An industry trend in the USA:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...MOTIVES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...MOTIVES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Locomotives Running on Natural Gas
- Thread starter boleyd
- Start date
KingConrail76
Active member
4,000 Gallons of Diesel at $3.75/Gal = $15,000.00 per 1,000 miles.
16,000 Gallons of LNG at $1.25/Gal =$20,000.00 per 1,000 miles.
(1/3 cost per unit) X (4x units) + (Y=Retrofit and Infastructure costs) = Not Cheaper.
Don't see how that makes financial sense.
16,000 Gallons of LNG at $1.25/Gal =$20,000.00 per 1,000 miles.
(1/3 cost per unit) X (4x units) + (Y=Retrofit and Infastructure costs) = Not Cheaper.
Don't see how that makes financial sense.
cascaderailroad
New member
Even though Dubai is running out of oil this year ... Natural gas is not that plentiful, and not cheep to produce and transport.
As a tank of diesel fuel will not explode upon impact, natural gas is highly explosive, as is hydrogen.
Remember what the Hindenburg did ?
As a tank of diesel fuel will not explode upon impact, natural gas is highly explosive, as is hydrogen.
Remember what the Hindenburg did ?
Last edited:
Plus with the extra tonnage that the extra wagon carrying the gas will weigh reduces the cost effectiveness per mile even more.
Similar with retro fitting a car to lpg over here, costs hundreds of pounds. LPG does less per gallon so you need to run it for years to re coup your costs.
KingConrail76
Active member
Quite so.
The extra "gotcha" with the "Locomotive" scenerio though, is that it is not "less expensive" at all, so not a chance of long term recoup.
They might get some tax relief for going greener, LPG emissions are lower. Maybe get grants for the tankers.
Put it this way if it was going to cost them more they wouldn't do it.
Bio diesel also pollutes the environment...how are they going greener?..-_-
This is done only to reduce there cost on diesel.
Could you please send some propane out her so I can heat my home a little cheaper. Here diesel is 3.89/gal. cash, 4.09/gal. credit card. Propane/LPG. 3.98/gal. in summer, 4.39/gal. winter.
Of course railroads would get diesel cheaper since they use off road diesel and purchase in large quantity.
Tell me about it!
Of course they get it a lot less. They buy on the spot market and at a contract price. From what I was told by a trucking company rep, back when the fuel prices skyrocketed, is they purchase their fuel at the lowest market price they can get. This doesn't guarantee that the price will remain there, but there are clauses set in the contracts so they can pull out and renegotiate should the price go too high. This didn't help us when UPS was charging a minimum of $30.00 per pickup when we had set a set of shipping and handling prices way below that. In the end we ended up raising our shipping charges to cover the UPS charge. Our customers had a fit as they thought we were playing them for extra cash which wasn't true. We were barely breaking even on the shipping.
As I've pointed out in his oil thread, that there's a lot more to this than just the oil and gas companies. The commodities brokers usually play with the price of crude to maximize what they can get out of the market. This then sets that chain reaction in place that affects everyone else.
John
In Russia they too have started trying out natural gas locomotives. One of them is the ТЗМ19 shunting locomotive that runs on CNG.
Not much of real fuel consumption data has been given, but the video says that the locomotive fuel expenses are 2 600 000 rubles (76 271 $) or 23,8% less than for a diesel locomotive. And that it will earn itself back in 20 years.
The maximum speed is 100 km/h which is more than enough since usually freight is restricted to 80. And it can hold 4,3 tons of CNG.
The maximum speed is 100 km/h which is more than enough since usually freight is restricted to 80. And it can hold 4,3 tons of CNG.
The AP neglected to include CN as a tester in the mid-2000s.
Also, Progress Rail took out a patent some years ago for an LNG-turbine lok with fuel stored on the main frame. Total space occupied by turbo-genset and extra stuff wasn't much longer than a typical radiator section. No. 5129328, July 14 1992.
Also, Progress Rail took out a patent some years ago for an LNG-turbine lok with fuel stored on the main frame. Total space occupied by turbo-genset and extra stuff wasn't much longer than a typical radiator section. No. 5129328, July 14 1992.
From Trains Magazine:
SIDNEY SMITH from IDAHO said: I worked on a prototype natural gas locomotive, a GP-9 #1961,in 1983 for BN, only 30 years ago, when diesel fuel was headed to $1.00 a gallon! It is a far better fuel for locomotives, cleaner burning, less lube oil changes, more stable over a variety of temperature changes, doesn't gel in winter and America has huge natural gas reserves. No, it doesn't blow up like a bomb, natural gas is only flammable between 5 and 15% vapor density. Diesel vapors are far more explosive. The tenders are needed to keep the range up to near what a belly tank of diesel would yield.
Electro-Motive Diesel has completed modifications and initial testing with BNSF’s SD70ACes, according to a source close to the railroad. The two locomotives, Nos. 9130 and 9131, were sent to EMD to have the Westport/Caterpillar liquefied natural gas system applied to them. While there, BNSF delivered LNG tender No. 933501 to EMD to be mated with the locomotives.
The two locomotives and tender were released from EMD on Nov. 9 and shipped to Lincoln, Neb., where the LNG tender will be fueled. From Lincoln, BNSF will ship the set to BNSF’s Topeka shops for further static testing. There has been no word on when road tests will begin.
John
SIDNEY SMITH from IDAHO said: I worked on a prototype natural gas locomotive, a GP-9 #1961,in 1983 for BN, only 30 years ago, when diesel fuel was headed to $1.00 a gallon! It is a far better fuel for locomotives, cleaner burning, less lube oil changes, more stable over a variety of temperature changes, doesn't gel in winter and America has huge natural gas reserves. No, it doesn't blow up like a bomb, natural gas is only flammable between 5 and 15% vapor density. Diesel vapors are far more explosive. The tenders are needed to keep the range up to near what a belly tank of diesel would yield.
Electro-Motive Diesel has completed modifications and initial testing with BNSF’s SD70ACes, according to a source close to the railroad. The two locomotives, Nos. 9130 and 9131, were sent to EMD to have the Westport/Caterpillar liquefied natural gas system applied to them. While there, BNSF delivered LNG tender No. 933501 to EMD to be mated with the locomotives.
The two locomotives and tender were released from EMD on Nov. 9 and shipped to Lincoln, Neb., where the LNG tender will be fueled. From Lincoln, BNSF will ship the set to BNSF’s Topeka shops for further static testing. There has been no word on when road tests will begin.
John
KingConrail76
Active member
"Off-Road Diesel" is where I got that price point ("Highway" diesel around here is over $4.00 also), and it is LNG (Liquified NATURAL Gas), not LPG (Propane)...LNG is dirt cheap, because the infastructure is so expensive. Except for mobile units, it is generally not stored in tanks on-site, but piped in via city utilities.
I too would assume "volume discount", considering they spend a billion a year...lol
KingConrail76
Active member
Tell that to the dozens of families who can ignite their tap water with a match, due to contamination from Fracking...
LNG is MUCH more "Explosive" than Diesel fuel...easily verified by placing a pint jar of each on a concrete floor, then toss a cigarette at them. Diesel evaporates much slower, which results in negligable amounts of combustable vapors...yes, it will burn, but it will not "explode"...which is why even the oldest diesel engines used spray nozzles to atomize the fuel, compared to say, a carburated engine, where fuel particles (droplets) are much larger in size. (Ever try to run Diesel thru a carbureter?)
Below was in the link in the first post, might answer your question.
The change has been made possible by hydraulic fracturing drilling techniques, which have allowed U.S. drillers to tap into vast deposits of natural gas.
snipet
See this video for a diesel explosion.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/30924860...n-mississippi/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
It also explodes in a diesel engine just by pressure. That's what propels the engine. So you can't say diesel doesn't explode.
Oh and yes I do know the difference between lpg and lng and cng. I worked in the oilfield for 40 years.
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
The reason why we don't have Natural Gas fuel tanks in the US, is because of potential explosions.
Not the common person can fill a tank full of NG, without a leaking gas cap, a leaking gasket, or overflow.
NG will leak out if you don't fill a tank correctly, and seal it right.
In a collision, a loco, or car, powered by NG will explode upon impact.
A loco with a leak of NG will explode ... but a loco with a leaking diesel fuel tank will not explode
Not the common person can fill a tank full of NG, without a leaking gas cap, a leaking gasket, or overflow.
NG will leak out if you don't fill a tank correctly, and seal it right.
In a collision, a loco, or car, powered by NG will explode upon impact.
A loco with a leak of NG will explode ... but a loco with a leaking diesel fuel tank will not explode
Last edited:
KingConrail76
Active member
snipet
See this video for a diesel explosion.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/30924860...n-mississippi/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
It also explodes in a diesel engine just by pressure. That's what propels the engine. So you can't say diesel doesn't explode.
Oh and yes I do know the difference between lpg and lng and cng. I worked in the oilfield for 40 years.
I'm well aware of how a diesel engine works, ie compression and heat ignite the compressed air and fuel...that is not the example I gave, of the two fuels side by side in open atmosphere...
Regardless, in any identical situation, LNG is MORE explosive and/or volitile than Diesel fuel.
