Colas to buy more Class 70 locos

[scouser]

According to Todays Railways Colas have ordered 7 more Class 70 locos.

I was under the impression that these locomotives did not meet new environmental laws. Have I got this wrong?

[beast66606]

According to Todays Railways Colas have ordered 7 more Class 70 locos.

I was under the impression that these locomotives did not meet new environmental laws. Have I got this wrong?

 

Yes - they do apparently.

[scouser]

Thank you Mr. B

So if they are complient, what was all the fuss last year about not being able to buy any new locos that would fit the UK loading gauge?

[skipepsi]

I think but I am not certain, that because they had an option to order more the newest restrictions don't apply they are viewed as completion of a production run.

[big jim]

I thought it was if the powerunit was built before the cut off date then they could be used

 

As ive put elsewhere ive not heard anything official but if you spot me refreshing liverpool docks in my 'colas thread' then you know they are imminent

[jjb1970]

As far as I'm aware the temporary derogation that was given to the UK on Tier IIIb expired a year or so ago so these locomotives should be Tier IIIb. The applicable EU requirements can be found here:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1452371256223&uri=CELEX:32004L0026

 

You can download an English language pdf.

 

I don't keep up to speed on non-marine regs so it is possible another derogation was agreed however given that there is no reason why a locomotive cannot meet the Tier IIIb requirement it may be that GE have just gone ahead and modified the thing to meet the applicable emissions standard.

 

The whole issue of emissions and the lack of engines struck me as bizarre as the technology needed is not new, the engine builders are fully able to build compliant engines and the whole argument was one of cost. To say that the industry would prefer not to spend more on lower emissions engines is fair enough but a lot of the railway press were like lemmings going over the cliff edge in re-printing guff they were fed that a financial issue (more expense) was a technical issue claiming it was a technology issue.

[newbryford]

As far as I'm aware the temporary derogation that was given to the UK on Tier IIIb expired a year or so ago so these locomotives should be Tier IIIb. The applicable EU requirements can be found here:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1452371256223&uri=CELEX:32004L0026

 

You can download an English language pdf.

 

I don't keep up to speed on non-marine regs so it is possible another derogation was agreed however given that there is no reason why a locomotive cannot meet the Tier IIIb requirement it may be that GE have just gone ahead and modified the thing to meet the applicable emissions standard.

 

The whole issue of emissions and the lack of engines struck me as bizarre as the technology needed is not new, the engine builders are fully able to build compliant engines and the whole argument was one of cost. To say that the industry would prefer not to spend more on lower emissions engines is fair enough but a lot of the railway press were like lemmings going over the cliff edge in re-printing guff they were fed that a financial issue (more expense) was a technical issue claiming it was a technology issue.

 

Isn't there also a problem in fitting the relevant kit within existing loco desgns to comply with the restrictive UK loading gauge?

 

Cheers,

Mick

[jjb1970]

That always struck me as the standard argument that greets most regulatory changes. The process is something like this:

• We don't have to lower emissions so we buy engines that meet existing regs (perfectly legitimately, I have no issue with this)
• Since there is no demand for lower emission engines the builders do not have standard products available (again, why would they if the demand isn't there)
• Regulations change and emissions are reduced
• Operators claim they can't buy compliant engines as the builders don't offer anything and want £££££s in order to supply a compliant design
• The sky will fall in, civilisation end etc etc so please give us an opt out
• Eventually they're told to just do it and miraculously they suddenly find they can do it, life continues, the sky is still in the sky etc

Apologies if that sounds a bit cynical, it is cynical but in the years I worked on emissions matters it was a spookily consistent summary of events. Technology in a field like engines generally advances as a result of both a combination of push and pull factors. The pull factors are engine efficiency, power output, maintenance periodicity, size and other performance parameters which offer a competitive advantage. These pull factors are generally funded easily enough as customers are happy to pay the associated costs and the builders need to make the investment to keep their product competitive. The push factors are regulatory changes for things such as emissions. Unlike the pull factors the customers and engine builders generally want minimum compliance and view costs of re-designing engines to lower emissions as something they'd rather not do. Hence a cost to lower emissions may be presented as financially crippling by an industry which is happily spending as much or more to improve the power of an engine.

 

There are plenty of technologies to lower emissions of PM and NOx, and especially as European railways use 10ppm limit sulphur fuel this makes like an awful lot easier for emissions control as SOx is basically not part of the equation. The two high profile means of lowering NOx are SCR/selective catalytic reduction and EGR/exhaust gas recirculation. NOx can also be lowered using advanced combustion management, techniques such as very high pressure pulsed injection and regulating heat zones in the cylinder. There are emulsifiers and fuel treatments which in some cases require almost no engine modification and are effective, at one time getting a stable emulsion with a middle distillate oil was quite difficult but there are companies that can do this. For PM, things like advanced combustion control, fuel additives and particulate filters are not new either. Some of this does require space, but some of it doesn't and there are high pressure SCR packages integrated with particulate filters which go into the space footprint of an existing exhaust manifold and before the turbo charger(s). 

 

A few times I asked engine designers (not locomotive designers) about this and some of them found it both embarrassing and a bit insulting that operators assisted by locomotive designers were claiming there was no suitable solution available. The engine builders I worked with were very much of the opinion that if a client asked them for a Tier IIIb engine for a UK train then they'd provide one but that clearly they'd expect to be paid for such an engine and that they weren't charities any more than the locomotive builders or operators are.

[black and decker boy]

As far as I'm aware the temporary derogation that was given to the UK on Tier IIIb expired a year or so ago so these locomotives should be Tier IIIb. The applicable EU requirements can be found here:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1452371256223&uri=CELEX:32004L0026You can download an English language pdf.I don't keep up to speed on non-marine regs so it is possible another derogation was agreed however given that there is no reason why a locomotive cannot meet the Tier IIIb requirement it may be that GE have just gone ahead and modified the thing to meet the applicable emissions standard.The whole issue of emissions and the lack of engines struck me as bizarre as the technology needed is not new, the engine builders are fully able to build compliant engines and the whole argument was one of cost. To say that the industry would prefer not to spend more on lower emissions engines is fair enough but a lot of the railway press were like lemmings going over the cliff edge in re-printing guff they were fed that a financial issue (more expense) was a technical issue claiming it was a technology issue.

Yes, the derogation ended 31st December 2014, however, a loophole remained in that it was only the power unit that had to be inside the EU and registered. GBRF are currently awaiting delivery of a final batch of 66s which used this loophole (as did all those delivered in 2015). It is possible that COLAS have done the same and bought the power units in 2014 in case they needed (or knowing they would need) more locos.

 

It's also possible GE have found a way to do an upgrade.

Edited January 10, 2016 by black and decker boy

[jjb1970]

That is quite a common issue for diesel engines. For marine engines the applicability of engine certification is based on keel laying date if it is a new ship, it gets complicated for existing ships. A new lower NOx standard took effect within North America and the US Caribbean on 1st January this year and an awful lot of keels were laid late last year. I joked about a good business opportunity to buy a warehouse in Korea or China to store keels for however long it is until the owners want the ship to be built, which is basically what all the ship yards have done anyway.

[beast66606]

 GBRF are currently awaiting delivery of a final batch of 66s

 

 

Delivery around 08 Feb at Newport.

[Coryton]

 

A few times I asked engine designers (not locomotive designers) about this and some of them found it both embarrassing and a bit insulting that operators assisted by locomotive designers were claiming there was no suitable solution available. The engine builders I worked with were very much of the opinion that if a client asked them for a Tier IIIb engine for a UK train then they'd provide one but that clearly they'd expect to be paid for such an engine and that they weren't charities any more than the locomotive builders or operators are.

 

But - given that the demand for new diesel locomotives in the UK is somewhat limited, and the rest of Europe has a more generous loading gauge, the development costs might come out to be rather large per engine sold.

 

So this case "Operators claim they can't buy compliant engines as the builders don't offer anything and want £££££s in order to supply a compliant design" might (for once) not be so unreasonable?

 

Of course there are plenty of UK loading gauge 66's happily running around the rest of Europe at present, many of which were originally used in the UK so presumably the cost of bringing them back to UK compliance wouldn't be prohibitive. Maybe someone could do a "new lamps for old" swap with an emissions but not UK loading gauge compliant engine?

 

I'm a bit surprised to hear of more 70's being required though given that when I go through Westbury at the moment there generally seem to be quite a collection of Colas 70s sitting around doing nothing. Or are they waiting for the weekend to pull ballast trains?

[black and decker boy]

But - given that the demand for new diesel locomotives in the UK is somewhat limited, and the rest of Europe has a more generous loading gauge, the development costs might come out to be rather large per engine sold.

 

So this case "Operators claim they can't buy compliant engines as the builders don't offer anything and want £££££s in order to supply a compliant design" might (for once) not be so unreasonable?

 

Of course there are plenty of UK loading gauge 66's happily running around the rest of Europe at present, many of which were originally used in the UK so presumably the cost of bringing them back to UK compliance wouldn't be prohibitive. Maybe someone could do a "new lamps for old" swap with an emissions but not UK loading gauge compliant engine?

 

I'm a bit surprised to hear of more 70's being required though given that when I go through Westbury at the moment there generally seem to be quite a collection of Colas 70s sitting around doing nothing. Or are they waiting for the weekend to pull ballast trains?

The UK freight scene is very fluid and each company has different problems. GBRF and COLAS seem to be doing well and winning new traffic so have a need for further locos.

COLAS have just taken over the cement flows from Oxwellmains for example (and are still catching up with their test train loco requirements). They also have a large contract with NR for infrastructure work which is why locos seem parked up - they are actually on hire to NR usually.

GBRF have new flows of stone from Ribblehead and a big increase in Biomass coming up plus Crossrail seems to be using several of their newest 66s.

Freightliner is suffering the loss of coal work and has spare 66s but is currently preparing these for work in Poland.

Not sure if DBS is sat on spare locos or not.

DRS have a surplus of older traction with the 68s arriving in numbers and COLAS providing the test train traction in house plus IIRC they have lost one of the DIRFT - Scotland flows to Freightliner.

[Lochinvar]

As I understand it - and with the exception of the "Tesco" - DRS have withdrawn from the Anglo-Scottish intermodal market. They ended their long-standing relationship with Malcolms,whose business is now with DB. They also decided - for whatever reason - that they were not interested in renewing their contract with Russells. The latter development might not be too visible at the moment because of the disruption on the WCML in Scotland,but all the ex-DRS Daventry - Coatbridge traffic is now with Freightliner. (This should suit Freightliner nicely since - as already mentioned - they have been quite badly affected by the reduction in the coal business.

 

DR

[jjb1970]

But - given that the demand for new diesel locomotives in the UK is somewhat limited, and the rest of Europe has a more generous loading gauge, the development costs might come out to be rather large per engine sold.

 

So this case "Operators claim they can't buy compliant engines as the builders don't offer anything and want £££££s in order to supply a compliant design" might (for once) not be so unreasonable?

Given that there are fuel based solutions using emulsifiers and additives that can get an engine emissions down to not far short of where they need to be and potentially fully meet the regs with no modifications to the locomotive and very minor engine mods (potentially no mods) I don't really see that the cost would be high for that solution. Although clearly the additives cost money. And when engine builders can supply high pressure SCR and DPF packages within the foot print of the existing pre-TC exhaust manifold the only additional space requirements in the locomotive would be the reductant tank (small) and control unit (small) it is hard for me to really take the cost argument seriously. We have to remember GE and Freightliner were OK about designing a complete UK loading gauge locomotive and considered the costs acceptable for a relatively small production run (although GE clearly have ambitions for more orders) and paying for legally compliant assets is just a cost of doing business. Especially when GE were fully aware of the Tier IIIb regs when the Class 70 was designed and already had the technology to make a Tier IIIb engine I'd be amazed if the things weren't designed for an easy IIIb upgrade.

[jjb1970]

Maybe GE had some assistance from VW or Renault to...ahem....make the emissions compliance issues just disappear.....

[Coryton]

Given that there are fuel based solutions using emulsifiers and additives that can get an engine emissions down to not far short of where they need to be and potentially fully meet the regs with no modifications to the locomotive and very minor engine mods (potentially no mods) I don't really see that the cost would be high for that solution. Although clearly the additives cost money. And when engine builders can supply high pressure SCR and DPF packages within the foot print of the existing pre-TC exhaust manifold the only additional space requirements in the locomotive would be the reductant tank (small) and control unit (small) it is hard for me to really take the cost argument seriously. We have to remember GE and Freightliner were OK about designing a complete UK loading gauge locomotive and considered the costs acceptable for a relatively small production run (although GE clearly have ambitions for more orders) and paying for legally compliant assets is just a cost of doing business. Especially when GE were fully aware of the Tier IIIb regs when the Class 70 was designed and already had the technology to make a Tier IIIb engine I'd be amazed if the things weren't designed for an easy IIIb upgrade.

 

Maybe. A rather different view to the usual doom and gloom that British locomotives are just too small.

 

It would be interesting to know to what extent GE have covered their (presumably rather significant) design costs with the initial 30 locomotives.

 

Of course with the class 59, EMD went ahead with an initial order of 4, though they certainly got the repeat orders they were no doubt hoping for.

[jjb1970]

The Class 70 development costs were probably higher than we might expect. Some have assumed it is just some sort of cut down GEVO in the way that the 66 was essentially a cut down UK-ised SD69 (I know there wasn't a SD69, but based on normal EMD practice I think a V12 US model would have had that designation). The engine in the Class 70 is not the engine used in US locomotives but is a derivative of a Jennbacher engine and would have been quite a modification compared to a standard engine plus the various homologation costs. Of course the Class 70 is just the UK version of a standard family and it is being marketed internationally but nevertheless it would have been a significant development cost.

[Coryton]

The Class 70 development costs were probably higher than we might expect. Some have assumed it is just some sort of cut down GEVO in the way that the 66 was essentially a cut down UK-ised SD69 (I know there wasn't a SD69, but based on normal EMD practice I think a V12 US model would have had that designation). The engine in the Class 70 is not the engine used in US locomotives but is a derivative of a Jennbacher engine and would have been quite a modification compared to a standard engine plus the various homologation costs. Of course the Class 70 is just the UK version of a standard family and it is being marketed internationally but nevertheless it would have been a significant development cost.

 

I've learnt over the years that it's hard to underestimate design costs. 

 

There's lots of reasons for them to go up. Not many that make them go down.

[jjb1970]

In all honesty, I have to say if it was my money I'd not be spending it on a GE prime mover (either their own US types or their Austrian Jennbacher arm) however GE electrical equipment and their gas turbines can be very good indeed. The problem with GE is it is such a big company you go from extremely high end electrical equipment (eg. what used to be Converteam) down to low end disposable muck and tat all carrying the GE name.

Edited January 14, 2016 by jjb1970

[eric709]

The UK freight scene is very fluid and each company has different problems. GBRF and COLAS seem to be doing well and winning new traffic so have a need for further locos.

COLAS have just taken over the cement flows from Oxwellmains for example (and are still catching up with their test train loco requirements). They also have a large contract with NR for infrastructure work which is why locos seem parked up - they are actually on hire to NR usually.

GBRF have new flows of stone from Ribblehead and a big increase in Biomass coming up plus Crossrail seems to be using several of their newest 66s.

Freightliner is suffering the loss of coal work and has spare 66s but is currently preparing these for work in Poland.

Not sure if DBS is sat on spare locos or not.

DRS have a surplus of older traction with the 68s arriving in numbers and COLAS providing the test train traction in house plus IIRC they have lost one of the DIRFT - Scotland flows to Freightliner.

Freightliner don't have many spare locos sitting around post coal drop off, as mentioned the Russell's traffic ex Daventry is now with FL, 4x90's a day on hire to GB to cover their 92 woes, these backfilled with HH locos on intermodal jobs, new traffic won out of Tunstead, and heavy requirement for Network Rail infra work, generally 40-50 on a weekend and 20 or so midweek, don't forget FL haul all the HOBC / MOBC kits but as they only usually run overnight you don't see them much.

[Ohmisterporter]

In all honesty, I have to say if it was my money I'd not be spending it on a GE prime mover (either their own US types or their Austrian Jennbacher arm) however GE electrical equipment and their gas turbines can be very good indeed. The problem with GE is it is such a big company you go from extremely high end electrical equipment (eg. what used to be Converteam) down to low end disposable muck and tat all carrying the GE name.

 

Wandering off topic a bit, but GE have recently sold off their domestic appliance division to Haier in order to concentrate on "proper engineering" as it was told to me.

[jjb1970]

For a long time the jewel in GE's crown (in profit terms) was their consumer credit business, they were the major player in providing those store cards that many shops try and push on people (or did, they don't seem as popular now) and various other consumer credit products.

[big jim]

ooooh, new toys

 

[newbryford]

ooooh, new toys

 

 

Just seen the same vid elsewhere and posted on the "other" 70 thread.......

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited January 10, 2017 by newbryford