EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT USING
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
by
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
FINAL REPORT
PART I
LOCOMOTIVE DIESEL ENGINES
AND MARINE COUNTERPARTS
Contract No. EHS 70-108
Prepared for
Characterization and Control Development Branch
Mobile Source Pollution Control Program
and
Air Quality Management Branch
Stationary Source Pollution Control Program
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
October 1972
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Post Office Drawer 28510, 8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Emissions Research Laboratory
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT USING
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
by
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
FINAL REPORT
PART I
LOCOMOTIVE DIESEL ENGINES
AND MARINE COUNTERPARTS
Contract No. EHS 70-108
Prepared for
Characterization and Control Development Branch
Mobile Source Pollution Control Program
and
Air Quality Management Branch
Stationary Source Pollution Control Program
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
October 1972
Approved:
John M. Clark, Jr.
Technical Vice President
Department of Automotive Research
-------
ABSTRACT
This report is Part 1 of the Final Report on Exhaust Emissions
from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Com-
bustion Engines, Contract No. EHS 70-108. Exhaust emissions from
three locomotive diesel engines were measured, including: total hydro-
carbons by heated FLA; light hydrocarbons by gas chromatograph; CO,
CC>2» and NO by NDIR; NO and NOX by chemiluminescence; 03 by electro-
chemical analysis; and total aliphatic aldehydes and formaldehyde by the
MBTH and chromotropic acid methods, respectively. In addition, smoke
plume opacity was measured using a special version of the PHS smoke-
meter, and an attempt was made to characterize particulate using an exper-
imental dilution-type sampling device.
The engines tested were SP Unit 1311, an EMD 12-567 switch engine;
SP Unit 8447, an EMD 16-645E-3 line-haul engine; and SP Unit 8639, a GE
7FDL16 line-haul engine; and they were all operated in modes representative
of real operation. For test purposes, the engines were loaded by absorbing
power from their main generators using the Southern Pacific SEARCH
machine facility, and all pertinent operating data were recorded. In addition
to mass emissions computed from tests performed under the subject con-
tract, other available data are used where possible in estimating emission
factors and national impact.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The project for which this report constitutes part of the end product
was initiated jointly on June 29, 1970 by the Division of Motor Vehicle
Research and Development and the Division of Air Quality and Emission
Data, both divisions of the agency known as NAPCA. Currently, these
offices are the Characterization and Control Development Branch of MSPCP
and the Air Quality Management Branch of SSPCP, respectively, Office of
Air and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency. The contract
number is EHS 70-108, and the project is identified within Southwest Research
Institute as 11-2869-01.
This report (Part 1) covers the locomotive portion of the characteri-
zation work only, and the other items in the characterization work will be
covered by six other parts of the final report. Other efforts which have been
conducted as separate phases of Contract EHS 70-108, including: measure-
ment of gaseous emissions from a number of aircraft turbine engines; meas-
urement of crankcase drainage from a number of outboard motors; and inves-
tigation of emissions control technology for locomotive diesel engines; either
have been or will be reported separately.
Cognizant technical personnel for the Environmental Protection Agency
are currently Messrs. William Rogers Oliver and David S. Kircher, and past
Project Officers include Messrs. J. L. Raney, A. J. Hoffman, B. D. McNutt,
and G. J. Kennedy. Project Manager for Southwest Research Institute has
been Mr. Karl J. Springer, and Mr. Charles T. Hare has carried the technical
responsibility.
The offices of the sponsoring agency (EPA) are located at 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 and at Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; and the contractor (SwRI) is located at 8500 Culebra Road,
San Antonio, Texas 78284.
The successful conduct of the locomotive portion of this project would
not have been possible without the full cooperation of the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company, including both San Antonio personnel and those in
the San Francisco corporate headquarters.
In particular, Messrs. Phil Scott, Earl Kaiser, and Jack Williams
of the local Southern Pacific staff, and Messrs. Paul Garin, W. M. Jackie,
and Bob Byrne of the San Francisco office were of great service to the
project.
Several individuals in the locomotive industry, notably Mr. Jack
Hoffman of General Electric Company, and Mr. Hugh Williams and Mr. George
Hanley of General Motors, have provided technical assistance and a limited
amount of supplementary emissions data.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . vT
LIST OF TABLES vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OBJECTIVES 2
III. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION 3
A. Gaseous Emissions Measurements 3
B. Smoke Measurements 9
C. Particulate Measurements 11
IV. EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS 13
A. Gaseous Emissions Results 13
B. Smoke Results 20
C. Particulate Results 21
D. Special Test Results 23
E. Emissions During Transients 24
V. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS AND NATIONAL IMPACT 28
A. Emission Factors and Emission Estimates for
Locomotive Diesel Engines 28
B. Emission Factors for the Marine Counterparts
of Locomotive Diesel Engines 34
VI. SUMMARY - 36
LIST OF REFERENCES 38
APPENDIXES
Explanatory Notes on Appendix Data
A. Test Data and Computed Mass Emissions, EMD 12-567
(S. P. Unit 1311)
B. Test Data and Computed Mass Emissions, EMD 16-645E-3
(S. P. Unit 8447)
C. Test Data and Computed Mass Emissions, G. E. 7FDL16
(S. P. Unit 8639)
D. Analysis of Fuels Used During Locomotive Emissions Tests
E. Major Maintenance History of Test Locomotives
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Main Gaseous Emissions Analysis /Readout System 4
2. Oven Used for Temperature Control of FIA and Aldehyde
Systems 4
3. Sampling Line Installation on EMD 12-567 Switch Engine
(SP-1311) 4
4. Sampling Line Installation on EMD 16-645E-3 Engine (SP-8447) 4
5. Smokemeter Control/Readout Unit Located Inside SEARCH
Facility 10
6. Smokemeter 20-inch Support Ring and Optical Unit Mounted on
Unit 1311 10
7. Smokemeter 40-inch Support Ring and Optical Unit Mounted on
Unit 8447 10
8. Smokemeter 40-inch Support Ring and Optical Unit Mounted on
Unit 8639 10
9. Experimental Dilution-Type Particulate Sampler Used for
Locomotive Tests 12
10. Control System Used to Maintain Flowrate in 3 inch Diameter
Sample Duct 12
11. Arrangement of Sample Duct Used on Unit 1311 12
12. Arrangement of Sample Duct Used on Unit 8639 (same as used
on Unit 8447) 12
13. Hydrocarbon Emissions (g/hr) from three Locomotive Diesel
Engines as a Function of Throttle Position 14
14. Carbon Monoxide Emissions (g/hr) from Three Locomotive
Diesel Engines as a Function of Throttle Position 15
15. Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions (g/hr NO2) from Three Locomotive
Diesel Engines as a Function of Throttle Position 16
16. Aliphatic Adlehyde Emissions (g/hr HCHO) from Three Loco-
motive Deis el Engines as a Function of Throttle Position 17
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Locomotive Emissions Test Sequence 6
2. Engine Speeds used as "Notches" for Unit 1311 6
3. Values of Constants in Mass Emissions Equations 7
4. Locomotive Duty Cycles 8
5. Average Mass Emissions by Throttle Setting 18
6. Locomotive Cycle Composite Emissions Results 19
7. Locomotive Light Hydrocarbon Data Summary 20
8. Summary of Locomotive Steady-State Smoke Data 20
9. Summary of Locomotive Particulate Emissions Data 22
10. Average Mass Emissions from a G. E. 7FDL16 Locomotive
Engine Using Standard and Revised Engine Speeds 24
11. Cycle Composite Emissions from a G. E. 7FDL16 Locomotive
Using Standard and Revised Engine Speeds 25
12. Smoke Emissions from a G. E. 7FDL16 Locomotive Engine
Using Standard and Revised Engine Speeds 26
13. Locomotive Emissions During Acceleration Transients 27
14. U.S. Locomotive Population by Power Class and Builder 29
15. Summary of Reweighted Emissions from Units 1311 and 8639 30
16. Summary of Fuel-Based Emission Factor Calculations 32
17. Summary of Brake Specific Emission Factor Calculations 32
18. National Impact Estimates for Locomotive Emissions 33
19. Comparison of Subject National Impact Estimates with EPA
Nationwide Air Pollutant Inventory Data 33
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Table Page
20. Re-Weighted Locomotive Emission Factors Used to
Characterize Emissions from Their Marine Counterparts 35
21. Estimated Composite Emission Factors For 500- to 4000-hp
Diesel-Powered U. S. Flag Merchant Vessels 35
Vlll
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The program of research on which this report is based was initiated
by the Environmental Protection Agency to (1) characterize emissions from
a broad range of internal combustion engines in order to accurately set
priorities for future control, as required, and (2) assist in developing more
inclusive national and regional air pollution inventories. This document,
which is Part 1 of what is planned to be a seven-part final report, concerns
emissions from locomotive diesel engines (and their marine counterparts)
and the national impact of these emissions.
In the case of the locomotive diesels as well as many of the other
engine categories investigated under this contract, very little previous
emissions work which could be used as a guideline had been done prior to
the subject emissions tests. Fortunately, those who had done emissions
testing were cooperative in sharing their experiences, which no doubt
enabled the test program to proceed more smoothly than it would have
otherwise. The test procedures used were designed after discussions with
locomotive and railroad people, but their intent is to gather useful research
data and nothing more. Likewise, the specific exhaust constituents meas-
ured and the techniques used were mostly based on standard practice and
the desire to gather meaningful data, without considering their potential
applicability or usefulness in certification or surveillance testing. The
major exception taken to standard practice was the use of chemiluminescent
NOX results rather than NDIR NO results for computation of NOX mass
emissions, a decision based on experience in running the two types of ana-
lyzers in parallel on a number of engines. In addition, since there is no
"standard practice" for measurement of particulate emissions from loco-
motives, an experimental sampling system was used; and it yielded extremely
doubtful results.
Since the size of the locomotive engines prohibited their being brought
to the Emissions Research Laboratory for testing, a system of instrumentation
was designed and a crew was organized to perform the emissions tests on-
site, at the San Antonio Southern Pacific maintenance depot SEARCH (System
jEvaluation And Reliability jZIHecks) facility. These tests were conducted over
a~period of two weeks in April, 1972, on a two-shift basis to keep the loco-
motives out of service only as long as necessary.
-------
II. OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the locomotive portion of this project
were to collect useful emissions data on three locomotive diesel engines,
and to use these data in conjunction with supplementary data on emissions,
number of units in service, and annual usage to estimate emission factors
and national impact. The emissions to be characterized included total
hydrocarbons, light hydrocarbons, aldehydes, CO, CO2, NO by NDIR and
chemiluminescence, NOX by chemiluminescence, 03, smoke by a modified
PHS opacity meter, and particulate by an experimental dilution-type sampling
system. These emissions have been or will be measured for all diesel engines
operated during this project, as required by the contract.
The objectives included implicitly the operation of the locomotive
engines over a pattern of steady-state and transient conditions, and the
determination of the importance of each mode in the total locomotive emissions
picture. These tasks are quite simple for locomotives, since there are gen-
erally only eight throttle positions (or "notches") at which the locomotives
operate (plus idle and dynamic brake). The 12-567 switch locomotive (unit
1311) was an exception, since it had a continuous throttle (no notches) and no
dynamic brake capability, so artificial "notches" were set for it by specifying
a certain engine speed for each mode.
In addition to the emissions measurements, sufficient engine operating
data were taken to ensure that conditions repeated themselves adequately
and that mass emissions could be calculated from the raw concentration data.
Secondary objectives, not required by the contract, which were met included a
limited evaluation of a modified large-ring smokemeter using PHS optics, design
of a test procedure which is compact but still tends to eliminate the effects of
directional mode changes, and an attempt at adaptation of the experimental
dilution-type particulate sampler to locomotive usage.
Due to the overall brevity of the testing phase of this project, it was
determined at the onset that emissions from marine counterparts of the
locomotive engine would be characterized by weighting mode emissions data
taken on locomotives to more closely simulate marine operation.
-------
III. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION
In order to fulfill contract requirements for locomotive diesel
engine testing, three separate analysis systems were used. Gaseous
emissions, including light hydrocarbons and aldehydes, were measured
by standard SAE techniques (J177 and J215) on a continuous sample
drawn from inside the exhaust outlet to a point inside the SEARCH
machine facility. Smoke was measured using modified PHS-type opacity
meters with remote readout inside the SEARCH facility, and particulates
were measured using an experimental dilution-type device which sampled
from a "split" of the exhaust withdrawn through a 3-inch diameter tube.
The techniques and instrumentation used for each type of analysis were
quite dissimilar, so the systems will be discussed separately.
A. Gaseous Emissions Measurements
The gaseous emissions measured include: total hydrocarbons
by heated FIA; CO, CO2, and NO by NDIR; NO and NO^by chemilumi-
nescence; 03 by an electrochemical analyzer; total aliphatic aldehydes
(RCHO) by the MBTH method* ' and formaldehyde (HCHO) by the chromo-
tropic acid method1 '; and light hydrocarbons (CH4 through C^JQ) by gas
chromatograph using a 10 ft by 1/8 inch column packed with a mixture of
phenyl isocyanate and Porasil C preceded by a 1 inch by 1/8 inch precolumn
packed with 100-120 mesh Porapak N. All the continuous measurements
were recorded on strip-chart recorders as well as mode-by-mode data
sheets, but analysis of samples for RCHO, HCHO, and light hydrocarbons
was performed at the Emissions Research Laboratory. The aqueous
reagents through which exhaust was bubbled for aldehyde analysis were
transported in small individual flasks, and samples for light hydrocarbon
analysis were transported in inert plastic bags. The instruments were
located in the SEARCH machine facility, which was air-conditioned and
served to isolate the instruments and crew members from the engine's
heat, noise and vibration. Figure 1 shows the main gaseous emissions
analysis cart, including readouts for all the instruments and the analysis
sections for all except hydrocarbons. The oven shown in Figure 2 con-
tained the HC detector and also served as the wet sample collection point
for aldehydes. The sample line used was 3/8 inch O. D. stainless steel,
and was heated to maintain a sample gas temperature of 360°F. Its length
(to the probe exit) was 23 ft for the switch locomotive (unit 1311) and 17 ft
for the two line haul locomotives, which gave response times of approxi-
mately 7 seconds and 5 seconds, respectively. The additional length for
the switch locomotive was necessary because it had two exhaust stacks,
and a "T" was added to the end of the fixed sample line to reach both of
them, as shown in Figure 3. The vertical (unheated) stainless line which
joins the sample lines at the "T" carried purge air, controlled by a re-
motely-operated solenoid valve (hidden behind insulation at the "T"). The
air flow was considerably in excess of that required for sample line purge,
so the probe lines were also being backflushed by air while the purge was
occuring. The same type of system was used for the other two locomotives,
3
-------
Figure 1. Main Gaseous Emissions
Analysis/Readout System
Figure 2. Oven Used for Temperature
Control of FIA and Aldehyde Systems
Figure 3. Sampling Line Installation
on EMD 12-567 Switch Engine (SP-1311)
Figure 4. Sampling Line Installation
on EMD 16-645E-3 Engine (SP-8447)
-------
as shown in Figure 4 for unit 8447 (the solenoid valve appears at right,
at the end of the permanent sample line).
Sample probes used for locomotive testing were of the multi-
orifice or ''rake" type, patterned after those developed by engine manu-
facturers! ' They were constructed of 3/8 inch stainless steel tubing
and were oriented with holes facing upstream (not the same as some
previous work). The probe locations were those determined earlier by
manufacturers in most cases, with the possible exception that mixed flow
was sampled near the outlet of the G. E. U33-C (unit 8639), above the
crankcase eductors. The mixed flow is that which is emitted to the atmos-
phere, so it should be sampled if proper mixing can be established. The
probes for the large locomotives had twelve 1/16 inch diameter holes,
and each of the two probes used on the switch locomotive had six 1/16
inch diameter holes.
Analysis for total hydrocarbons and aldehydes was carried out
on hot samples, maintained at about 375°F by the oven shown in Figure 2.
These measurements are considered to be on a "wet" basis, then, without
the necessity for corrections. All the other emissions were measured "dry"
that is, on samples from which most of the ambient humidity and water of
combustion had been removed, and the concentrations were corrected to a
"wet" basis mathematically. * The primary water removal system con-
sisted of ice-bath water traps, with further drying through anhydrous CaSC>4
canisters upstream of the NDIR NO analyzer. It is recognized that water
traps tend to remove NO2 from the gases passed through them, so checks
were made to determine the extent of this removal, resulting in the conclu-
sion that about 11% of the NO£ was removed from calibration gases. The
same check was run on NO, with no measurable loss indicated. In the
reporting of results, no correction has been made for this measured loss.
Such a correction would make only a very small change in composite brake
specific emissions, and the results without correction are probably most
directly comparable to other reported emissions results. Further develop-
ment will probably enable the chemiluminescent instruments to sample wet
exhaust gases, eliminating the present problems. It should also be noted in
this discussion that none of the NO or NOX numbers have been "corrected"
for ambient humidity by any of the equations available for the purpose. If
the reader needs such a correction, the required ambient conditions will be
presented in the Appendixes.
The set of test conditions which constituted one run for locomotive
tests included 24 modes distributed as shown in Table 1. This sequence
was designed for duplication of all conditions except idle (which was included
6 times due to idle variability), and the cancelling of directional effects by
approaching each power notch from both higher and lower power settings.
These goals were realized except for notch 4, which is approached only from
lower power settings, but test results were not affected by this imperfection.
The EMD 12-567 switch locomotive (unit 1311) had a continuous throttle with
-------
TABLE 1. LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS TEST SEQUENCE
Notch or Notch or Notch or
Mode Condition Mode Condition Mode Condition
1 Idle 9 N7 17 N5
2 Nl 10 N8 18 Dynamic Brake
3 N2 11 Idle 19 Idle
4 N3 12 Dynamic Brake 20 N4
5 N4 13 Idle 21 N3
6 Idle 14 N8 22 N2
7 N5 15 N7 23 Nl
8 N6 16 N6 24 Idle
no notches, so artificial notches were made based on engine rpm. Idle
speed was 275 rpm for unit 1311, and rated speed was 800 rpm, so the
decision was made to set notch 1 at 300 rpm and divide the speed range
up to 800 rpm into roughly equal increments. The result of this arbitrary
procedure is shown in Table 2, and it should also be noted that this locomotive
TABLE 2. ENGINE SPEEDS USED AS "NOTCHES" FOR UNIT 1311
Notch Engine rpm Notch Engine rpm
1 300 5 584
2 371 6 655
3 442 7 726
4 513 8 800
did not have a dynamic braking provision. The procedure used for unit 1311
ended up having 21 modes, all those shown in Table 1 except 12, 13, and 18.
Although the sampling procedure was not performed on a strict time
schedule, time for one run was generally 2 to 2. 5 hours, or 5 to 7 minutes
per mode. To avoid excessive analysis time, aldehydes and light
hydrocarbons were measured only for idle, dynamic brake (where applicable),
and notches 2, 4, 6, and 8. Even with the smaller number of samples taken,
the relationship between aldehydes and throttle notch was fairly well established,
as will be discussed later.
Since it was relatively easy to measure fuel consumption of the loco-
motive engines (using a weight-scale system with a heat exchanger on the
return line) and quite difficult to measure airflow, it was decided that a
carbon balance technique would be used to calculate mass emissions from
6
-------
concentrations and fuel rates. The formulas used to perform these cal-
culations were:
TC = total carbon = (1 x 10'4) (ppm C + ppm CO) + % CC>2
HC (g/hr) = 0.0454 (ppm C) (FUEL lbm/hr) /TC
CO (g/hr) = Kco (ppm CO) (FUEL lbm/hr) /TC
N0x as N02 (g/hr) = KNQ (ppm NOX) (FUEL Ib /hr) /TC
•JC
RCHO as HCHO (g/hr) = KRCHO (ppm RCHO) (FUEL lbm/hr) /TC
The "K" constants (except for Kpjc, which is always 0.0454) depend some-
what on the fuel hydrogen/carbon ratio, and since each locomotive used a
somewhat different fuel, each one required different constants. The "K"
values are given in Table 3, and complete fuel specifications are given in
Appendix D. The fuel H/C ratios also influenced the conversion of emis-
sions measured on a dry basis back to a wet, or actual basis. Once the
mode-by-mode emissions had been determined on a g/hr basis, brake
specific values (g/bhp hr) were computed by dividing g/hr by observed
power and fuel specific emissions (g/lbm fuel) were calculated by dividing
g/hr by fuel rate (lbm/hr).
TABLE 3. VALUES OF CONSTANTS IN MASS EMISSIONS EQUATIONS
_ Locomotive Number
Constituent
SP-1311
0.0924
0.152
0.0990
SP-8447
0.0925
0. 152
0.0992
SP-8639
0.0918
0. 151
0.0984
CO
NOX as
RCHO as HCHO
Thus far the analysis has only progressed to mode-by-mode con-
centration and mass emissions data, and in order to compute composite
emissions, operating cycles which lead to mode weighting factors must
be considered. Manufacturers and industry groups have worked on the
duty cycle problem quite extensively, using on-board mode monitors, and
the cycles which seem to represent their latest results(4, 5, 6) are sum-
marized in Table 4. These cycles were adopted for use in this project,
and composite specific emissions were calculated using these cycles as
-------
TABLE 4. LOCOMOTIVE DUTY CYCLES
Percent of Operating Time in Notch or Condition
Notch or Condition ATSF Switch(4) EMD Line Haul*5) *G. E. Line Haul(6)
Idle 77 41 43
Dynamic Brake -- 88
1 10 3 3
2 533
3433
4233
5133
6133
7033
8 0 30 28
#This cycle is a compromise between one originally submitted by G. E.
for use in smoke measurement studies and the EMD line-haul cycle.
basis. The particular relationships used to calculate cycle composite
emissions were:
n
cycle g/hr = / M^Wj; Mi = individual mode emissions, g/hr, W^
i=l time based weighting factor, n = number of
modes (21 or 24)
> MiWi
cycle g/bhp hr = i=l - ; hpj = individual mode power, hp
n
n
£ MiWi
cycle g/lbm fuel = 1=1 - ; (fuel rate)^ = individual mode
fuel rate, lbm/hr
(fuel
It should be obvious that the very large amount of idle time included in the
switch cycle will contribute to causing brake specific and fuel specific
emissions from the switch engine to be higher than those from the two
line haul engines. The EMD and G. E. cycles are so similar that the use
of the other would have made only little difference in either case. If more
8
-------
conclusive duty cycle data are developed at some later date for either or
both of the types of locomotives tested, the individual mode mass emis-
sions (g/hr) reported here can still be used to calculate cycle composites
by deriving new weighting factors
As noted in the Appendixes, a special approach was required for cal-
culation of cycle composite aldehyde emissions, because they were measured
only at even-numbered notch positions (plus idle and dynamic brake). The
method employed was to give each even-numbered notch a new weight consisting
of its normal weight plus that of the next lower notch. This approach was
completely arbitrary, but yielded useful results.
In addition to the steady- state emissions tests just described, emis-
sions were also measured during engine speed and load transients and
during start-up. Analysis of transient emissions, however, is limited to
determining concentration as a function of time and relating changes to
varying engine conditions. Since continuous sampling is necessary for
meaningful results during transients, the emissions measured are limited
to hydrocarbons, CO, CO2, NOX, and smoke opacity. The other emissions
either did not have chart readouts or required a constant condition for
sampling.
To calculate mass emissions from locomotive-type engines used in
marine applications, an attempt will be made to re -weight individual mode
emissions to simulate marine operation more closely. This analysis will be
deferred until the section containing estimation of emission factors and
national impact since the method is essentially the same as that described
above and the mode weights will be based on information presented in
Section V.
B. Smoke Measurements
Locomotive smoke measurements for this project were made with
modified PHS full-flow opacity meters, utilizing standard optics and
electronics. The sole modifications made were in the sizes of the rings
used to hold the source and detector tubes, with a 20 inch diameter ring
being used for the switch engine (SP-1311) and a 40 inch diameter ring being
used for the line haul locomotives (SP-8447 and SP-8639). The smokemeter
control unit and strip chart readout, which were located inside the SEARCH
facility, are shown in Figure 5. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the smokemeters
mounted on units 1311, 8447, and 8639, respectively. Padding similar to
that shown in Figure 8 was added under the support legs of the optical unit
used on unit 8447 after Figure 7 was taken. In Figure 7, the smokemeter
is shown in what was called "longitudinal" position, or aligned with the
longer axis of the stack, and the position shown in Figure 8 was called
"transverse".
-------
Figure 5. Smokemeter Control/Readout
Unit Located Inside SEARCH Facility
Figure 6. Smokemeter 20-inch Support
Ring and Optical Unit Mounted on
Unit 1311
Figure 7. Smokemeter 40-inch Support
Ring and Optical Unit Mounted on
Unit 8447
Figure 8. Smokemeter 40-inch
Support Ring and Optical Unit Mounted
on Unit 8639
10
-------
Data on smoke opacity were taken with the optical unit in both
transverse and longitudinal positions (where applicable), and smoke was
measured continuously in all modes, just like gaseous emissions. The
rationale for using the PHS smokemeter is that it is supposed to see smoke
as nearly as possible like the human eye, and that it can follow smoke during
transient conditions. It was found during calibration of the large-ring optical
units that response was equivalent to that of 10 inch ring optical units (standard
for small diesel engine use). Analysis of the smoke results was straight-
forward, and the results will be presented later in the report.
C. Particulate Measurements
Exhaust particulate from the locomotive engines was measured using
an experimental dilution-type sampler developed for mobile source usage.
This system was used because no standard or accepted technique was available.
The immediate problem encountered was inability to place the sampler close
enough to the exhaust outlet to keep the sample line short. Particles tend
to deposit themselves on the walls of sample lines, making long lines extremely
undesirable, so an alternative scheme was sought. The method used involved
a compromise on the type of sampling used at the stack, in that a "split" of
the exhaust was taken by drawing it into a 3 inch diameter duct, but not neces-
sarily at the isokinetic rate. This compromise permitted samples to be with-
drawn from the 3 inch diameter duct at the isokinetic rate without experimenting
with flowrates, which made the overall sampling time shorter but reduced the
credibility of the results.
The particulate sampler is shown in Figure 9 during operation on the
first engine (SP-1311). The 3 inch diameter duct which carried sample down
from the engine exhaust outlet appears just behind the sampler, and it curves
away toward the lower left of the Figure downstream of the sampling point.
The duct terminated in the orifice, valved bypass, and blower shown in Figure
10, and this control system was used to maintain a constant mass flow in the
duct. The "ram" effect of exhaust gases entering the 2 inch collectors some-
times forced more gas into the duct than was desired, so in these modes the
blower was removed, the open pipe end was capped, and the valve was used
as a restrictor. Separate 2 inch diameter collectors, which came together
at the "Y" shown above the engine in Figure 11, were used for unit 1311 so
both stacks could be sampled. The duct shown in Figure 12 was used on unit
8639, and a very similar one was used for unit 8447 since they both had single
stacks.
Particulate samples from the locomotives were acquired at idle, notch
4, and notch 8, each condition being repeated 4 times. The abbreviated
schedule resulted from the desire to tie up the locomotives for as short a
time as possible, and from analysis time considerations. Previous experience
with other diesel engines on the subject contract had also shown that full load,
half load, and no load conditions were generally sufficient to characterize
particulate. The results of the particulate measurements will be summarized
and discussed later in the report.
11
-------
Figure 9. Experimental Dilution-Type Figure 10. Control System Used to
Particulate Sampler Used for Locomotive Maintain Flowrate in 3-inch Diameter
Tests Sample Duct
Figure 11. Arrangement of Sample
Duct used on Unit 1311
Figure 12. Arrangement of Sample
Duct used on Unit 8639 (same as used
on Unit 8447)
12
-------
IV. EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
The results of tests for smoke, particulates, and light hydrocarbons
are summarized in this section without being included in the Appendixes.
Gaseous emissions, on the other hand, are given in detail in the Appendixes,
along with operation and performance data on the locomotives. These data are
given in Appendix A for unit 1311 (EMD 12-56? Switch engine). In Appendix B
for unit 8447 (EMD 16-645E-3 line-haul engine), and in Appendix C for unit
8639 (G.E. 7FDL16 line-haul engine). The arrangement of the Appendix tables
places the two pages of data from each run on facing pages for convenience,
with ambient data, operating data, and concentrations on the even-numbered
page, and computed mass and specific emissions on the odd-numbered page.
Note also that the Appendix data are considered to be intermediate results, and
there fare significant figures in excess of the three considered reliable have
been retained assuming that final results will be rounded off individually as they
are obtained by averaging or further computation.
A. Gaseous Emissions Results
The discussion in this subsection is limited to steady-state runs under
normal engine operating conditions. Thus transients and runs 4 and 5 on unit
8639 are specifically excluded, and will be handled in another report subsection.
As already mentioned, all gaseous emissions except light hydrocarbons
are given in terms of concentrations, and HC, CO, NOX, and RCHO are given
in terms of g/hr, g/bhp hr, and g/lbm fuel by mode, and in g/hr, g/bhp hr,
and g/lbm fuel on a cycle composite basis in the Appendixes. As a first sum-
mary of these results, Table 5 gives average mass emissions by throttle set-
ting for the three locomotives. Perhaps a better way of examining these data
is provided by Figures 13 through 16, which show the relationships between
emission rates and throttle settings graphically. The hydrocarbon emissions
shown in Figure 13 are perhaps a bit surprising, with the 12-567 switch engine
(unit 1311) being consistently higher than the larger 16-645E-3 (unit 8447). It
is assumed that the "hump" in the curve for the G. E. engine (unit 8639) is due
to mismatching of engine and turbocharger in the lower power range. Figure 14
shows that the smaller, Roots-blown engine had much lower CO emissions over
most of the power range than the two larger engines did. In addition, the shape
of the curve for the smaller engine is conspicuously different than those for the
other two, due to the absence of a turbocharger. The NOX emissions shown
graphically in Figure 15 exhibit a strong, consistent increase with power output,
as expected. The aldehyde emissions given in Figure 16 show consistent trends,
and it appears that the 4-stroke engine (unit 8639) was considerably higher on
aldehydes than the 2-stroke engine of similar size and output (unit 8447).
Table 6 provides a look at run-to-run variability in mass emissions,
brake specific emissions, and fuel specific emissions from the three engines,
as well as averages. Although the composite mass emissions from unit 1311
(g/hr) are much lower than those from the other engines, the specific emis-
sions from the switch engine are higher. This effect occurs because the
cycle used for unit 1311 contains a large percentage of idle time (77%),
13
-------
7000
I I I I I I
co
g
ri
bO
«T
o
1
W
n
o
n)
u
O
t-l
6000 -
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 L
8639
1311
8447
Idle 1234 5 6 7 8
Throttle Position
FIGURE 13. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS (g/hr) FROM THREE
LOCOMOTIVE DIESEL ENGINES AS A FUNCTION OF THROTTLE POSITION
14
-------
16,000
-------
34,000 |-
32,000
30,000
28,000
26,000
O
3 24,000
8 22,000
-------
600
O
u
(0
JM
o
h
0)
PH
(0
a
to
C
O
•H
CD
CO
w
-------
TABLE 5. AVERAGE MASS EMISSIONS BY THROTTLE SETTING
Condition
Idle
Dyn. Brake
Nl
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N7
N8
SP-1311 Mass Rates,
HC CO
387 160
452 273
638 341
984 481
1480 560
1830 702
2390 768
2960 1050
3980 1840
NOy
335
626
920
2, 000
3,220
4,950
6,720
8, 370
10, 200
g/hr
RCHO
48.
47.
72.
--
78.
148
SP-8639
Condition
Idle
Dyn. Brake
Nl
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N7
N8
HC
551
2400
588
1780
2120
2130
2600
4080
5740
6630
,2
6
9
7
Mass
CO
2,
6,
11,
14,
13,
12,
9,
9,
828
050
991
590
700
400
800
600
310
630
SP-8447 Mass Rates,
HC
254
377
225
322
493
610
766
1070
1520
2010
Rates,
NOY
1, 030
5,200
3,390
10, 300
12, 600
16, 000
17,500
22,900
29,400
33, 200
CO
523
732
293
386
9,490
12,200
15,700
16,000
10, 200
9. 740
g/hr
NOX
978
2, 180
1,870
4,860
8,520
10,800
13, 000
16,200
21,600
25. 500
g/hr
RCHO
76.8
130
75.9
106
_ _
152
_ _
224
RCHO
67.
158
_ _
74.
--
167
--
314
--
538
5
2
during which mass emissions are low and specific emissions are high. As
could have been predicted from Figure 13, composite hydrocarbon emissions
from unit 8639 were considerably higher than from unit 8447, and unit 8639
also emitted somewhat more NOX and aldehydes.
Light hydrocarbon emissions from these locomotive engines were
measured by the previously-described gas chromatographic method, which
is reliable for 7 compounds ranging from methane through butane. No
propane or butane was found in any of the samples, however, and methane
was the only compound found in the exhausts of all three locomotives.
Average concentrations of light hydrocarbons are given in Table 7, and all
of them are extremely low. Those compounds not listed averaged less than
0. 1 ppm in all modes, which is considered to be the limit of readability of
the present technique. In most cases the light hydrocarbons (combustion
18
-------
TABLE 6. LOCOMOTIVE CYCLE COMPOSITE EMISSIONS RESULTS
Mass, g/hr
Brake Specific, g/bhp hr
Unit Run
1311 1
3
4
Average
8447 1
2
3
4
Average
8639 1
2
3
Average
HC
550
423
485
486
817
872
968
897
888
2880
2740
2950
2860
Unit
1311
CO
277
160
201
213
4860
4980
5090
5580
5120
5750
4940
5200
5300
Run
1
3
4
Average
8447
1
2
3
4
Average
8639
Ave
1
2
3
rage
NOX
636
616
630
627
10, 600
10, 300
10,500
10,600
10,500
13,900
13,300
13,400
13,500
Fuel
HC
13.6
10.8
12.4
12.3
1.66
1.78
1.97
1.83
1.81
6.38
6.06
6.50
6.31
RCHO
63.
42.
44.
50.
128
140
148
118
134
246
295
165
235
4
7
4
2
Specific,
CO
6.
4.
5.
5.
9.
10.
10.
11.
10.
12.
10.
11.
11.
85
07
14
35
90
2
4
4
5
7
9
5
7
HC
10.2
7.82
8.58
8.87
0.635
0.691
0.759
0.717
0.700
2.23
2.12
2.23
2.19
CO
5. 15
2.95
3.56
3.89
3. 78
3.94
3.99
4.45
4.04
4.45
3.83
3.95
4.08
NOX
11.
11.
11.
11.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
10.
10.
10.
10.
8
4
1
4
25
18
25
48
29
7
3
1
4
RCHO
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
18
79
79
92
107
111
116
094
107
190
228
125
181
g/lbm fuel
NOV
15.7
15.7
16.1
15.8
21.6
21.1
21.4
21.7
21.4
30.7
29.4
29.5
29.9
RCHO
1.57
1.09
1.14
1.27
0.264
0.286
0.302
0.241
0.273
0.554
0.653
0.364
0.524
Duty Cycles Used:
1311 - Santa Fe Switch
8447 - EMD Line-Haul
8639 - G.E. Line-Haul
19
-------
TABLE 7. LOCOMOTIVE LIGHT HYDROCARBON DATA SUMMARY
Concentrations in ppm
Condition
Idle
Dyn. Brake
N2
N4
N6
N8
Unit 1311
C2H4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.8
5.2
Unit 8447
CH4
2.2
1.8
1. 7
1.8
1.4
1.4
C2H4
1.3
0.9
0.5
2.6
3.0
3.7
CH4
8.0
7.6
24.0
15.0
7.8
7.1
C2H6
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.1
Unit 8639
C2H4
6.6
7.8
18.2
23.9
21.2
14. 0
C2H2
1.3
3.2
5.0
3.6
2.2
1.4
C3H6
0.0
0.1
3.6
4.4
3.5
3.0
products) did not constitute large fractions of the total hydrocarbons.
B. Smoke Results
Smoke data were recorded during steady-state conditions in terms of
percent opacity using two modified smokemeters based on PHS optics, as
explained in subsection III. B. These data were taken concurrently with
gasoline emissions data, and the averages are given in Table 8. For unit
1311, which had two stacks, two complete runs were made on each stack
with virtually identical results from the two stacks. All the results were
averaged, so the idle numbers are averages of 24 data points and the
remaining numbers are averages of 8 data points.
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF LOCOMOTIVE STEADY-STATE SMOKE DATA
Condition
Idle
Dyn. Brake
Nl
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N7
N8
Average %
Opacity
Unit 1311
1.5
2.8
3.2
2.7
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.8
Average % Opacity
Unit 8447
Average % Opacity
Unit 8639
. Unit 8447 unit OQJ?
Transverse Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal
1. 7
2.0
2.1
4.5
11.2
11.1
12.1
9.1
5.5
6.4
2.2
3.8
2.3
5.2
22.8
22.0
21.4
18.4
11.2
10.0
3.7
4.0
4.9
14.8
15.1
12.1
9.8
6.4
4.6
4.8
6.7
8.2
8.9
28.0
29.2
25.8
19.5
13.0
9.0
9.2
20
-------
For unit 8447, two runs were made in the transverse position and two in the
longitudinal position (transverse is the short path across the stack), so idle
numbers are averages of 12 points and the others are averages of 4 points.
Two runs (or 12 data points at idle, and 4 data points elsewhere) are
represented by the numbers for unit 8639 in the transverse position, and
one run (or 6 idle data points, and 2 data points on other conditions) by the
numbers for the longitudinal position. In the case of unit 1311, the nominal
optical path length through the smoke plume was 10 inches, and identical for
all runs. For unit 8447, the exhaust outlet was 11.5 inches (transverse) by
29. 75 inches (longitudinal), and the corresponding dimensions for the exhaust
outlet on unit 8639 were 11.5 inches and 26.5 inches, respectively. More so
for unit 8447 than for the other two locomotives, however, the exhaust gases
were underexpanded at the outlet for the several highest notches,leading to
a rapid divergence upon entering the atmosphere. This divergence was an
important enough factor, at least in the case of unit 8447 at higher power
conditions, to cause variation in the optical path length through the smoke
plume as conditions varied, making the length an undetermined variable.
This divergence is one reason why no mathematical correlation of transverse
and longitudinal results has been attempted, and another is that the geometric
characteristics of the smoke plume change quite rapidly after entering the
atmosphere, making the perception of the plume density more equal in all
directions. Further perceptual effects occur, of course, with wind or motion
of the locomotive. In order to make path lengths more nearly equal for test
purposes, the installation of a standardized stack was considered, but time
and financial constraints did not permit this extension beyond the intended
scope of work. Such a duct might be 27 to 30 inches in diameter and circular
at its outlet, shaped enough at its base to conform somewhat to the standard
stack and prevent leaks, and long enough to produce a relatively uniform flow
at its outlet (perhaps 36 to 48 inches). Another alternative for possible future
use would be to devise an equitable, accurate, particulate sampling procedure,
and thereby eliminate stack geometry as a factor.
C. Particulate Results
As mentioned previously, results of the locomotive particulate measure-
ments were less than satisfactory due to the sampling method which had to be
employed. The experimental method was an adaptation of that developed for
general use in the characterization work, and was used because no standard or
accepted technique was available. To explain the situation more fully, the ex-
perimental sampler which has been used on this project weighs several hundred
pounds and is physically quite large (ref. Figure 9) so it was impractical to
lift it'to the top of each locomotive to keep the sample line short. It was like-
wise impractical to use a long, constant-diameter sample line (3/8 inch O. D. )
due to particle deposition on the tube walls. A good solution would have been
to withdraw a "split" of the exhaust isokinetically into a fairly large tube (the
larger the tube, the less wall area per unit volume), and then to sample
isokinetically from that tube via a short sample line at ground level. The
reason this procedure was not followed is that each condition would have
required: (1) an accurate exhaust velocity measurement; (2) adjustment of
21
-------
blower controls to achieve an isokinetic sample rate, taking temperature
changes, etc. , into account; and (3) calculation of sampling rate for the
particulate system based on the conditions in the larger tube. Since the
particulate measurements had to be taken separately from the other measure-
ments, the additional time and personnel required to set the sampling con-
ditions simply could not be justified. The compromise which was employed
was to maintain a constant mass flow rate in the 3 inch diameter duct, and
sample from it into the sampler itself at the isokinetic rate. This technique
required only the setting of one control on the 3 inch duct (the bypass valve)
and allowed the use of the same sample rate for all runs.
The problem with the system as used was that sampling into the 3 inch
duct was subisokinetic at higher power settings to such an extent that con-
siderably more heavy particles were sampled than the number representative of
the exhaust stream. This effect was most pronounced for unit 1311, which had
relatively large cinders in its exhaust, especially at high power. It could be
speculated that the cinders were agglomerations of carbon which had built up on
the inside surfaces of the exhaust system, and that they were dislodged while
the engine ran at high power. Such particles could build up over a period of
time if the operational history of this particular locomotive did not include
much running at "notch 8". To further support this theory, no cinders were
observed in the exhausts of the other two engines (which very probably operated
at high power settings much more than the switch engine did) and examination
of the filters used for particulate sampling showed no large cinder-type particles.
These observations seem to correlate with the test results summarized in
Table 9, which show that the measured particulate concentrations tended to
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF LOCOMOTIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS DATA
NOTE: THESE PARTICULATE DATA ARE NOT CONSIDERED RELIABLE
Unit
No.
1311
8447
8639
Condition
Idle
N4
N8
Idle
Dyn. Brake
N4
N8
Idle
Dyn. Brake
N4
N8
FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES
Individual Results,
mg/SCF Exhaust
0.308
3.42
21.6
1.62
2.53
2.59
2.80
1.12
4.05
1.45
3.27
0.412
2. 78
25. 1
2.17
0.823
2.50
2.22
1.31
3.71
2. 77
2.69
0.519
1.69
18.9
1.35
1.40
0.862
1.65
1.34
2.74
3.15
2.81
1.69
12.7
1.75
2.75
_ _
2.13
2.37
2.44
ONLY
Avg.
Result,
mg/SCF
0.413
2.40
19.6
1.72
1.58
1.98
2.36
1.26
3.16
2.44
2.80
Avg. %
Opacity
1.5
2. 0
2.8
1.7
2.0
11.1
6.4
3.7
4.0
12.1
4.8
22
-------
increase with exhaust velocity (or exhaust mass flow) regardless of the
trend in smoke density (or opacity). It should also be recognized that some
particulates measured on the filter (taken at about 90° F) may have been
gases as they left the stack, tending to further decrease the correlation
between particulate weight and smoke density.
Due to the reservations expressed above about the data acquired on
particulates during this program, the subject results will not be used to
estimate emission factors or national impact for locomotives. While the
attempt to obtain reliable data within the time and financial constraints of
the program failed, the efforts and experience should be valuable to those
attempting further such work. It may be necessary to standardize the type
of exhaust stack used for particulate sampling in somewhat the same manner
as the standardization suggested for smoke measurements, just to get a flow
of exhaust which is acceptably directional for sampling. In any case, the
need for precisely isokinetic sampling has been demonstrated quite vividly,
along with the need for development of suitable instrumentation and procedures.
D. Special Test Results
Runs 4 and 5 on unit 8639, the 16-cylinder G. E. locomotive, type
U-33 C, were designated "special runs" because some of the speeds at
which the engine ran were altered for test purposes. These speed changes
were made in response to a suggestion by G. E. technical personnel to
operators in California that smoke might be reduced if the engine speeds
were changed in several notch positions. The two special runs were con-
ducted immediately after run 3, on the same day, to avoid keeping the
locomotive out of service an extra day.
The altered engine operation schedule was designed to retain approxi-
mately the same power output in each notch as with the standard schedule,
but to run notches 1, 2, and 3 at the standard speed for notch 5 (783 rpm)
and notches 4 through 8 at the standard speed for notch 8 (1077 rpm). The
effect of these changes was to leave idle, dynamic brake, and notch 8 un-
changed, and raise engine speeds in notches 1 through 7. The increased
engine speeds resulted in small increases in fuel usage proportional to the
increases in gross horsepower.
To examine the effectiveness of the higher engine speeds as a control
measure for unit 8639, Table 10 has been prepared to compare mass emis-
sions by throttle setting for the standard and revised schedules. A cursory
examination of Table 10 shows that the revised conditions (notches 1-7)
tended to produce higher hydrocarbons, slightly higher NOX and aldehydes,
and much lower CO than the standard conditions. The overall effects of the
revised conditions on gaseous emissions can be seen in Table 11, and after
weighting of the modes it appears that for the experimental runs hydrocarbons,
NO and aldehydes were about the same as for the standard runs and GO was
J±
23
-------
TABLE 10. AVERAGE MASS EMISSIONS FROM A G. E. 7FDL16
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE USING STANDARD AND REVISED
ENGINE SPEEDS
Emissions at Standard Speeds
(g/hr)
Condition
Idle*
Dyn. Brake* 2400
Nl
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N7
N8*
HC
551
2400
CO
828
2,050
NOy
1,030
5, 200
RCHO
67.5
158
Emissions at Revised Speeds
(g/hr)
588
1780
2120
2130
2600
4080
5740
6630
991
6,590
11, 700
14, 400
13, 800
12, 600
9,310
9,630
3,390
10,300
12,600
16,000
17,500
22,900
29,400
33,200
74.2
167
314
538
HC
517
2280
1120
2300
2410
3750
4400
5730
6690
6650
CO
650
1780
932
2480
4300
3240
3870
5260
6200
8620
NOX
888
4,800
4, 100
10,500
12,800
16,700
20,500
24,400
28,300
32,000
RCHO
53.4
125
109
--
202
--
319
--
466
* Condition identical for all runs.
significantly lower than for the standard runs (changes in HC, NOX,
aldehydes were measurable, but hardly significant).
and
Since the experimental runs were intended to investigate a smoke re-
duction technique, smoke was measured by a modified PHS opacity meter
with the results presented in Table 12. The engine speed revisions did seem
to reduce smoke quite significantly in notches 1-7, although the engine smoked
slightly less during runs 4 and 5 even in conditions which were not revised.
The most dramatic reductions in smoke were for notches 2 through 6, the
same notches in which large reductions in CO were in evidence.
No particulate or light hydrocarbon measurements were made during
the two runs using the experimental speeds, primarily to keep the overall
time requirement reasonable. Although the speed changes had to be made
'manually for these tests, the regular engine speed control system could be
modified so that positioning the throttle control in the normal way would
automatically set the ending speed at the new value.
E. Emissions During Transients
Emissions were measured during changing speed and load conditions
on each engine, generally prior to each day's operation. The continuous
measurements made during these transients included hydrocarbons, CO, CO2,
24
-------
NOX by chemiluminescence, and smoke opacity. The reason for making
these measurements was primarily to determine whether or not transient
emissions were sufficiently different than steady-state emissions so as to
change the overall emissions picture significantly. The types of conditions
TABLE 11. CYCLE COMPOSITE EMISSIONS FROM A G. E. 7FDL16
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE USING STANDARD AND REVISED ENGINE SPEEDS
Run
4
5
Average
Revised
Runs 4 & 5
Mass, g/hr
HC
CO
NO,
3160 3610 13,500
2960 3640 13,000
3060 3620 13,200
RCHO
211
211
Brake Specific, g/bhp hr
HC CO NOX RCHO
2.33
2.19
2.66
2.69
9.96
9.59
0.156
2.26 2.68 9.78 0.156
Average
Standard
Runs 1-3
2860 5300 13,500
235
2.19 4.08 10.4
0.181
Fuel Specific, g/lbm fuel
Run
4
5
Average
Revised
Runs 4 & 5
Average
Standard
Runs 1-3
HC
6.69
6.38
6.54
6.31
CO
7.66
7.83
NO,
-««w*«^
28.6
27.9
RCHO
0.447
7.74 28.2 0.447
11.7
29.9 0.524
'investigated were engine acceleration through the notches with load, decel-
eration with load, and cold starts.
Emissions during transients were taken to be of no special significance
if concentrations changed smoothly between initial and final steady-state values,
a result termed "smooth transition". Without exception, such changes were
the case for all decelerations of the engines from notch 8 to idle. Some cold
starts were run also, with no significant excursions of gaseous emissions
due to engine start-up, very little drift in CO, CO2, or NOX, and about 15%
25
-------
downward drift in hydrocarbons during a 15-minute idle following startup.
One significant smoke puff was observed at engine startup, ranging up to 95%
peak opacity, with a duration of about 2 seconds.
The accelerations from idle to notch 8 produced most of the excursions
from smooth transitions which were observed, but the durations of peaks
TABLE 12. SMOKE EMISSIONS FROM A G. E. 7FDL16 LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINE USING STANDARD AND REVISED ENGINE SPEEDS
% Opacity, Standard % Opacity, Revised
Engine Speeds Engine Speeds
Condition Transverse Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal
Idle* 3.7 6.7 2.7 5.8
Dyn. Brake* 4.0 8.2 2.6 5.0
Nl . 4.9 8.9 3.0 5.0
N2 14.8 28.0 6.8 12.8
N3 15.1 29.2 7.1 14.0
N4 12.1 25.8 3.5 7.0
N5 9.8 19.5 3.2 6.8
N6 6.4 13.0 3.0 7.2
N7 4.6 9.0 3.0 7.0
N8* 4.8 9.2 4.0 8.5
* "revised1'' engine speeds same as standard
were very short in most cases. Table 13 summarizes the results of the
acceleration tests in terms of concentrations and peak durations. The
durations were taken to be the time during which the concentrations (or
opacities) were 10% or more over the final steady-state values, and
maximum values are expressed as peak value divided by final steady-state
value. No significant excursions were observed for either CO2 or NOX, so
they were not included in the table. For unit 1311, the peaks occurred
within a few seconds after initial throttle movement, and only a single peak
.occurred for each constituent. The picture was a bit more complex for
unit 8447, with the first set of peaks (CO and smoke) being observed going
into notch 3, and with subsequent smaller peaks going into each notch through
8. The peaks observed for unit 8639 were of much longer duration, as
shown in Table 13, and they occurred late in the accelerations (beginning
around notches 6 to 8).
The values given in Table 13 are representative of 6 to 10 repetitions
made with each locomotive, as are the comments made on decelerations.
The charts were examined carefully, and 2 runs were picked for analysis to
26
-------
minimize computation time. The analysis of transient emissions shows
that they are probably not important in the overall locomotive emissions
picture due to the short time in which emissions are outside those
expected from steady-state operation. At this point we have no rigorous
way of determining mass emissions during transients, so these results
will not be used in estimating emission factors and national impact.
TABLE 13. LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS DURING ACCELERATION TRANSIENTS
Peak Value -r* Final Value
Peak Duration, sec.
Unit
1311
8447
8639
HC
CO
35
4
5
Smoke
10
10
10
HC
CO
7
4
20
Smoke
5
4
16
27
-------
V. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS AND NATIONAL IMPACT
Emission factors for locomotives are to be estimated based primarily
on the tests conducted as part of the subject program, although results of
other studies will be referenced and taken into consideration. If it is shown
later that the engines tested were not representative, or if additional, more
comprehensive data become available, the factors and impact estimates can
be updated using the subject techniques as a guide. Factors will be estimated
on both brake specific and fuel specific bases, and parallel impact calculations
will be made using independent locomotive utilization and fuel usage data.
Emission factors for the marine counterparts of locomotive diesel
engines will be estimated from much less comprehensive information, and
will be treated separately.
A. Emission Factors and Emission Estimates for Locomotive Diesel Engines
As a prerequisite to determining emission factors, the composition
of the locomotive population must be known so the proper weight can be
given to each size category and each type of operation. The most recent
population data available are as of January 1, 1972/ and Table 14 shows
these data in their most useful form. These figures are intended to be for
the 48 states only, but slight errors may have occurred in separating U. S.
from non-U. S. railroads.
The first use of the data in Table 14 will be to calculate percentages
of total yearly railroad diesel fuel usage which can be attributed to engines
represented by each of those tested under this project. These calculations
will be used along with national fuel consumption figures **' and fuel specific
emissions data from Table 6 to calculate emission factors and impact. Pur-
suing the fuel-based calculations, available data^10' indicate that 25.9% of
active locomotives were engaged in yard service in 1971, and that 70. 0%
were in freight service and 4. 1% were in passenger service. Since it is not
known just which particular locomotives were in yard service (6, 951 total),
the assumption will be made that they were the 6, 951 smallest locomotives
listed in Table 14. In terms of a cut-off point, this assumption means that
1437 of the 1500 hp units and all those smaller than 1500 hp are assumed to
be in yard service. If a second assumption is made to the effect that the
average power of the "under 1000 hp" units is 750 hp, the total horsepower
in yard service comes out to 7, 032, 150 (or 1012 hp per unit) and that in road
service to 45, 295, 750 (or 2278 hp per unit).
The next item is determination of load factors for road and yard
operations, defined as average power produced during operation divided by
available power. Based on power measurements taken during this project,
the load factor for the EMD line-haul cycle is 0. 397, that for the G. E. line -
haul cycle is 0. 365, and that for the switcher cycle is 0.0507. Another
necessary item of information is operating time per year for each category
28
-------
TABLE 14. U. S. LOCOMOTIVE POPULATION
BY POWER CLASS AND BUILDER
Horsepower
Builder
Class
5000
3600
3300
3000
2800
2750
2700
2500
2400
2350
2300
2250
2000
1850
1800
1750
1600
1500
1400
1350
1300
1200
1000
Under 1000
EMD
45
1359
1
2211
-
_
_
1555
306
_
77
1217
1413
138
329
3898
22
4471
_
39
2
1639
985
720
Alco
-
31
-
77
_
115
18
76
168
_
-
_
142
_
534
-
712
152
4
_
-
38
1136
223
G.E.
66
97
373
435
236
_
_
549
-
_
_
155
_
_
9
_
_
-
_
-
-
_
-
67
GMD
_
-
-
3
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
2
-
21
-
-
-
1
-
23
MLW
_
-
_
16
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
29
-
25
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
BLH
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
-
2
2
77
32
-
-
'
233
163
25
FM
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
26
8
-
-
-
_
-
-
63
2
-
-
-
153
50
-
Others
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
14
-
-
-
-
2
8
Totals
111
1487
374
2742
236
115
18
2180
500
8
77
1372
1568
138
903
3902
901
4692
4
39
2
2064
2339
1066
Totals 20,427 3426 1987 50 73 547 302 *27 *26,839
* Includes one engine with no power class given
Abbreviation Builder Name
EMD
G.E.
GMD
MLW
BLH
FM
Electro-Motive Division, General Motors Corp.
General Electric
Diesel Division, General Motors of Canada
MLW Industries, Canada
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton
Fair banks-Morse
29
-------
of application, and 1971 statistics(10) also yield this information. For road
freight and passenger service combined, some 64.4 x 10& locomotive hours
were used, and for all switching operations about 39. 3 x 106 locomotive
hours were used. The foregoing figures yield about 2015 x 10^ hp hours for
switching operation and about 57,400 x 10& hp hours for road operation
during 1971. Converted to percentages, some 96.6% of locomotive hp hours
were used in road service, leaving 3. 39% for switching operations. As-
suming that fuel usage is directly proportional to work produced, the
estimate is made that these latter percentages also represent fuel consumed
in road and switching operations, respectively. Since no data are presently
available on load factors for passenger service, they are being assumed as
equal to those for freight service.
The latest available fuel consumption figure for railroad diesels is
for 1970^1), and it totals 3804 x 106 gallons, or approximately 27, 100 x
lo6lbm (at 7. 12 lbm gal). This figure when divided by the total hp hours
above, yields an average brake specific fuel consumption for all railroad
operations of 0.456 lbm/bhp hr, which sounds somewhat high, but may be
reasonable in view of the relatively large fractions of time spent at idle.
Another error may be inherent in this BSFC calculation because undoubtedly
some of the diesel fuel used by railroads is used in equipment other than
locomotives. In order to calculate factors and impact as accurately as pos-
sible, the switch engine population will be considered to be 75% 2-stroke
engines and 25% 4-stroke engines (on a horsepower basis). These smaller
2-stroke engines are probably characterized adequately by unit 1311, but
the 4-strokes are not yet represented. To overcome this problem, mode
emissions from runs 1 through 3 on unit 8639 have been re-weighted
according to the ATSF switcher cycle, with the results shown in Table 15.
Table 15 also contains emissions from unit 1311, reweighted according to
the EMD line-haul cycle (except that dynamic brake was omitted and the
other mode weights were increased by a factor of 100 -j- 92 = 1. 087) for use
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF REWEIGHTED
EMISSIONS FROM UNITS 1311 AND 8639
Unit Cycle
1311 EMD
. line-
haul
8639 ATSF
switch
Contaminant Mass, g/hr
Brake Specific Fuel Specific
g/bhp hr g/lbm fuel
HC
CO
NOX
RCHO
HC
CO
NOX
RCHO
1820.
809.
4360.
44.1
766.
2000.
2560.
79.4
3.95
1.76
9.45
0.096
4.96
12.9
16.6
0.514
9.43
4.20
22.6
0.229
9.33
24.3
31.2
0.967
30
-------
in estimating emissions from line-haul 2-stroke engines which are Roots-
blown rather than turbocharged. The estimated breakdown of locomotives
used in road service is 37% Roots-blown 2-strokes, 37% turbocharged 2-
strokes, and 26% 4-strokes, on a horsepower basis.
Five engine categories have been defined in the process of arriving
at a calculation technique for mass emissions based on fuel usage, and each
of the five is represented by emission factors shown in either Table 6 or
Table 15. The total weight for each category is the fraction of all fuel used
by engines in that category, and these weights multiplied by the proper emis-
sion factors yield quantities which sum to composite emission factors for
the whole locomotive population. A summary of the results of this analysis
is shown in Table 16, and it is a simple matter to progress to total mass
emissions (or impact) by multiplying the composite factors by total fuel
usage. This step will come later in the report. Mass emissions for each
engine category can be determined by multiplying the category factors by
total fuel usage.
To calculate emission factors on a brake specific basis, the analysis
is the same as the foregoing down to the point where fractions of total horse-
power hours produced by engines in each category were taken to be equal to
fractions of total fuel used. In the brake specific case, this last assumption
is not necessary, and Table 17 shows the results of brake specific emissions
factor calculations. To determine impact from the brake specific data, the
factors can be multiplied by the total work (horsepower hours) produced per
year, which was derived earlier.
Emissions of sulfur oxides have not been mentioned as yet because
SOX was not measured, but sulfur oxides have been calculated on a basis
of 0. 35% by weight fuel sulfur content, assuming that all the sulfur is
oxidized to SC>2. Particulate emissions have been discussed earlier, but
the particulate results generated by this study are not considered accurate
enough for use in estimating factors and impact, so no improvement can be
made on the latest EPA figures. Impact estimates based on the above
procedures and factors are given in Table 18, and these estimates are com-
pared with recent EPA nationwide estimates in Table 19. With the exception
of the SO estimate, which was calculated from fuel usage only, the more
accurate factors and estimates are probably those derived on a brake
specific basis. The reason for a degree of lack of confidence in the fuel-
based numbers is simply that the overall fuel consumption figure has a lot
of room for error, since in some cases accurate data may not be kept on
how much fuel is used in locomotives and how much in other engines.
One positive feature of the fuel-based calculations, however, is
that they can be updated very quickly if it is assumed that the locomotive
population and its operation do not change greatly (probably a valid assump-
tion over 5 years or so). The calculations based on work output (brake
specific) are not difficult, either, if information on operating hours per
31
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF FUEL-BASED EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Engine Category
2-s (Blown) Switch
4-s Switch
2-s (Blown) Road
2-s (T. C.) Road
4-s Road
Fraction
of Total
Fuel Used
0.0254
0.00848
0.3575
0.3575
0.2512
Emission Factors for
Category (g/lbm fuel)
HC
12.3
9.33
9.43
1.80
6.31
CO
5.35
24.3
4.20
10.4
11.7
NOX
15.8
31.2
22.6
21.2
29.9
RCHO
1.27
0.967
0.229
0.271
0.524
Weighted Factors for
Category (g/lbm fuel)
HC
0. 312
0.0791
3.37
0.644
1.59
CO
0. 136
0.206
1.50
3.72
2.94
NO*
0.401
0.265
8.08
7.58
7.51
RCHO
0.0323
0.00820
0.0819
0.0969
0. 132
CO
y = composite factor, g/lbm fuel
composite factor, lbm/1000 gal fuel
6.00
94.2
8.50 23.84 0.351
133.
374.
5.51
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Engine Category
2-s (Blown) Switch
4-s Switch
2-s (Blown) Road
2-s (T. C. ) Road
4-s Road
E
Fraction
of Total
hp hours
0.0254
0.00848
0. 3575
0. 3575
0.2512
Emission Factors for
Category, g/bhp hr
HC
8.
4.
3.
0.
2.
87
96
95
695
19
CO
3.89
12.9
1.76
4.00
4.08
NOX
11.4
16.6
9.45
8.22
10.4
RCHO
0.92
0.514
0.096
0. 104
0. 181
Weighted Factors for
Category, g/bhp hr
HC
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
225
0421
41
248
550
CO NOY
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0988
109
629
43
02
0.290
0. 141
3. 38
2.94
2.61
RCHO
0.023
0.00436
0.034
0.0372
0.0455
= composite factor, g/bhp hr
2.48
3.29
9.36
0. 144
-------
TABLE 18. NATIONAL IMPACT ESTIMATES
FOR LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS
Contaminant
HC
CO
NOX
RCHO
SOX
Particulate
Total Estimated Emissions, 10" tons per year
Fuel Specific Basis Brake Specific Basis
0. 177
0.247
0.698
0.010
0.0947
*
0. 162
0.215
0.613
0.00943
0.0947
*EPA figure not improved upon
TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF SUBJECT NATIONAL IMPACT ESTIMATES
WITH EPA NATIONWIDE AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY DATA
Contaminant
HC
CO
NOX
RCHO
SOX
Particulate
EPA Inventory Data,
106 tons/yr(17)
1970,
All
Sources
34.7
147.
22.7
33.9
25.4
Mobile
Sources
19.5
111.
11.7
0.986
0.655
Railroads
0.093
0. 100
0. 142
0. 124
0.047
Subject Estimates of % of
All Mobile
Sources Sources
0.467
0. 146
2.70
0.279
*0.185
0.831
0. 194
5.24
9.60
*7. 18
*EPA figure
year continues to be available. The only major change in railroad operation
occurring at the present time is the institution of Amtrak. Separate statistics
on Amtrak may be available later, and they could be used to supplement infor-
mation available from AAR and other sources. As was mentioned earlier,
some 96. 6% of locomotive horsepower hours are produced in road service,
and it seems logical that a similar percentage of total locomotive emis-
sions (at least 90 to 95%) could be classed as "rural" rather than "urban
or suburban". Without doing an analysis of commercial traffic which is
really outside the intent of the current project, it can only be assumed that
most locomotive pollutants are emitted between the larger areas, .or in
"commercial corridors", if that is an acceptable term. These emissions
should have little connection with peak traffic hours, season of year, or
other factors normally associated with detailed impact analysis.
33
-------
Up to this point, the results of other studies of locomotive emissions^'
5, 12, 13, 14) have not been mentioned specifically. All the information in
these references stems from either in-house research at EMD or G. E. or
the study funded jointly by AAR, Santa Fe, Southern Pacific, and Union
Pacific (called the "Richmond" study). In general terms, the emissions
results generated under this program agree fairly well with the other pub-
lished information, although the NOX emissions observed during the San
Antonio tests are consistently somewhat lower than most of the EMD and
Richmond results. The NOX results used in calculating impact for this
study were those generated by the chemiluminescent analyzer, which
generally gave somewhat lower results than the NDIR NO analyzer, which
can be verified by examining the data in Appendixes A through C. The use
of the chemilumine scent results is a best judgement decision based on ex-
perience using both types of analyzers in parallel on a variety of engines.
B. Emission Factors for the Marine Counterparts of Locomotive
Diesel Engines
Since early in this project, it has been anticipated that one of the
weakest areas would be population and usage information on vessels in the
class between pleasure boats and ocean-going craft. Although a considerable
amount of effort has been expended, a general lack of comprehensive data is
still the case, but limited information is available. Data retrieved from one
publication^*?) indicate that there may be as few as 3230 commercial vessels
using diesel engines between 500 and 4000 horsepower (1970), having an
aggregate rated horsepower of about 2. 26 x 10°. This source shows total
diesel merchant vessel horsepower as about 6. 62 x 10 , excluding ocean-
going ships. Other data indicate that all diesel merchant vessels (excluding
ocean-going vessels) use about 6. 7 x 10^ gallons of diesel fuel per year. If
3000 hours' operation per year are assumed for the 500-4000 hp class of
vessels, along with a load factor of 0. 5 and a brake specific fuel consumption
of 0.4, fuel consumption for the class could be estimated at about 1. 9 x 10&
gallons per year. This figure is about 28% of the merchant vessel fuel con-
sumption noted above, while the 500-4000 hp class has about 34% of the diesel
merchant vessel horsepower, so the agreement is not too bad.
Some confirmation of the assumptions made on diesel vessels is
provided by independent data developed by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers(20) an£j information obtained by direct contacts with boat
operators(21> 22, 23, 24)> -phe Corps of Engineers' data indicates that
about 2500 vessels fulfilling the above engine criteria were operated in
transportation service (not including fishing, dredging, etc.) in U. S.
waters during 1970. The information from the commercial boat operators
indicates load factors from 0. 56 to 0. 9 (mostly estimates rather than hard
data), usage up to 500 hours per month, and specific data showing wide
usage of EMD and Fairbanks-Morse engines similar to those used in
lo c omoti ve s.
34
-------
It should be obvious that the population and usage data are quite shaky
for this category of engine application, so only little credibility can be
attached to the resulting emission factors. The duty cycles of the vessels
are likewise substantially undefined, but perhaps a reasonable guess would
be 10% idle, 20% full load, and 10% at each of the seven intermediate load
conditions (although such notches do not exist for marine applications).
The assumption is also made that the emissions from these marine engines
can be characterized by re-weighted locomotive emissions, and emission
factors based on the cycle above are shown in Table 20. It will also be
TABLE 20. RE-WEIGHTED LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION FACTORS USED TO
CHARACTERIZE EMISSIONS FROM THEIR MARINE COUNTERPARTS
Engine
Unit 1311
(2-s Blown)
Unit 8447
Unit 8639
(4-s T. C.)
Fuel Specific, g/lbm fuel
HC CO NO* RCHO
Brake Specific, g/bhp hr
HC CO NOX RCHO
8.78
3.69 21.9 0.378
1.49 13.6
5.84 15.9
20.7 0.217
31.9 0.457
3.50 1.47
0.561 5.11
8.74 0.151
7.79 0.0815
2.02 5.49 H.O 0.158
assumed for calculation purposes that marine units under 1000 hp can be
represented by unit 1311, and that units over 1000 hp can be represented
by a 50-50 weighting of factors based on units 8447 and 8639. Since more
is known about the population of marine units in service than about fuel
consumption at this point, calculation of composite emission factors will
proceed on the brake specific basis rather than the fuel specific basis.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 21, but they probably have
only order-of-magnitude accuracy, at best. It might be noted, however,
that most of the emissions would occur either in ports, cities where river
or lake commerce is common, or further off shore where fishing boats
run. The emissions probably have a seasonal nature only where harbors
are impassable in winter, in areas where industries employing the vessels
have seasonal transportation needs, or where fishing is seasonal.
TABLE 21. ESTIMATED COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
500-to-4000-HP DIESEL-POWERED U.S. FLAG MERCHANT VESSELS
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOX
RCHO
Composite Factor
g/bhp hr
3.42
2.30
9.65
0.159
35
-------
VI. SUMMARY
This report is on a study of locomotive emissions, and constitutes
Part 1 of a planned seven-part final report on "Exhaust Emissions from
Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion
Engines, " Contract No. EHS 70-108. It includes documentation and dis-
cussion on characterization of emissions from three locomotive diesel
engines (sections III and IV), test data and computed mass emissions
(Appendixes A, B, and C), estimation of emission factors and national
impact for locomotive diesels (section V) and estimation of emission
factors for their marine counterparts (section V). As a part of the final
report on the characterization phase of EHS 70-108, this report does not
contain information on aircraft turbine emissions, outboard motor crank-
case drainage, or locomotive emissions control technology. As required
by the contract, these three latter areas have been or will be reported
separately.
Emissions tests on the three locomotive engines, each of which
represented a widely-used type having distinctive design features, were
conducted during April, 1972, at the San Antonio maintenance facility of
the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Southern Pacific personnel,
both local and those in the corporate headquarters, were extremely co-
operative, and the importance of this cooperation cannot be overstated.
The emissions data gathered during this program are considered quite
reliable, with the exception of particulate data which were acquired under
less-than-ideal conditions. The data on hydrocarbons, CO, CC>2, NO and
NOX, oxygen, light hydrocarbons, aldehydes, and smoke were all quite
repeatable, and where data from other investigations exist for comparison,
agreement is reasonably good. As additional data is acquired in ongoing
studies, it may be desirable to update the factors and impact estimates made
in this report if the data on which these quantities are based is shown to be
atypical for engines in service.
To measure smoke from the locomotive engines, special versions of
the PHS smokemeter were fabricated with standard optical units mounted on
20-inch diameter and 40-inch diameter support rings to encompass the
large locomotive exhaust stacks. These instruments were quite successful.
Expressing the results of this study in terms of national emissions
impact of locomotive engines (after numerous assumptions regarding appli-
cability of the subject results to the current locomotive population), figures
were arrived at for locomotive emissions expressed as percentages of the
(1970) national total. On this basis, locomotive emissions amounted to
0. 467% of hydrocarbons from all sources and 0. 831% of those from mobile
sources, 0. 146% of CO from all sources and 0. 194% of that from mobile
sources, 2. 70% of NOX from all sources and 5. 24% of that from mobile
sources, and 0. 279% of SOX from all sources and 9. 60% of SOX from mobile
36
-------
sources. Particulate data generated during this study are not considered
reliable enough to be used in computing national impact. The other emis-
sions measured are not relatable to available national source inventories.
In order to compile more comprehensive characterization data
and make impact estimates more accurate, additional engines should be
chosen to represent the locomotive population more fully, and they should
be tested in a manner similar to the subject test program. An improve-
ment could be made, however, by using a more highly-developed particulate
sampling system. Regarding the class of diesel-powered vessels, the most
notable need for further information is in the areas of population and usage.
A separate study aimed at surveying the vessel population is really the
answer to this problem, because the level of effort anticipated is too large
to be accommodated by a study such as the subject effort.
37
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Sawicki, E., et al, The 3-Methyl-3-benzothiazalone Hydrazone
Test, Anal. Chem. 33:93. 1961.
2. Altshuller, A. P,, et al, Determination of Formaldehyde in Gas
Mixtures by the Chromotropic Acid Method, Anal. Chem. 33:621. 1961.
3. S. A. E. Aircraft Recommended Practice 1256, preliminary version.
4. Report on Exhaust Emissions of Selected Railroad Diesel Locomotives,
Jointly Funded by the; Association of American Railroads; Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.; Southern Pacific Transportation Co. ;
Union Pacific Railroad Co. Prepared by Southern Pacific Transportation
Company, San Francisco, California. March 1972.
5. Locomotive Maintenance Officers Association, Committee on Fuel &
Lube Oil, Seminar on Environmental Protection, November 10, 1971
Electro-Motive Division, General Motors Corporation, La Grange, 111.
6. Unconfirmed Minutes of a meeting of The Large Engine Diesel Smoke
Procedure Task Force - April 18, 1972.
7. Railway Locomotives and Cars, May 1972.
8. Projected Increases in Intercity Freight Traffic to A ssociation of American
Railroads, August 1971, Battelle Columbus Laboratories.
9. Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1972 Edition, Association of American Railroads.
10. Operating and Traffic Statistics - Calendar Year 1971 (Class I roads) - O. S.
Series 213 - Association of American Railroads, Economics and Finance
Department.
11. Statistics of Railroads of Class I (U. S.) - I960 - 1970 - statistical summary
No. 55, Association of American Railroads, Economics and Finance De-
partment.
12. Railway Locomotives and Cars, June 1972.
13. Personal communication from Jack Hoffman to Karl J. Springer, July 6, 1972.
14. SAEpaper No. 720604, Status Report on Locomotives as Sources of Air
Pollution, Max Ephraim, Jr., Electro-Motive Division, General Motors
Corporation.
38
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT'D.)
15. 1969-1975 Market for Industrial Diesel, Natural Gas, and Gas Turbine
Engines, Engine Marketing Associates, Box 15066 Phoenix, Arizona 85018.
16. Personal communication to Mr. B. C. Dial from G. M. Magee, Association
of American Railroads, July 29, 1969.
17. 1970 EPA Air Pollution Inventory Estimates, Annual Report of the Council
on Environmental Quality.
18. United States Coast Guard Pollution Abatement Program: A Preliminary
Study of Vessel and Boat Exhaust Emissions, R. A. Walter, et. al,
Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142.
19. Merchant Vessels of the U. S., 1970, Department of Commerce.
20. Transportation Series 3, 4, and 5; statistics on U. S. flag vessels
operating on U. S. waterways in transportation service (powered by
internal combustion engines); U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970.
21. Personal Communication to Mr. B. C. Dial from Mr. Norris Mong,
Port Engineer, Foss Launch and Tug Co., Seattle, April 5, 1971.
22. Personal Communication to Mr. B. C. Dial from Mr. R. X. Caldwell,
Technical Superintendent, Marine Department, Humble Oil & Refining
Co., Houston, March 11, 1971.
23. Personal Communication to Mr. B. C. Dial from Mr. E. Carl Dittrich,
Dredging Department, Jahncke Service, Inc. , Metairie, La. , March 8,
1971.
24. Personal Communication to Mr. B. C. Dial from Mr. J. K. Stuart,
Manager of Operations, The Great Lakes Towing Company, Cleveland,
February 22, 1971.
39
-------
EXPLANATORY NOTES ON
APPENDIX DATA
All emissions data in the Appendixes are on a
wet basis, that is, corrected for removal of
intake air humidity and water of combustion.
Emissions data in the Appendixes are considered
to be accurate to 3 significant figures. Additional
figures have been retained in those numbers which
are considered to be intermediate, rather than
final, results, to avoid unnecessary rounding
errors.
-------
APPENDIX A
Test Data and Computed Mass Emissions,
EMD 12-567 (S. P. Unit 1311)
-------
fUt
1
2
3
4
5
€>
7
6
9
to
1 1
1 c
1 f-
• -7
I 3
14
15
Ife
17
i rv
I u
O
ZO
2.1
22
23
24
N.-tcU
o*.
>_«*&•
IAU
1
Z.
3
4
I Ale
£
<0
1
6
IAk
t>y«.
B*txK.C,
Ii\<.
8
7
&
S
!>»•».
Bf.tt
IAI«-
4
3
2
I
IAk
Ln^lVte.
S>t>t«d,
Rt>«*
216
300
311
442.
5\3
Z75
584
655
72.6
600
275
fcOO
12-fc
6SS
564
275
513
442
371
300
2.75
Obs«*wtd
R>«»»*, v\y>
N«t
82.9
113.
ill.
423.
535.
133.
661.
1030.
r-
\OIS.
8fo7.
750.
£87.
443.
2.72.
\95.
100.
&*0ti
Z-B
Bfe.C,
IZO.
283.
441.
2.8
5G2-
771.
.
uoo.
2.B
lOftS,
«m.
768.
0,14.
2^
4U.
284.
202.
104.
2.&
Fo«l
RaU,
b-A.
Zfe.B
5G.O
64.3
\13..
\a\.
•Z2.2
222.
302.
3S5.
42».
5L2.0
43\.
357.
305.
227.
Z2.2
»74.
12\.
13. 0
54.0
22.3
T«i«*|fwr(x-itt*ts,
°F
I-lafcl.
97
98
99
101
97
103
97
9ft
\00
99
104
99
IOG
101
\0fe
»09
\02
102
\03
105
IO&
Ex Wit
I(b4
20G
220
290
353
202
380
4Gfo
5»8
578
275
548
547
SOfc
454
252
372
350
290
2-50
153
F1A
rtC,
HP-C.
24,8
280
408
448
5fc&
2fc&
tl9
BOO
93B
1250
475
1 050
900
612
"700
288
550
412
388
2fc2
138
NDIR
CO,
Vt~
Of/
89
111
»ia
t?/l
&7
its
»53
IBS
30
1.B&
2,19
0,50
3.48
4.3i
4.0,4
5.10
0.13
s.n
4.feS
4.52
3.30
O.(b4
3.24
2.57
2.03
1.52
0.13
NDIR
NO,
W>-
47
83
94
2.2.G
338
4?
t>2-9
7fcO
845
9&9
85
959
920
B4C,
70G
70
425
Z.Q>\
164
117
58
C.L.
NO,
vt»-
4-1
79
84
199
214
43
505
654
770
845
65
845
806
783
593
47
353
232
141
90
SO
C.L.
NO*.
W~
58
IOO
117
2\9
305
54
541
2>
394
213
MS
116
66
Q.,
%
1B.3
11.2
lfe.2
16.1
15.4
18,3
13.3
12.3
N.B
n.o
11.3
il.O
11.4
11.8
12.5
11,?
15.9
1G.I
11.5
n.i
11.9
RCHO
H»~
1G
|Q>
14
14
14
24
28
23
11
11
14
14
IG
\7.-Sfe/ SWITCH VOET SOLBTEHR^F 7G
LOCO MOT i\)E. =>•*». OMIT \^>\\,
RUN _J DATE 4/12./i2 BAROMETER £8.95 m H» DRY &O«-B TE.MR, *F 99
-------
I
uo
Mode
1
Z
5
4.
5
6
7
6
9
IO
1 I
1 °
1 "*
14
15
\
5
?/r-
B>»K«.
LJle-
4
3
2
1
Idlo.
irt^ino.
Sfeei,
Rt»m
275
300
371
442
513
2.75
584
6 £5
72.6
80O
Z75
800
726
655
584
275
5»3
442
371
300
275
Tiwve - &«.s.«l
^UU VAV.^kU
I* "P«vco.n"t
15.4-
5.0
2.5
2.0
1 .0
15.4-
0.5
0.5
0.0
O.O
15.4
O.O
O.O
0.5
0.5
15.4-
1 .O
2.0
2.5
5.0
15.4
fUss R«t«, Vh*
HC.
5fc2
4(b2
G83
28G
9&6
510
752
2481
3182
4542
(bOO
2W
30fc4
2434
2212
4-33
I31G
663
0>18
414
I8(b
CO
2.Bt
2.99
378
712.
at.8
25?
951
9^5
1277
2GB4
2S8
\fcS4
ISM
lOfcl
•J84
IG8
531
4fi>9
360
Z53
124
NOK
407
3&0
9
3»7
31S7
»91t
933
«-oK« St>ici.fic.,VuV>^
HC
201.
5.34
5.70
4,50
4.50
182.
3. VI
3.Z2
3.46
4.13
2*4.
3.57
3.33
3.08
3.GO
155.
2.85
3.04
3.05
3.98
0>.\
3.79
4,23
3.48
4.33
7.S7
3.05
3.88
4.93
4-fc9
5.56
NOA
15.2
6.43
10.2
n.2
\9,7
15.5
23.1
24.0
25. £
25.7
vfc.o
2,4.9
26.4
Zfc.5
28.9
14.3
18.1
15-8
V2.8
II.G
13.4
RCHO
2.13
0.91
0.59
2.(bl
O.3I
0.45
3.51
0.43
0.36
2.5|
O.42
0.67
2.U
LOCOMOTNE S.P. OMIT »3U,EMD 12.- 567 SUJiTtH
RON 1 PATE 4/12/72
DOTy CYCLE. SAW! A FE SlOlTCH
Basis
MaW/ Vh*
6-Kx«c;llc.a/iK^ h*-
Fu«l SV>ect(ic, Mb«-<«e»
Cycle Co«|)05.l^e E^l»Slor\S.
HC
550
10-2
I3.G
CO
277
5.15
6-85
NO*
G>3(b
11.8
15.7
•RCHO
63.4
1.18
1.57
-------
KUt
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
1 1
£
3
14
15
16
«7
i n.
I IS
1}
eo
2.1
22
23
24
M~^ f L.
• v v^ n
O v
^O t^Ck •
T 1 1
Idle
Z.
3
4
I Alt.
5
6
7
6
I4k
to--.
&»»«.«.
HI*.
8
7
G
5
*?""•
B»«kt.
TAl«.
4
3
2
I
14 U.
l"&
Rt>"
2V7o
3OO
371
442
SIS
275
584
655
72.G>
800
275
800
72
442
371
300
275
Obs««
N«t
65.8
\80.
254.
453.
535.
732.
655.
IOIS.
1015.
867.
733.
5Q>1.
453
2,71
IQ>6
90.0
^td
G-*ots
2Q
•o
_ _ _
O 7«S
187.
266.
471-
2.8
5&2.
770.
907
1085.
2.8
1085.
919.
771.
588.
2.8
471.
283.
173.
93.7
2.8
Rat*,
Vh*
11 O
Z./.Z
_ .
ofe.T1
71.3
116.
m.
22.0
22,4.
284-
244.
43G.
22.0
438.
365.
Z80.
217.
22.2
173.
l\2.
70.1
57.0
22.2
°l
I«1aKt
cv i
7l
91
1
&9
9»
89
95
90
90
95
95
102-
9Z
10 \
98
99
102
100
99
nx
in
107
ExKouit
1—lC.
>7o
1 ft D
I/O
224
270
334
22G
36G
443
S03
572
27O
552
534
487
444
294
370
329
2fc4
230
164
FIA
HP-C.
*J r Q
A.>OO
i*yt\
oJJtJ
53G
565
75fe
328
720
944
952
1070
352
1024
831
784
616
180
560
444
356
262
192
NDIR
CO,
*>!>•»
45
on
09
122.
132
110
45
109
109
119
274
45
117
140
108
108
45
no
HO
110
69
45
NDJR
Xo
f\ CVO
0.92.
1 ~lfi
I. /O
2.19
2.7?
3.61
0.83
4.01
447
4.9
O.S3
S.5&
5.10
4.70
4.32.
a 83
3.80
3.01
2.12
1.77
0.92
NDIR
vt~
r\>i
94
• * i
14-1
164
28G
451
70
540
70fc
82fc
9(bO
1 19
992
870
644
610
83
520
32X
l%9
119
83
C.L.
NO,
VlP-
~7>l
/4
(14
i 14
152
259
395
72
481
62.9
72fe
855
65
841
774
|"-
1 A &
I4o
196
309
445
9>
530
670
757
&9\
79
855
763
€>9G>
600
80
49G
344
194
147
85
Q,,
7.
« (\ r\
17.0
t*7 A
\7.9
lfc.7
1G.O
VS.4
19,5
13.5
virs
ll.O
11,1
V9.0
1-2LS
\2,.l
13.7
14-1
\9.3
IS.3
l
l(o
13
14
M
IB
t&
17
14
n
14
—
14
It
LOCOMOTtME S. P. UN) IT \3>U,EMD \2-5fe7 SlQlTCH vOET SOLBTEHR^F ~T5
RUN 3 DATE 4/13/72 BAROMETER 28.8fc in A» OR/ pULB TEMPV *F 9^.
-------
I
(JI
Mode
I
2
3
4-
5
6
7
&
9
10
1 I
i °
i *\
\A-
15
»6
17
19
20
Z.I
22
23
24
NotcK
o*eA,
R\>m
275
SCO
37 1
4-4-2
513
2.15
584
S,4
0,S
o.s
0.0
0.0
15.4
O.O
O,O
0.5
O.S
IS.4-
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
VS.4
MB.JS R*tM,*/W
HC.
284
447
ni
044
586
380
17^0
2tf£
2.938
3G5&
404-
351?
ZG5,19B
304
0,004-
8370
K*
HC
101.
4.98
4.12
3.93
3.37
I3G.
3.18
3.46
3-Z4
3.37
144
3.30
2.89
2.70
2.tll Sfr«tfiC*V\iW'fi»«l
HC
12..6
7.93
10.8
9.02
9.27
17.3
7.99
9.38
&54
839
18.4
8.17
7.28
7.45
6.97
14.8
6.58
6.59
7.4S
6.61
9-\9
C.O
4-37
4.49
5.01
4.27
2.75
4.82
2.4£
2.20
2.35
4-37
4.77
3.69
2.A9
2.09
2.27
4,82
2.64
3.2,2
4.66
4,56
4.37
NOA
15.4
12.3
13.2
16.4
18.3
16.0
19.7
22.3
2.2.7
Z3.4
13.8
22.8
22.9
22.1
2O.7
14.1
19.5
17.1
13.6
12,4
13.6
RC.HO
1.67
0.70
O.35
1.60
O.Z4
0.31
2.05
0.30
0.29
1,95
0,36
0,64
1.67
S.P.OK)VT
RUN 3
4/13 /-IZ
OOTy CYCLE SANTA
& 0.5. IS
, Vh*
Fu«l
Cyclt.
Eml»SkOn£,
HC
423
10.77
CO
160
2.95
4.07
MO,
*RCHO
-------
MoAt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
1 1
i c
l f~
i J
14
IS
16
17
• r»
1 U
1}
20
2.1
22
23
24
M»-tch
0*
,_ona.
IAU.
1
£
3
4
Utc
5
6
7
6
IAk
I>y«.
B*»t«,
l&l*.
8
7
&
5
!>»•>.
Br»K.t
rai*.
4
3
2
1
Id I*.
-n^lne.
S|*«d,
Rt>~
2.75
300
371
442
513
Z7€
584
655
726
800
Z75
&OO
72G
N.-V
IOI.
195.
2ft2.
42^.
j5&0.
431
4«>5
ZOO
7G7
880
IOOO
12.50
47Z
1055
887
767
706
320
552
448
3~
33
55
G&
Gfe
66
45
\09
IO8
12.9
2IG
55
228
\52
12.9
130
Q>7
132
132.
132
111
-
70
94
153
Z01
249
U^
499
644
72S
850
82
&68
ft 12.
729
G06
?5
454
374
2-74
165
106
C.L.
NO,
\\~
48
72
\2.l
168
23k
45
4§9
621
707
81?
72
799
739
656
£2>7
69
41}
303
213
(20
76
C.L.
NO*,
»*"*
55
90
142
189
247
53
520
ty~
13
\2
12
IS
-9
—
16
»9
16
—
IO
—
H
IO
1 1
12.
LOCOMOTt\)E S.P.
RUN 4
DATE 4/13/72.
t EMD V2.-S67 SvQ\TCV\ VOET
2Q.86 irv U» DRY &OLB TEMPV *
74
-------
Mode
1
Z
3
4.
5
6
7
5
9
IO
1 I
/)
1 cl
\4
15
16
17
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
NotcK
of
Idle.
1
2
2.
4
IdU
5
»n.
B**.<\*
T V \ o
&
7
&
5
Pvr
&VHL Ik*.
Idle.
4
3
2
1
IdU
£
275
300
371
442
513
275
584
(555
72.6
800
275
F300
726
655
554
275
513
442
371
300
275
"Time. - &«&.«d
"A vie. VAkt^K~ts
lA "Pfttf C4H"t
15.4
5.O
2.5
2.0
l-O
15,4-
0.5
O-5
o.o
O.O
15.4
o.o
0.0
0.5
0.5
15.4
\.o
2.0
2.5
5.0
15.4
r-Vis R«ct«. Vh*
HC.
355
614
755
1203
680
390
854
2.444
304G
4324
542
3871
2B73
2214
1791
4-13
II&3
770
481
39ft
210
CO
115
245
2.70
375
456
178
536
6IO
803
1521
128
1702
1002
758
672
17G
576
461
351
330
163
NO*
315
661
955
1767
2808
346
4208
5970
7457
9520
292
K&023
80&&
6465
4653
34|
3265
2411
1076
710
396
KCHO
48.5
52.6
88.8
55.3
54.5
I2A.
47.6
128.
62.9
31. 0
46.7
31.3
il.2
BraVu Sv.*cvfjc.,yuv>x*
HC
IZ7.
5.90
3.73
4.09
3.83
139.
3.16
3.35
3.43
4.04
\94.
3.62
3.13
2.99
3.03
148.
2.69
2.62
2.31
3.&3
75.0
LOCO MOT iM E S.R OMIT 1B>H, HMD 12.-S67 SWITCH
RON 4
DATE 4-/I3/72
Dory CVCLE SANTA FE SWITCH
CO
41.O
2.35
1.34
1.27
1.04
63.6
0.91
0,84
0.90
1,42
4S.7
1.59
1.09
1.02
1.14
62.&
\.2>1
1.57
l.G>9
3.17
58.2
NOX
»«Z.
6.35
4.2B
6.10
6-39
124.
7.17
8.19
8.40
8-90
104.
9.2,7
8.78
8.72
7-88
122.
7.44
8.20
5.17
6-B3
141.
R.CHO
n.3
—
0.26
O.2O
19.7
0.075
O.II
n.o
OJ2
—
0.084
11. 1
O.I I
0.15
11.2.
Futl Sj.«eUcc,V»k..^u«»
HC
IG.8
10.7
10.7
10.5
vn
17.8
8.35
8.43
8-93
\o.}
2A&
8.84
8.19
7.69
7.9G
I OL Q
I O*y
7,00
f~ QO
6.63
7.06
9.50
Basis
Mats/ */h*
b*aKe. Sj>«c;{ic/Vbkh hv
Futl Specific, Mb«-t«e\
CO
5.45
4.26
3.81
3.26
2.65
8.13
2.41
2.\0
2.35
3.55
5.82
3.89
2.85
2.63
2.99
8.04
3.41
4.12
4.84
5.85
7.38
NOA
14.9
I
1.5
13.5
15.4
16.3
15.&
19.0
20.6
21.9
22.2
13-3
22.9
23.0
22.4
20.7
15.6
19.3
2\.5
14.8
12.6
17.9
RCHO
2.3O
0.74
0.52
2.53
o.\9
O.28
2.1&
0.2^
0.22
1.42
0,28
0.43
1.41
CycU
HC.
485
&.S8
I2..4
Co~t>o:.l
CO
201
3.56
5.14
•
-U EmUstO«S.
MO^ *RCHO
63O 44-4
U.I O.79
16.1 1.14
*See note U\ "text,
R.CHO Cow»jpu\eCtloAS
-------
APPENDIX B
Test Data and Computed Mass Emissions,
EMD 16-645E-3 (S.P. Unit 8447)
-------
i
ro
Mo«ie
1
2.
3
4
5
€>
7
&
9
10
1 I
12
13
14
IS
16
17
16
19
eo
2.1
22
23
24
N.-UU
o*
L.OM&.
Idle
1
t
3
4
UU
B
6
7
6
lAk
t>y«.
B«aK.t
I4U
8
7
&
5
j>»*.
Bf.Kt
ui*.
4
3
2
I
IJU.
Lvalue.
Sj>«d,
Rt>-
307
307
360
4-90
546
307
27
54fc
307
54£
490
36O
307
307
Oks«*>»td
P«ui«*, V*J>
Ntt
69.2
495.
1055.
t460.
1772.
2165.
26 IO.
3070.
r-
3045.
2550.
212.2.
17 IO.
1458.
109 1
515.
96.5
G-/USS
5.6
94.6
504.
1064.
IS08.
8.6
I&33.
2279-
27G9.
3323.
IO.O
40.0
7,1
3224.
2736.
2256.
1796.
56.O
7.1
1498.
U2fc.
529.
105.
a
706
67?
Gb\
325
244
207
64O
684-
7lS
692
329
215
57O
602
44B
282
Z37
FIA
rtC.
H>~c
\08
\ot
1 08
140
1 39
9ft
145
m
ZIG
ZIO
94-
72
&&
208
191
\67
148
1&
1 02
123
I22
107
90
97
i^DIR
CO,
V.JH-
I5ft
Q>7
54-
599
\l-97
1 00
140I
1249
7
112
\4fc9
4572
54
45
\34-
NDlR
to,,
%
0.73
1.16
2.9fe
4-57
5.50
0.73
5.70
fc.\9
5.77
6.06
0.73
1.11
0.73
-
81
\98
449
t"
103
2\fc
476
642
131
1X6
764
823
884
904
127
1S1
117
882
882.
B13
7fcZ
143
m
742
709
493
235
114
Q*,
%
19.4
19.1
16.2
13.6
11.7
20.5
11.2
10.8
IV.6
\\.5
19.4
\8.9
19.4
1\.0
\\.|
10.6
11. 1
»&.8
19.3
11.6
\1.}
15.7
1&.5
19.2
RCHO
ty~
22
1 I
12
13
9
-13
»4
14
13
12
10
8
\3
13
5
7
7
RUN
S.P.UNlT 8447, EMD SD- 4O (l
-------
MoJe
1
3
A.
5
6
8
IO
1 I
12.
13
14
1 C
1 ts
16
7
IB
19
20
2,1
22
o 31
Zo
24
NotcK
o/
Co*d.
Idle-
i
I
2
3
4
IAU
6
8
nu
^;;^
IA\e.
a
6
$&*«.
LU«-
4
2
i
i
IdU
Maine.
S^t.t4,
Rl>«*
507
arv-y
OV)/
360
490
544
307
/* 1'~7
JL 1
544
307
544
A an
49O
3
l
342
«79
2,338
508
5,440
5,459
7022
8237
465
625
58|
,«*, */
NO*
$40
1 QC.I
1 ofol
0>680
8770
1,426
969
3,o3fe
6,139
Z2,7toJ
6,4i8
1078
1511
<)75
Z1>940
,
Zl,4v>o
16,496
13,000
2290
996
11,031
8399
485B
|Q*7/^
ID/U
952
tv/-
RCftO
H7.
74.6
\07.
133.
49.0
172.
267.
77.5
13,0.
65.2
185.
106.
136.
72.2
46.5
45.0
38.1
&raK.
HC
4-6-9
.76
0.67
0.53
0.43
28.4
/N >l_1
0.4-3
0.47
Of r\
.(oO
0.55
23.8
8.15
30.8
0.49
5O. S
0.4S
0.4-2
6.66
36.5
O.36
O.3&
5.95
2f\Jt
.u*v
2&. 1
SVXLC
CO
14O.
6. IO
0.68
4.59
8.18
59.1
.42
6-7B
•OO
2.48
4fc.5
15.6
80.O
2.77
^ K.*^
o.oo
7.05
Q C.O
O»*>2.
11-7
81-7
8.87
\0. 1
0.61
.Oo
-79.2
^tt,V
KiO,
ISO.
_ /-
• 7. V>
13.2
8.09
7.58
113.
.55
7.34
81 1
././.
7.95
|0&.
37.8
137.
6.93
7Q/1
• O*r
7,31
^') A
•2-4
40.9
I4O.
7.36
*7 A f
7.46
9,18
nn
• O
1 1 1.
bVfcH*
RCHO
20.9
0.15
0.099
0.08B
5,70
0.01fe
0.080
7.75
3.25
9«l&
0.051
0.047
2.42
10.2.
0.032
0.085
4.43
Full .
HC
(b.45
3(1*9
.9Z
1.65
.37
1.12
5.92
. 12
1.2,7
.fc>7
I.5G
5.68
2.89
5.33
1.35
I/t i
S\i-
i.n
.Oo
3.IG
€,.17
0.94
.OO
1.49
31 a
.1"
5.88
b)xeU
CO
19.2
5,25
1.&6
11.9
21,3
12,3
22.2
18.3
•07
6,99
U.I
5.48
13.8
744
9QT
•97
18.4
22.2
5.53
13,8
22.9
ir 1
26.5
1.53
3nc
•Zis
lfc.5
^'Vik.
NO^
20.6
27.8
32,7
21. 0
19,7
23.5
19.9
19.8
*7O Q
zz.y
22.4
25,7
)3.2
23.7
19.2
1 1 O
/.l.o
19.1
- _
lo> /
19.4
23.7
19.0
*A /-
19i5
22.9
1"7 Q
2.7.9
23. »
.•fu.»
RC«0
2.87
0.37
0.2fc
0.23
I.19
0.20
0.23
I-85
1.I4
1.59
0.14
0.12
I. IS
I.72
0.084
0.2\
0,92
LOCOMOTIME S.R UN\T 8447, EMD SD- 40 (\fe-fe4SE. -
RON
DM"E 4/18/72
Dory CVC.LE Eno LINE. -HAUL
&O.VIS
Mais, Vh*
Fuel
Cycle Co»«l>oi.H«.
HC
817
0-635
l.fcfe
ao
4858
3.78
9-90
I0,fe43
8.25
2.1 .<
\ZQ
0.107
0.264
-------
(33
i
MoAe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
IO
t 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
l&
1}
ZO
2.1
22
Z3
24
M»-UU
0*
kloM&.
idU
1
z.
3
4
I At*.
S
&
7
5
IAU
t>r*.
&»»«.«.
141*.
8
7
G
5
J»r«.
B »•*.«.
ut*.
4
3
2
I
Id I*.
m^iMe.
S|*«"
307
307
360
490
546
3 O7
627
725
812
900
307
54(b
307
90O
812.
728
627
546
307
546
490
3
N«t
^2.3
A-75.
U\5.
1433.
1755.
2150.
2550.
2960.
2<)60.
254O.
2. MO.
174-2.
1460.
1103.
524.
108.
G-voss
&.G
99.4
466.
U44.
1413.
8.6
1&16.
22.64.
2736.
32\3.
1O.O
40.0
7.1
3B9.
2726.
2244.
ISZfc.
56.0
7.\
1500.
H3&.
538.
116.
8.6
Fo«l
Rate,
lb-/M
40.7
67.5
203.
443.
577.
4-1.0
&90.
865.
974.
U
\\4.
4».S
\\5&.
993.
83&
(b97.
118.
4-J.3
577.
435.
204.
0>7.fc
40.4
Ti.^jMrod.u^ts,
°F
I-lofct
89
89
90
89
99
87
8&
87
88
89
91
90
90
92
92
92.
90
90
87
88
87
88
88
87
Exhouit
264
238
353
573
666
34-7
664
735
725
72.1
312.
215
201
703
725
754-
1>-
101
23 1
45&
7\&
746
109
789
839
882.
926
124
\43
94
889
89 1
829
783
148
1O6
74-7
718
471
235
U2
C.L.
NO*,
\>t~
1V9
24O
4-8\
723
760
122
802
&2>9
893
92
•Q,
%
19.9
19.0
16.3
I2.A
11.6
19.7
11. 2>
10.7
11.3
11.5
»9.6
19.3
19.9
U.I
II. Z
10.7
IO.6
18.2»
19.6
11.8
12.2
IS.8
l&.B
»9.5
RCHO
fy~
22.
13
18
IS
— _
i&
12.
17
16
18
»4
8
13
12
8
&
12
LOCOHOTtME S.PUNVT 8447,
RUN 2.
SD-4O
DATE 4/18/12 BAROME.TER 29.O1
WET 6ULB TEHP. .
DRY £OLB TEMPV *
77
-------
w
I
Mode
1
Z
3
4.
5
6
7
ft
9
10
t 1
\i
13
\4-
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
NotcK
ov
Lend.
Idle.
1
2
2>
4
IAU
5 -
«4,
R\>«
SOT
307
360
4-90
546
307
627
72.6
612
900
307
546
307
9OO
812
72ft
HC.
Z3I
\BO
279
4-44
591
2tG
739
985
434-
2138
24O
358
Z2.\
\912
1400
92|
700
357
235
SG.I
421
285
232
239
CO
293
an
25ft
%B9
2,273
395
l*,')73
6,»2|
%&
6fcfcO
322
Gfc9
559
9945
10,454
15,571
15,121
625
570
I2,38
8521,
10,134
10 It
3X225
{.,170
11,019
Z€>890
I0fe4
2254
903
23,845
21,IC>4
5,5?3
2,824
1%1
m
•0,193
82»7
4532
2J58
9^2
RCHO
»\9.
81.8
l(ofc.
81.5
228.
2\9.
87A
147.
&7.0
240-
9b.9
130.
65.5
75.4
47.9
63.9
B^Ke St>>v*
HC
2G.8
».8l
0.57
0.39
0.40
30.9
0.41
044
0.52
O.fct
Z4.0
8.95
31.1
O.Q>I
O.SI
0.41
0.36
6.37
33.1
0.37
0.37
O.S3
2.20
21.7
CO
52.9
2.12
0.53
8.44
8.33
45.9
8.24
7«»2
3.52
2.8
8.74
3.67
12.2
04)76
0043
2.32
9.25
O.OSO
0.089
7.44
Futl S»>«ei-f it, %_{„•»
HC
5.K^ H'
ru«l S>tscci'Tl.t , /\^ *?ut\
Cyc\t ComJ>o>l-\e Elusions.
HC
872
0.691
\.78
CO
4976
[3,94
IO.2.
NO,
10,317
8.\8
2.1. 1
*RCHO
140
0.1 11
0.280)
»\o
oVe
».*\
RCHO
-------
Mode
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
1O
1 1
12
13
14
IS
16
17
ta
\J
20
2.1
22
23
24
N»tcU
0*
lon&.
Idle
1
t
3
4
Ult
5
6
7
5
IAU
t>y».
&»•«.«,
I4U
6
7
6
5
J>V«.
&*•£«.
Ul<-
4
3
2
1
HU
•Lupine
S|>t«d,
Rt>"*
307
307
360
490
546
307
627
726
BIZ
90O
307
54C,
307
900
bU
728
627
54k
307
54G>
490
3Q>0
3O7
507
Obs«+wtd
P»ul»*, fe)»
N«t
87.4
476.
973.
1410.
mo.
2185.
2&20.
5020-
r
iOOO.
25SCX
Z»4fc.
»722.
1420.
»090.
5\3.
99.7
G*ots
S.Q>
93,0
485.
99t-
1458.
8.6
»&31.
2299.
2779.
3273.
10.0
40.0
7.»
3179.
273fe.
2280.
I BOB.
5G.D
7,1
14tt>.
1\25.
527.
105.
8,6
Fu«l
Rai«,
lb-/h*
42.8
C>9,0
198.
433.
552,
4\.3
w.
856.
993.
1179.
4US
U3.
40-7
nse.
1002.
856.
703.
112
40,4
557.
433.
20G.
G>7,3
4\.6
TimjfMrocttt^tS,
°F
r-i.kt
78
78
78
7?
81
79
81
82.
81
83
65
83
84
84
84-
84
68
8
92
106
NDIR
CO,
W~
100
76
88
286
774
90
1492.
1224
G63
498
78
78
112
626
711
1313
1548
G7
100
1522
IBIS
61
0.73
NDIR
NO,
H>~
105
239
491
716
B09
142.
8C4
9o5
96&
99b
167
178
166
950
997
916
862
\91
178
863
781
571
289
142
C.L.
NO,
Y>t»-
79
^oo
41G
626
716
102
741
8\9
857
884
122
134
102.
659
839
783
74\
134
109
710
674
480
226
)02
C.L.
NO*.
Pt"
89
214
431
631
723
113
744
82?
867
884
126
146
115
859
839
7&7
741
142
116
724
686
485
230
113
<*,
%
19.5
I8.&
15,?
13.6
12.3
0.5
U.3.
»0.7
\\.B
11.2
19.0
1&.6
19.1
10. B
ll.O
10.7
10.8
18.4
1&.9
11.1
11.7
133
18.0
18.9
RCHO
n»-
l(o
13
11
15
\
-------
Mode
I
^
3
4.
5
6
7
ft
9
1O
1 1
12
13
14-
15
16
17
18
19
20
Z.I
22
23
24
Notch
ov
*O»\A.
Idle.
1
2
2>
4
lilt
5
6
7
8
IdU
DtB.
6»«.*.«.
IA1«.
B
7
e
5
^£iic«.
Lile.
4
3
2
1
iau
rt^iMC.
S^tfti,
Rl>»*
301
301
3€>0
490
54G
30?
€.27
128
BIZ
900
307
545,
307
900
Bll
118
621
5%
301
54fc
4-90
3(bO
307
307
lime. - B«,&«<1
PA%i«t vfc;AkU
t* "P«*Ct*t
fc.833
l.s
1.5
1.5
I.S
6.833
I.S
1.5
1,5
15.0
fc.833
4.0
fc.833
15.0
I.S
1.5
1.5
4.0
G.&33
1,5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6-833
t*Uss R*t«», Vh*
HC.
404
2G.I
35S
fe57
(bzi
2.01
902
llbfc
184&
24*1
287
409
220
»m
\AASk.
1 1 IQ
ioas
150
405
230
lObl
2i\9
892-
»VQ&
2J,2«)7
IS^tt.
C,750
2238
951
10,098
&159
4&S8
1782
94Q
Reno
83.1
81,3
\09.
813
±11.
ni.
71.5
12.?.
10,8
122.
tb3.
»34.
C,9.^
109.
U3.
985
B™VU Slxtci-ftt/Vbk^K*
HC
12.4
2,81
0,13
O.GG
0.43
23.4
0,49
055
O.Gb
0.74
28,7
10.2
30.9
0.62
0.53
0.4fc
O.41
1.23
32.4
0.42
0.41
0.63
2.02.
3.0-9
CO
86.G
4.10
l.0(b
2.5fe
4-91
53.5
8.&G
6,13
3.74
2.8O
40.0
Ift.O
14.4
3.39
4X>\
7.03
8-%
\1.5
10.3
8.85
U.G
O.13
2.4&
19,5
M0>
127.
»9.0
8.K>
9-28
7.S3
no.
1.09
1.49
8.03
8.11
\0
2.1.9
21.0
2\»,3
lft.5
\&.\
20.0
23.5
»&.!
\&.&
Z2-Q,
2Jb.5
22.8
RCHO
1.94
0,4-1
0.20
1.99
0.25
0.23
1.72
M4
\-14
0.1?
0,2.1
1,20
1.12
0.20
0.55
2.37
LOCOMOTNE S.R OMIT &441, EMD Sb-40 (lfe-WSE,-3)
RON 3 PKTE 4/19 /12
DOTy CYCLE EMD UlN)E-HAVJl_
&O.VLS
f^CLtS, ^/h<>
&^<^Ke. S^^t^Ait.vtti^ h'
Fu«l SV>ecl(lC, Mb«-««e»
Cycle Co«t>oii-\e E>v
0.302.
-------
w
I
oo
M«le
1
2.
3
4
5
€>
7
B
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
M»icU
of
!<>*&.
IAU
1
2
3
4
Hlc
B
6
7
5
IAU
t>y«.
B»«Xt
UU.
6
7
G
5
»y«.
&*•*.«.
Ul*.
4
3
2
I
Id It
Inline.
St*.d,
Rt>**
301
307
327
54£
307
544
490
3(bO
307
307
Obs«*wtd
P.***, fej.
N«t
%.5
476.
1116.
I4
H88.
2258.
210S.
3\88.
»o.o
40.0
7.1
3U4.
Zfcfefc.
2243.
H95.
5
Fu*l
Rat«,
»>-/h*
4\.4
(o6.2
204.
440.
557.
4-1. B
689.
84(b.
993.
U5
125
153
193
i\a
24Q>
104
84
90
234
196
188
ISl
92
98
143
»29
12|
97
102
NDIR
CO,
W»~
4-5
0,1
7\
1484
\fc30
112
112
10>35
\755
68
€>7
134
NDIR
C-Ox,
%
0.13
1.32
3.24
5.50
6.05
0.70
!»»•
114
139
493
7)8
749
I2O
77fc
830
882
92
12
8
—
12
12
\4
n
—
18
LOCOr^OTt\)E S.P ON)\T &441, Et^\D SD-4O Qfe-fe4SE-5) WET BULB TEMP. .»F 75
RUN 4 DATE 4-A9/72 BAR,OHETER Z9.OZ ln t^. DRy POLB TEMR, "F
-------
w
I
Mode
1
3
A
A-
5
6
a
10
1 1
12
13
14-
1 jr
1 £>
16
7
18
19
20
2,1
22
1 U.
Z.O
24
NotcK
o/
Co«d.
Idle,
i
i
2
4
IdU
<0
8
IdU
D««V.
IAU
6
6
PV*.
D trt. lift«
Ii\e.
4
2
1
UU
«y«JL
Sfjc-eA,
Rt>»*»
507
O.rV7
3O7
3
307
9OO
&l O
\L
728
A C\r\
49O
360
•2Lrv-»
507
307
Tuws. - BWA
r>A»
6.833
Mo.
HC.
293
t r\li
Z.O6
321
c/\c
DO±>
&7I
331
_^
f(oO
1118
539
2130
247
3(>4
£26
1916
1403
1065
._
T^-^j
41?,
24fc
617
449
351
227
253
SS Ra1
CO
23I
3.
7,128
Ib,d34
103&
573
H.BfcJ
lZ,A^a3
520
32O
G>78
^•4, */
N0»
1047
IAA(X
IDUO
4€»89
&4OA
DTOr
O.W5
\0fe3
,'JOO
6,096
.__
ZI,Ti/
1075
2280
1034.
ZVt3
Z'.SYI
iS^Zd
'^//fc*-
2310
1035
10, ws
D3&O
4881
«n-t>i
1B74
1006
h*-
RCHO
93.7
55.9
71.1
52.O
H4.
no.
62.3
H4.
71.4
2.1 B.
99.0
H9.
65.9
132.
108.
97.7
BraK.
HC
34.1
.00
0.0>t>
OA A
.44
0.4S
38.S
O.42_
O.50
.57
O.fc7
24-7
9.10
31.8
0.&2
Or- O
.±0
0.47
/\ j 1
O-4- 1
7.46
34.C.
0.42
.40
O.G5
.00
29.4
Sfcec
CO
26.8
2Qf-
•Tto
0.90
a i r
/. •%)
B.62
59.5
B^/-
.15
7.21
.01
3.13
43.6
22.1
9&.7
3.60
A IT .A
HO>O
1.20
7.92
»i /\
.10
1.32
Ir~ c
,t>5
1-82
5.89
3.40
5.50
1.65
1 A 1
1.4-1
1,26
Ir\o
• Do
3.70
5.93
1-08
.03
I.6&
.33
6,14
5>|>«el{
CO
5.58
A f C
4«vo
2.1C,
^o ci
23. o
23.2
12.2
* f% ~1
22-7
19.3
i IV Q
IO.7
bJ%
1O.4-
8.26
16.7
9.68
i=>
20.4
24.9
19.0
1 ft O
19-2
23.0
Z7.5
24,4
.•fu.1
RCHO
2.26
0.27
O.I3
1.24
0.13
0.15
».49
1.07
1.74
0.\9
O.I2
1.05
1.59
0.23
O.51
2.37
RUN 4
4-/\9/72
OOTy CYCLE BMP LINE.- HAUL
fUvs,
Fu«l Specific,
Cyc\t
HC
897
O.717
1.83
CO
5575
4^4S
11.4
NO,
8.4-8
1)8
0.094
O.24I
•«>ee
-------
APPENDIX C
Test Data and Computed Mass Emissions,
G.E. 7FDL16 (S.P. Unit 8639)
-------
o
I
M««ie,
1
2.
3
4
5
G
7
8
9
to
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
ZO
2.1
22
23
t/L
N»-tcU
0*
Ly«.
&*»«.«,
I4U.
8
7
t
5
»y*.
Bf.tt
ut*.
4
3
2
1
TJ U
:.M^l*t
S*t«d,
*>"•
4-25
4-IB
520
CbOl
&9
(bO\
5 2O
4-\8
« Of
Obs«*wtd
P.v>**, Viy>
N«t
156
560
805
\090
»33»
\925
2525
3240
r-
3240
2525
1925
1391
1050
80S
560
1S6
O*r>is
\l-9
173.
533.
&5fc.
\\ «
Fo*l
Rate,
*-/W
3fe.7
B43
Z24.
33
192.
33, &
M34.
943.
730.
S58.
190.
34.O
4391
336.
239.
84.5
•2A -H
T«m|p*«-ed.«t*tS,
°F
l«1«k«.
81
8l
82
82
82
84
80
84
84-
&fc
86
&7
88
88
8(b
91
90
92
83
91
88
88
87
ttC.
EicVtaiut
325
393
Q>95
193
843
470
S\9
845
192
7fc7
459
490
347
IfcO
189
845
870
£52
3
1832
417
37fc
25B5
Zft7£
2.188
786
tL A 1
NDIR
to*.
/o
1.60
4.08
7.36
G.60
6.47
».51
6.11
5.7G
5.36
5.29
1.47
3.19
1.54
5.27
5.22
5.63
5.90
3.12
1-52
6.32
6.47
092
2197
1968
1633
2.64
1343
1265
1174
1049
277
585
255
1090
1176
1284
1379
599
264
1671
1894
2167
1142
•fC^A-
C.L.
NO,
Vt-
269
1033
2M3
1793
1643
*76
134-1
1249
\\53
1043
295
561
280
1031
1\67
1230
1322
576
176
1601
Ifclft
^84
1102
->a 4
C.L.
NOK,
W»
325
VIOO
2J72.
I&S6
1689
VL1
I36Z
1280
1116
1019
341
6\&
331
1042
11B9
124^
1353
616
33»
1643
1907
2272
1134
star
Qv
%
18-9
13.7
9.G
10.6
10.8
18.6
11-4
12.0
12.7
12.B
16.5
16.0
18.7
ia.9
12.7
12.3
10.6
16.0
18-0
10.6
10.2
9.G
14.5
l& C\
RCHO
ty~
42
26
20
23
24
24
2-9
Z6
30
30
29
17
40
35
3L9
At\
LOCO MOT l\) E. S.R UNIT 8639, G-.E. O-33 C
RUN i DATE 4/25/12. BAROMETER 23.20
DRY
TEMPV *
&4
-------
0
I
oo
Mode
I
I
3
4.
5
6
7
6
9
IO
1 1
12
13
14-
15
16
17
16
19
20
2,1
22
23
24
Notch
o/
Lowd.
rale.
i
2
2>
4
IAU
5
r».
6»1
4.0
~M€>7
»4.O
I.S
1.5
I.S
4.0
7-»fc7
I.S
\.5
1.5
US
7-lfc7
m«.« Rot«v Vh*
HC.
412
533
658
2044
90&
529
2528
3fel4
5183
6737
539
2368
488
6B8&
59 B3
4140
2fe57
2357
5Z9
Z.ISQ
i»93
»879
d>55
558
CO
712,
«.Ci.iic.,VkVl» K*-
HC
26.4
3.08
2. BO
2.39
\.
O.5I
3.42
O.IB
0.17
0.53
4.64
0.24
0.1&
4.59
Futl Sfeel-fic,^^^,!
HC
12.9
6.28
7.40
6.0&
4.31
14.9
4.fc8
5.12
fc.2-3
5.75
15.G
12.3
14.4
6.07
6,34
5.G.7
4.7fc
12.4
I5.G
4.92
6.4-9
7-86
7.75
\6.3
CO
19.4
7.08
29.3
36.5
34.3
31.5
28.8
20.1
10.9
8.10
10.2
11. Z
\9.4
9.42
\I.G
19.2
27.4
11.8
2.1.4
35.7
38.5
30.5
18.2
35.9
NOA
29.2
39.9
42.4
23.9
37.6
30.0
32.2.
32.4
32.3
30.1
33.2
28.O
30.7
29-2.
53.5
32.4
33.3
28.6
31.0
37.3
4Z.O
47.7
43. \
30.9
RCHO
2.4fc
0.33
0.29
1.30
0.40
0.44
l.»4
0.77
1.81
0.55
0.49
0.&1
2.44
0.52
0.40
2.4O
LOCOMOTNE S.R UI01T 8639 ,
RON _l _ DATE 4/25/72.
DUTY CVCLE
Q-33 C
. E. UN)E- HAOU
Basis
Maw, Vh*
Fuel S)i>eci(ic,
Ervl»$iO»\S.
HC
Z885
2.23
6.38
CO
5752
4.45
12.7
13,819
10.7
30.7
O.\90
0.544
-------
o
I
£>.
MoAe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
1 1
12
13
14
IS
16
17
16
0
ZQ
Zl
22
23
24
M»-Uk
0*
Lo*&.
IdU
1
2.
3
4
Ulc
B
6
7 '
6
IAk
I>yw.
B»»K.t
UU
8
7
&
5
»»«.
Bf.tt
Wl«.
4
3
2
1
Idk
IWJ^IHC.
St>«d,
*»>•*
415
4lfc
52O
89
42.S
783
B7&
99G
1077
425
1077
425
1017
996
878
783
1017
425"
689
601
520
4-1 &
42.5
Obsa*-J«.d
P.***, v
N«t
\5fc
536
ftos
\090
1392
1922
2530
3240
r-
32.40
2530
192.2.
»39Z
I0\2
778
530.
92>3.
733.
546.
\92.
35.B
454.
345.
242.
65.3
35.5
T«mlw*ert.u>ns.,
°F-
I-1aK.t
88
8&
92
92
^3
90
88
89
92
9»
90
90
90
94
92
90
93
90
88
90
90
9\
92.
90
ExKewit
395
367
699
800
862.
470
837
859
&07
775
444
482
406
753
798
&44
87 \
530
348
8472
5bO
984
602
692
763
770
^
3\8
277
2012
27 \8
1A&>
5B2
1786
1176
595
467
307
359
295
50\
606
1006
»597
335
307
2240
2300
2A82.
682.
545
NDIR
c.ox,
*/0
1.57
4.\5
7.62
7,01
6.17
1.57
6.41
6.07
5.65
5.51
1.52
3.26
1.52
5.57
5.65
5.93
6.30
3.24
1.52
6V77
6.85
7.3?
4.06
1.52
NDIR
NO,
H>-
328
1127
1017
1927
1124
367
1445
1367
1272
H76
381
684
3ft I
1159
U£8
1369
1471
695
3&1
1705
1B92
12D4
1 263
381
C.L.
NO,
VIP-
272
loot
2081
I7fcfc
1566
272
ii09
1202
H45
1031
282
550
272
ion
1\54
1205
13 \6
560
272
1510
172^
2014
107S
2B2
C.L.
NO*,
Pt"
317
1103
1\74
\»54
1622
314
15&4
123B
1H7
1015
323
596
i23
»054
118ft
1248
\3fci
614
31 &
1587
1816
21%
11 3&
313
<*,
7.
18.9
14.8
8.9
9A
10-2
18.9
11.0
11.5
11.1
11.6
18,8
16.0
18.6
13.1
12.6
12.5
lO.fc
lfc.9
\9.8
\0.5
\0.3
9.8
15.2
\9.5
RCHO
H>~
ZB
16
2.1
18
SI
33
40
40
44
35
37
33
42
37
37
4-?
LOCOHOTOJE S. RUM IT 6foS9, O.^E.. VJ-33 C.
RUN 2. DATE 4/2.5/7Z
19. IP
vOET 6OLB TEMP. .»F 6-6
DRY 3OLB TEMPV *F 89
-------
o
I
Mode
J
2
3
4.
5
6
7
&
9
10
1 I
\2.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
NotcK
o*
Loud.
Idle.
1
2
2>
4
IAU
5
»*
425
4\8
510
(boi
077
99G
&78
783,
1077
425
1
I.S
1.5
1.5
\4.O
7.\fc7
4-.0
7.1 Q>7
»4.0
U5
1.5
1.5
4.0
7.\7
r\«.s.s Rat«*. Vhv
HC,
55G
5B3
645
939
\979
547
2221
5476
52-95
fcAOfe
GGQ,
2557
5&7
fc259
5582
4\94
2555
2228
518
2044
2075
V76&
(bO|
580
CO
felfc
477
5599
1,216
14,226
1094
2,894
1,953
8505
9001
fcOfc
&809
G>2>\
13.223
>0,«59
2
12,185
5,429
971
6,198
ZDt698
*W4
H°62
104B
5150
1048
Z\,WJ
28,907
W.60ft
n^23
4850
1074
15,410
13.194
10,097
S498
10fc2
RCHO
58.1
4&.3
130.
56.4
33&.
&B2.
B4.&
225.
IO5.
foSS.
437.
201.
92.5
254
\»4.
103.
B*aK* S^«LCi.4it,VbXl.K^
HC
31.1
3.37
2.89
2.2fo
1.70
^>0.fc
I.4&
1.67
1-91
1.81
31.6
8-79
32.8
1.77
2.02
2.01
1.70
7.fc5
28.9
1.88
2.50
3.11
3.20
32.4
co
34.4
2.76
9.84
13.1
\0-.2
Gl.l
8-57
5.75
3.08
2.£5
33.8
fc.48
52.5
Z..59
3.2S
5.1S
Q.16
5.52
35.2
12.2
12.2
l|. 0
6.78
60.9
MO*
58.2
18.0
Nb.9
14.3
13.2
54.2
IO.&
9.95
IO.O
9.65
58.5
17.6
58.5
6.7»
10.4
10.6
U.4
16.6
60.0
14.1
15.9
17.7
18.6
59.3
RCHO
3.24
O.81
O.12
3.|5
O.IG>
0.17
4.72
0.77
5.86
0^1
0.2|
O.G9
5.V7
0.22
O-2O
5.75
Fttl St.«eUic,V\k«^u«l
HC.
15.9
7.33
7.03
5.81
4.44
15.8
4.25
5.03
5.88
5.43
16.4
13.2.
n.o
5.52
5.98
5.12
4.68
II. G
14.5
4.50
&.0|
7,31
7.05
16.3
CO
17.6
6.00
23.9
33.C,
31.9
31.6
24.7
17-3
9.45
7.63
n.s
9.72
16.8
8.08
9.61
IG.3
22.5
8.38
17.G
29,1
29,4
25.9
14-9
30-7
NO^
2.9.7
39.3
41.3
36.8
34,6
28. \
31.0
29.9
30.7
28.9
30.3
26.5
30,3
28.O
31.0
30.8
31.5
25.3
30.O
33.9
38.2.
41-7
41.O
2,9.9
RC.HO
1.66
0.20
0.29
1.63
0.49
0.58
2.44
1. 1C,
3.03
O.6I
0.60
1.05
2.58
0.52
0.47
2.90
LOCOMOTlME 5. R UfO\T
z
, &.E. U-33 C
RON
DOTy CYCLE.
4/25/72
Bails
Maw, Vh,
bvaKe St>«c;{<.c.a/ik»- h*-
Fuel St>«tiUt, Mb«,-^«e>
Cycle. Comt>os.i~te Eml»slon&
HC
2741
2.12
6.0€>
CO
4945
3.83
10.9
NOj
13,284
10.3
2-9.4
*RCHO
2.95
0.228
0.653
R.C1XO
-------
O
Mod*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
\5
16
17
is
15
20
2.1
22
23
24
N,-tcU
0*
IOM&.
Idle.
1
Z.
3
4
Uk
B
6
7
5
Ilk
I>y««.
&«»«.«.
I4l«.
8
7
G
5
IT".
Bf.tt
ttl*_
4
3
2
I
Id It
:w^i*e.
s>h«d,
Rt>**
425
418
520
601
689
425
783
87ft
996
\077
425
1017
425
1017
99fc
878
783
1077
42.5
0|
520
41 &
425
Obs«*xed
R>«*«*, V»y>
N«t
15G
571
823
1129
1416
2OOO
2567
5328
r-
32.B4
Z5€>7
200O
141G
1129
822>
571
15G
&*«ts
n.9
113.
604.
B74.
\205.
17.9
1528.
Z15&.
2797.
3fcl%
17.9
29 1.
H.9
3575.
2797.
21 5fc.
IS2B.
291.
17.9
1205.
874.
604.
173.
17.9
Fo*t
Rat«,
»>-/h*
35.3
82.4
24O.
339.
438.
33.G
527.
704.
B83.
1189.
3€».3
193.
35.3
1\30.
92fc.
742.
555.
194.
34.7
445.
344.
2AO.
84-fc
33.3
T»i»\|p<«-eciu*tSx
°F
r«1afct
72
72
7l
72
12
72
75
74
7&
75
74
772
770
790
776
678
595
930
615
727
791
791
653
922
581
762
958
1225
700
GOO
NDIR
CO,
Yt~
411
343
Z232
2622
2300
566
174-2
104£
570
4S2
375
393
358
S\2.
566
984
1618
451
387
2287
2522
220J
760
580
ND»R
CO*,
%
1.61
4-13
7.27
6.1
6.38
6.77
B.95
\.52
NDIR
NO,
H>-
314
1059
2JD73
1793
1631
314
1360
1X49
1105
107fc
340
&26
321
1064
1213
1301
1379
632
340
1614
17?7
2093
115G
353
C.L.
NO,
Y>*>-
257
98€>
204O
1769
1568
Z67
»275
1192
1131
983
267
547
153
97Q>
i\n
1228
\322
SfcS
276
1544
17S1
2068
1078
280
C.L.
NO*.
J>h-
307
1086
2.120)
1869
\610
303
1327
1247
1176
1018
307
601
310
\OOJ
1146
1140
\5fc5
584
2B5
1588
1805
2125
1112
304
0*,
7.
1 8.4
14.3
8.9
9.8
\0.3
\8.2
\0.8
11.6
\2.»
12.5
18.2
15.6
1B.S
12.3
12.£
11. Q>
It. O
15.8
ife.2
10.2
9.8
9.4
14.2
\8.2
RCW)
\\~
25
17
19
22
2T
19
22
2.0
24
16
n
—
18
17
14
19
29
LOCOHOTIME S.R UM1T 8639, &>E. O-3>2» C
RUN 3 DATE 4/2.6/72 BAR.OME.TER 29.O€>
VOET BULB TEHP.r
DRV &OLB TEMPV *F 75
-------
o
I
Mode
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 I
12.
13
\4
15
16
17
18
19
zo
Z.)
22
23
24
NotcK
o\r
lowA.
Idle.
1
2
3
4
IAU
5
89
Q>o \
520
418
425
[«.»««. - &«&.«7
1.5
t.S
\.5
14.0
7.161
4.0
7.lfe7
\4.O
l.S
1.5
1.5
4.0
7.10,7
\.s
1.5
\.5
1-5
7.VG7
^\».s.s Rot«», Vh*
HC.
S16
503
IB5?
2233
2348
(blO
Z929
4353
5740
fcSSS
591
24\8
(bZO
Sfe
553
CO
183
615
6453
1,724
3,814
1039
3,398
I.fe44
8525
8810
753
2OGG
ISO
99t>4
819(b
»»,821
»3,fcOS
2340
7bl
14,»34
11.634
1337
1440
108)
NO*
%3
3202
0,ll|
3/14fe
6>,OI5
915
MSB
22,ftS5
28tf30
32,b38
»Ol4
6197
V02.9
32^0)
19,2.94
»,5Q3
18,871
52lfc
922
Ifc,l43
13.931
10,83
Mfcs
932
RCHO
51.)
52.7
\11.
43.3
251.
397.
41.3
\\3.
52.4
354.
2A9.
105.
35.8
\S9.
63.J
51.9
B«-aK« Sfc«.c«.-fic.,VUfe>v«-
HC
28.8
2.91
3.08
2.55
1.95
34.1
\,92
2.02
2.0S
1.81
33.0
B.iO
34.fc
1.9Q>
2.V/
2.V&
\.l?
8.51
31.Q,
\.93
2.54
3.\\
3.19
io.9
CO
43.7
3.55
10.1
13.4
11.5
5&.0
8.11
s.y)
3.05
2.43
42.1
1.10
40.8
2.19
3.14
S.4&
fc.90
8.04
42.5
U-7
\3.5
12.1
8.32
feO.4
M0»
53.7
18.S
16.7
15.1
13.2
5».l
10-9
»0.5
10.3
9.01
Sfo.fc
11.8
5B.O
9.03
10.4
11.3
12.3
H.9
51.5
13.3
15.9
11.9
20.0
52.0
RCHO
2.ft5
0.087
0.10
2.42.
O.I2
O.ll
2.fc4
0.3>9
2.93
0.093
0.10
0.3&
2.00
0.13
0.10
3.2.4
Fu*l SMeifte, fc/^k.4u«»
HC.
K.fc
fc.10
7.75
fe.5?
5.36
IB.2
5.5G
6.18
6.50
5.5O
lfc.2>
12.5
n.fo
6.19
6.56
6.33
4.93
»2.8
163
5.23
6.4t
7.B2
7.75
Ife-G
C.O
22.2
7.4€>
26.9
34.6
3l.fe
30.?
25.4
16.5
9.65
74-1
20.7
IO.7
13.7
8.B2
9.50
15.9
24.5
12.1
21.9
31.8
34.4
50.6
n.o
32.5
NO*
27.3
38.9
42.1
40.5
36.6
27.2
31.9
32.4
32.8
27.4
27.9
26.9
19.5
28.6
3l. PM"E 4/2.fc/12-
DOTY CYCLE G-.E. L\NE--V\/\VJL
BcxilS
M 0.1.4, */h*
bv-aKe S^acJ-uc.vb^ h*-
Fuel Specific, Mb«, <<««>
Cycle. Co»*t>oi-i'\«- Emi»sCon£.
HC
2.946
2.23
6. SO
CO
5201
3.95
u.s
NO^
13,353
lO- 1
2.9.5
*RCHO
165
0.125
0.3&4
wfitt I
R.C *\0
-------
o
I
oo
M^t
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
B
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
IS
16
17
ia
19
zo
2.1
22
23
24
NvUU
0*
LOK&.
IdU
1
z.
3
4
HU
B
fc
7 '
6
lAk
Dyw.
&»»<£.«.
IAU
8
7
&
5
Pyw.
Bf.tt
Ul*.
4
3
2
I
14k
Lw^lMt.
S|*td,
Rt>^
425
783
7b3
783
1077
415
1077
1077
1077
1077
4-2.5:
\077
425
1077
1077
1017
1077
1017
425
1077
783
783
7B3
425
Obs«+>ie.d
P.w**, V%V>
N«t
IBQ>
fc25
ftfcl
U30
1445
2000
2580
333O
r-
333O
2580
2000
14-72.
\\30
832.
Z0\
&«is
11.9
2-98.
737.
979,
1421.
»7.9
\13G.
22.91.
2671.
3G2.1.
n-9
Z-91.
n.9
34,21.
2871.
2.2.91.
»7-A*
32.5
141.
29 O.
3fc4.
502.
33.2
Q>\3.
785.
7fc4.
11^9.
31.8
192.
34.4
UB9.
953.
785.
G20,
\90.
33,7
sn.
33fc.
2&7.
142.
32.0
T*mJ»«-octu^ts,
°F
InlaKt
78
78
77
17
78
7Q>
73
12.
73
74
74-
7C,
75
74
72
72.
12
73
71
75
7C»
74
74
73
ExUautt
315
43\
fc25
7il
709
375
1VL
730
739
748
36>&
474
318
73G
739
738
73\
502
349
fe%
724
G78
554
358
F»A
*C,
jpJfH-C
G30
8fcO
»050
930
6Q>7
Q>0\
B95
695
888
100
(bl&
909
574
120
610
832
790
880
5«D
67
915
810
5fcO
ND1R
cx>,
y»>-
3(b3
333
52.2
745
340
3fo3
3fc2
3B5
3B4
430
352
34(o
328
452.
39
sn
35G
375
NDlR
c.o^
%
\.(ol
3.11
S.5&
5.90
5.15
t.5(o
5.2.1
S.2I
5.4J
S35
1.56
3.30
l.fcl
5.48
5.2\
5.21
5.15
3.2S
l.tbl
5.21
5.90
5.35
3.70
|.5€>
NDIR
NO,
M>-
314-
1425
14O1
1533
1238
SAO
1X38
1141
1137
1107
32G>
&25
320,
1091
1\74
1\90
121|
Q>38
32&3
1305
701
251
C.L.
NOx.
l>|"-
2BJ
»3SB
1335
150&
Ilfe2
a-94
l\9l
no&
IDtbl
1001
294
5fc9
293
100&
\\0ft
1108
11&8
5fe4
293
1153
1431
I33fc
728
294
a,
X
18.3
15.1
12.3
ll.G
12.7
13.0
12.C,
12.6
ll.fc
12.4
18.2
15.7
J8.2
12.1
12.&
I2.fc
12.&
15.7
18.1
12.6
U.5
12.2
14.8
18.&
RCHO
^^
24.
19
n
1Z
—
23
22
25
20
2.7
22
2-1
25
3\
20.
24
35
LOCOHCrnME. S.P.
RUN 4- DATE
&AR.OME.TER 29.04
MOTE'.
i-7
DRY &CXB TEMPV *F 78
AT OFF- DESl&N)
-------
o
I
vO
Mode
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
6
9
JO
1 I
12
13
\4-
15
\€>
17
18
19
20
2,1
22
23
24
NotcK
o/
_ond.
Idle.
1
2
a
4
IAI*
s
5
Dy*.
S*»K.«.
Ule.
4
3
2
1
Idk
»«l*ie.
Sj>t.eA,
R\>m
425
783
783
783
077
4-25
07-7
077
1017
1017
4ZS
1077
42S
1077
\077
»017
1017
1017
42£
1017
783
783
782>
4Z5
[«.»*«. - B«.s,«7
I.S
I.S
I.S
14.0
7.167
4.0
7.t7
PUss R«it«*, Vh*.
HC.
544
448
240ft
2S36
3749
549
4fcl3
5984
6928
fe92l
538
Z*l7
527
5O9
3114
it 62
2HX
137 \
493
CO
70
3812
5205
fcOS?
8596
&23
1183
09
8810
5953
4155
3549
1801
&
NOK
829
76,03
0,185
B./6S9
«v7K
893
^0,788
HMI
27,530
53,113
8S€>
4824
895
5,253
»,97|
»jaa
21,145
4830
817
lfc>92
ll.9bl
10,5^,
4097
6«>l
RCHO
48.6
94.5
\BJ
43.C.
533
471
47,4
\10
53.8
4(bO
305
140
fcO.5
245
12.3
fcfc.&
B^aKt S^tCi.iic.,VvV>)>v*
HC
30-3
4.8fc
3.±fe
2.5?
2.G4
30.7
2-(b9
2.(ol
2.41
1.91
30.0
7.9
9.29
17-7
7.41
6.25
l.4
31.5
34.1
25.4
26.0
32.7
35.7
36.7
28.9
26.9
RCHO
1.50
0.33
0.32
Lit
0.42
0.40
1.49
O.S7
I.S6
0.3?
0.39
0.74
1.7?
0.48
0.43
2.09
DATE 4/2.6/72.
Mats,
Fuel
Cycle
HC
3155
2.33
CO
jMalZ
T6fc
13,507
^.96
28.6
*RCHO
211
C>JIS6
O.447
NOTE. OFF-DESVG-M S.PE-ED3 , NOTCH ES 1 —7
-------
o
>—•
o
Mode
B
IO
1 1
12
13
14
15
Ife
17
IS
20
2.1
22
23
24
0*
Idl
Hit
6
IAk
Dr*.
I4U.
8
lilt.
425
763
783
1017
425
1017
1017
IO17
1017
425
ion
425
ion
ion
von
ion
1017
425
1017
783
783
783
425
N.t
\7Q>
640
\U2
1475
2.00O
2€>05
3330
32.90
ZOOO
\47S
1150
6ZS
18O
wy.
n-9
28B.
989.
14^3.
\7fofc
3581.
229 ».
\lfefe.
291.
n.9
1441.
980.
737.
292.
Ratt,
33.7
Q\.0
2.85.
513.
33.7
e>o&.
192-
954.
\94.
33.7
958.
33.7
516.
33.9
G>9
10
70
1ft
70,
78
74
77
7G
7B
7B
74
74
75
7S
2-47
399
GDI
BBO
42B
4.97
453
401
429
328
351
395
312
339
338
316
350
486
332
^4DlR
1.S1
5.59
5-lfo
5.08
5.\4
5.35
5.48
1.56
3.35
5.48
5.41
5.35
S.35
3.32
\.(bl
535
6.03
3.(b9
NDIR
NO,
301
731
313
1103
14fcO
1^98
288
C.L.
NO,
2.3ft
1433
\\01
252
me
528
972
102A
\062
Ulfl
SSI
\097
1353
1280
G>90
270
C.L.
NO*,
Zfcfc
698
14\0
27S
\\53
11O7
1061
993
503
568
298
993
1061
1013
1173
574
303
1128
1383
1325
126
303
183
H-9
12.6
11.1
12.5
16.4
12,3
12,5
12.1
12.S
18.5
15.8
18.7
12.2
12.6
12.7
X2.7
16.O
18.4
11.4
\2.3
15.1
18.4
RCHO
S.P.
RUN
70
DATE 4/26/iz BAROMETER 29.04 1>V n^. DRY 301.6 TEMP., *F 7fe
NOTE : NOTClrt ES 1—7 RON AT OFF- DE.SX
-------
O
i
Mode
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
&
9
1O
\ \
12
13
\4
15
t&
17
18
19
zo
2,1
22
23
24
NotcK
o*
loud.
Idle.
1
2
2.
4
IdU
5
6
7
8
UU
3>«v,
B»a.K.o.
I4U
&
7
tei,
R^m
425
183
763
183
1017
425
on
1017
ton
1017
42.5
\O11
425
\017
\CT17
1011
1011
toil
4-2S
1017
783
783
183
42S
[».»««. - &«&.«!
t*Ua. VOii^kU
v* "fWcant
l.lfcl
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
7.|Zfo
(&250
651G
8212
Q>24
V&2.7
S7S
8813
fcZfol
A845
M94
nos
578
303&
4\40
22.70
(ofcX
77
3.22C,
l,40fe
933
Z0,3?7
25,111
0,N*
31.303
H8
4]B1
892
3>,303
0,154
31^985
1%B8(>
47W
911
«rf>97
^,280
\o,tw.
iS83
91Z
RCHO
BraKt SV»icC-fic.,*ytxy,K<-
HC
27.6
2.99
3.20
2..9
RC.WO
S.P. UM1T 8633 ^ a.E. O-33 C
RUN 5
DUTY CYCLE-
NOTE OFF- DESIG-N SPEEDS , NOTC. H t-S 1 1
-------
APPENDIX D
Analysis of Fuels Used During Locomotive Emissions Tests
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCOMOTIVE TEST FUELS
Locomotive Unit No. SP-1311 SP-8447 SP-8639
Gravity, °API@60°F 33.5 30.8 34.2
H/C Mole Ratio 1.73 1.71 1.82
Sulfur, weight % 0.22 0.37 0.21
Fluorescence Indicator
Analysis: % Aromatics 27.0 36.0 22.4
%01efins 0.0 1.5 0.0
% Saturates 73.0 62.5 77.6
Cetane No. (calculated) 44.5 41.1 45.6
Distillation Temperatures, °F
Initial Boiling Point
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
End Point
% Recovery
% Residue
376
435
456
472
487
501
518
534
556
582
605
636
99.0
1.0
382
430
455
479
497
516
535
555
578
608
631
664
99.0
1.0
386
439
458
474
488
501
515
530
549
575
597
625
99.0
1. 0
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
Major Maintenance History of Test Locomotives
-------
The maintenance information recorded here is that which was
easily available at the San Antonio facility. The salient point is that
when emissions measurements were taken, all the engines were judged
to be in good operating condition. More detailed information could
probably be obtained if the need arose.
Unit SP-1311 (EMD 12-567)
The date when this unit was placed in service was not on record,
but the last engine overhaul date was listed as September 1971. No engine
work had been performed since the overhaul. The engine was equipped
with low-output 6-hole "N" injectors with 0.421 diameter plungers (not
low sac type), EMD part no. 8276707.
Unit SP-8447 (EMD 16-645E-3)
This unit was placed in service in April 1966, and was last over-
hauled in December, 1968. Maintenance was also performed January 16,
1972, including renewal of all power assemblies, and no work had been
performed since that time.
Unit SP-8639 (G. E. 7FDL-16)
Unit 8639 was placed in service in May, 1969, and had not been
overhauled. It had undergone maintenance February 24, 1972, including
L2, L7, R6, and R8 power assembly replacement. When it was tested
prior to beginning emissions tests, the power level was low, so injector
pumps and nozzles were replaced on L6, L7, and R7. The racks were
also set to 21mm (static) and measured at 22. 5mm running before the
emissions tests were conducted.
E-2
------- |