they stand for much longer periods?

I would have to hope that the stop/start modification will ensure that the cab heating can still run from the batteries when the engine shuts down. It's certainly something that Shed drivers should be agitating for before the modifications are rolled out across the fleet. I'm sure the problems of maintaining air pressure have been thought out and that, like battery charge and temperature, it will be one of the parameters that would trigger a restart whether the train is due to be moved or not.

O L Leigh

 

[DownSouth]

20000 litres sounds like a lot, but actually it's hardly anything. Given that the fuel tank capacity is 6400 litres this engine has, in about 7 or 8 months of operation, saved approximately 3 tanks full of fuel. I don't know what these locos consume on average each week but I suspect that the figure is more than 20000 litres per week, so this figure probably only represents a saving of around 3%. Granted it's better than nothing, but it's hardly worth holding the front page for.=

My thoughts exactly. The magnitude of fuel savings are not much more than a rounding error, and the cost of the extra wear and tear on the components of the prime mover would probably balance out that saving on fuel.

Therefore it follows that this move is nothing to do with genuine improvements in economy or emissions (the emissions associated with the manufacturing of a new crank case would be much more than those associated with a loco idling long enough to use 20kL of fuel) but everything to do with appeasing local residents and keeping up appearances for ill-informed greenies.

 

[GB]

20000 litres sounds like a lot, but actually it's hardly anything. Given that the fuel tank capacity is 6400 litres this engine has, in about 7 or 8 months of operation, saved approximately 3 tanks full of fuel. I don't know what these locos consume on average each week but I suspect that the figure is more than 20000 litres per week, so this figure probably only represents a saving of around 3%. Granted it's better than nothing, but it's hardly worth holding the front page for.

And why trial it on china clay workings? Are they typical in the amount of time they spend idling or do they stand for much longer periods?

I would have to hope that the stop/start modification will ensure that the cab heating can still run from the batteries when the engine shuts down. It's certainly something that Shed drivers should be agitating for before the modifications are rolled out across the fleet. I'm sure the problems of maintaining air pressure have been thought out and that, like battery charge and temperature, it will be one of the parameters that would trigger a restart whether the train is due to be moved or not.

O L Leigh

Yes but 20000 scaled up across a fleet does start to become a fair amount...assuming the the benefit isn't out weighed by delays, cost of fitting and extra wear and tear of course. I don't know how much a litre of railway diesel costs but assuming about 75p that works out to about £750k per 50 locos.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not sure that I buy the wear and tear argument if I'm honest. Surely the wear would not be on the prime mover itself but rather on the starter mechanisms.

If an engine is not running it is not being subjected to any forces likely to cause wear. Granted a cold restart can be damaging but an engine the size of the one used in diesel locomotives is hardly likely to lose enough heat to risk that sort of damage while the train is looped. The train is going to lose air pressure far faster than the engine would lose heat and I'm sure that, along with battery charge, this is one of the things that would automatically prompt a restart. Therefore these engines are likely to have a warm restart which is far less damaging. In addition, the reduction in running hours may mean that component life is increased, not reduced.

But I will say that I think the emissions argument is flawed. Surely the point of advancing technologies is to increase efficiency and reduce consumption which will in turn lead to a reduction in emissions. What this experiment shows is not how much fuel could be saved but just how much is actually wasted. While there are flows for which a Type 5 loco is perfectly well suited there are some for which a Type 5 loco is overkill. For example, many of the RHTT trains we will shortly be seeing will have two Type 5s running in multiple at all times to move just two vehicles. I have advocated before the use of a prime mover that could operate on just half the number of cylinders to produce the power of a Type 3 loco when running light or lightly loaded but then fire up the other half when the additional power is needed. There are already car engines that can do this, so why not apply the technology to the rails. I'm sure it would yield a fuel saving much greater than stop-start. But sadly the opportunity has been missed.

Yes a 20000 litre saving across the fleet is going to scale proportionately. Assuming that the china clay workings are typical with regard to the amount of time they spend standing and my assumptions used to reach my figure of 3% are even anywhere near to being correct, that would mean a 3% fuel saving across the entire operation. However, I was being quite generous with my assumptions and my rounding of the final figure. I'm sure that the actual figure will be lower.

O L Leigh

 

[Murph]

I'm not sure that I buy the wear and tear argument if I'm honest. Surely the wear would not be on the prime mover itself but rather on the starter mechanisms.

Unless there's an auxiliary oil pressurisation system, there's a brief period of poor lubrication to cam and crank bearings, rockers, the rings and bores, the turbos, etc on every start. I don't want to claim that it's significant enough to negate the benefits of automatic shutdown, but it is a factor.

As far as the cab heating goes, there's 2 words to very easily solve that (and really very cheaply, compared to the cost of a loco): Webasto or Eberspacher.

 

[talltim]

I first learned about rail application of stop start systems for rail use from the Lac Megantic report http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054.asp They call it Hot Start, which I believe is a brand name http://www.hotstart.com/en/home/products/locomotive-products/
The version used there is linked to train air brake pressure as well as prime mover variables and will restart the prime mover if the air brake pressure drops below a certain level. Useful for keeping the pressure up for a stabled train so that it doesn't have wait around before getting on the move (and in the case of Lac Megantic, if they hadn't completely shut down the loco with the feature would have saved 47 lives)

 

[ExRes]

As far as train heating is concerned, it's a shame EWS aren't still in charge

http://www.bluecreektraders.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3MountainMen_gallery.jpg

 

[DownSouth]

I have advocated before the use of a prime mover that could operate on just half the number of cylinders to produce the power of a Type 3 loco when running light or lightly loaded but then fire up the other half when the additional power is needed. There are already car engines that can do this, so why not apply the technology to the rails. I'm sure it would yield a fuel saving much greater than stop-start. But sadly the opportunity has been missed.

Variable power has been available on GE locomotives since the introduction of the Dash 9 Series in the early 1990s - a 3,000kW loco can be restricted to 2,650kW or 2,130kW. Nothing changes physically, all that happens is that selecting notch 8 on the control stand has the same effect as being in full power mode and selecting notch 7 (when restricted to 2,650kW) or notch 6 (when restricted to 2,130kW) with the rest of the notches being correspondingly reduced.

It turned out to be a non-feature in practice though. The setup process was complicated enough that drivers simply preferred to voluntarily use lower power notches as needed for the desired cruising speed.

I'm sure that EMD would also have had a similar software option available on the SD60 series which was introduced around the same time.

GE trialled cylinder deactivation in the 1980s while developing the Dash 9 Series control suite. They abandoned it when they found it was less efficient than electronic governing of the power output, and caused issues with differing rates of wear and tear within the same engine.

While there are flows for which a Type 5 loco is perfectly well suited there are some for which a Type 5 loco is overkill. For example, many of the RHTT trains we will shortly be seeing will have two Type 5s running in multiple at all times to move just two vehicles.

These would surely be running with the rear loco idling offline, not providing traction, and with the driver getting fuel savings from using lower notches to cruise with such a light train.

If they've been able to retrofit a quick start system to the JT42 locos, I'm sure that the Progress Rail engineers in Britain would have no trouble with also adding a variable power capability which would be purely a software modification. Remember, using the best method for governing the power when required on a single large locomotive is a hell of a lot more efficient than manufacturing and maintaining a second locomotive.

 

[Clip]

Without wanting to annoy people with their opinions on how it is going to work and whether it will work or not but surely this would have been investigated by the FOC concerned and the manufacturer of said engines who are generally qualified engineers to see if this is feasible? And with that would they not have looked at and worked out all the issues raised by other posters on here before they went to press about it?

 

[O L Leigh]

Variable power has been available on GE locomotives since the introduction of the Dash 9 Series in the early 1990s - a 3,000kW loco can be restricted to 2,650kW or 2,130kW. Nothing changes physically, all that happens is that selecting notch 8 on the control stand has the same effect as being in full power mode and selecting notch 7 (when restricted to 2,650kW) or notch 6 (when restricted to 2,130kW) with the rest of the notches being correspondingly reduced.

It turned out to be a non-feature in practice though. The setup process was complicated enough that drivers simply preferred to voluntarily use lower power notches as needed for the desired cruising speed.

I'm sure that EMD would also have had a similar software option available on the SD60 series which was introduced around the same time.

GE trialled cylinder deactivation in the 1980s while developing the Dash 9 Series control suite. They abandoned it when they found it was less efficient than electronic governing of the power output, and caused issues with differing rates of wear and tear within the same engine.

Surely there must be a better way of doing it. If it's just a software issue then could it not be linked to a strain gauge on the coupler so that the system could automatically adjust the power output accordingly.

These would surely be running with the rear loco idling offline, not providing traction, and with the driver getting fuel savings from using lower notches to cruise with such a light train.

Not so. The RHTT wagons are through-wired for AAR multiple working and both locos are joined electrically using these jumper cables and work in multiple rather than with the trailing loco "dead in train". I expect this is to permit rapid end changes at reversing points.

Without wanting to annoy people with their opinions on how it is going to work and whether it will work or not but surely this would have been investigated by the FOC concerned and the manufacturer of said engines who are generally qualified engineers to see if this is feasible? And with that would they not have looked at and worked out all the issues raised by other posters on here before they went to press about it?

Oh yes, I'm sure that they have. However there are two points to raise in response. The first is that it is generally better to engineer something at the design stage rather than bolting something on later. There are generally fewer reliability issues and unexpected side-effects.

The second point is that just because an engineer says it's possible it does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Just because stop-start is gaining currency among car manufacturers it does not necessarily mean that it is the best solution for all applications.

O L Leigh

 

[chorleyjeff]

On the North TPE routes, a single 185 (assuming my sources are correct) running Liverpool to Scarborough will have traction power from 2 cars, with the third car idling for hotel power between Liverpool and Stalybridge. On leaving there, the third engine will be fired up (not sure if the driver would do this or if it switches over automatically) to provide the power needed to race up over the hills. At the Eastern portal of Standedge the unit is now heading downhill, so once again does not need the full whack of its power range, so one of the engines switches to idling again. If the service is running late, all engines will be kept at full power in order to improve acceleration in places, to make up time.

When I have been on said trains the engines in the coaches I was in were switched off from time to time between Lancashire and Scotland and Lancashire and Scarborough. It seemed oddly old fashioned to be in a coach with no engine firing when setting off from Scarborough. The brief vibration/noise when the engine was fired up was very noticeable especially when stopped in a station.

 

[DownSouth]

Surely there must be a better way of doing it. If it's just a software issue then could it not be linked to a strain gauge on the coupler so that the system could automatically adjust the power output accordingly.

If you're going to hobble a driver, better to do it with an accelerometer-based system restricting acceleration to some arbitrary value than to use a strain gauge.

Or you could change the whole control setup so notches select an acceleration rate instead of power. British freight trains are short enough that train handling isn't really an issue needing consideration.

Not so. The RHTT wagons are through-wired for AAR multiple working and both locos are joined electrically …

…*which would allow the rear loco to be put offline (whether idling or kept warm for a fast start) at the sending of a command from the front loco's cab.

The second point is that just because an engineer says it's possible it does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Just because stop-start is gaining currency among car manufacturers it does not necessarily mean that it is the best solution for all applications.

Very true, the retro-fitting of the fast start would ultimately have been decided by management. It may have been decided rationally (if they could determine that PR + Efficiency gains > CapEx + OpEx) or it may have been decided after a board member read an emotional letter from a sensitive NIMBY who just moved into a house next to a century-old siding (i.e. a case of Something must be done, this is Something, we must do it).

 

[O L Leigh]

…*which would allow the rear loco to be put offline (whether idling or kept warm for a fast start) at the sending of a command from the front loco's cab.

Perhaps, but not in practice. Whether this is deemed to difficult to be bothered with or whether it has more to do with the configuration of AAR in British locos I cannot say. Whatever the case, all the RHTT formations I've seen have had both locos working in multiple at all times.

O L Leigh