Locomotive Emissions Technology: Progress & Direction

Michael Iden ~ Union Pacific Railroad Company

West Coast Diesel Emissions Reduction Collaborative Seattle, WA

March 21-22, 2005 1

2

Jim Young, president

3

US EPA Loco. Emissions Reg’s

‘00 ‘02 ‘05

10

8

6

4

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

9.5

7.4

5.5 0.60

0.45

-22%

-26%

-55%

-25%

- 56%

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) grams/bhp-hr

Particulate Matter (PM)

grams/bhp-hr

1973-1999 pre-Tier 0 engines rebuilt (when overhauled) to Tier

0 after 12-31-1999 All newly-manufactured locomotive engines > 12-31-1999

Tier-0 Tier-1 Tier-2 Tier 3~4

- 67%

Jan 01, 2000

Jan 01, 2002

Jan 01, 2005

Original chart courtesy of Roy Primus, GE Global Research Center

0 . 20

4

HD Diesel Truck v Loco emissions

HDD ‘74

HDD ‘78

HDD ‘90 HDD ‘91

HDD ‘04

Loco ‘00 Tier 0 Loco ‘02 Tier 1

Loco ‘05 Tier 2

Original slide courtesy of Roy Primus, GE Global Research Center

5

Charge-air cooling (front rad.)

Automotive derivative technologies

Hi-speed design (lower NOx tendency)

Lower fuel efficiency (gallons/GTM)

Mechanical transmissions

25+ years federally-funded R&D

Typ. 5 yr. Lifecycle

22 million produced over 3 decades

No charge air cooling, more complex system

Large locomotive-size designs & technologies

Medium-speed design (higher NOx tendency)

2x-3x better fuel efficiency (gallons/GTM)

Diesel-electric transmissions

R&D funded mostly by railroads & suppliers

25+ yr. Lifecycle

21,000 ~ 3 decades

Auto/Truck v Locomotive engines

6

N. Am. new locomotives ‘72~’04 (est.)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

'72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Uni

ts d

eliv

ered

switcher DC-4 axleDC-6 axle AC-6 axlepassenger

AC-6 axle

DC-6 axle

Passenger &

Commuter

DC-4 axle

Yard switchers 21,000 locomotives built over 3+ decades (versus 22 million+ diesel powered trucks)

UP-only acquisitions shown for ’05

EPA 40 CFR 92 loco. emis. regulations

T0 T1 T2

7

Transcon., Int. & Inter-RR operations

60-day GPS route log for one Union Pacific EPA Tier 0

locomotive in 2001

Photo courtesy of www.railpictures.net

CP Rail: Banff, AB

UP: Cajon Pass, CA

NS: Raleigh, NC

8

Very little “unused” volume on locos Maint. space above engine Muffler (office desk-size volume)

Component removals Exhaust Radiated heat

4400 HP road freight locomotive 76’ long x 15’3” high x 10’ wide 425,000 pds. weight

(“maxed out” dimensionally & by weight) 20+ year asset life

Radiators

Electronics Crew cab & Power Alt. Diesel Engine Cooling System Motors 5,000 gal. fuel tank Motors

9

Union Pacific RR

Locomotive fleet Total 5,400 high-HP (>3000 HP) & 2,000 low-HP (<3000 HP)

1800+ new EPA Tier 0-1 road acquired since ‘00 =25%

700+ engines overhauled to Tier 0 since ‘00 = 9%

315 new Tier 2 on order for 1-2Q 2005 = 4%

Mid-2005, 38% of fleet will be EPA Tier 0, 1 or 2 UP loco acquisitions since January 2000 are equivalent to

an exceptional 10 year HHP fleet turnover … versus 20 to 30 year asset life.

10

UPRR emissions R&D LNG road & switch in ‘90s ($15M) 4 road units & 2 switch

6000 HP road units ‘96-’00 ($312M) 142 road units

Diesel particulate filter (DPF) program ($2.5M) BNSF+UP thru AAR-TTCI at SWRI, for EMD

non-turbocharged switch engines

New technology switch engines ($1.0M)

OEM R&D funded thru acquisitions Tier 0-1-2 redesigns, GE’s new

Tier 2 engine, etc.

11

Yard switchers (2) 1200 HP units in LA-Commerce Yard

Maintenance, fueling constraints, safety concerns, high cost & low availability

2 each high-HP EMD & GE road units (2) EMD 3800 HP units (produced ~3300 HP) and (2) GE

4150 HP units (produced ~ 3600 HP)…Requires more locos

Materials limitations in nozzles, cryo pumps, et al

Never operated outside OEM factories, ~5 hours max. time

UP LNG project ‘93-’98

Diesel emissions are now converging on LNG because of technological improvements.

12

Technology: from idea to use. Basic discovery & “concept-to-device” SCR, Nox/PM filters, EGR, VGT, engine designs, etc.

R&D including “field hardening” Laboratories > Test cells > Test locos > In-service locos

Integration Loco. reliability, maintainability, onboard space, etc.

Infrastructure Fuels & fueling system, shops, route (track, yards,

bridges, tunnels, etc.) and train operations

Practical & affordable … in use

13

Locomotive emissions technologies

SCR (urea)

PM filters (switchers)

Fuel cells

LNG fuel

Common rail injection

EGR & VGT.

Simple hybrid switcher

Truck-engine switcher

Pwr. asm. retrofit kits

Regen. hybrid road loco

Tier 2 production loco.

< Tier 2 locomotive

PM filters (high HP road)

Tier 0 & 1 NOx upgrades

Biodiesel fuel

Regen. flywheel storage

O2 enrichment (N2 filter)

Limited-to-impractical

Previously attempted

R&D or engrg. underway

R&D long-term

Test or Prototype stage

In production

14

New road technology: Tier 2 units

315 Tier 2 units arriving in 2005 (115) 4300 HP (EMD) & (201) 4400 HP (GE*)

* UP is “launch customer” for new GE engine design

15

CA’s 1st hybrid switcher in service!

“Hybrid” light-medium duty switcher 2000 HP batteries recharged by 290 HP EPA off-road Tier 2 diesel gen set

“Ultra-Low Emitting Locomotive” (ULEL, <4 g NOx) status from CARB at LA-Commerce thru March 31st then goes to Fresno for 5 years

16

All-diesel non-hybrid ULEL prototype

“Truck-engine” heavy-duty switcher (2Q’05) ~1400 HP powered by twin EPA off-road Tier 3 diesel gen sets

projected “ULEL” status by CARB delivery in June 2005

1974 EMD 1500 HP yard switcher

17

Hybrid road locomotive R&D At least one OEM actively investigating

Recapture “dynamic braking” energy retarding train on downhill movements DB energy now dissipated to atmosphere as heat

Huge potential for storage and use of that energy for traction power

Major technological issues being investigated

“May be in production within next 5 years” Dynamic Braking energy is now

dissipated downhill

Tractive power exerted going uphill

18

Loco. aftertreatment space reqm’ts. “Engine displacement”: total swept volume Displacement of a Tier 2 engine (EMD 710

& GE “Evolution”) is ~6.7 feet3

Volume of entire eng. ~ 510 feet3

Based on typical applications* ...

NOx aftertreatment ~ 70-80 x sw. vol. Est. NOx requirement ~~ 469-536 feet3 (= 1 entire engine!)

PM aftertreatment ~ 3-4 x sw.vol. Est. PM requirement ~~ 20-27 feet3 (= “an office desk”)

* aftertreatment + “packaging”

19

SCR plus oxi catalyst on EMD engs.

SCR scrubber on Santa Catalina Island … EMD stationary engines

(8’x8’x8’ SCR scrubber plus mixing flue plus stack plus urea tank)

SCR + oxi cat package + flues = 78x swept volume

Photos & text courtesy of Steve Fritz, Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)

20

Projected SCR on a locomotive

750 gallon urea storage volume (12-15% of fuel) … reduces operating range of

locomotive by 12-15%

Nominal 512 cubic feet for SCR scrubber & oxy catalyst (est. 6’ wide x 4’ high x 21’ long) … 15’ urea mixing stack pipe … oxy cat

This is not a practical (realistic) locomotive!

21

The “double stack height” fallacy

Double-stack cars are “excess height” permitted only by special agreement on specific routes … locomotives operate

across the entire continent

22

RRs & locos: customer infrastructure There are GT 75 electric generating plants in the US with rotary dumpers for unloading unit coal trains.

All of these rotary dumpers have “end plate openings” shaped to accommodate locomotives meeting the AAR clearance diagram!

Steel end plate

Rotational center point for dumper allows cars to be rotated (dumped)

without being uncoupled

End plate opening meets AAR loco.

clearance diagram

23

NOx v PM: targeting both is unlikely! Very divergent aftertreatment space required NOx & PM devices ~ 1 entire engine + “office desk”

Restricted from making locos longer, wider or higher NOx + PM? NOx only? PM only?

24

US “emissions tender” concept 24” high-temp. exhaust ducting over locomotive radiator (still “violates” AAR clearance requirements … exh. temp. drops greatly)

24” high-temp. flexible exhaust ducting between locomotive-and-tender moving at up-to-75 MPH … designing, building and maintaining such flexible ducting will be a monumental R&D and engineering task in itself!

“Tender” car behind locomotive containing aftertreatment devices and supplies (loco+tender must be matched for movements)

Emissions Tender

Emissions Tender

• >12 loco. carbody configurations since ‘95 (i.e., tender interface)

• loco movements become highly restricted (reduced asset utilization)

• Engrg. demands of this approach are not trivial and carry major risks of failure

25

Eurotunnel “emissions tender” Special-purpose 2000 HP diesel-hydraulic locos for “tunnel rescue” and maintenance service

Based at the Calais, France, terminal at east end of Eurotunnel … locos see only occasional use, very low mileage

Wet scrubber on tender, typically becomes “loaded” within 30 minutes of operation

This is NOT a practical configuration for US railroads!

26

Hamburg

Hamburg DE 2-11/12

Kiel DE 2-11 (Vossloh Locomotive)

Frankfort DE 2-06

Stuttgart DE 2-06 (Mahle Piston) & 2-07 (UIC emissions staff) Glatten DE 2-07

(L’Orange)

Friedrichshafen DE 2-10 (MTU Engine)

Winterthur SZ 2-08 (Hug Engrg.) Biel SZ 2-09

(SBB Railway shop)

Zurich SZ

London 2-12

Seattle, San Antonio and Chicago 2-05-05 (departure), 2-13/14-05 (return)

Travel mode: Air Autobahn Deutsche Bahn ICE train Swiss Railway train “ “ ferry boat & train City Night Line train

27

Germany & Switzerland Feb. 6-13 … Switzerland & Germany … Hug

Engrg. AG, SBB Railway, Vossloh Locomotive

Hug technology favorable in AAR DPF testing at SWRI (see following slides)

Assess European direction re loco PM

One big difference: smaller diesel engines in Europe (high-speed) v US (medium-speed) … more room inside European carbody … medium-speed engines critical to US operating environment

28

Vossloh diesel-hydraulic 2000 HP Cat 3512 engine

Hug particulate trap with burner

29

AAR PM reduction program: 4th year

We’ve been doing PM trap R&D for 4 years!

Union Pacific & BNSF co-funding up-to $5M

Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) contract

EMD non-turbocharged switcher engines

First, “clean up” EMD engines (reduce lube oil SOF), then do basic DPF technology screening

Verify DPF technologies in engine test cell

Field test on 4 switchers in CA (mid-late 2005?)

AAR CA. Emissions Program: PM Reduction from EMD Switcher Locomotives

by

Steven G. Fritz, P.E.

Southwest Research Institute® (210) 522-3645 sfritz@swri.org sfritz@swri.org

and

Brian E. Smith Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

(719) 584-0558 Brian_Smith@ttci.aar.com

31

General technical approach Task 1: Install EMD 16-645-E switcher engine Task 2: Reduce lubricating oil consumption Find & verify low-oil-consumption power assemblies determine baseline recirculated crankcase oil blowby Apply (new) exhaust valve stem seals and ... Rebuid engine with (new) low-oil-consumption power

assemblies

Task 3: Screen candidate DPF and oxidation catalyst systems on test engine in SWRI test cell … then on 4 switchers in field

ProjectTask 1 - EMD 16-645-E Engine Installation

Task 2 - Reduced Lubricating Oil Consumption

Task 3 - Aftertreatment System Screening

2001Jan'01 Jul'01

2003Jan'03 Jul'03

2002Jan'02 Jul'02

2005Jan'05 Jul'05

2004Jan'04 Jul'04

32

Test engine at SwRI

Engine Model EMD 16-645-E

Cylinder Arrangement V-16

Bore 230 mm

Stroke 254 mm

Displacement/Cylinder 10.6 L

Compression Ratio 16:1

BMEP 5.9 bar @ 900 rpm

BSFC @ Rated Power 254 g/kW-hr

Air Charging Gear Driven RootsBlower

Fuel Injection Cam Driven UnitInjectors

Crankcase Ventilation Crankcase FumesReturned to Blower

Emissions Level EPA Tier 0 - SwitchCycle

• Electro-Motive Division (EMD) 16-645-E non-turbocharged 2-stroke cycle diesel engine

• About 3,400 of these in Class 1 railroad switcher operation across US

• About 300 in California

EMD 16-645-E Engine Specifications

33

Technical challenges ...

Exhaust temperatures are very low

Compounded by switcher duty cycles 60% of the time at Idle

Idle shutdown system will likely be needed

Will likely require active regeneration Electrical heating possible – lots of electrical power

available on the locomotive

Increased cost & complexity over passive systems

Additional fuel consumption penalty

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Low Idle Idle DB4 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8

Throttle Notch

Exha

ust T

emp.

, °C

Soot ignition temp. = 600 °C

JM CRT w/< 50 ppm S fuelCatalyzed Traps

Oxy Cat (HC, CO, 50% of SOF)

29.9% 29.9% 0.0% 12.4% 12.3% 5.8% 3.6% 3.6% 1.5% 0.2% 0.8%

EMD switcher exhaust temps 2,000 hp @ 900 rpm

94% of operating time <250°C

Exhaust temperatures are too low for passive systems

35

Candidate DPF & oxycat evaluations

Original plan was to screen “truck size” samples 135 hp / cyl = 100 kW/cyl

Briefed MECA, solicit potential suppliers Jan. 2002 and again in Nov. 2003, very

limited interest from MECA members

• Challenging application (cold exhaust, low duty cycle, high SOF) … Potential market size too small to justify R&D cost … Busy with near-term, higher volume projects

EMD exhaust manifold section for 4 cylinders

36

Locomotive space limitations

Need to be able to service engine without interference from exhaust manifolds or aftertreatment system

Valve covers open for access to power assemblies

37

DPF & Oxycat Screening Tests 8 systems or variations tested so far System OxyCat or Filter Description

A Oxycat Flow-through Ceramic MonolithB Filter Electrically regenerated PM filterC Oxycat Corregated metal foil

D Filter Diesel-regenerated SiC soot filterE Filter Diesel-regenerated SiC soot filter

F Oxycat"brillo pad" media - close coupled + main chamber of exhaust manifold

G Oxycat"brillo pad" media - close coupled in legs of exhaust manifold

H Oxycat + filter + oxycatCorregated metal foil oxycat + some kind of soot filter

38

“D & E”: soot filters SiC soot filter, catalyst

coating lowers soot ignition temp. to 450°C … 1 unit handles only 4-of-16 cylinders!

Diesel burner for active regeneration Line-Haul PM = 0.02 g/hp-hr,

limited durability testing looks good – 24-hour Idle & 24-hour N2 test

Now testing latest SiC filters

Diesel burner location

Soot filter housing

Oxycat

HC CO Corr. NOx PMEPA Switch Cycle (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr)Engine-Out 0.73 2.0 12.8 0.45System E 0.45 2.4 10.3 0.05Pct. Diff -39% 21% -20% -88%

HC CO Corr. NOx PMEPA Line-Haul Cycle (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr)Engine-Out 0.57 3.5 11.9 0.48System E 0.27 7.0 10.3 0.02Pct. Diff -53% 103% -13% -95%

39

AAR program summary/conclusions

Engines must be “repacked” for low-oil usage This is where most of the PM is coming from, reduces the

burden on the aftertreatment system

Lab screening test of candidate aftertreatment systems essential Suppliers rarely “get it right” the first time … this is a

challenging application

If it fits … will it work? Technology path is not certain: oxycat vs. DPF … Capex? Durability? Maintainability? Many unanswered Qs remain.

40

AAR DPF test program: what next?

Engine shock and vibration analysis and continuing screening tests

System E soot filter is being equipped with the latest SiC elements

Assess: If it works … will it fit? Will it last?

Phase II plans: Procure systems for 4 demonstrator locomotives

41

Where is AAR program after 4 years?

42

Lessons from AAR CA. Program ...

(1) Valid technological progress takes time.

(2) Technology cannot simply be “scaled up” from one application to another … especially truck to locomotive!

(3) Big difference between over-the-road truck and locomotive environments.

(4) A lot of PM reduction work has already been done (under RR funding).

… and ...

43

(5) Consider Clearair’s comments about “packaging” four “Longview”TM cannisters on a 1000 HP Amtrak HEP engine …

Locomotive prime movers are 1500-to-6000 horsepower!

44

Overall loco engine emissions: next Continuing “in engine” R&D will likely

produce even more reductions in NOx and PM than T2

Ongoing discussions with EPA re locomotive Tier 3 regulations. NOx & PM? NOx only? PM only?

“Offboard” developments reducing emissions Road loco consist control schemes; hybrid & truck-

engine switchers

Regenerative hybrid road loco capturing downhill dynamic braking energy

Etc.

45

Summary UP & RR industry commitment to environment UP massive fleet investment since ‘00

Long history of engine-related R&D (rail industry R&D historically self-funded) thru new locomotive acquisitions

UP funding significant R&D for yard switchers

Solid embracement of EPA Tiers 0 and 1 ‘00-’04 UP committed to new EPA Tier 2 technology ‘05

Fleet emissions are declining!

Major technology decisions req’d. re future locomotive emissions reductions

46

Recap … US loco emissions tech. Continuing evolution of road loco designs

More “in engine” progress remaining

New switcher concepts, hybrid & truck-engines

DPF application R&D for older EMD switchers

Hybrid road loco R&D for dynamic braking regeneration

Aftertreatment possible but not yet ready for production … no easy “up sizing”

47

Questions & comments questions

Lanny A. Schmid Director Environmental Operations

Union Pacific Railroad 1400 Douglas Street, Mail stop 1030 Omaha, NE 68179

402-544-2262

laschmid@up.com

Michael Iden, P.E. General Director Car & Loco Engineering

Union Pacific Railroad 5050 W. Lake Street Melrose Park, IL 60160

708-649-5899

meiden@up.com