I stumbled on this this just now and haven't read much of it yet . Looks interesting at a glance .My head is spinning. I have not been convinced that rail freight has a significant impact on total pollution in either urban or regional environments, in Australia. To me this appears to be a bureaucracy in search of a problem. As a base line I think it is appropriate that there is some comparison between the emissions produced by(for example) one 4500 tonne coal train travelling between Airly and Inner Harbour and the road transport equivalent. I'd be surprised if 4X82s or 3x93s emit more emissions than 60 B-doubles. Does a thirty year old two-stroke on rail produce bad stuff? Absolutely. Is the road transport alternative cleaner? It doesn't seem to have been considered.
Had a quick sift through and yep the data looks interesting . It remains to be seen how aggressive our EPA wants to be with the changes that look like coming .You may have seen the documentation for the tier 0+ upgrade kits fitted to 8113 and a 90 class. From memory, the upgrade didn't really meet the manufacturers claims and there was a significant increase in consumption. I can see huge expense for operators, that will likely result in more road transport and more pollution, not less. You and others, have recently mentioned alignment improvements, on other threads. I can't imagine the EPA would be interested as these would be a cost to government rather than cost to private enterprise.
If they insist on Tier 4 emissions with new locomotives then the choices from the US would appear to be the latest spec GE and EMD engines . That would involve some interesting alterations to our latest National standard gauge style units if they are to use the Gevo and EMD 1010J type power assemblies .
Also rebuilds get a mention and at least there is somewhere to go with say older spec 710s , should be upgradable to the later Tier 3 spec like later Two Stroke 70ACEs have .PN lucked out with their NR re power grogram that came with later computers and injection for the ageing FDL engine design . Their 93s were an update on the original 92 and I think some of the differences may have been inverter and computer related .
I can see this being the death warrant for Alco powered units in the long term if the EPA pushes it .
Not sure where you'd go with the EMD 645 powered units needing a rebuild , don't know if the local operators are interested in 710 Eco type upgrades .
No I didn't know about the 81 or 90 class Tier 0 experiment . I was originally searching for fuel consumption differences between tier 2/3 and Tier 4 in the US . 81s were never exactly economical from new and 90s I wouldn't know because I never worked on them .http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/diesel-locomotive-emissions-report.pdf
I don't remember reading that Tier 1/2/3 caused the American operators that much grief fuel consumption wise but I did read that the tier 4 newbys had something like a 5 to 10 percent fuel penalty over Tier 3 units .
The point of this thread is not social or vs road going diesel powered vehicles but be very sure that road standards for diesels is alive and well and currently quite tough . When you can look at the exhaust tip of a 12 month old truck and the inside is the same colour as the outside that says something .There's lot's we don't know and not much we do. Can we assume that GT46ACE, C44ACi and MP33C are Tier 3 compliant? Can we also assume that no-one, (Chinese included) can supply Tier 4 to fit our loading gauge? Sounds like Tier 3 should be the standard for new stuff.
If it's the EPAs will costs to operators on road or rail will mean zip . The American operators had no say in the advent of Tier 0/1/2/3/4 emissions standards and neither does Joe Average motorist - of car or truck .
It isn't difficult now to see why there has been large rebuild programs going on in the US , the cost of Tier 4 units and maintenance to keep them legal as well as fuel consumption . Unlike here they've had locos with adequate performance for a long time and it isn't like the new ones will do the job that much better - except emissions wise .
I doubt an AC4400 performs much short of a 70ACE in the real world where an Australian GT46ACE wipes its dot all over an AN and probably a 90 as well . There isn't too many older 4000 odd horsepower units here available to upgrade so if you want equal or better than a C44ACi or GT46ACE it means buy new , and if the EPA gets a say it could possibly mean to new standards .
Getting back to basics, will locos equipped with the US sourced GE and EMD Tier 4 medium speed diesels fit within the ARTC loading gauge? If they do, GE will probably be a non starter as a package with a Tier 4 GEVO, including the additional cooling modules required, will possibly be too heavy to meet the 134 tonne limitThose Class 44s are an attractive looking thing. I'm particularly fond of the wire mesh on the side windows, to keep the crew in. I wonder if any local operators have thought of that.
You will have noted that GEVO equiped locos for South Africa (132 tonnes) and Pakistan (137 tonnes), are not Tier 4 compliant. The Transnet ES40ACi use air to air for charged air cooling (hence 4200HP), not air to water, to keep weight/size within limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Class_44-000
Europe appears to be using high speed engines with exhaust treatment to meet their Tier 4 equivalent
Tier 4 and the EMD 710 ......
A bit of a squeeze for Australia!