Research Programme

Engineering
Investigation into the use of bio-diesel fuel on Britain's railways: Service trials on South West Trains and First Great Western

Copyright
RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD LTD. 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as the copyright of Rail Safety and Standards Board and the title of the publication specified accordingly. For any other use of the material please apply to RSSB's Head of Research and Development for permission. Any additional queries can be directed to research@rssb.co.uk. This publication can be accessed via the RSSB website: www.rssb.co.uk.

Published March 2010

Executive Summary .................................................................................................1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2 Methodology.............................................................................................................2 Summary of service trial experience ........................................................................3 Conclusions..............................................................................................................5 Recommendations ..................................................................................................5 Service Trial 1 - SWT ...............................................................................................6
Vehicle details ..................................................................................................................6 Trial details .......................................................................................................................6 Fuel consumption monitoring ...........................................................................................7 Oil analysis .......................................................................................................................8 Reported problems ...........................................................................................................8 Post-trial actions ...............................................................................................................8

Service trial 2 - FGW ..............................................................................................13

Vehicle details ................................................................................................................13 Trial details .....................................................................................................................13 Fuel consumption monitoring .........................................................................................17 Oil analysis .....................................................................................................................18 Reported problems .........................................................................................................19 Post-trial actions .............................................................................................................19

Summary of service trial experience ......................................................................24 Appendix 1 - ULSD fuel analysis (South West Trains)...........................................27 Appendix 2 - B20 fuel analysis (South West Trains) ..............................................29 Appendix 3 - Cylinder inspection of NTA855-R3 engines in 159007, Cummins report CUK090204-01, 3 February 2009 ...............................................31 Appendix 4 -'SWT NT 855 Rail bio trial fuel pump & injector report, Cummins report CUK090526-SR, 20 May 2009 ....................................................33 Appendix 5 - B20 fuel analysis (First Great Western) ............................................38 References .............................................................................................................40

Bio-diesel service trials on South West Trains and First Great Western

1 Executive Summary

Earlier work by RSSB and ATOC had investigated the effect of bio-diesel use on UK rail traction diesel engines by conducting a desk-top study followed by test bed evaluation on selected engine types. The third and final part of this project comprised service trials, undertaken by South West Trains (SWT) and First Great Western (FGW) on their Class 159 (one three-car unit) and 165/ 166 (centre vehicle of four units) vehicles respectively, detailed within this report. A 20% bio-diesel blend with ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) was selected for both trials, representing the maximum that could reasonably be sustained without significant performance or reliability effects on the vehicles, based upon the preceding test work. Comprehensive monitoring arrangements were instigated for both trials, with particular reference to the monitoring of fuel consumption. For SWT, the trial unit was monitored on gas oil prior to biodiesel operation, whereas for FGW the consumption of the centre vehicles was compared directly with that of the end vehicles. This latter approach provided more robust and consistent data. Both trials completed successfully, with a maximum period on B20 operation of 11 and 9 months for SWT and FGW respectively. No problems attributable to B20 operation were experienced during the trials. The measured fuel consumption increase exceeded that expected based on stable full load test bed data by a factor of 2.4 and 2.8 for SWT and FGW respectively, resulting in deteriorations of 6.9% for the Cummins (SWT) and 16.8% for the Perkins (FGW) engine types used. One FGW set was the exception, with a fuel consumption improvement recorded of some 9%. The reasons for these discrepancies could not be investigated further within the confines of this project, but is assumed to be primarily due to differences in engine power settings or operating condition. There were no problems identified from the oil analysis results that were attributable to B20 operation. If further biodiesel operation was to be considered, either as a trial or a more general introduction, it is recommended that a maximum 20% blend ratio is used, based upon the satisfactory results from these service trials. The impact on the engine fuel consumption should also be investigated in detail at an early

RSSB

stage in order to quantify the increase and establish as far as is practicable the reasons for it.

2 Introduction

In 2006, an investigation into the use of biodiesel on UK railways was commenced by RSSB/ATOC. This comprised an initial desktop study (reference 1), followed by test bed evaluations on dedicated engines (reference 2) and in-service trials. This process followed that developed for the earlier trials of sulphur free diesel (SFD) fuels. Two of the three train operators who had previously undertaken the SFD trials were willing to participate in the service evaluation, these being South West Trains and First Great Western. This would enable the existing infrastructure procured for the SFD project and installed at Salisbury and Reading depots to be reused for this trial. For details of this equipment see reference 3. The structure of, and results from, these trials are detailed in this report.

3 Methodology

The principles of the service trial were similar to those previously adopted for the SFD trial, where specific vehicles would be selected for fuelling with biodiesel over a proposed 6-month trial duration. Fuel consumption would be monitored throughout the trial and any relevant problem areas recorded. Oil analysis details would also be maintained. Monitoring guidelines were produced for both trials, again based on the successful operation of the previous SFD trials (references 4 and 5). Comparative fuel consumption data would be provided by either a baseline period of monitoring with the trial vehicles in standard condition or by separate standard vehicles during the trial. Agreement from both the vehicle owner and engine overhauler was obtained before proceeding with each trial. The agreement of the latter was sought partly to ensure continuity of warranty cover, considered to be best practice and useful for future reference. Based upon the test bed performance results and the views of the engine manufacturer/overhauler, a 20% (B20) biodiesel ratio was selected as being the highest blend to trial before issues of performance or reliability may have become more significant.

RSSB

4 Summary of service trial experience

It is clear that neither trial produced any particular problems in service, providing confidence that a 20% concentration of biofuel can be tolerated in existing service engines. However, there are two corollaries to this: 1 For the Cummins engines, rubber and copper components were renewed prior to the start of the trial (see section 7). 2 The long-term effects on the engine are unknown and can only be quantified at engine overhaul. The boroscope inspection of the SWT engines has assisted in quantifying item 2, with no adverse indications identified attributable to biofuel operation. The early submission of one of the FGW engines for overhaul as noted in section 8.6, will further assist the interpretation of engine condition. Overall, the evidence to date indicates that operation on a B20 blend will not have a significant impact on engine reliability or durability. In terms of engine performance, generally the fuel monitoring arrangements worked well with regular and reliable data received from Salisbury and Reading depots. However, the SWT monitoring would have benefited from more consistent and sustained monitoring of a comparison vehicle or set. Where this was achieved with the FGW trial, it provided an effective ongoing comparison between gas oil and ULSD/B20 operation, particularly with the standard vehicles being part of the same set. Thus, variations in operating diagrams and engine running time were immediately eliminated. This would seem to be the preferred approach for future trials of this nature. Analysis of the data over successive four-week periods also smooths the data effectively, minimising the effect of week-byweek variations where a day's missing fuel data (inevitable on an occasional basis) would have a more significant effect on a weekly comparison. Continuation of monitoring for a nominal period after the completion of B20 operation has also clearly demonstrated how the fuel consumption of the trial vehicles reduced back to the level of the comparison vehicles. Of more concern was the level of fuel consumption increase observed with three of the FGW vehicles, with an average increase of some 16.8%. This compares with an increase of

RSSB

nominally 6% from the combined change from gas oil to ULSD to B20 from test bed results at full load with this engine type (lower loads were of a similar magnitude or less). Although this increase was significantly greater than expected, the data is consistent for three sets, particularly given the return to previous gas oil consumption levels referenced above. The reason for this discrepancy between test bed and service conditions is not clear. It cannot be accounted for by density variations between gas oil and B20 alone. Further measurements of additional parameters on all three engines of the set would be required to clarify the situation further, for example boost pressure readings to establish whether all three engines were operating at the same power level. Differential power settings are considered to be the most likely explanation and any wider introduction of biodiesel fuel will need to investigate this factor further at an early stage. In principle, this may also apply to the inevitable transition from gas oil to sulphurfree fuel expected within the next two years. Similarly, the situation with the fourth vehicle whereby improved fuel consumption was obtained cannot be explained further within the parameters of this project. However, at least part of this apparent increase may be due to poorer performance of one end vehicle (58120) where the consumption regularly reduces below 1.4 miles per litre, reducing the apparent 'saving' on 58620 slightly.

RSSB

5 Conclusions

1 Two service trials with a 20% biodiesel fuel blend (B20) with ULSD have been successfully completed on South West Trains and First Great Western. No problems attributable to operation on biodiesel were reported during the trials. 2 Monitoring of fuel consumption has been maintained throughout both trials, resulting in a mean consumption on B20/ULSD of 1.48 miles per litre for SWT and 1.1 to 1.4 miles per litre for FGW. 3 For both trials, the increase in fuel consumption on most sets was greater than expected compared with preceding test bed assessments, resulting in a 6.9% increase for SWT and 16.8% increase for FGW (on three sets). For the respective engine types, the test bed increases were 2.9% and 6% respectively based on stable full load data. One FGW vehicle produced an improved fuel consumption of up to 9%. 4 The reasons for these discrepancies could not be determined without further measurement and investigation, outside the scope of this project. 5 Although comments could be made on certain oil analysis results, there were no adverse indications considered to be directly attributable to operation on B20 fuel. 6 Boroscope and fuel injection inspections carried out on the SWT trial engines showed no adverse characteristics from B20 operation.

6 Recommendations

1 If further biodiesel trials or operation were considered, these should be limited to a maximum B20 blend unless there were satisfactory technical and/or commercial reasons for increasing the blend ratio. 2 If further biodiesel trials or operation were considered, the impact on the engine fuel consumption should be investigated in detail at an early stage and as a matter of some urgency in order to quantify the increase and establish as far as is practicable the reasons for it. In particular, this should examine and quantify any relevant differences between the test bed fuel consumption results and methodology and the service trial monitoring.

RSSB

7 Service Trial 1 - SWT

7.1 Vehicle details
A 3-car Class 159 unit was selected for the trial (159007), fitted with 2005-build Cummins NTA855R3 engines, rated at 300kW. All three vehicles of the set were to be fuelled on B20 during the trial. The centre vehicle of the set (58724) was fuelled from the official start of the trial to gain experience, followed by the other two vehicles (52879 and 57879) some seven weeks later. Table 1 summarises the engine details. All engines were fitted following a normal overhaul.

Table 1 - SWT engine details Vehicle 52879 58734 57879 Engine serial no. 29118760 29119177 29118762 Date fitted 18/07/07 12/10/07 26/09/07

7.2 Trial details

All inspection requirements identified in the monitoring document (reference 4) were advised to have been carried out prior to trial implementation. Prior to the start of the trial, Cummins had advised the following necessary actions in order to protect the engine warranty: Replacement of copper piping in contact with the fuel. Replacement of nitrile rubber components in contact with fuel with Viton components. Engine overhaul after the tests. Oil sampling. The bio-diesel element of the fuel was sourced from a UK supplier (Greenergy) and was understood to be a mix of Europeansourced rape seed oil and US-sourced soya oil. This would be mixed with ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD). Fuel samples of both ULSD and the B20 blend were submitted for analysis prior to the start of the trial (appendices 1 and 2). The first biodiesel delivery was supplied to Salisbury depot on 25 February 2008, with 58724 fuelled on B20 from 29 February and the other two vehicles fuelled on ULSD from that date. Fuel

RSSB

monitoring was initiated on all three vehicles from the same date. The remaining two vehicles of the set started operation on biodiesel from 19 April 2008. The biodiesel supply was being funded by RSSB as part of the overall project budget. A lower than expected fuel spend enabled the trial to be considerably extended, finally terminating on 1 February 2009, representing a total operating period of 11 months on the longest running vehicle, and just over 9 months on the remaining vehicles.

7.3 Fuel consumption monitoring

Fuel consumption data was supplied on a weekly basis throughout the trial. Figure 1 shows the fuel consumption in miles per litre for successive weeks of the trial. Although miles per litre is a mix of imperial and metric units, mileage and fuel consumption data was received in these units and this arguably provided a more readily understood figure. Interpretation is difficult due to the variability of the data, but there is an indication that 58724 and 57879 were experiencing an inferior consumption towards the end of the trial period. It had originally been intended (reference 4) that the remainder of the Class 159/0 fleet would be used for a comparative assessment of fuel consumption; however data for the rest of the fleet was not received. Some data was available from a single standard unit (159014) over a six-week period in the middle of the trial and this has also been added to figure 1. This also suggests a worse consumption on the ULSD/B20 mix compared with the standard fuel, although again the trends are variable. An overall mean from all three vehicles over the complete trial duration gives a figure of 1.484 miles per litre. This is some 5.1% better than the average from the two end vehicles on ULSD during the first seven weeks and 6.9% worse than gas oil based on the 159014 data. This compares with a nominal 2.9% deterioration in specific fuel consumption identified from the test bed results for this engine type for the change from gas oil to ULSD/B20 (coupled to a similar percentage power decrease). Thus it is difficult to be precise concerning an accurate effect on fuel consumption. Monitoring would have benefited from a more consistent assessment of a comparison vehicle or vehicles. However, it would seem reasonable to suggest that the overall

RSSB

variations experienced are within the normal operating duty cycle data from the SWT fleet.

7.4 Oil analysis

Oil sampling is scheduled for every BX exam, or every 14,500 miles. Oil analysis data (carried out for SWT by Qinetiq) was received for approximate 3-4 week intervals up to Dec 08/Jan 09, with the exception of 58724 for which no sample data was received after 26 August 2008. In general, there were no major issues with the oil analysis, with any observed trends representing the expected wear characteristics of this engine type. The most notable events are shown in figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 displays an increase in fuel dilution (reduction in viscosity) on 52879. This is characteristic of rail traction applications with their inherent engine idling and resultant unburnt fuel passing the piston rings into the crankcase. This could be exacerbated by use of biofuel, but the rate of dilution is not considered excessive and remained within acceptable overall limits. Figure 3 shows the variation in iron, copper and lead levels in 57879. The NTA855R3 engine type does demonstrate increases in these elements up to a certain level, but the copper/lead bearing materials here are particularly high. Qinetiq's recommendation at that time was to change the oil, which was clearly done, but the trends can be seen to be reestablishing themselves following the oil change. A crankcase blow-by test was carried out by Cummins to check cylinder integrity, and the results were within specification. No further oil sample results were received by Interfleet.

7.5 Reported problems

For efficiency, assessment of the relevance of any problems experienced in service was carried out at Salisbury depot. No problems relating to the use of biodiesel were reported to Interfleet during the trial. Prior to the start of the trial, it had been provisioned for the trial engines to be stripped down by Cummins at the end of the trial when the set went for C4 overhaul. It was latterly agreed that since the engines had not operated on B20 for a full overhaul period, a specific engine strip would not be carried out. Instead, an endoscope inspection would be conducted, and an injector/ fuel pump change carried out, with the latter components being sent away for separate inspection.

7.6 Post-trial actions

RSSB

This activity was carried out following trial completion. Cummins advised on 16 March 2009 that the inspections had been completed, and that a meeting was to be arranged with SWT to discuss the oil analysis results, following which a report would be produced. Two reports have since been received from Cummins, included as appendix 3 and appendix 4 covering the endoscope and fuel injection equipment inspections respectively. For the engine, the conclusion was that operation on B20 fuel had had no detrimental effect on the cylinders. A similar conclusion was reached for the fuel injection equipment, with the comment made that its condition was within the specified Cummins guidelines and could have been reused. As at the date of this report, none of the engines used in the trial have yet been renewed.

RSSB

10

RSSB

RSSB

11

12

RSSB

8 Service trial 2 - FGW

8.1 Vehicle details
For the FGW trial based at Reading depot, it was decided to use two 3-car Class 165 and two 3-car Class 166 units, with the centre car of each set being fuelled with biodiesel. Due to delays in commencing biodiesel operation, several months monitoring on gas oil was achieved initially. Subsequently, the start dates on B20 for the centre cars were staggered by several weeks. Table 2 summarises the vehicle and engine details. The intention was to select one early life, two mid-life and one later life engines. Note that unit 165103 operated on gas oil only from the start of the monitoring period until March 2009, when an FGW operational decision replaced this unit with 165102. Details of the individual engines in set 165103 have therefore not been included in the table.

8.2 Trial details

All preliminary requirements identified in the monitoring document (reference 5) were understood to have been carried out prior to trial implementation. This included a health inspection by DiPerk, the Caterpillar agents, in line with appendix E of the monitoring document. The biodiesel element of the fuel was sourced from a UK supplier (Greenergy). It had been the intention to use a different supplier for the purposes of diversity, but this would have taken longer to achieve. The biodiesel was mixed with ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD). Fuel monitoring was commenced on 8th September 2008 on all vehicles of the four original sets. ULSD/Biodiesel operation on the centre vehicle started on the following dates (in sequential order): 58607 - 14 December 2008 55428 - 4 January 2009 58620 - 9 March 2009 55416 - 23 March 2009

With six-month trial duration for each vehicle, this would have resulted in completion dates between 14 June and 23 September 2009. In reality, it was decided to extend the trial duration on the first vehicles such that all four vehicles ceased B20 operation at a similar time upon exhaustion of the final biodiesel delivery. This meant that the fourth vehicle concluded its trial prior to six months, but any further running would have required a fresh blending by the supplier with an expected higher price as a result of general increased fuel costs.
RSSB

13

The actual trial termination dates for each vehicle were as follows (approximate trial duration in brackets): 55416 - 1 August 2009 (5.5 months) 55428 - 1 October 2009 (9 months) 58607 - 25 August 2009 (8 months) 58620 - 27 August 2009 (5.5 months)

The fuel system incorporates fuel heaters, for which agreement would be required from the manufacturers for operation on B20 fuel. The Eberspacher Hydronic 30 fuel heaters were only approved for biodiesel operation up to a maximum of B10 blend. However, following discussions between FGW and Eberspacher, it was agreed that FGW would order two new Hydronic 30 heaters to go with two units already on trial, and that these four would be fitted to the four biodiesel trial vehicles. On this basis, Eberspacher agreed to support the warranty. It was intended to submit a sample of both the ULSD and B20 fuel as carried out for the SWT trial. However, Greenergy advised that as they do not blend all the fuel on site, they could not guarantee that the ULSD sample would be from the batch of fuel to be used for the trial. It was therefore agreed to submit only a single B20 sample for analysis (appendix 5). From the Qinetiq analysis, the only result worthy of comment was the percentage FAME content of only 15%. This was contrary to the expectation of 20% 2%, i.e. a minimum FAME content of 18%. This was raised with Greenergy, who supplied further data from their own analysis, identifying a FAME content of 19.1% and 19.3% from two recent sets of tests. Further clarification established that the Qinetiq test was carried out using FLM 190, whereas the Greenergy analysis was according to BS EN 14078. These tests are similar, but FLM 190 measures FAME content by weight-to-volume (w/v), whereas the BS EN test measures volume-by-volume (v/v). If the 15% FLM 190 w/v test result is divided by the measured density of 0.844 kg/ m3, then this gives 17.8% v/v, still low, but closer to the minimum 18% level. Qinetiq further advised that in their experience the repeatability of FAME content processes is typically 1%, thereby potentially bringing this result above the minimum expected level. With this closer comparability, it was decided that no further action was required.

14

RSSB

Table 2 - Summary of vehicle and engine details for the FGW trial Unit No. Vehicle No. Engine No. Date of last overhaul (m/y) Date of next overhaul (m/y) Last exam type and date Mileage at start of trial Date of mileage recording

Biodiesel trial vehicle Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicle 3 Vehicle 4 Comparison vehicle Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicle 3 Vehicle 4 Vehicle 5 Vehicle 6 Vehicle 7 Vehicle 8 165102 165103 165114 166207 58917 58954 58918 55417 58955 58929 58966 58120 088067R 067867N 067935N 077993P 088078R 057763M 18/06/08 28/06/08 08/10/07 01/08/08 12/04/05 01/12 07/09 01/11 09/11 03/09 B2, 03/03/09 B2, 03/03/09 B5, 23/12/08 B5, 23/12/08 B5, 06/11/08 10,188 342,749 127,611 35,208 365,446 22/03/09 22/03/09 04/01/09 04/01/09 14/12/08 165102 165114 166207 166220 55416 55428 58607 58620 077957P 067933N 047616N 088049R 18/04/07 07/12/06 27/04/07 30/01/08 07/10 07/10 02/10 06/11 B2, 03/03/09 B5, 23/12/08 B5, 06/11/08 B7, 02/03/09 214,591 198,249 251,118 100,570 22/03/09 04/01/09 14/12/08 08/03/09

RSSB

15

Table 2 - Summary of vehicle and engine details for the FGW trial Unit No. Vehicle No. Engine No. Date of last overhaul (m/y) 23/08/07 20/07/05 08/08/06 Date of next overhaul (m/y) 07/11 03/11 12/09 Last exam type and date Mileage at start of trial Date of mileage recording 14/12/08 08/03/09 08/03/09

Vehicle 9 Vehicle 10 Vehicle 11

166220 -

58128 58120 58141

077981P 057781M 067883N

B5, 06/11/08 B7, 02/03/09 B7, 02/03/09

67,880 137,679 291,927

RSSB

16

8.3 Fuel consumption monitoring

Fuel consumption data was supplied on a weekly basis throughout the trial. Figures 4 to 7 show the consumption in miles per litre (these units retained for the same reasons as for the SWT trial) for each set, divided into four-weekly periods. Analysis of the data showed that this provided a more consistent result than a weekly assessment. The effect on each set is discussed below. In each graph, the period on B20 is shown by a dotted line. Set 165102 (figure 4) operated on ULSD/B20 from the start of fuel monitoring, reverting back to gas oil on 1st August 2009. Over the first two four-week periods, an improved consumption was recorded. The subsequent three periods showed a change to a consistently reduced consumption, with a mean deterioration of some 15.7% compared with the two end vehicles. The reason for an earlier improvement is unknown. Restoration to gas oil operation for a further three periods showed the centre vehicle consumption readily matching that of the end vehicles. For set 165114 (figure 5), the first four periods (solely on gas oil) show a deteriorating fuel consumption for all three vehicles. Given the time of year (September to December), at least part of this effect was considered to be due to climatic variations. Once 55428 was operating on ULSD/B20, a consistent reduction in consumption was evident, averaging some 11.2% over periods 7 to 14. The consumption for period 14 did match that of the end vehicles, suggesting that the transition back to gas oil had occurred before the advised date of 1st October (there was a small degree of uncertainty). A subsequent four week period on gas oil again readily matched that of the end vehicles. The shortened operating time on gas oil for set 166207 (figure 6) showed reasonably consistent consumption. With 58607 operating on ULSD/B20, a consistent reduction in fuel consumption was evident, averaging some 23.5% over periods 5 to 13. Resumption of gas oil operation for a single five week period readily matched the centre vehicle consumption with that of the end vehicles. Over at least the first four-week period for each of the sets commented on above, the fuel consumption of the centre vehicle remained broadly comparable to the end vehicles, indicating a delayed effect of the B20 fuel in significantly affecting the engine's fuel consumption.

RSSB

17

Set 166220 (figure 7) showed a gradually deteriorating fuel consumption during the initial monitored periods on gas oil, albeit to a lesser degree than set 165114. With 58620 on ULSD/B20, a consistent improvement in consumption (although not on a consistent week-by-week basis) was noted, averaging some 9% over periods 8 to 13. Restoration to gas oil over two periods retained the improved consumption of the centre vehicle. Overall, the fuel consumption of the set end vehicles was typically in the region 1.4 to 1.7 miles per litre, with the centre vehicle being within the range 1.1 to 1.4 miles per litre. Set 166220 was the exception, with inferior consumption on the end vehicles (1.3 to 1.5 miles per litre) and improved consumption on the centre vehicle (around 1.6 miles per litre). The reason for this discrepancy has not been investigated further, but may be due to relative power settings of the engines and/or general engine condition. For the three sets showing inferior consumption, the average increase was 16.8%.

8.4 Oil analysis

The following oil analysis data was available from the centre cars: 55416 - 4 samples between 22/3/09 and 29/07/09 55428 - 6 samples between 22/12/08 and 3/08/09 58607 - 4 samples between 28/01/09 and 23/07/09 58620 - 4 samples between 2/03/09 and 23/07/09

No oil analysis data was available from the end vehicles. The number of samples supplied is limited, particularly given the oil additions between samples affecting any underlying trends. However, the following comments can be made. 55416 - A gradual build-up of insoluble matter, but not to extreme levels. 55428- High lead level on penultimate sample. 58607 - Internal coolant leak on final sample. 58620 - High levels of copper initially, subsequently reducing (but affected by oil additions). None of these results can sensibly be attributed to the use of the B20 fuel.

18

RSSB

8.5 Reported problems

Shortly after the start of B20 operation on the first vehicle (58607), it was identified that the engine fuel pump had been renewed on 22 October 2007 due to low power and the engine not reaching maximum speed. It is understood that the pump change resolved these problems. Vehicle 55416 was identified as being low on power before it started operation on biodiesel. Consequently, a fuel injection pump change was carried out on 17 May 2009, with no further low power reports. No other engine or fuel system-related problems were reported during the trial.

8.6 Post-trial actions

It was agreed that all four engines would be subject to inspection when overhauled at the conclusion of their scheduled operating period, with the intention of identifying any feature or characteristic that may have been affected by the use of biodiesel. The expected removal dates were as follows: 047616N 067933N 077957P 088049R (58607) 23-01-2010 (55428) 23-07-2010 (55416) 07-09-2010 (58620) 04-04-2011

Engine 047616N was actually removed early, being received at Caterpillar in late-October 2009 having accumulated 361,498 miles. Although unexpected, this has had the advantage of minimising the period of operation on gas oil following trial completion and hence reducing the potential effect of sustained subsequent running on that fuel. The precise reason for changing the engine is not recorded, but is assumed to be due to loss of engine oil as a result of a failed compressor delivery pipe two days previously (the second experienced on this engine). There was nothing specific on RAVERS to identify whether the engine change was due to these previous faults. There had been no callouts to DiPerk for attention to this engine.

RSSB

19

20

RSSB

RSSB

21

22

RSSB

RSSB

23

9 Summary of service trial experience

It is clear that neither trial produced any particular problems in service, providing confidence that a 20% concentration of biofuel can be tolerated in existing service engines. However, there are two corollaries to this: 1 For the Cummins engines, rubber and copper components were renewed prior to the start of the trial (see section 7). 2 The long-term effects on the engine are unknown and can only be quantified at engine overhaul. The boroscope inspection of the SWT engines has assisted in quantifying item 2, with no adverse indications identified attributable to biofuel operation. The early submission of one of the FGW engines for overhaul as noted in section 8.6, will further assist the interpretation of engine condition. Overall, the evidence to date indicates that operation on a B20 blend will not have a significant impact on engine reliability or durability. In terms of engine performance, generally the fuel monitoring arrangements worked well with regular and reliable data received from Salisbury and Reading depots. However, the SWT monitoring would have benefited from more consistent and sustained monitoring of a comparison vehicle or set. Where this was achieved with the FGW trial, it provided an effective ongoing comparison between gas oil and ULSD/B20 operation, particularly with the standard vehicles being part of the same set. Thus, variations in operating diagrams and engine running time were immediately eliminated. This would seem to be the preferred approach for future trials of this nature. Analysis of the data over successive four-week periods also smooths the data effectively, minimising the effect of week-byweek variations where a day's missing fuel data (inevitable on an occasional basis) would have a more significant effect on a weekly comparison. Continuation of monitoring for a nominal period after the completion of B20 operation has also clearly demonstrated how the fuel consumption of the trial vehicles reduced back to the level of the comparison vehicles. Of more concern was the level of fuel consumption increase observed with three of the FGW vehicles, with an average increase of some 16.8%. This compares with an increase of

24

RSSB

nominally 6% from the combined change from gas oil to ULSD to B20 from test bed results at full load with this engine type (lower loads were of a similar magnitude or less). Although this increase was significantly greater than expected, the data is consistent for three sets, particularly given the return to previous gas oil consumption levels referenced above. The reason for this discrepancy between test bed and service conditions is not clear. It cannot be accounted for by density variations between gas oil and B20 alone. Further measurements of additional parameters on all three engines of the set would be required to clarify the situation further, for example boost pressure readings to establish whether all three engines were operating at the same power level. Differential power settings are considered to be the most likely explanation and any wider introduction of biodiesel fuel will need to investigate this factor further at an early stage. In principle, this may also apply to the inevitable transition from gas oil to sulphurfree fuel expected within the next two years. Similarly, the situation with the fourth vehicle whereby improved fuel consumption was obtained cannot be explained further within the parameters of this project. However, at least part of this apparent increase may be due to poorer performance of one end vehicle (58120) where the consumption regularly reduces below 1.4 miles per litre, reducing the apparent 'saving' on 58620 slightly.

RSSB

25

26

RSSB

Appendix 1 - ULSD fuel analysis (South West Trains)

RSSB

27

28

RSSB

Appendix 2 - B20 fuel analysis (South West Trains)

RSSB

29

RSSB

30

Appendix 3 - Cylinder inspection of NTA855-R3 engines in 159007, Cummins report CUK090204-01, 3 February 2009

RSSB

31

RSSB

32

Appendix 4 -'SWT NT 855 Rail bio trial fuel pump & injector report, Cummins report CUK090526-SR, 20 May 2009

RSSB

33

RSSB

34

RSSB

35

RSSB

36

RSSB

37

Appendix 5 - B20 fuel analysis (First Great Western)

RSSB

38

RSSB

39

References
1 'Investigation into the use of bio-diesel fuels on Britains railways', RSSB, March 2007. 2 'Evaluation of Engine Operation on Biodiesel Fuel', Interfleet Technology report ITLR-T19495001, 30 May 2008. 3 'Investigation into the use of sulphur-free diesel fuel on UK railways, RSSB, June 2007. 4 'Biodiesel Service Trials: Monitoring Guidelines for South West Trains', Interfleet Technology report ITLR-T19495-002, 11 January 2008. 5 'Biodiesel Service Trials: Monitoring Guidelines for First Great Western', Interfleet Technology report ITLR-T19495-003, 29 July 2008.

RSSB

40

RSSB

41

RSSB Research Programme Block 2 Angel Square 1 Torrens Street London EC1V 1NY

research@rssb.co.uk www.rssb.co.uk/research/rail_industry_research_programme.asp