1. Evan Tony - ewt5114@psu.edu Thomas Landi - tvl114@psu.edu Peter Son - hxs5288@psu.edu Team “Freight- ened”

2. Project Background Currently 165k tons of freight/minerals flow in and out of the city per day on trains There are 20 trains per day: 15 freight and 5 mineral trains The city operates a fleet of 50 trains, all at EPA emissions Tier II Smog (generated from nitrogen oxides) and other air pollution including particulate matter are at an unacceptable level The EPA has implemented a new standard for emissions from locomotives (Tier IV) This plan must also take into consideration: Costs- fuel, infrastructure, etc Freight capacity Public opinion On time delivery Source: EngDes100_abstract-3.pdf

3. Mission Statement We aim to create an eco-friendly and economically viable solution to GE’s problem. We want a return on investment within ten years time while making sure the major population is satisfied with our result.

4. Context ● The city in the project description is the fictional metropolis of “Pittsadelphia” ● We have based our solution around the real city of Pittsburgh, PA Source: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1521263/images/o-DOWNTOWN-PITTSBURGH-facebook.jpg

5. About Pittsburgh Pittsburgh’s history of heavy industry has left a large rail system. Rail map of the Pittsburgh area: Pittsburgh’s three rivers, and their surrounding tributaries, provide great geographic access for freight and minerals to be delivered via barges The road system in Pittsburgh currently is near capacity May not be able to handle more trucks on the road Source: http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Statewide/parail.pdf

6. Option 1: Use Alternate Modes of Transportation ● Sell all current locomotives and abandon rail system ($75 million) ● Trucks: We would need approximately 6347 trucks daily ○ The road system cannot handle this much more traffic (1) ● Barges: Costs $4 million per towboat (2) ○ We would need about 8 towboats (3,4). ○ Yet, each barge can only 11-14 mph (compared to 50-75 mph per train) ■ Could buy 3 sets of towboats (24 boats total) to counteract this delay ○ Total river traffic per day increase of 9% ○ This would bring costs to -$21 million Sources: (1) PittsburghMostExpCom61713.pdf (2) http://www.caria.org/iwns_faq.html (3) http://towboattour.com/boats (4) http://kentuckyriverports.com/water_transport_benefits/

7. Option 2: Use Alternate Fuels (NextFuel TM ) The NextFuel TM (Liquid Natural Gas) retrofit kit costs $1 million per locomotive Each LNG fueling station would cost $1 billion Cost: (-$50 million + -$1 billion)= -$1.05 billion Will take time to construct station OR need new land for new station We may need multiple fueling stations ● LNG provides a 50% reduction in fuel costs ○ $1.3 billion in savings over 10 years ● The Pittsburgh area is rich with local natural gas resources ○ However, there is a risk of water pollution from the fracking process Source: http://sedtapp.psu.edu/design/design_projects/edsgn100/fa15/EngDes100_abstract.pdf

8. Option 3: Buy New Tier IV Locomotives Buying a new Tier IV locomotive costs $4 million per train No new adjustments to fueling stations, tracks, or traffic are made Tier IV engines run 5% better than previous GE locomotive models This would save us on fuel costs Extremely Environmentally friendly Will take a day to switch over trains Source: http://www.getransportation.com/locomotives/locomotives/evolution ● Cost: 75Mil-200Mil= -125Mil ○ Will take 9 years 11 months to pay off debt (from fuel savings) ■ This includes construction time.

9. Our Decision Looking at our options we decided that Option 3 would be the best fit. Can efficiently carry the 165,000 tons per day. Very low emissions that meet the Tier IV standards ROI under 10 years No difference in delivery time, or employment Calculations: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B15T_uzB7pKMMC03VTFKb2JnaW8

10. Environmental Analysis ● It would take just over 5 months to completely switch over to Tier IV locomotives. ● Once this is complete, we would produce: ○ 85% less Particulate Matter per day. ○ 76% less NOX per day. ● Also… ○ Over 4.3 million gallons of diesel fuel saved per year means less CO2 emitted. ○ No added risk of water pollution from fracking for natural gas.

11. Economic Viability ● Over $13 million saved on fuel per year ● With selling current locomotives, the cost to upgrade to Tier IV is $125 million ● This would take just under 10 years to pay off Source: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-11-10/news/68165239_1_indian-railways-ge-transportation-dieselhttp://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-11-10/news/68165239_1_indian-railways-ge-transportation-diesel

12. Assessment of Important Concept Aspects Cost Efficient About $13 million will be saved in fuel per year Takes about 9 years and 11 months to pay off Tier IV Maintains freight capacity Same tonnage per day Environmentally friendly (Tier IV) About 85% less PM per day than Tier II About 75% less NOx per day than TIer II Public will be satisfied No increase in train traffic Less pollution No laying off employees On time delivery No change in delivery time from before

13. Systems Diagram Our Solution:

14. Concept of Operations Our solution

15. Conclusion ●Our solution to the problem is: ○Sell the entire current fleet of Tier II trains. ○Buy new Tier IV trains ●This will result in: ○Savings on fuel costs. ○Public opinion will change for the better. ○Smog will decrease. ○Deliveries will be on the same schedule. ○Infrastructure and traffic remains the same. ○No laying off current workers

16. Reference http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1521263/images/o-DOWNTOWN-PITTSBURGH-facebook.jpg http://www.aopoa.net/images/tank_barge.jpg http://deliveryfuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/492303893-300x199.jpg http://sedtapp.psu.edu/design/design_projects/edsgn100/fa15/EngDes100_abstract.pdf ttp://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Statewide/parail.pdf http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/index.aspx?page=97 http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/locomotives.htm http://www.portauthority.org/paac/CompanyInfoProjects/BudgetFinances.aspx http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10024/sect3.htm http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/index.aspx?page=97 http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=685 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-11-10/news/68165239_1_indian-railways-ge-transportation- diesel http://monyough.chamberofcommerce.me/regionalchamberalliance/mem_79798723

17. Reference Cont. http://www.iatp.org/files/MYTH_Barges_are_the_most_fuel_efficient_mode_o.pdf http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-make-the-world-1-better#1 http://www.afsglobal.com/faq/gas-comparisons.html http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/diesel-locomotive.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/diesel-locomotive.htm\ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwi- vemrp8jJAhVFcj4KHW3ABhsQFgg2MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpahighwayinfo.org%2Fwp- content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FPittsburghMostExpCom61713.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEnrYmZp4EUb riLlZ0dHFcxDfA4yA&sig2=hmvKFBtX9oDSjlKKZM_ysg http://www.trforum.org/journal/downloads/2011v50n1_05_FuelEfficiency.pdf https://www.chase.com/content/dam/chasecom/en/commercial-bank/documents/equipment-insight-vol12- may2015.pdf