Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF orders 330 locos for 2015

No specifics on types yet, but with EMD out of the picture it's likely these are all GEs unless they can get a handful of Tier 4 gensets from NRE.

I still have this suspicion the new Congress in January may act to postpone or even junk Tier 4 to "protect American jobs", "prevent the economy from sliding back into recession" and "increase needed transportation capacity."

We will see.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Why is EMD out of the picture? What did I miss?

KR

EMD is behind the ball and does not have a tier 4 engine.

If the industry can get the needed locomotives from one (or two) builders, why would Congress "act"? Where have you see anything that says there will be a shortage of new locomotives?

You don't follow politics much do you?

Halding back on Tier 4 which EMD can't yet means employees will not be laid off in a couple of states, building locos is "shovel ready" everything in the infrastructure is in place. The Republican majority hates the EPA and many would eviscerate that agency on day one. The availability of new locomotives really won't have much to do with it. Muscle flexing and 2016 does.



Labiche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the industry can get the needed locomotives
> from one (or two) builders, why would Congress
> "act"? Where have you see anything that says
> there will be a shortage of new locomotives?

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still have this suspicion the new Congress in
> January may act to postpone or even junk Tier 4 to
> "protect American jobs", "prevent the economy from
> sliding back into recession" and "increase needed
> transportation capacity."
>
> We will see.
>
> Posted from Windows Phone OS 7
I certainly hope so!

Posted from Android

Thanks for the info. I never though of this reason.

Now, does any one know how did EMD, once the front runner in locomotive design and innovation for many years find them selves in this situation?

KR

kdrtrains Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info. I never though of this
> reason.
>
> Now, does any one know how did EMD, once the front
> runner in locomotive design and innovation for
> many years find them selves in this situation?
>
> KR

Consistent under investment in research and development played a major role. When EMD was owned by General Motors during the early 2000s, there was minimal investment in any part of the business.

GE, on the other hand, has a long tradition of basic research and seeks continuous improvement in its products. Reasonable people will differ on how successful they are over decades.

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't follow politics much do you?
>
> Halding back on Tier 4 which EMD can't yet means
> employees will not be laid off in a couple of
> states, building locos is "shovel ready"
> everything in the infrastructure is in place. The
> Republican majority hates the EPA and many would
> eviscerate that agency on day one. The
> availability of new locomotives really won't have
> much to do with it. Muscle flexing and 2016 does.

You don't follow politics much do you?

Eviscerating the EPA does not repeal the laws already in place -- those would have to be repealed or replaced by Congress. And regardless of who is in the majority the President can still veto legislation for which the Republicans cannot override because they do not have enough members. Now, they could foolishly threaten another government shutdown, but we all know how well that worked last time....

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kdrtrains Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for the info. I never though of this
> > reason.
> >
> > Now, does any one know how did EMD, once the
> front
> > runner in locomotive design and innovation for
> > many years find them selves in this situation?
> >
> > KR
>
> Consistent under investment in research and
> development played a major role. When EMD was
> owned by General Motors during the early 2000s,
> there was minimal investment in any part of the
> business.

The financial holdings group that GM sold EMD to also did not invest much in R&D in order to maximize their return on investment. When CAT then purchased EMD from them Tier 4 was three years away, and it takes at least 5 years to develop a new engine (seeing that the 710G cannot meet Tier 4 effectively). So CAT was already 2 years behind the ball upon purchasing EMD.

alamode Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > kdrtrains Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thanks for the info. I never though of this
> > > reason.
> > >
> > > Now, does any one know how did EMD, once the
> > front
> > > runner in locomotive design and innovation
> for
> > > many years find them selves in this
> situation?
> > >
> > > KR
> >
> > Consistent under investment in research and
> > development played a major role. When EMD was
> > owned by General Motors during the early 2000s,
> > there was minimal investment in any part of the
> > business.
>
> The financial holdings group that GM sold EMD to
> also did not invest much in R&D in order to
> maximize their return on investment. When CAT then
> purchased EMD from them Tier 4 was three years
> away, and it takes at least 5 years to develop a
> new engine (seeing that the 710G cannot meet Tier
> 4 effectively). So CAT was already 2 years behind
> the ball upon purchasing EMD.

Which creates a significant problem.

But CAT also invests for decades and generations, which is a good long term sign for EMD's future.

As mentioned elsewhere ( on this forum somewhere), engines produced PRIOR to 2015 can be installed in locomotives constructed in 2015 or later. So if CAT is smart they have a bunch of engines just sitting around waiting.

SeaboardMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As mentioned elsewhere ( on this forum
> somewhere), engines produced PRIOR to 2015 can be
> installed in locomotives constructed in 2015 or
> later. So if CAT is smart they have a bunch of
> engines just sitting around waiting.


NOT true. Several EPA rules basically state that for EPA Tier 4 consideration the entire locomotive must be essentially completed and functional -- see below (you'll especially want to take a look at the second one). Remember, Tier 4 is not achieved by the prime mover alone in a locomotive -- the cooling and control systems are involved as well.

"40 CFR §§ 1033.1(b) and (c) specify that emission standards generally apply to the complete
locomotive (i.e., they are equipment-based emission standards) and based on the year in which
the locomotive was originally manufactured. The definition of original manufacture in §
1033.901 states that “the date of original manufacture is the date of final assembly”. Thus, a
line-haul locomotive that undergoes final assembly in the 2015 calendar year would be subject to
2015 emission standards, or Tier 4. This approach differs from that defined in 40 CFR § 1068.30
for equipment in that it directs you to assign a date of manufacture at some point later in the
assembly process than engine installation. While the term final assembly is not defined in our
regulations, EPA has generally interpreted this to mean that the locomotive is assembled to the
point where it is ready for delivery to the end customer for placement into service. For example,
a locomotive would not be considered finally assembled if the chassis had the engine alone
installed and is missing every other part required for service operation."

"1068.103(f) adequately states EPA’s policy that manufacturers “may not circumvent the provisions of §1068.101(a)(1) by stockpiling engines with a date of manufacture before new or changed emission standards take effect by deviating from your normal production and inventory practices."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/14 12:39 by alamode.

The EPA does not pass laws it enables regulations. There is a huge difference here.

Eviscerating the EPA does not repeal the laws already in place -- those would have to be repealed or replaced by Congress

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

It would be nice to scrap tier 4 and keep Tier 3 in effect for perpetuity.

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The EPA does not pass laws it enables regulations.
> There is a huge difference here.
>
> Eviscerating the EPA does not repeal the laws
> already in place -- those would have to be
> repealed or replaced by Congress
>
> Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

That's true, although Congress can amend appropriations to strip out funding for particular departments or enforcement initiatives.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fbe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The EPA does not pass laws it enables
> regulations.
> > There is a huge difference here.
> >
> > Eviscerating the EPA does not repeal the laws
> > already in place -- those would have to be
> > repealed or replaced by Congress
> >
> > Posted from Windows Phone OS 7
>
> That's true, although Congress can amend
> appropriations to strip out funding for particular
> departments or enforcement initiatives.


Defund Tier 4 enforcement? Sounds like a plan to me.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fbe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The EPA does not pass laws it enables
> regulations.
> > There is a huge difference here.
> >
> > Eviscerating the EPA does not repeal the laws
> > already in place -- those would have to be
> > repealed or replaced by Congress
> >
> > Posted from Windows Phone OS 7
>
> That's true, although Congress can amend
> appropriations to strip out funding for particular
> departments or enforcement initiatives.


While it could, the EPA rarely delays implementation of a rule. The only way a delay might get any traction would be if the GE's suffer a complete meltdown. Even then, Cummins is demonstrating another methodology. The EPA couldn't care less that the railroads do not want urea.

NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be nice to scrap tier 4 and keep Tier 3
> in effect for perpetuity.


Why?