BIKE: Re: Commuter Rail NOx Pollution

[Nawdry]

At 10/21/2004 08:05 , "Michael T. DiBrino" <txembedded> wrote:

>Austin would have to remove the
>equivalent of over 18,000 Toyota Camry's from the road each day for one 
>hour each. If the locomotives do NOT meet Tier 3 pollution requirements, 
>these figures are likely to be much higher, possibly as high as 59,000 
>Camry's (but I only will commit to the 18,000 Camry figure).

Michael DiBrino seems to arrive an at outrageously erroneous conclusion via 
fallacious methodology and the misuse of nominal railcar performance 
data.  On the contrary, a rail transit service in the Austin-Leander 
corridor using diesel-electric mutliple-unit (DEMU) railcar rolling stock 
would almost surely deliver both a significant saving in energy consumption 
and a significant reduction in pollutant emissions.  Using available, 
verifiable data and a standard analysis, I calculate that, compared with 
Toyota Camrys or equivalent automobiles, the rail service in peak periods 
would reduce comparable emissions of NOx by 10% and CO by 93%.

Michael's comments are rather intricate and convoluted, requiring a 
somewhat detailed response to his assertions.

>In particular, I have questions about NOx emissions from the diesel 
>locomotive.

Currently, CapMetro is primarily evaluating a self-propelled 
diesel-electric railcar (rather like a motorized coach on rails), rather 
than locomotive-hauled coaches, for this service.  But Michael already 
knows that - for example, he goes to great length to append as "evidence" 
quotations from Ben Wear's article in the 'Austin American-Statesman' which 
relates:

 >>Capital Metro officials have zeroed in on the type of hardware they 
would put on
the tracks if voters give them the OK for the $60 million-plus project. 
Their choice
for railcars, or "train sets" in the jargon of the industry, would be 
so-called diesel
multiple units.
The agency says that these self-propelled trains are the best fit for the 
line....<<

Nevertheless, Michael persists in exhibiting a serious misconception of 
what kind of rolling stock is being considered for this service. This 
misconception is repeatedly compounded as he consistently refers to the 
railcar as a "locomotive".

>The information that I cite comes from the best publicly available 
>information plus data from the EPA itself. Based on this publicly 
>available information, I call upon environmental groups such as the Sierra 
>Club to do their homework, determine the facts and prove me wrong. I call 
>upon Capital Metro for full disclosure of the NOx emissions of their 
>proposed commuter rail diesel unit.
>  Here are the facts as I understand them:
>-Cap Metro is planning to use the Stadler Diesel locomotive that is 
>currently used on the Trenton-Camden Line or something extremely similar.

A light DEMU, or diesel-electric multiple unit railcar, is one type of 
vehicle CapMetro is considering. As noted, and as Michael's own evidence 
makes clear, this is not a "locomotive", but facts seem to matter very 
little in Michael's rhetoric.


>-These locomotives do NOT meet EPA Tier 3 diesel pollution
>requirements.

Again, these are not locomotives, but self-propelled railcars designed to 
carry passengers.  Full conformance with the highest applicable EPA 
emissions standards would be a requirement.


>-Even if the locomotives DO meet EPA Tier 3 diesel pollution
>standards which they do NOT, Austin would have to remove the
>equivalent of over 18,000 Toyota Camry's from the road each day for one 
>hour each. If the locomotives do NOT meet Tier 3 pollution requirements, 
>these figures are likely to be much higher, possibly as high as 59,000 
>Camry's (but I only will commit to the 18,000 Camry figure).

Michael's statements are utterly absurd and outrageous, and appear to be 
the product of fallacious methodology and faulty manipulation of numbers, 
evidently based on a misunderstanding of railway propulsion technology (see 
below).

>-I believe that Cap Metro knows about this pollution and has backed off 
>their claim of using these locomotives, but Ben Wear's column on Oct. 3 
>says that Cap Metro has 'zeroed in' on this type of locomotive (see 
>'Supporting Facts' below).
>-Although Cap Metro or the Right Track PAC may claim that these
>diesel locomotives are 'hybrids', any comparison to a hybrid Toyota Prius 
>is ridiculous. These are not hybrid Locomotives. Hybrid means that it has 
>two distinct supplys of power, the less
>environmentally freindly one can be shut down under certain
>operating conditions. The hybrid Toyota Prius can operate on
>batteries when the engine is off. The Diesel Electric locomotive
>does not have batteries, fuel cells or any secondary means of
>ower. The diesel must run at all times!! A diesel engine powers a 
>generator which in turn powers an electric motor.

There are several variants of DEMUs, including some which function as 
"hybrids" with batteries in the same sense as a Prius.  Most leading-edge 
rolling stock use batteries in some manner to store electric power, 
including power produced through regenerative braking.


>Supporting Facts:
>Ben Wear's October 3rd article, "Capital Metro railcars would have light 
>touch". The article is quoted as saying:
>"Whatever the phraseology, Capital Metro officials have zeroed in on the 
>type of hardware they would put on the tracks if voters give them the OK 
>for the $60 million-plus project. Their choice for railcars, or "train 
>sets" in the jargon of the industry, would be so-called diesel multiple units."
>"The agency says that these self-propelled trains are the best fit for the 
>line, given the relatively modest ridership predictions in the early years 
>and the proximity of homes to the tracks in some spots, along with cost 
>and other operational considerations."
>"Capital Metro officials and Blaydes, among others, say diesel multiple 
>units have been used for years on Europe's extensive rail network. But in 
>North America, only a handful of transit agencies have diesel multiple 
>units on the track or on order."
>"New Jersey Transit's seven-month-old River Line makes the 34-mile run 
>from Camden to Trenton with the vehicles, carrying about 5,600 passengers 
>each weekday on what the agency calls a light-rail line. The five-mile 
>O-train in Ottawa, Ontario, a starter line for what is expected to be a 
>citywide light-rail system, likewise uses the cars"
>In the October 3rd, print edition, there is even a picture of one of the 
>Stadler vehicles.
>Cap Metro is now contradicting itself. In an article By Courtney
>Cavaliere in the "Daily Texan" the following was written.
>"Scherer said. He also claimed Capital Metro had decided to use a diesel 
>engine to run the commuter rail, but Capital Metro said they won't make a 
>decision on what engine to use until after Nov. 2."
>http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2004/10/13/StateLocal/AntiRail.G
>roup.Tracks.Down.Votes.To.Oppose.Nov.2.Referendum-751542.shtml
>I claim that Cap Metro is now steering clear of the Environmental issues 
>by sweeping this under the rug until the vote.

CapMetro has no obligation at this point in very early planning to make a 
decision on precisely the kind of rolling stock that would be used, nor is 
this at all relevant.  Emissions and other environmental characteristics 
would be relevant in the preparation of the agency's subsequent 
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

In fact, at this stage, commitment to a specific vehicle would represent 
very poor planning.  Indeed, rail opponents might well brandish such as a 
commitment as evidence of a sinister conspiracy to conclude a deal with a 
specific vendor before details of service, operating needs, rolling stock 
requirements, etc. were worked out.

>The Stadler "New Jersey" is being discontinued because of its poor 
>environmental reputation.

DiBrino presents no evidence whatever to support this claim.  New Jersey 
Transit's RiverLine continues to operate its Stadler cars, and has no plan 
to discontinue them. This type of vehicle is still being marketed, and is 
one of many being considered by CapMetro.

Michael then presents (below) a long, elaborate narrative of figures and 
calculations to concoct a basis for his portrayal of overwhelming pollution 
from DEMU rail transit vehicles.  I'll discuss his assertions following 
this excerpt:

>The New Jersey line uses the Stadler DMU.
>http://www.stadlerrail.com/default.asp?n=94&ms=6&h=1&id=75&s=2
>The following charts have been copied directly from the EPA site:
>http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2003/May/Day-23/a9737a.htm
>Figure III.B-2--Proposed NOX and NMHC
>Standards and Schedule
>Standard (g/bhp-hr)
>Engine Power ------
>NOX NMHC
>25 <= hp < 75 (19 <= kW <
>56)................................. 3.5 NMHC+NOX
>\a\
>75 <= hp < 175 (56 <= kW <
>130).......................0.30 0.14
>175 <= hp <= 750 (130 <= kW <=
>560)..............0.30 0.14
>hp £ 750 (kW £ 560).......................
>0.30 0.14
>The Stadler GTW 2/6 DMU Locomotive is 550 kW. Below is directly
>copied from www.stadlerrail.com
>Southern New Jersey Light Rail, (SNJLR), USA
>New Jersey Transit decided to establish a regional passenger traffic 
>operation on the Trenton - Camden route, which had been used exclusively 
>as a freight route. The line is 57 km long - mostly on track laid for the 
>third-oldest railway line in North America. To cover its needs on this 
>route, the customer ordered 20 GTW 2/6 DMUs. These are completely 
>assembled in Europe.
>Customer New Jersey Transit
>Route Trenton - Camden
>Vehicle type Articulated railcar GTW
>Designation Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit
>Service start 2002/2003
>No. of vehicles 20
>Supply voltage Diesel, 550 kW
>Gauge Standard gauge, 1435 mm
>550 kW can be converted to 737.6 bhp. The Stadler Engine can
>produce .3 g/hr/bhp NOx and meet the Tier 3 epa requirements. Tier 3 
>reduces NOx levels from Tier 1 Diesels by 90%. The Stadler Diesels are the 
>most pollutant at either Tier 0 or Tier 1.
>Energy + Temperature:
>Horse power (hp) ---> Kilowatts (kW): hp x 0.7457 = kW
>Kilowatts (kW) ---> Horse power (hp): kW x 1.341 = hp
>.3 g/hr/bhp NOx multiplied by 737bhp = 221 g/hr of NOx.
>By comparison a 2003 Toyota Camry produces .14 g/hr.
>221 / .14 = 1578
>Each of these Diesel locomotives will be allowed to produce 1578
>times more NOx than a Toyota Camry.
>6 Locomotives running an two hours per day = 12 hours run time
>12 hours of Stadler run time X 1578 = 18,936 One hour Camry
>commutes per day.
>These figures are if the Stadler burns Low Sulfer Fuel, has a
>Catalytic converter, has a exhaust recirculator and is Tier 3 EPA 
>compliant. Since it is / has none of those, the actual figures would be 
>much worse. Should Austin contribute the equivalent NOx of 18,936 
>automobiles daily just to remove 17,000
>(8,500 round trip) riders in the year 2025 or 1700 riders today.
>The Following link shows how the EPA defines a "Hybrid" as having 2 
>distinct power supplies:
>http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420d04002.pdf

This is basically an exercise in Numbers Voodoo, and may stem in particular 
from a deep misunderstanding of vehicle propulsion, power usage, and 
emissions issues - again evidenced in part by Michael's ludicrous 
description of these relatively light-service, light-capacity DEMU railcars 
as "locomotives".

The nominal power rating of any traction motor represents its peak load 
tolerance and maximum work potential.  It does NOT represent its ongoing 
power consumption in normal operating conditions, which varies 
significantly from acceleration power to coasting power, and involves 
factors such as battery storage and regenerative braking feedback of power 
into the system.  Thus, the nominal peak motor rating of 550 kW is not 
readily convertible to bhp-hr.

A better measure of emissions generation is one based on the engine fuel 
consumption, which in the case of the Stadler railcar's engine is about 0.5 
gal/mi, or less (data obtained from New Jersey Transit).  Data on the 
per-gallon emissions produced by diesel engines and the Toyota Camry are 
cited below.

Automobile emissions rates (Camry or equivalent):

NOx - .4192 g/veh-mi
CO - 1.422 g/v-m

<http://www.filtertechnology.com.au/pdfs/3-1-TOYOTA%20REPORT%20US.PDF>http:/ 
/www.filtertechnology.com.au/pdfs/3-1-TOYOTA%20REPORT%20US.<http://www.filte 
rtechnology.com.au/pdfs/3-1-TOYOTA%20REPORT%20US.PDF>PDF
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/veh-cert/b00001c.pdf

Railcar emissions rates:

2.0 mpg or 0.5 gal/mi (from NJT)
NOx - 103 g/gal
CO 26.6 g/gal

<http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/mso94.pdf>http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents 
/mso94.pdf (p. 38ff)

Comparison for these 2 pollutants:

This analysis assumes a maximum "comfortable" load of 150 passengers per 
railcar.  If we assume that 150 passengers otherwise would use Camrys or a 
similar automobile, this implies a total of 136 private vehicles (at 1.1 
persons/vehicle, the approximate peak period occupancy rate). Total travel 
of 32 miles is assumed for each mode.

Automobile emissions:

136 veh X 32 mi = 4352 v-m

NOx - 1,824 g
CO - 6,189 g


Railcar  emissions:

32 mi X 0.5 gal/mi = 16 gal diesel fuel

NOx - 1,648 g
CO - 426 g

Conclusions:

In peak periods, each railcar would would reduce comparable emissions of 
NOx by 10% and CO by 93%, compared with a Camry or equivalent 
automobile.  NOx emission abatement would probably be offset by travel in 
nonpeak periods, when somewhat greater NOx emissions would be produced, but 
a net NOx reduction is likely on a daily basis, and CO emissions would 
still be significantly reduced during virtually all operating periods.

It should also be noted that other DEMU rolling stock with even better fuel 
efficiency characteristics is being evaluated for the proposed Leander 
service.  This would further reduce emissions as well as fuel consumption.

In any case,  the contention that the rail service would emit as much 
pollution as 18,000 Camrys (or 59,000) seems baseless, absurd, and outrageous.

LH