Comparison of Locomotive Emissions Measured during Dynamometer versus Rail Yard Engine Load Tests

For environmental emissions certification, locomotive prime mover engines undergo rigorous measurements with the use of federal reference methods (FRMs). However, there are nonregulatory reasons for engine emissions measurement, such as to compare relative differences in fuel use and emissions as a result of engine rebuild or between engines in a fleet. Portable emissions measurement systems (PEMSs) are widely used for highway vehicle and nonroad construction equipment but have had limited locomotive applications. The objectives are to (a) demonstrate an approach for quantifying locomotive emission rates with a PEMS during dynamometer and rail yard engine load tests, (b) compare the emissions measured in dynamometer versus rail yard load tests, and (c) assess the relative change in fuel use and emissions from engine rebuild. Measurements were conducted on 3,000-hp prime movers, including an EMD 16-645 for a GP40 and two EMD 12-710s for F59PHs. Fuel use and PEMS-based emission rates for nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter were compared between dynamometer and rail yard load tests and with data from previous literature. Fuel use and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission rates after engine rebuild were lower for the GP40 prime mover, and the fuel use and NOx emission rates for the F59PH rebuilt engines were lower than those of the rebuilt GP40 engine. PEMS is not a substitute for locomotive FRMs if compliance certification is needed but provides useful data for comparative assessment.

[1]  K. T. Knapp,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Remote Sensing-Based Hydrocarbon Measurements: A Comparison to FID Measurements. , 1996, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[2]  H. Frey,et al.  Fuel use and emissions comparisons for alternative routes, time of day, road grade, and vehicles based on in-use measurements. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Carl Ensfield,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of portable emissions measurement systems and federal reference methods for emissions from a back-up generator and a diesel truck operated on a chassis dynamometer. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  M. Vojtíšek-Lom,et al.  Vehicle mass emissions measurements using a portable 5-gas exhaust analyzer and engine computer data , 2009 .

[5]  H. Christopher Frey,et al.  Comprehensive Field Study of Fuel Use and Emissions of Nonroad Diesel Construction Equipment , 2010 .

[6]  H. Christopher Frey,et al.  Comparison of Real-World Fuel use and Emissions for Dump Trucks Fueled with B20 Biodiesel versus Petroleum Diesel , 2006 .

[7]  H. Christopher Frey,et al.  Real-World Duty Cycles and Utilization for Construction Equipment in North Carolina , 2008 .

[8]  H. Christopher Frey,et al.  Comparison of Real-World Emissions of B20 Biodiesel versus Petroleum Diesel for Selected Nonroad Vehicles and Engine Tiers , 2008 .

[9]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  On-Road Measurement of Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Using a Portable Instrument , 2003, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[10]  Matthew Barth,et al.  Using Portable Emission Measurement Systems for Transportation Emissions Studies , 2010 .

[11]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  Method for in-use measurement and evaluation of the activity, fuel use, electricity use, and emissions of a plug-in hybrid diesel-electric school bus. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  M Gordon,et al.  Air-Pollution Control. , 1965, Science.

[13]  M. Vojtíšek-Lom,et al.  Development Of Heavy-Duty Diesel Portable, On-Board Mass Exhaust Emissions Monitoring System With NOx, CO2 And Qualitative PM Capabilities , 2001 .

[14]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  Characterization of Real-World Activity, Fuel Use, and Emissions for Selected Motor Graders Fueled with Petroleum Diesel and B20 Biodiesel , 2008, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.