Designing a System of Freight Transportation for the City of Pittsdelphia that Reduces

Locomotive Nitrogen Gas Emissions

Louis DAmico
Dean Pandelaras
Cara Pearson
Carolyn Sweeney
14 December 2015
GE Design Team Four

Abstract
The design team was confronted with the challenge of designing a freight transportation
system for implementation in the city of Pittsdelphia. The key reason for such a design is to reduce
NOx and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions of the current freight system in the city. This will help
dissipate the smog that has become a concern for citizens. To do so, the team followed a multistep design process as is detailed in the following pages - identifying the problem, stakeholders
and needs to be addressed, conducting idea generation, preliminary to detailed design, and
producing a system for implementation in the city of Pittsdelphia. The final design consisted of
selling Pittsdelphias current locomotive fleet and replacing them with all new GE Evolution
Series Tier IV locomotives. This system demonstrated a cost-effective system that utilized current
infrastructure to maintain the freight systems current 165,000 ton carrying capacity while
reducing NOx and PM emissions considerably. Finally, the team was able to draw from these
results the conclusion that the design project was a successful endeavor, effectively meeting
project requirements and defined customer needs to deliver a system that would be efficient and
useful for the city in its future.

1. Introduction
The City of Pittsdelphia is currently undergoing higher than desirable smog in the air,
causing concern for the local residents, city government, environmental groups and General
Electric (GE) Corporation. The city is a major hub for railway transportation with approximately
165,000 tons of freight moved in and out every day. The smog is caused primarily by the emissions
of NOx gas and particulate matter (PM) from said GE freight railway system. GE Design Team
Four plans to design an updated system for the city of Pittsdelphia. The team has identified the
potential stakeholders in each aspect of the problem (i.e. the GE Corporation, Pittsdelphia
residents, Pittsdelphia city government, resource companies and environmental groups) and
determined through critical reasoning what the needs of each stakeholder might be - documented
in tables within this report. Then the team used an analytical hierarchy process to weight these
customer needs in order to better focus its efforts in areas that will be the most satisfactory to
customers/stakeholders. Following the assessment of customer needs, team four performed an
external search utilizing scholarly articles to gain a better understanding of the functionality of a
modern freight system and the many aspects where such a system can be improved whether
through emissions reductions by modification of the locomotive itself, replacing the locomotives
or utilizing alternative, more eco-friendly, modes of transportation. This information combined
with the customer needs guided the team to the conceptualization of such a system that satisfies
the needs of stakeholders in the problem. The team utilized traditional brainstorming practices to
create a plethora of ideas that were considered to address the problem. Also utilized the generation
of a morphological chart to consider different aspects of the complex design individually before
trying to tie it together in one complete system. After having created a number of possible ideas
and then eliminating some through deductive reasoning, the team selected three front-running
designs for further review. Pugh charts displayed for the team which of the selected designs was
the most feasible, efficient and cost effective. That design was then presented in the design review
and then tailored to best address all aspects of the problem. All of these steps stem from the teams
addressing the problem definition.

1.1. Initial Problem Statement

The high levels of smog in the city of Pittsdelphia have become a cause of concern for the
citizens, local government, environmental groups and General Electric (GE) Corporation. The
smog is largely due to the General Electric freight railway system that moves in and out of the city
every day. GE Design Team Four was tasked with the job of designing an updated freight system
for implementation in the city of Pittsdelphia. If such a system were implemented in the city, its
main objectives would be to decrease NOx gas and particulate matter (PM) emissions. Said system
would reduce such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) tier three emissions
requirements with the potential - through implementation of GE Evolution Series Locomotives to reduce such emissions to tier four standards. The opportunity also exists to implement a new

system of GE Evolution Series locomotives that reduce emissions to tier four or update the current
system of locomotives to tier three standards through exhaust aftertreatment systems. Other
possibilities include alternative methods of transport such as maritime, roadway and/or air. These
methods each have their own advantages and disadvantages relative to costs and NOx/particulate
matter emissions. GE Design Team Four will research all transportation methods and design an
updated system of freight transportation utilizing any and all means into Pittsdelphia that maintains
the current freight capacity of 165,000 tons of freight per day while reducing NOx and particulate
matter emissions as is required by the EPA and the citizens of Pittsdelphia. This new system will
also be implemented for the most economical cost with a return on investment within a reasonable
amount of time (i.e. 2-7 years). The process began by assessing stakeholders and determining
customer needs.

2. Customer Needs Assessment

Following development of the initial problem definition, it is important to assess customer
needs in order to shape the original definition. These needs influence the design of the system by
determining the expectations of the client through the collection of data from consumers. This data
was collected from General Electrics websites and the careful consideration of each stakeholders
perspective and needs.

2.1. Identification of Potential Stakeholders

The first and most evident stakeholder in the problem is the city of Pittsdelphia. The
problem statement defines the goal of the project as designing a delivery system for the city that
reduces NOx emissions and meets EPA requirements. The overall project is geared toward
satisfying the city of Pittsdelphias needs. General Electric is another stakeholder in the design
problem given GE trains were used as the original transportation method. GE, more specifically
GE Transportation, has a large stake in the project considering their locomotives are used, and
their stake in the outcome of the project will depend on whether or not locomotives are utilized in
the final delivery system method. The citizens of Pittsdelphia, more specifically the neighbors of
the railways have a small stake in the outcome of the project. Their need for low noise emissions
will be considered in the design as well as their needs for reduced smog that reflect the needs of
the city and general electric. Environmentalist groups also have a stake in this project considering
a constraint in the problem statement is to meet the Environmental Protection Agencys standards.
These groups will also be interested in the reduction of pollution in the outcome of the project.
The companies that own the freight, such as the mineral or coal companies are additional
stakeholders in the problem. They own the products that are transported in and out of the city, and
therefore would want their products delivered in as little time as possible and at maximum capacity.
Their stake in the outcome of the design is the efficiency of the system.

2.2. Identification of Customer Needs

After developing an initial problem statement, the team decided that it was important to
identify customer needs. As noted in section 2.1, however, it was first necessary to identify the
potential stakeholders in this project. Identification of the stakeholders was important due to the
fact that they would be the people who are most interested or invested in the outcome of the project.
Stakeholders of the project included the city of Pittsdelphia, General Electric, the citizens of
Pittsdelphia, Environmentalist Groups, and companies that own the freight. The stakeholders
would also be able to identify current or future issues pertaining to the project. Since the project is
about a hypothetical city, it is hard to gather customer needs via traditional methods such as focus
group, interview, or survey. To account for this, the team researched similar cases of train and
locomotive disruption and pollution of cities from various sides. The team then analyzed the
problem statement in greater depth and drew from their research to construct a list of customer
needs that represented all perspectives. Since there were so many stakeholders, a very diversified
list of customer needs was developed to encompass all necessary considerations.
From analyzing the problem statement and design constraints, the team determined that the
central focus for the redesign of the system was the effects that the current system had on nearby
residents. After identifying this uniting theme, it was easier to establish the customer needs for
each group of stakeholders since most of the needs would in some form or another be connected
back to the residents needs. Even though the design would be focused on the inhabitants, most
of the needs would also connect back to the biggest stakeholder, the city of Pittsdelphia, since they
would be financing and implementing the project. Many of the stakeholders needs are
interdependent and a lot of them are even the same. From the perspective of the city of Pittsdelphia,
the team identified that their needs would be to satisfy the EPA requirements as well as make sure
the citizens needs are met. Financially, the city would also want to maximize long term savings
and minimize the return on investment time. This would ensure that the investment was a
financially worthwhile cause. Furthermore, the city wants to make sure that the daily freight
capacity is the same or higher so that there wont be any job loss and the demand of imports by
the citizens can be met. The citizens of Pittsdelphia mostly about smog production and how it
affects the air quality (defined in initial problem constraints presented by GE). It was also identified
through customer needs analysis research that another one of the citizens customer needs would
be to have minimal noise. This was determined by researching railroads near cities and finding
articles about disputes over noise production (Mellet 2006). Environmentalist groups, such as the
Greenpeace, would want to reduce particulate matter, reduce NOx emissions, and meet EPA tier
III requirements. The customer needs of the environmentalist groups were identified in a similar
fashion as before. Mission statements of groups like Greenpeace were analyzed and compiled, as
well as different policy initiatives that they have previously back regarding air pollution.
Companies that own the freight, such as the mineral or coal companies, are also stakeholders. They
own the products that the trains currently transport, and therefore would want them delivered in as

fast as possible and at maximum capacity. They want the design of the system to be as efficient as
possible so that their business plans remain on track and they can make a profit.
Since General Electric develops and sells the new trains, GE would adopt most of the
various stakeholders needs. GE is a for-profit company, therefore, one of its biggest concern is to
invest wisely with the aim of making a profit. Additional customer needs specific to GE would
include minimizing maintenance, minimizing fuel cost, and minimizing emissions in order to make
their products more competitive. GEs assessed customer needs were derived from the project
proposal from GE and the fact that GE is a for-profit company and would want to maximizing
revenue. The initial customer needs that the team derived from this analysis can be seen in Table
1.
Table 1. Initial Customer Needs Obtained from Customer Needs Assessment Methods
Minimize Noise
Minimize NOx emissions
Low Upfront Cost
Maintain or increase freight capacity of 165,000 tons
of freight per day
Minimize Maintenance
Must meet EPA tier 3 requirements
Must meet locomotive clearance requirements in
city of Pittsdelphia
Maximize Long Term Savings (5, 10, 20 years)
Minimize Time for Return on Investment
Reliable Freight Delivery
Next the team categorized the customer needs obtained as either an objective or goal,
function or feature, or constraint. This list can be seen in Table 2. To help the group sort these
needs into categories, they used the definitions provided for each category in order to determine
where each need would fall. For example, an objective or goal was the attribute that the design
attempts to attain such as safety, flexibility, and from this the group determined which we felt
best fit those categories.

Table 2. List of Objectives, Constraints, and Functions

Objectives or Goals
Maximize Long Term Savings
Minimize NOx emissions
Minimize Maintenance
Low Upfront Cost
Minimize Noise
Minimize Time for Return on.Investment
Reliable Freight Delivery

Constraints
Maintain freight capacity of 165,000 tons of
freight per day
Must meet EPA Tier III requirements
Meet locomotive clearance requirements in
city of Pittsdelphia

After separating the customer needs list into objectives or goals, constraints, and functions
or features, the team divided the customer needs into three main categories. These categories were
as follows: cost efficiency, system efficiency, and environmentally friendly. The team then sorted
each customer need into a main category. In Table 3, italics represents a function or feature, bold
represents a constraint, and normal text represents an objective. These corresponding
classifications of objective, constraint, or function can be seen in Table 2.
A low upfront cost, minimizes time for return on investment, and maximizes long term
savings were all placed under Cost Efficiency because they all had relevance to the optimization
of money spent or gained with regards to the locomotives as well as the design process. Minimize
maintenance, maintain freight capacity of 165,000 tons per day, reliable freight delivery, and meet
locomotive clearance requirements in the city of Pittsdelphia were all included under the category
System Efficiency. The system does not want to suffer as a result of the redesign so it must at
least maintain the same freight capacity or increase it which would increase the efficiency of the
system. Minimize maintenance and reliable freight delivery would also fall under System
Efficiency since if the system must be able to continually support the importation of goods to the
city without fail or delay. Finally, meeting locomotive clearance requirements in the city of
Pittsdelphia fell under System Efficiency due to the fact that the redesigned system would have to
still meet the size constraints of the current infrastructure. Minimizing NOx emissions, minimizing
noise, safety, and meeting EPA tier 3 requirements all have to do with regulating the environment
and reducing pollution so the team felt that they naturally fell under Environmentally Friendly.
Table 3 displays the main categories, such as Cost Efficiency, System Efficiency, and
Environmentally friendly, the group felt were important along with the customer needs that are
classified by them .

Table 3. Hierarchal Customer Needs List Obtained from Customer Needs Assessment
Methods
1. Cost Efficiency
1.1 Maximizes Long Term Savings (5, 10, and 20 years)
1.2 Minimizes Time for Return on Investment
1.3 Low Upfront Cost
2. Environmentally Friendly
2.1 Minimize NOx Emissions
2.2 Minimize Noise
C.1 Meet EPA tier 3 requirements
3. System Efficiency
3.1 Minimize Maintenance
3.2 Reliable Freight Delivery
C.2 Maintain freight capacity of 165,000 tons of freight per day
C.3 Meet locomotive clearance requirements in the city of
Pittsdelphia

2.3. Weighting of Customer Needs

After categorizing the formulated list of customer needs, the team was able to rank the
importance of each customer need. Shown below in Table 4, the main categories and the individual
subcategories were weighted so that the team can prioritize different sections when making future
decisions. In order to rank the customer needs, the team implemented AHP charts to compare the
main categories as well as the subcategories. The team took into account all of the stakeholders
interests when assigning relative values to the charts, so that the process would remain as objective
as possible.
In Figure 1, all three of the main categories (cost efficiency, system efficiency, and
environmentally friendly) are compared and weighted. The team decided that it was within the
best interest of the majority of the stakeholders that cost efficiency would be the highest weighted
category. The team came to this conclusion due to the fact that General Electric is a for-profit
company and the city is on a limited budget; therefore, its first and foremost concern is to invest
intelligently. Coming in at a close second, environmentally friendliness is a common interest
among all stakeholders. The whole purpose of this renovation is to meet higher energy efficient
standards by reducing particulate matter and aiming to reduce smog. This would benefit not only
General Electrics reputation, but also the standard of living for the citizens of Pittsdelphia. System
efficiency was the next highest valued category. While the ability for the system to run efficiently
is important for time and waste conservation, it is not the greatest concern for GE, the citizens of
Pittsdelphia, nor the other stakeholders. Maintaining the efficiency of the system is truly all that is
necessary for this project to be deemed successful.

In Figure 2, the team compared and weighted the objectives under cost efficiency. The
main take away was that minimizing the time of return on investment and long term savings are
equally the main priorities. While maintaining a low upfront cost would make this change easier
to complete and more ideal, it will not matter as much if the city can receive will save more money
in the long run with a quick return on investment. The team believes that low cost, long term
financially effective solutions with a quick recoup on the initial investment is the most optimal
solution.
In Figure 3, the team evaluated the system efficiency sub-objectives. The team thought that
minimizing the maintenance required and having a reliable freight delivery system were equally
important. Both would have relatively similar effects on the system if they were not met. For
example, a system with high maintenance would often break down and be function consistently.
Similarly, having an unreliable freight delivery, which is created when a system has more complex
infrastructure (i.e. using trains to deliver freight to boats which ship to a port and then be moved
using more trains), will put the system at additional risk of failure. Since both objectives equally
maintain system efficiency and have no definite consequence, they were equally weighted.
In Figure 4, the team prioritized the objectives of the environmentally friendly category.
Minimizing NOx and PM is the premiere objective and should be heavily focused upon in order
to reduce smog in the city of Pittsdelphia, a major concern for all stakeholders. However, it should
be noted that noise reduction should be a consideration.
Overall, through the implementation of multiple AHP charts and careful consideration for
the stakeholders needs and values, the team was able to prioritize the customer needs into a
hierarchical list, with each category and subcategory receiving a weight.

Figure 1. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting for Main Objective
Categories

Figure 2. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting of Cost Efficiency

Objectives

Figure 3. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting of System Efficiency

Objectives

Figure 4. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting of Environmentally

Friendly Objectives
Table 4. Weighted Hierarchal Customer Needs List
1. Cost Efficiency (0.60, 0.60)
1.1 Maximizes long term savings (5, 10, and 20 years) (0.27, 0.45)
1.2 Minimizes time for return on investment (0.27, 0.45)
1.3 Low Upfront Cost (0.06, 0.10)
2. Environmentally Friendly (0.30, 0.30)
2.1 Minimize NOx Emissions (0.27, 0.91)
2.2 Minimize Noise (0.03, 0.09)
C.1 Meet EPA tier 3 requirements
3. System Efficiency (0.10, 0.10)
3.1 Minimize Maintenance (0.05, 0.50)
3.2 Reliable Freight Delivery (0.05, 0.50)
C.2 Maintain freight capacity of 165,000 tons of freight per day
C.3 Meet locomotive clearance requirements in the city of
Pittsdelphia

3. Revised Problem Statement

After considering the knowledge gathered from the customer needs that better addressed
each stakeholders individual needs, the team put together a revised problem statement that is more
concise and focused. The team needed to design a system, primarily for the city of Pittsdelphia
(but also for the other stakeholders listed in 2.1), that was cost efficient, systematically efficient,
and environmentally friendly. The issues that the project addressed includes the overwhelming
amount of smog (NOx and PM) that was produced by the current General Electric Tier II
locomotives by raising the systems EPA standards to at least tier III. The systems cost efficiency
was measured by how it maximized long term savings (five, ten, and twenty years), minimized

time for return on investment, and had a low upfront cost. Under environmentally friendly, the
system had to minimize noise and NOx and PM emissions. Furthermore, the system had to
minimize maintenance and reliably deliver freight while maintaining the previous freight capacity
of 165,000 tons per day. Of these needs, the most important were maximizing long term savings,
minimizing time for return on investment and minimizing NOx and PM emissions. For this reason,
the team identified that it should create a system that focusing on these three polarizing customer
needs. An additional requirement that needed to be considered was meeting the current locomotive
clearance levels in the city of Pittsdelphia. Overall, the team needed to design a system that reduced
NOx and PM levels in the city of Pittsdelphia while saving money in the long run and recouping
its initial investment as quickly as possible.

4. External Search
After the establishment of customer needs and definition of the problem, the external
search is the next important step in the design of the system. The external search plays an integral
part in the development of background knowledge. The research completed in the external search
influences the design of the system and provides proof that the design is viable and executed with
purpose.

4.1. Literature Review

Alternative Transportation Methods
Pittsdelphia, a standard American city, relies upon a large amount of consistent imports in
order to meet the needs of its citizens, as stated in the original problem statement. As a result, the
best mode of freight shipping should be considered. The four main forms of freight shipping in the
United States include by truck, barge, plane, and locomotive. Of the four, planes are by far the least
environmentally friendly and cost effective, while trucks are the second least environmentally
friendly and cost effective (Shipping Comparisons n.d.). The cost to transport one ton of freight
by plane over a mile as seen in Figure 5 was $0.59 in 1995 and is approximately $0.92 in 2015
(Rodrigue, 1998). Transportation of 165,000 tons over 500 miles would cost $75,900,000.00 each
day. In addition, a plane emits almost 1,200 grams of carbon dioxide per one ton-mile and over
100 grams of particulate matter per one ton-mile as seen in Figure 6 (Clean By Design:
Transportation 2012). The one major advantage of shipping freight by air is the speed of planes,
which could ship 165,000 tons of freight faster than trucks, trains, and barges (Air Freight 2011).
This speed comes at a very high economical and environmental cost. The cost to transport a ton of
freight by truck over a mile as seen in Figure 5 was $0.25 in 1995 and would cost roughly $0.39
in 2015 (Rodrigue 1998). Transportation of 165,000 tons over 500 miles by truck would cost
$32,175,000.00 each day. Transportation by truck is faster and more versatile than transportation
by train and barge (Which Is More Freight-efficient: Trains Or Trucks?" 2015). This speed and
versatility comes a price, for a large semi-truck will release over five times the NOx (lbs./ton*mile)

and costs over twice as much as trains and barges (Why Waterways? n.d.). This leaves barges
and trains as the only two compelling modes of freight. However, in the case of Pittsdelphia,

locomotives should be considered as the main form of transporting freight due to the volume of
import and inconvenient shipping routes.
Figure 5: Freight Transport Costs per Ton-Mile (Rodrigue, 1998)

Figure 6: Freight Transport Carbon Dioxide and Particulate Matter Emissions (Air
Freight 2011)

The city of Pittsdelphia relies on 20 different trains including 45 locomotives to ship freight
to and from the city on a daily basis. The total freight capacity of the previous system was 165,000
tons per day. The cargo capacity of a single, standard locomotive that can pull one hundred rail
cars is 10,000 tons and the cargo capacity for a single barge is 1,500 tons (Shipping Comparisons
n.d.). A barge with deadweight tonnage of 165,000 tons costs $190,000,000.00 to fully purchase
("Maersk Contracts Additional 10 Tripple-E Vessels." 2011). With the purchase of the barge fuel
costs would also need to be taken into consideration, so instead paying for the shipments by ton
would be the better option. The cost of shipping one ton of freight one mile by barge was $0.01 in
1995 and $0.02 in 2015 as seen in Figure 5 (Rodrigue, 1998). While barges are known for being
safer and more environmentally friendly, this statistic raises a lot of questions about the feasibility
and high cost of converting to barge (James Conca 2014). Furthermore, five of the twenty trains
are dedicated explicitly for mineral transportation. Minerals, however, are not typically mined near
a coast, where it would be convenient to use barges. The map in Figure 7 shows all of the coal
mining regions in the United States (Coal Areas in the United States 1993).

Figure 7: 1993 U.S. Coal Production (Coal Areas in the United States 1993)
The graph above reveals the landlocked nature of the coal mining regions. Coal is a major
example of how the location of imports may not be convenient enough to be able to use barges.
Therefore, it will be necessary to go with a land based form of transporting freight; locomotives
are the answer.
Emissions
In order for General Electric to satisfy the EPA requirements as well as the needs of the
citizens of Pittsdelphia, the system should concentrate on the reduction of NOx and smog. A
potential way of meeting this need would be to turn to alternative methods of transportation, as a

way to reduce emissions. Other needs may also be met with a switch to alternative methods of
transport, such as the cost of fuel and transport of cargo. The Environmental Protection Agencys
MOBILE6 model estimates emission factors for several air pollutants such as NOx and particulate
matter (PM) in grams per ton mile traveled for various modes of transportation. For inland towing,
the model estimates .469 g/ton-mile, while for railways the estimate is considerably higher at .654
g/ton-mile. This is important to take into account, since one of the objectives identified by
customer needs was to reduce smog (NOx) emissions, since they were negatively affecting the
local inhabitants. From this model provided by the EPA, the use of an alternative shipping method
such as barges would considerably reduce the amount of NOx. The use of other alternative
shipping methods such as trucks is another possibility, however the emissions of NOx estimated
from trucks was .732 g/ton-mile. The use of standard trucks would seem impractical when just
considering emissions since the NOx emissions are much greater for trucks than those of the
current shipping methods. A constraint that was also identified in the customer needs section was
to reduce locomotive emission of particulate matter (PM) by at least 50%. Currently, the emission
of particulate matter by the rail system is .016 g/ton-mile. If the switch to standard barges was
made the emission of particulate matter would drop to .011 g/ton-mile. Trucks are also a method
of alternative transport, but they produce more particulate matter (.018 g/ton-mile) than trains do
so from just considering an emissions standpoint it seems impractical to switch to a system that
would produce more (A Modal Comparison of Freight Transportation Effects on the General
Public, N.D.). Good mileage on fuel is not only important for emissions reduction but it also helps
to reduce cost. The average for water travel is 576 ton-miles/gallon, railway is 413 tonmiles/gallon, and truck is 155 ton-miles/gallon (Dorothy, 2014). Carrying capacity is also
important because it was identified in the customer needs that the freight capacity needs to be
165,000 tons or more. An average one 15 barge tow carries as much as 216 rail cars with 6
locomotives as well as 1,050 large semi tractor-trailers (Waterways: Working for America,
N.D.). Another identified customer need was safety with regards to low injury rate and low death
rate. On a per ton mile basis, there is 1 injury in the inland marine sector for every 2,171 in the
highway sector, and every 125 in the rail sector. There is 1 death in the inland marine sector for
every 22.7 in the rail sector, and 155 in the highway sector (Waterways: Working for America,
N.D.).
One of the most important customer needs is the reduction of emissions, so pollution was
investigated. General Electrics locomotives, specifically Tier 3 and Tier 4, utilize diesel engines.
Ideal combustions in diesel engines produce CO2, H2O, and N2, but actual combustions produce
additional harmful components such as carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides
(NOx), particulates, sulfur compounds, and more. Nitrogen oxide, specifically NOx is a gas that
is detrimental to the publics health and the ecosystem. It irritates mucous membranes, increases
the physical effects of asthma, and also contributes to acid rain. All solids distributed in the air are
defined as particulate matter. "Fine particulate matter" cannot be seen by the human eye and
embeds itself in human lungs, which poses many dangers to the publics health (Mollenhauer,
2010). Another concern of the public was the noise of the trains. Noise pollution from trains

originates from rolling noise and aeroacoustics. The rolling noise is caused by the vibrations
between the train wheels and rail. The aeroacoustic sounds are generated by turbulence around the
train while in motion (Mellet, 2006). General Electrics new Tier 4 train did not make steps towards
noise reduction, but it did make huge improvements on emissions and pollution.
Todays locomotives are powered by reciprocating internal combustion engines. In general
terms, fuel is injected into cylinders, combusted via spark plugs and ejected via an exhaust system.
The most common fuel for such locomotives is diesel gasoline. These engines provide ample
power for the transportation of large amounts of freight. There are, however, negative effects of
this particular system. Namely, these engines are among the largest producers of harmful emissions
into the environment. The GE Next Gen locomotives have a new engine gas recirculation system
that allows the exhaust gasses to be treated before being emitted and thus reducing NOx emissions.
In the past, most improvements in heavy-duty engine developments were focused on increasing
fuel economy, reliability, durability and cost. (Johnson, 2008) These improvements, however,
often created a product that was not as environmentally sound as possible.
After Treatment System
Selective Catalytic Reduction, otherwise known as SRC is a urea based exhaust
aftertreatment system. It can be described as a passive flow-through aftertreatment that injects
urea, a diesel exhaust fluid, into the exhaust stream, which reduces the amount of NOx in the
exhaust stream (Cotey, 2014). The active molecule in the SCR is ammonia, which is too dangerous
to store in liquid form in a pressure vessel on the locomotive. To meet safety standards urea
dissolved in distilled water is used for storage on-board the locomotive (Johannessen and Schmidt,
2008). The American Society of Mechanical Engineers explains the use of urea in SCR with four
reactions that occur in ammonia based catalytic reductions. First the ammonia is adsorbed in its
gas phase and then this adsorbed ammonia reduces the gaseous NO in the system. Next the
ammonia is oxidized by the NO, and lastly the ammonia is desorbed leading to small amounts of
ammonia passing through the SCR unreacted. This is known as ammonia slip which is a concern
in the SCR technology industry (Upadhyay and Vannieuwstadt, 2006). SCR can reduce NOx
emissions by 90% as well as particulate matter emissions by 30-50% (What is SCR n.d.). The
aftertreatment systems are aligned to the muffler position on the locomotive and fit within an
envelope with the dimensions 60x 41.36x 29.33 (Project Summary 2015). In October of 2015
one metric ton of urea cost $255.00 ("Urea Monthly Price - US Dollars per Metric Ton." 2015).
According to General Electric Transportation, urea infrastructure and operational expenses can
cost up to $1.5 billion (GE Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotive 2013). Evidently urea based
aftertreatment systems are effective when reducing harmful emissions but are very costly.
Alternative Fuels
The potential uses of alternative fuels is a possibility that needs to be considered when
evaluating different system designs for the city of Pittsdelphia. One potential option for alternative
fuel is Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG. Most current designs of locomotives do not use 100%
LNG for fuel, and instead use a combination of LNG and diesel. The NextFuel Design from GE

uses up to 80% gas substitution. Even though only a portion of the locomotive runs on LNG, there
will be up to a 50% reduction in fuel cost. The current locomotives do not have the capacity to
run on LNG in their current states, so they must be upgraded with a retrofit kit, which will cost $1
million per locomotive (Project Summary 2015). This price from upgrading each individual
locomotive is considerably less than the price to upgrade or replace each locomotive with a Tier
III or Tier IV locomotive. The Tier III with the filtration system costs $2million more and the Tier
IV costs $3 million more per locomotive (Project Summary 2015). Currently there is not a lot
of LNG readily available so the locomotives will have to carry a tank car behind in order to have
a range comparable to that of diesel. Also, the liquid natural gas must be cooled and maintained
at -260 degrees Fahrenheit, which will add extra cost to the process other than just the price of
producing or buying it. The locomotives need refueling stations and the infrastructure to support
them ("Why Trains May Switch to Natural Gas Instead of Diesel." N.D.). The current estimate
for implementing the infrastructure needed to support the locomotives that go in and out of
Pittsdelphia is $1 billion dollars (Project Summary 2015). The extremely high cost of
implementing the infrastructure to support this alternative fuel is not made up by the savings in
initial locomotive cost or fuel savings. It is estimated that it will take approximately 4.73 years to
produce a return on investment way past the needed time for return on investment. Furthermore,
the use of dual fuel technology is relatively new and still being experimented and tested with since
pilot kits for GEs version NextFuel only started in 2014. In terms of the environment, it is
predicted that it could significantly reduce emissions compared with diesel locomotives
however, since the trial phase is still underway for his method, it is unclear by exactly how much
the emissions can be reduced. Although according to GE, the NextFuel system meets EPA Tier III
requirements, which is a 0% reduction in NOx and 50% reduction in particulate matter (Project
Summary, 2015). So, there would be no reduction in NOx, which is the main problem for the
city of Pittsdelphia.
Another potential source of alternative fuel is compressed natural gas, or CNG. Typically
LNG is preferred over CNG because LNG has a higher density, so more can be stored in the same
container. This means that space is saved and also refueling would more infrequent. Even though
the LNG is has a higher density, the impact on the ultimate fuel cost from carrying a more mass
would be negligible. CNG however has some advantages over LNG. For example, CNG is much
more widely used at this point in time than LNG has been. The infrastructure for CNG is already
in place so the only additional cost for using CNG would be the actual price of the fuel, which is
currently $2.06 GGE. There are plenty of refueling stations, as seen in Figure 8, for CNG within a
500 mile radius of Pittsdelphia, which the team assumed was based on the city of Philadelphia.
The locomotives would also need to be fit with a system that is capable of processing CNG
(Project Summary 2015).
Biodiesel is another alternative fuel that has become a more widely used fuel in recent
years. Biodiesel can be used in the existing engines so no upgrade would be needed in order to
use this new source of fuel. A study funded by the Federal Railroad Administration found that
will the biofuel was effective in reducing the emissions of particulate matter and carbon monoxide

there was some increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides. Since the biodiesel would be blended
with current diesel, there would be little difference in fuel cost (Real-World Effect of Biofuels
on Railroad Locomotive Emissions, N.D.).

Figure 8: Refueling Stations in Pennsylvania and States Surrounding Pennsylvania ("Why

Trains May Switch to Natural Gas Instead of Diesel. n.d.)

4.5. Design Target

As a result of the research done in the external search, the team found that it would be most
beneficial to focus on locomotives and barges as the methods of transporting freight. The other
methods such as trucks and planes each have their own deficits that make them particularly
unappealing. In order to address the dangerous health and environmental effects of smog and
pollution in the form of NOx and particulate matter, the design of the system should attempt to
reduce emissions as much as possible. One way to do this is by implementing barges into the
solution. Barges have relatively low emissions as well as cost and can be used to transport a
fraction of the 165,000 tons of cargo delivered each day. Another solution would be to upgrade
the fleet of GE trains to Tier four, which reduces the emissions with a temperature controlled
engine. However, cost should definitely be considered in this upgrade. A certain ratio of tier 3 and
tier 4 locomotives may be necessary in order to meet the cost efficiency customer need.
Furthermore, there are new technologies available to reduce harmful emissions while subsequently
increasing economy. After treatment systems reduce NOx and emissions through a selective
catalytic reaction. These systems could be used in conjunction of Tier III locomotives to reduce
emissions. Alternative fuels including compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas can also be
implemented but would be very costly. An ideal design would meet customer needs while
employing such technologies in the system for GE Design Team Four

5. Concept Generation
Concept generation is vital part of the design process. After the problem has been defined,
customer needs established, and external search completed, the design solution is created during
concept generation. These design solutions are created through the formation of ideas influenced
by the knowledge and information previously gathered. Ideas are generated through many methods
including the 6-3-5 method, brainstorming, and morphological charts. The 6-3-5 method produces
ideas in bulk and very quickly, but this speed and quantity sacrifices quality and detail.
Brainstorming also produces a large amount of ideas, but they are expanded and more elaborate.
Morphological charts can be used to piece together different concepts into one design. This method
better suits the middle and end of concept generation because more detailed design ideas can be
mixed and match together to produce viable prototype designs. Group 4 generated concepts
through brainstorming sessions and a morphological chart.

5.1. Brainstorming
Brainstorming was utilized during concept generation to produce many ideas in a short
period of time. These ideas were bounced around by the group and expanded upon. The group
spent roughly one hour carrying out traditional brainstorming, but many more sessions of informal
brainstorming took place to further flesh out ideas. Roughly 30 ideas were generated from the
brainstorming session as seen in Figure 9, but only about 25 of these were viable options. For
example delivering 165,000 tons of freight 500 miles by hand would be impossible. A more viable
idea generated by the team was to ship a fraction of freight by barge, another fraction using Tier
IV locomotives and an additional fraction by Tier III locomotives with aftertreatment systems. The
overall quality of the ideas generated were average, for they were not extremely detailed but they
were ideas used in the final design solution. There were a few challenges encountered during
brainstorming. It was difficult to create a mind map for the transportation system solution because
there was not an overwhelming amount of subsections to the solution. One disadvantage to
brainstorming was that shy members of the group did not voice their ideas as much as they could
have had it not been a collaborative process. Another disadvantage was that the group got attached
to ideas and focused on them for too long instead of spreading effort over all ideas. The biggest
advantage to the brainstorming was that the group was able to see the numerous options available
to design the transportation system. A large amount of ideas were generated, which gave the group
more to pull from when furthering the concept generation and selection. An alteration that the team
made to the brainstorming approach was that excel spreadsheets were loosely incorporated into

the process. When an idea was brought up, its cost was briefly discussed by the group using
calculations made in excel as seen in Figure 10.

Figure 9: Brainstorming Session Whiteboard

Figure 10: Excel Brainstorming Cost Analysis

5.2. Morphological Chart

The second method of concept generation utilized by the team was a morphological chart
as seen in Table 5. The morphological chart organizes different ideas into categories and then
options were combined to form design ideas. Ideas generated from the brainstorming session were
placed into the categories as options. The categories chosen were transportation type, locomotive
type, cargo type, fuel used, and financial action. These were seen as the most important aspects
needed to be addressed by the project. The team spent about 30 minutes creating the morphological
chart and discussing the possible design ideas generated. Additional time was dedicated to
furthering the development of these ideas. Ten well thought-out ideas were generated by the
morphological chart. Each idea incorporated the selling of Tier II locomotives. One idea generated
by the morphological chart was to subcontract barges to transport the freight cargo and then
purchase Tier IV locomotives to transport the mineral cargo; each would use diesel as fuel. Another
idea generated was to purchase Tier IV locomotives but to also purchase a portion of Tier III
locomotives with aftertreatment systems; each would use diesel fuel. The quality of ideas
generated using the morphological chart was high, but not very specific regarding quantity of
options. The team added details to the options after they were selected to further the ideas
generated, such as forty-five Tier IV locomotive and five Tier III locomotives purchased. The
morphological chart provided the team with many design ideas, but ultimately these ideas were
narrowed down to three.
Table 5: Morphological Chart
Sections

Options

Transportation Type

Boat

Truck

Plane

Train

Type of Locomotive

Tier IV

Tier III

Tier III w/ AST

Tier II

Type of Cargo

Mineral

Fuel Used

LNG

CNG

Biodiesel

Diesel

Financial Action

Purchase

Sell

Upgrade

Subcontract

Freight

6. Concept Selection
The concept generation helped the team develop as many choices as possible for a feasible
design. The visual organization of the teams ideas in the brainstorming process and in the
morphological chart made the initial downselection easier.

6.1. Initial Downselection

Based on the extensive external search, the team was able to perform an initial
downselection from all of the different concepts generated. Right away transportation via air and
truck were eliminated. Compared to different methods of transport such as truck, barge, and rail,
planes are considerably the least environmentally friendly and cost effective, with trucks following
in a close second (Shipping Comparisons n.d.). As discovered in the literature review, the cost
to transport one ton of freight by plane over a mile would be about $0.92 today based on inflation
rates. Therefore, the transportation of all of the freight and minerals, which total 165,000 tons,
over the 500 mile range would cost the city $75,900,000.00 each day (Rodrigue, 1998). The current
system of Tier II trains currently costs $1,252,152 a day, and
$457,035,480 a year. Also, planes emit close to 1,200 grams of carbon dioxide per one ton-mile
and over 100 grams of particulate matter per one ton-mile (Clean By Design: Transportation
2012). Therefore, it would be impractical to implement a system that both costs more and emits
more since it was identified in the customer needs to minimize NOx emissions (2.1) and maximizes
long term savings (1.1), which would not be met with a system that costs seventy-five times as
much per day. The use of standard trucks would also seem impractical, especially when just
considering emissions, since the NOx emissions are much greater for trucks than those of the
current shipping methods. A typical large semi-truck releases five times the NOx (lbs./ton*mile)
as current trains (Why Waterways? n.d.). Furthermore, the transportation of 165,000 tons over
500 miles by truck would cost $32,175,000.00 each day. This leaves shipping via water and trains
as the best methods for transportation of the freight and minerals.
Next the team eliminated all sources of alternative fuel. LNG, or liquefied natural gas, was
a potential consideration for alternative fuel but was ultimately eliminated from consideration for
a potential solution. It is predicted that the use of LNG will significantly reduce emission compared
to the current diesel locomotives being use, however it is unclear by how much exactly. GEs
design of the NextFuel system, which is a dual fuel system that uses LNG and diesel, would meet
EPA Tier III requirements, according to the company. However, Tier III only requires a 50%
reduction in particulate matter from Tier II (Project Summary 2015). This indicates that there
would be no reduction in NOx emissions, which is one of the teams highest weighted customer
needs. Furthermore, as identified in the literature review, it will take approximately 4.73 years to
produce a return on investment as seen in Figure 11, due to the need to implement the infrastructure
needed to support the locomotives that would now run on LNG, even though the initial upgrade of
the system would be considerably cheaper than other systems and there would be a 50% reduction
in fuel cost. This is considerably longer than the 1.95 years it would take to produce a return on
investment for all Tier IV trains. Therefore, LNG was eliminated.
Biodiesel was also eliminated from consideration. An advantage that biodiesel provides is
that it can be used in the existing engines so no upgrade would be needed in order to use it.
However, as identified in the external search in the literature review it was found there was some
increase in NOx emissions, even though other types of emissions were reduced. This would not

meet the customer needs of reducing the NOx emissions since it actually increased them. Also, the
team found that there would be little difference in fuel cost from the fuel currently used, so there
would be no advantage to switching to biodiesel since there would be no money saved and an
increase in NOx.
Finally different tier trains were eliminated. In the problem statement it was determined
that the whole system had to be upgraded, so using Tier II locomotives was automatically
eliminated from consideration since no alternative fuel would be used to change the current system.
Next, Tier III locomotives and Tier III locomotives with an after treatment system were eliminated.
Tier III locomotives meet EPA Tier III standards, however the move from Tier II to Tier III does
not reduce any NOx emissions. This is a problem because reduction of NOx emissions was
weighted very highly in the Customer Needs, since the city of Pittsdelphias main reason for
implementing a new system was to reduce smog output. Therefore, Tier III locomotives were
eliminated. Next, the team considered Tier III locomotives with an after treatment system, or AST.
The after treatment system would effectively reduce NOx emissions from Tier II by 90% and
particulate matter emissions by 30-50% lowering both quantities near to the Tier IV standard of
NOx by 76% and particulate matter by 85% (What is SCR n.d.)(GE SLIDES). Therefore the
team concluded that the environmental impact of Tier III with AST and Tier IV was comparable.
However, since as discovered in the literature review, for transport safety concerns, urea needs to
be used in conjunction with the AST system. One metric ton of urea costs $255.00, which adds
up to COST per year ("Urea Monthly Price - US Dollars per Metric Ton." 2015). However, this
cost seems insignificant compared to the urea infrastructure and operational expenses which cost
around $1.5 billion to implement (GE Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotive 2013). Since the Tier
III locomotives with AST produced about the same environmental impacts as Tier IV locomotives,
the team decided to eliminate Tier III with AST as an option since the Tier IV did not require the
exorbitant added infrastructure cost ($1billion), even though the Tier IV were slightly more
expensive( $45 million more for all 50 locomotives). The Tier III with AST were eliminated
because the team felt that the Tier IV locomotives were equivalent in environmental impacts but
significantly better in cost.
This means that the only options for transportation of the 165,000 tons would be to contract
out shipping via water of Tier IV trains. The team then decided three competing designs seen
below based on a chart they developed laying out the different combinations of locomotives and
shipping.
Design One: Sell all Tier II locomotives
Purchase all Tier IV locomotives
No contract shipping via waterways
Design Two: Sell all Tier II locomotives
Purchase 25 Tier IV locomotives
Half of cargo shipped via waterways

Design Three: Sell all Tier II locomotives

Purchase no Tier IV locomotives
Contract out all shipping via waterways

Figure 11: ROI for LNG

6.2. Pugh Charts/Decision Matrix

In order to downselect the teams three finalized concepts to two competing quality
designs, the team used a series of Pugh charts. While Pugh charts are a subjective method of
downselection, they helped the team rationalize and organize the comparisons between the
finalized concepts across the weighted customer needs from Section 2.3. The team implemented
three Pugh charts when comparing the designs so that every single scenario was accounted for and
considered. Through these comparisons, the team successfully narrowed the three concepts down
to Design 1 and Design 2. Design 1 was the clear favorite among the other choices in each of the
three Pugh Charts below (Tables 6, 7, and 8). It received the highest score in every chart, therefore
best fitting the customer needs. Furthermore, Design 2 was the clear second choice in all three
Pugh charts. By using this process, the team successfully eliminated Design 3, and moved onto the
design review section, fully invested in Design 1 and Design 2.
Table 6. Comparison Against Design 1

Table 7. Comparison Against Design 2

Table 8. Comparison Against Design 3

6.3. Design Review

The design review consisted of the teams standing up in the front of the room and
presenting two of their designs to the entire class and the professor in a Shark Tank style. After
presenting each design, the audience would have a chance to criticize the teams design. This was
done in order to make the design better for the future and point out flaws in logic that the team
could not see before. The design reviews intent was to force the team to take a step back and
reflect upon the project from a new perspective in order to make it better for the final presentation,
when it actually matters. The design reviews were very interactive between the audience and the
team because the audience would question the team and push them and the team would try to
justify why they did something the way they did to reflect upon something and realize there was
something that they did not consider before
The two designs that the team presented during their design review were Design One and
Design Two, which were sell all Tier II and buy all Tier IV, and sell all Tier II, buy half Tier IV
and contract out shipping via waterways to other companies for the other half of the cargo. From
conducting the design reviews the team learned many things. First, it quickly became evident with
their own design review along with other teams that everyone had made different assumptions
pertaining to the problem. The team realized that it had to become better a showing how they
came by those assumptions and proving it to others rather than just thinking that everyone was on
the same page. One thing that the team learned about Design Two was that the port of Pittsdelphia
may not be equipped to handle the amount of freight arriving by ship since the total that they would
be trying to ship in would greatly exceeds the tonnage of domestic imports that the city currently
receives every day. The team also learned how to properly calculate return on investment using
fuel costs (as displayed in Table 9 and Table 10), which they incorporated throughout their report.
After learning these things and applying them to the report, the team learned that Design One was
the best and most feasible design.

Table 9. Yearly Return on Investment

Table 10. Upfront Cost

7. Final Design
The final system design begins with the selling of all GE Tier II locomotives. Selling all
tier II locomotives will provide the revenue increase necessary to begin purchasing the replacement
shipping methods. After selling all tier II locomotives, fifty GE Evolution Series Tier IV
locomotives would be purchased. Of those fifty, five locomotives would be utilized as reserve
locomotives should any of the ones in use experience problems that would require temporary
decommission in order to repair. Thus, providing a fail safe method of ensuring on-time delivery
for the city of Pittsdelphia even if there were issues with the current system. The remaining fortyfive locomotives would be employed for the daily transport of materials into the city of
Pittsdelphia. The breakdown would be exactly as it were before - fifteen freight trains each utilizing
two tier IV locomotives and five mineral trains each utilizing three tier IV locomotives. This
system would provide the most cost effective and environmentally effective solution for the city
of Pittsdelphia because it would utilize infrastructure that is already in place and, therefore, require
no additional costs for construction. The system would also provide considerable deductions in
NOx and PM emissions. These points will be outlined and expanded upon in the following section.

7.1. How does it work?

As previously stated all tier II locomotives will be sold in order to generate the financial
capital necessary to purchase the replacement locomotives. Each tier II locomotive would be be
sold for $1,500,000. The resulting increase in revenue would be $75,000,000 since 50 tier II
locomotives are to be sold. The $75,000,000 generated from selling the tier II locomotives would
go directly towards purchasing new diesel Evolution Series tier IV locomotives built by General
Electric Transportation Systems. The fifty tier IV locomotives will be purchased at $4,000,000
each. The cost of fifty tier IV locomotives will be $200,000,000, with a deficit of $125,000,000
due to the $75,000,000 in increased revenue made from the sale of fifty tier II locomotives. It is
assumed that all tier IV locomotives will be immediately supplied as well as implemented in the
freight and mineral transportation system. Of the fifty new locomotives purchased, five
locomotives would be kept as reserve just as was the case before. This will maintain the efficiency
of the system, as well as not compromise fuel efficiency or increasing emissions should a
functioning locomotive require temporary decommission for maintenance. These five locomotives
also have the potential to increase the 165,000 ton/day freight capacity running in and out of the
city of Pittsdelphia. The forty-five remaining tier IV locomotives would be utilized to transport
the 165,000 tons of minerals and freight that travel 500 miles into the city of Pittsdelphia each day.
60,000 tons of minerals would be transported by five trains each utilizing three tier IV locomotives.
105,000 tons of freight would be transported by fifteen trains each utilizing two tier IV
locomotives. This model would maintain the freight capacity of the city of Pittsdelphias current
railway transportation system.
Due to the fact that the system will be upgrading exclusively to tier IV locomotives, there
is no necessity to add costly infrastructure enhancements to the city of Pittsdelphias railways. No
urea filling stations nor natural gas fueling stations would be required because the tier IV
locomotives are able to reduce emissions through their on-board exhaust gas recycling system that
operates normally with diesel fuel. Even though the system runs solely on diesel fuel, tier IV
locomotives are fourteen percent more fuel-efficient than the tier II locomotives they replace. With
the increased efficiency, fuel costs would decrease significantly. There would be an approximate
savings of $63,000,000 annually in fuel costs. The tier II locomotives used diesel fuel that costs
$3.06/gallon and traveled five hundred miles per day. With the fourteen percent increase in fuel
efficiency with the tier IV locomotives, only eighty-six percent of the fuel used in the tier II
locomotives would be required by the tier IV locomotives. After this fuel efficiency is taken into
account $63,984,965.00 is saved each year. It will take less than two years, precisely 1.953 years,
for the fuel savings to accumulate and break even with the $125,000,000 debt - which is calculated
earlier in this section. After two years the return on investment will be $2,969,930,000 and will
continue to increase by $63,984,965.00 each year.
Not only would this new system be cost effective, it would also be environmentally
effective. A primary concern of this problem was the smog problem that was disturbing citizens
of the city of Pittsdelphia. The smog was also damaging to the surrounding environment. This

updated system addresses such concerns by reducing greatly the amount of NOx and PM emitted
from the railway - since NOx and PM are key components of smog. According to GE Corporation,
the Evolution Series Tier IV locomotive reduces NOx emissions by eighty-five percent and PM
emissions by seventy-six percent. These reductions would be cause for noticeably cleaner in and
around the city of Pittsdelphia. The team took into consideration the updated EPA requirements
during the design process as well. It was required that the system meet EPA tier III standards.
These expectations were met and surpassed by the implementation of an all-tier IV system for the
city. In doing so, the design provides maximum emissions reductions while also providing a
system that will meet regulation standards for an even greater length of time - for it was assumed
that eventually the EPA would mandate all tier IV emissions standards. These cost-minimizing
and emissions-reducing measures as outlined above create the optimal freight system for the city
of Pittsdelphia.

7.2. System Diagram

In order to better illustrate the specific aspects of the final design, GE Design Team Four
created the following systems diagram that outlines the inputs and outputs of the updated freight
transportation system for the city of Pittsdelphia. The system includes aspects such as the
generation of revenue from selling the current lot of tier II locomotives and the utilization of the
fifty tier IV locomotives that would be purchased and what impacts they would have. Some of
those impacts include the emissions produced (including noise), user interfaces and transportation
of materials into the city of Pittsdelphia.

Figure 12: Systems Diagram for the City of Pittsdelphia

Included in the system is the purchaser of the fifty tier II locomotives currently in use by
the city of Pittsdelphia (Figure 12). In return for the fifty tier II locomotives the corporation would
generate revenue which would then be invested to purchase the fifty new GE Evolution Series Tier
IV locomotives, with a return being the financial return on investment from their implementation.
The fifty new locomotives were divided into two categories (Figure 12) based on their designated
use. The two categories included 5 GE Evolution Series Tier IV locomotives for reserve which
referred to the five locomotives which would stand as reserve to the functioning locomotives, and
45 GE Evolution Series Tier IV locomotives used to haul 20 trains daily into Pittsdelphia. The
latter section became increasingly complex as the operational locomotive system was sectioned
into its subsystems. Included in each locomotive system were their respective engines and control
operating centers. The engines required diesel fuel - and its subsequent cost - and put out NOx and
PM emissions. The control centers, which were powered by electricity generated by the engines,
received commands and inputs from the engineer of the locomotive. They provided crucial
operating commands to the engines as well as provided feedback to the engineer about the
operating functions of the engines (Figure 12). The subsystem of Cargo required even further
expansion. It was divided into sections that outlined the two types of cargo transported into the
city Pittsdelphia daily. One system includes the fifteen freight trains - each utilizing two
locomotives. This system transports 105,000 tons of freight into the city and deposits it therein.

Similar to the previously mentioned system, the other included the five freight trains - each
utilizing three locomotives for a total of forty-five locomotives used. This system transports 60,000
tons of minerals into the city of Pittsdelphia. The combined total amount of freight transported is
165,000 tons daily. Another factor considered in the systems diagram is the noise produced by the
functioning train systems (Figure 12). The systems diagram portrays all aspects of the teams
design for better communication of the final system to be implemented in the city of Pittsdelphia.

7.3. Design Details and Analysis

The teams definition of the problem and its defined customer needs were met by the final
system design. One of the key areas of concern for the citizens of the city of Pittsdelphia was smog
caused by NOx and PM emissions. The design addressed this issue by upgrading to
environmentally friendly GE Evolution Series Tier IV locomotives which reduce NOx emissions
by eighty five percent and PM emissions by seventy-six percent (Project Summary 2015). This
not only meets the updated EPA tier III emissions requirements but surpasses it which will be
pleasing both to the citizens and environmental groups. The design also meets the city of
Pittsdelphias desire to have a return on investment in less than two years by demonstrating a return
on investment in just under two years (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Return on Investment Graph

This return on investment calculation came from the initial debt of $125,000,000 incurred
after purchasing fifty new locomotives ($200,000,000 with the $75,000,000 in revenue from
selling the old locomotives subtracted) and an annual savings of $63,984,965 in fuel costs (from
the fourteen percent increase in efficiency of the locomotives). Because the new locomotives have
the capacity to simply replace the current freight system - i.e. the twenty trains daily - there are no

incurred costs from adding any additional infrastructure nor would there be any distress to the
current life in the city of Pittsdelpia (i.e. construction, additional noise) which will please citizens.
The system consists of fifteen freight trains utilizing two locomotive each and five mineral trains
utilizing three locomotives each. The freight trains will transport a total of 105,000 tons of freight
and the mineral trains will transport a total of 60,000 tons of minerals for a combined total of
165,000 tons of material moved into the city of Pittsdelphia every day. This maintains the current
carrying capacity of the system as well as maintains the on-time delivery status of the system which
will satisfy city officials, freight and mineral companies and GE Corporation.

8. Conclusions
The project allowed GE Design Team Four to use its knowledge of the engineering
design process to address the problem of smog in the city of Pittsdelphia. In doing so, the team
designed an updated materials transportation system for implementation in the city in a costeffective manner and providing significant reductions in NOx and PM - in order to reduce smog
in the city. Through conceptualization processes and intense design generation and deliberation,
the team was able to generate what it believes to be a satisfactory system for the city of
Pittsdelphia. The final design was successful in addressing the problem statement and meeting
the defined customer needs as outlined in previous sections. The fifty GE Evolution Series tier
IV locomotives that were purchased meet and surpass the EPA tier III emission standards. In
doing so, they reduce smog component emissions by a considerable amount. Also, forty-five of
the new locomotives are able to be integrated into the current railway transportation in the city
exactly as the system was before and without necessitating additional infrastructure. In doing so,
the system still maintains the current carrying capacity of 165,000 tons per day. Also integrated
into the system was the potential to increase the transport capacity in an equally environmentally
friendly manner should the need arise due to the purchase of five extra locomotives for reserve.
Because of the economical steps taken, the team was able to calculate a return on investment in
less than two years which satisfies the city of Pittsdelphia and GE Corporation. The only aspect
of potential improvement that was not directly addressed by the design team was noise reduction
since another train system would be equally as noisy. In the future, the team hopes to reevaluate
the system and explore possible ideas for greater muffling of the sound emitted from the railway
system. Even having removed noise as a concern, however, the team was still able to provide a
system for the city which meets and exceeds other areas of need. Through maintenance of the
current carrying capacity - as well as the potential to increase it easily, reductions in harmful
emissions, and increased fuel efficiency which will provide cost savings in the future, the teams
design proved successful in meeting defined customer needs and project specifications.

References
"A Modal Comparison of Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public." MARAD. Texas
A&M University; US Government. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
"Air Freight." Air Transport. The World Bank Group, 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
"Clean By Design: Transportation." NDRC. Natural Resource Defense Council, 5 Feb. 2012. Web.
11 Dec. 2015.
"Coal Areas in the United States." Coal Education. N.p., 1993. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/MII/doc3.htm>.
Conca, James. "Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat."Forbes. N.p., 26
Apr. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2015. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pickyour-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/>.
Cotey, Angela. "Rail Industry Trends ArticleLocomotive Engine Upgrades Reflect Pending
Emission Regulations, Evolving Fuel Trends." Progressive Railroading. Trade Press Media
Group,
June
2014.
Web.
12
Dec.
2015.
<http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/article/Locomotive-engine-upgradesreflect-pending-emission-regulations-evolving-fuel-trends--40689>
Dorothy, Olivia. "Barge Fuel Efficiency Claims Are Bogus." Nicollet Island Coalition RSS. 14
Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
"GE Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotive." GE Transportation. General Electric Company, 01
Sept. 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2015. <http://www.getransportation.com/locomotives/evolutionseries-tier-4-locomotive>.
General Electric, . "Tier 4 Locomotive Achieves Stringent Emission Standards." GE Global
Reserach.
General
Electric,
Nov.
2015.
Web.
11
Nov.
2015.
<http://www.geglobalresearch.com/innovation>.
Johannessen, T., Schmidt, H., "Ammonia Storage and Delivery Systems for Automotive NOx
Aftertreatment," SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-1027, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-1027.
Johnson, Tim. "Diesel Engine Emissions and Their Control." Platinum Metals Review 52.1 (2008)
: 23-37. Web. 8 Nov. 2015
"Maersk Contracts Additional 10 Tripple-E Vessels." Baird Maritime. The Australian Marine
Environment Protection Association, 27 June 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
Mellet, C., F. Ltourneaux, F. Poisson, and C. Talotte, High speed train noise emission: Latest
investigation of the aerodynamic/rolling noise contribution. Journal of Sound
and Vibration: 293 (3): 535-46, 2006.
Mollenhauer, Klaus, Helmut Tschoeke, Springer Link, Handbook of diesel engines. 1st ed.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 2010.
"Project Summary." The School of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs.
The
Pennsylvania
State
University,
2015.
Web.
12
Dec.
2015.
<http://sedtapp.psu.edu/design/design_projects/edsgn100/fa15/index.htm>

"Real-World Effect of Biofuels on Railroad Locomotive Emissions | CCEE News, NC State."

Real-World Effect of Biofuels on Railroad Locomotive Emissions | CCEE News, NC State.
Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
Rodrigue, Jean-Paul. "Freight Transport Costs per Ton-Mile (in 1995 Dollars)." The Geography
of Transport Systems. Dept. of Global Studies and Geography, 1998. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
"Shipping Comparisons." Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
<http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/>.
Upadhyay, Devesh, and Michiel Vannieuwstadt. "Model Based Analysis and Control Design of a
Urea-SCR DeNOx Aftertreatment System." Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and
Control 128 (2006): n. pag. ASME DC. ASME The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers,
29
Jan.
2004.
Web.
12
Dec.
2015.
<http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1581251>
"Urea Monthly Price - US Dollars per Metric Ton." Index Mundi. 2015 Index Mundi, 2015. Web.
12
Dec.
2015.
<http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=urea&months=360>
"Waterways: Working for America." American Water Ways. National Waterways. Texas
Transport Institute. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
"What Is SCR?" About Clean Diesel. Diesel Technology Forum, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.dieselforum.org/about-clean-diesel/what-is-sc>
"Which Is More Freight-efficient: Trains Or Trucks?" Genco Product Lifecycle Logistics. Genco,
2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
"Why Trains May Switch to Natural Gas Instead of Diesel." The Christian Science Monitor. The
Christian Science Monitor. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
"Why Waterways?." Arkansas Waterways Commission. Arkansas State Government, n.d. Web. 9
Nov. 2015. <http://waterways.arkansas.gov/education/Pages/whyWaterways.aspx>.