Locomotives Running on Natural Gas

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

This statement is based on your opinion, not facts. So how do the millions of CNG passenger autobiles, bus & trucks fiil their tanks every day without incident. How do you fill your BBQ grill tanks? I live within one block of CNG/Propane filling stations for the last 20 yrs, never has there be an incident. There are more torn gasoline fill hoses caused by errant drivers pull away from gasoline pumps, then incident of folks using propane/CNG. I think maybe you need to visit the upper 48 and check out the propane storage tanks at any RV park.

John
 
In fact, natural gas itself has safety advantages compared to gasoline and diesel: it is non-toxic, non-corrosive, and has no potential for ground or water contamination in the event of a fuel release. Natural gas is less combustible than most other fuels, and has few associated health risks. CNG is stored under high pressures; however, the range of flammability and combustion is much narrower with CNG, making it safer than gasoline. CNG will not burn at concentrations below 5% or above about 15% when mixed with air. The flashpoint for gasoline is 250 degrees whereas the flashpoint for natural gas is 1100 degrees, making the risk of a vehicular fire in an accident much lower. Further, natural gas is lighter than air and will dissipate if leaked whereas gasoline will sink and puddle, causing damage to environment. Dedicated NGVs produce little or no evaporative emissions during fueling and use. An odorant is added to provide a distinctive and intentionally disagreeable smell that is easy to recognize. The odor is detectable at one-fifth of the gas’ lower flammability limit.

Nationwide Insurance, in looking at the safety of natural gas buses in a fleet, concluded as long ago as 1992 that “…the natural gas powered vehicles will be the safest vehicles in your fleet and (we) have no reservations about insuring them.” (Palmer, Pat, Nationwide Insurance, letter to Kenneth E. Bauman Bus, Inc., September 10, 1992)

John
 
Last edited:
Go take a hack saw to a primed diesel fuel line, and it will leak ... Go take a hacksaw to a LPG, NG fuel line ... and you will become a flaming fireball, and flying with the birds !

Puncture a diesel loco fuel tank with a fork lift, while smoking a pack of Lucky's, big EPA spill cleanup ... Puncture a LPG, NG fuel tank with a fork lift, and as soon as the gas hits a friction or flame source ... KaBlooie !

A 38 car pile up on I-80 in the snow,, a few injuries ... Same collision with 38 vehicles all powered by LPG, NG, huge series of explosions, no survivors !

Never deep fry a turkey in the garage, or under a wooden carport !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t315YdfT2sw
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgGf38ngXHw

[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Better yet, come out to Philly, where a gas leak blew up a bunch of houses last summer.

I don't really have a position on this. CNG seems safe, but that's only because less than a tenth of 1% of America's automobiles, buses and trucks run on it. The sample size in the real-world is too small to prove whether or not it's safe, and keep in mind that a lot of the vehicles that do use it are large vehicles like buses and box trucks; whether thousands of Honda Civic-sized vehicles can survive running into each other or bigger objects without blowing up remains to be seen. But, there's no denying the laws of chemistry and physics: natural gas, as well as propane and even gasoline, are an awful lot more volatile than diesel.
 
If safety is such a huge concern why don't the almighty American railroads just electrify their railways? Sure it would be very expensive but it would be the best choice for a future without diesel, no?

But I don't really understand your fear for the explosions - even now the railways probably carry huge amounts of deadly or explosive cargo. If accidents involving those don't occur often why wouldn't it be the same for natural gas locomotives? I mean - when airplanes crash there are huge fireballs and hundreds of causalities. But they are considered to be the safest mode of transport there is because the crashes don't occur very often.
 
Go take a hack saw to a primed diesel fuel line, and it will leak ... Go take a hacksaw to a LPG, NG fuel line ... and you will become a flaming fireball, and flying with the birds !

Puncture a diesel loco fuel tank with a fork lift, while smoking a pack of Lucky's, big EPA spill cleanup ... Puncture a LPG, NG fuel tank with a fork lift, and as soon as the gas hits a friction or flame source ... KaBlooie !

A 38 car pile up on I-80 in the snow,, a few injuries ... Same collision with 38 vehicles all powered by LPG, NG, huge series of explosions, no survivors !

Never deep fry a turkey in the garage, or under a wooden carport !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t315YdfT2sw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgGf38ngXHw

Is that the best you can do, LOL! What does spilled cooking oil have to do with LNG/CNG. Don't you get it? It's the oil being ignited by a flame not the other way around, LOL. man!

fuels_zps8c1ba6bc.jpg


Source: Murphy, Michael J.,Properties of Alternative Fuels, Federal Transit Administration, 1994




I don't want to confuse you with the facts, because you have you mind already made up. Show some facts not your opinion!

John
 
Last edited:
So Natural Gas, and LPG are less explosive than diesel fuel ?

Tell that to the town of Laurel MS, whose town was on fire from LPG tank cars rocketing 1000 feet into the air, coming crashing down into occupied homes, at 2AM, 1/2 mile distant in all directions. Within seconds of the LPG train 5 mph derailment, the town had 30, four alarm fires, with a wheelset that came crashing down through a 3 story house bedroom, missing the sleeping occupants, by a foot, the wheelset ended up into the basement of the house, 3 stories down.

"The nightmare in Laurel" Readers Digest

In the town of LacMagantic Canada, the ignition point of the crude oil was, a high speed accordian collision, where open flame sources were present in homes in the middle of the wreckage, and friction sparks from the catastophic high speed collision ... had that been just a slow speed collision, there would have been no fire ... only a huge EPA leak to clean up.

Turn on your kitchen NG gas stove for an hour ... and walk back into the house with a lit cigarette ... And see what happens !

Do the same thing with your house with a leaking home heating oil tank in the basement ... no explosion.
 
Last edited:
So Natural Gas, and LPG are less explosive than diesel fuel ?

Tell that to the town of Laurel MS, whose town was on fire from LPG tank cars rocketing 1000 feet into the air, coming crashing down into occupied homes, at 2AM, 1/2 mile distant in all directions. Within seconds of the LPG train 5 mph derailment, the town had 30, four alarm fires, with a wheelset that came crashing down through a 3 story house bedroom, missing the sleeping occupants, by a foot, the wheelset ended up into the basement of the house, 3 stories down.

"The nightmare in Laurel" Readers Digest

You are showing me incidents, not facts of the safety of gas vs liquids. The same could have occurred if the tanks contained diesel or gasoline, all are explosive under certain conditions. I can show tankcar incidents that are just has horrific. The argument is gas vs liquid and their relative safety, not the if they explode or cause injuries, all fuels do, no one is disputing that, that's why they are called fuels!

John
 
If safety is such a huge concern why don't the almighty American railroads just electrify their railways? Sure it would be very expensive but it would be the best choice for a future without diesel, no?

But I don't really understand your fear for the explosions - even now the railways probably carry huge amounts of deadly or explosive cargo. If accidents involving those don't occur often why wouldn't it be the same for natural gas locomotives? I mean - when airplanes crash there are huge fireballs and hundreds of causalities. But they are considered to be the safest mode of transport there is because the crashes don't occur very often.
Few reasons why not:
Need to decide on national standard
Need to develop ENTIRELY new locos
Problems with resale should the scheme not work out
Problems with VERY long pantographs needing to reach from 15' loco roof up to 22' clearance for doublestack
Crew training
New operational problems associated with run-through units...not being able to run through
Hell of a lot of money to string up wire, let alone building MORE POWER PLANTS to power the trains (13,000hp intermodal equals 10MW, a huge amount)
It has been calculated back in the sixties that you need to be running in excess of 24 4000 ton trains each way in order to break even in twenty years; granted the numbers have been changed but the fact remains...

The reason why people are terrified of these combustibles is because they roll right behind their backyard. At best, trains are a nuisance, waking you up with their obnoxiously loud horns and making you late to get home to watch the latest on the worst reality shows. At worst, well, others can tell you more...
 
So Natural Gas, and LPG are less explosive than diesel fuel ?

Tell that to the town of Laurel MS, whose town was on fire from LPG tank cars rocketing 1000 feet into the air, coming crashing down into occupied homes, at 2AM, 1/2 mile distant in all directions. Within seconds of the LPG train 5 mph derailment, the town had 30, four alarm fires, with a wheelset that came crashing down through a 3 story house bedroom, missing the sleeping occupants, by a foot, the wheelset ended up into the basement of the house, 3 stories down.

"The nightmare in Laurel" Readers Digest

In the town of LacMagantic Canada, the ignition point of the crude oil was, a high speed accordian collision, where open flame sources were present in homes in the middle of the wreckage, and friction sparks from the catastophic high speed collision ... had that been just a slow speed collision, there would have been no fire ... only a huge EPA leak to clean up.

Turn on your kitchen NG gas stove for an hour ... and walk back into the house with a lit cigarette ... And see what happens !

Do the same thing with your house with a leaking home heating oil tank in the basement ... no explosion.

And you know this because of...........? There ya go with the facts, the LacMagantic Canada tragedy was not caused by "high speed," unless you classify 25mph speeding. The train free-rolled down a grade, no hi-speed involved. You should be a politician, or a Fox news mis-caster. you include just a hit of truth to support your opinion and lack of facts. Don't like the chart find supporting evidence to back up your opinion. Everyone has an opinion, good for you, the facts show different.

John
 
Last edited:
And you know this because of...........? There ya go with the facts, the LacMagantic Canada tragedy was not caused by "high speed," unless you classify 25mph speeding. The train free-rolled down a grade, no hi-speed involved. You should be a politician, or a Fox news mis-caster. you include just a hit of truth to support your opinion and lack of facts. Don't like the chart find supporting evidence to back up your opinion. Everyone has an opinion, good for you, the facts show different.

John

Whine, whine, whine about "Fox News". You know somebody has lost their case when they resort to whining about "Fox News", as if the 95% of the U.S. media that's ultra-liberal didn't do enough damage. In fact, they lie so frequently that covering their misinformation and outright lying has become a cottage industry unto itself. With respect to rail issues, it was the mainstream media e.g. ABC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, Daily Show, etc. that pushed (and continues to push) this propaganda that trains are unsafe. They seized on the Lac-Mégantic disaster and now trains will remain on their radar.

In fact, we just got a fresh dose of it here in the Philly area. A loaded Bakken crude train derailed last week on the Arsenal Bridge in Center City, the downtown. The media and their hardline environmentalist pals promptly jumped all over this. Consequently, so did local politicians. All while still milking the bleep out of the Paulsboro derailment of 2012.

P.S. Scapegoating Fox News aside, again, you're still not making a case for natural gas. Physics and chemistry are what they are, and crying on a message board isn't going to make NG less volatile and less dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Silence.................? Show me the beef, Show me the money, ah facts to support your opinion. Nothing but opinions here, no facts. And for making a case for NG, how did that come around. I could care less, all I am doing is reporting the facts, you sir have your opinions, that's fine, just don't tell everyone your opinion is a fact when you don't have collaborating evidence to support your opinion, just stories.

John
 
Last edited:
Silence.................? Show me the beef, Show me the money, ah facts to support your opinion. Nothing but opinions here, no facts. And for making a case for NG, how did that come around. I could care less, all I am doing is reporting the facts, you sir have your opinions, that's fine, just don't tell everyone your opinion is a fact when you don't have collaborating evidence to support your opinion, just stories.

John

You've been shown plenty of facts by a number of different people, particularly of the real-world dangers of a product that, frankly, isn't that widely-used in mass transportation.

I'm generally familiar with volatile gas versus other fuels. I'm not an expert, which is why I generally haven't taken a position on this matter. I took two semesters of O-chem in college, I drive a gasoline-powered car, am an ex-commercial pilot (prop, turboprop and jet), and a recreational boater, I've done a bit of welding and own a gas grill and my house has two furnaces, one oil and one gas. There's my background with respect to various fuel sources. What's yours?
 
There is no need to display what or who I am my signature states who I am. I am retired. Like I said you have not show any references at all, just your opinion, that all, nothing to check. Opinions are what you think and that's all, facts can be verified, show me some reference material to back up your opinions.

John
 
You are showing me incidents, not facts of the safety of gas vs liquids. The same could have occurred if the tanks contained diesel or gasoline, all are explosive under certain conditions. I can show tankcar incidents that are just has horrific. The argument is gas vs liquid and their relative safety, not the if they explode or cause injuries, all fuels do, no one is disputing that, that's why they are called fuels!

John

I'm sorry John, but no, it isn't. The topic of discussion is LNG; that is LIQUIFIED Natural Gas (in Liquid state) NOT CNG (Compressed Natural Gas, which is in a gasious state).

You sir, are the one getting your facts wrong. Liquid vs. Liquid

In a LIQUID state, Natural Gas is far more volatile than Diesel Fuel, due to Natural Gas's higher evaporation rate.
--The "Fumes" being what are "explosive"; LNG gives off more fumes than Diesel Fuel, thus is more "Explosive".

PS> You have not shown any FACTS to back your statements either, you have shown calculations and charts, which were figured by biased parties. Everything I have stated is from real world first hand knowledge and experience. Common sense and seeing with ones own eyes do not need phony numbers to support them.
 
Last edited:
In other words, Johnny, you have no more qualifications to speak with authority on this issue than anyone else, and possibly less. No problem, just admit you're merely stating opinions, not fact. BTW, my ex-wife was a Marine and a truck driver no less, yet I seriously doubt she'd pretend to be qualified to be an expert on CNG versus diesel.

In any case, here are resources aplenty. There are quite a lot of accidents involving gasses of all kinds versus diesel - indeed, they would seem to be disproportionate compared to their use in mass transit. Even those accidents involving diesel (and gasoline, for that matter) involve the volatile component which is what makes CNG and other gases so dangerous in the first place.

Here's a natural gas explosion that just happened today:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busine...pipeline+southern+Manitoba/9430187/story.html

Videos of several NG explosions. Since you seem to have an issue with fair and objective news sources, here's from the forums aligned with the likes of the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, MoveON, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10743602

Truck blowing up wile fueling up with CNG:

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/25/watch-this-mans-natural-gas-pickup-explode-as-he-refuels-it/

By the way, since you're questioning the laws of physics and chemistry, here's a table of the boiling points of common fuels, for your edification:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-boiling-point-d_936.html
 
Last edited:
To everyone, no one in particular:
From a fair, balanced source with no form of bias, Dictionary.com:

[h=2]vol·a·tile[/h]adjective 1. evaporating rapidly; passing off readily in the form of vapor: Acetone is a volatile solvent.
2. tending or threatening to break out into open violence; explosive: a volatile political situation.
3. changeable; mercurial; flighty: a volatile disposition.
4. (of prices, values, etc.) tending to fluctuate sharply and regularly: volatile market conditions.
5. fleeting; transient: volatile beauty.

In summary, it is true that LNG is much more volatile than diesel due to its low vapor pressure.
I shall let a chemical engineer give you further details, as I am only a mechanical engineer.

As a matter of simple common sense, do you feel any safer knowing that you routinely travel at speeds that God never intended you to, propelled by thousands of explosions every minute, with a tank full of highly flammable fluid sitting only feet behind you, and that any one of the hundreds of other cars you see daily could potentially wreck with you, and permitting that fluid to convert everything in the area into a giant inferno, you included?

Think about what Apollo astronauts had to go through, having their butts strapped to 4.7 million pounds of kerosene on the Saturn 5, which happens to be heavier than gasoline (C12 vs C4-C12), and therefore safer to use and handle.
 
1. LNG is transported as a refrigerated liquid, it is used in a gaseous state, or if released to the atmosphere as a gas.
2. Since the original tread started with LNG, lets keep the subject on LNG as CNG, LPG and CNG all have different properties.
3. RRSignal, KingConrail & and others, no one is saying LNG is not dangerous, all fuels are dangerous, and giving examples of gas explosions, either LNG, CNG or LPG does not prove which fuel is more dangerous, as a Google search will find the same details of liquid/conventional fuels
4. LNG boils at -258.7F diesel fuel(s) @ 304 - 574F, what's the point?
5. What the public should be concerned with is the auto ignition temps. LNG auto ignition is almost 400 degrees higher than diesel.
6. LNG has a specific gravity is less than air, therefore any escaping LNG will rise, not hug the ground where it will find ignition sources.

John
 
Back
Top