Locomotives Running on Natural Gas

[viesturs]

Few reasons why not:
Need to decide on national standard

Don't you already have some standards? It's not like the US doesn't have any electric locomotives. And as if it's a good reason - "Oh, sorry, sir. We, the mighty Americans, can not just simply decide on a national standard. That would be an outrage! Paperwork is the hardest work!"

Need to develop ENTIRELY new locos
Problems with VERY long pantographs needing to reach from 15' loco roof up to 22' clearance for doublestack

*akhem

Eurotunnel Class 9: standard gauge, 100 mph, 9400 hp, regenerative brakes, a high pantograph, etc.

Problems with resale should the scheme not work out

Why wouldn't it? Quieter, faster, more powerful, cheaper to run locos! The only possibility why it wouldn't work is if you halted the project half done.

Crew training

"Okay Bob! This is Trainz simulator! And that is your Class 9! I will come back in 3 hours to see your progress."

New operational problems associated with run-through units...not being able to run through

Here there might be a problem since I don't know what are run through units...

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)

This is by far the best reason why you wouldn't electrify the railways. The wiring itself wouldn't be very expensive, but the substations and power plants...

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...

So the fact remains that 50 years ago it was to impossible. But now the price for diesel fuel has risen quite much. Moderns electric locomotives now spend less electricity for more power. The regenerative brakes help reduce power usage by up to some 20%.

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...

Well, cars roll right in front of their front yard and kill much more people yearly than exploding freight cars on trains.

 

[TRam__]

Some pictures of serial sample ГТ1h.

http://lkpro.users.photofile.ru/photo/lkpro/4237649/105241164.jpg
http://trainpix.org/photo/00/74/00/74009.jpg
http://trainpix.org/photo/00/74/45/74451.jpg

 

[KingConrail76]

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

Had you ignored Post #4, by CascadeRail.. (no offence intended, but we all know how he makes some pretty off the wall comments at times), we would probably still be debating the original topic of discussion...
...The Financial Implications of Switching North American Locomotives over to LNG Fuel Useage.

 

[JohnnyC1]

Had you ignored Post #4, by CascadeRail.. (no offence intended, but we all know how he makes some pretty off the wall comments at times), we would probably still be debating the original topic of discussion...
...The Financial Implications of Switching North American Locomotives over to LNG Fuel Useage.

Yep he does, hell I forgot about that. The railroads, if they are wise, will follow the lead of the airlines, buy a refinery or part ownership in one to keep the price down.

John

 

[cascaderailroad]

Post #4 is really not that: "off the wall".

Financially, NG would be a very expensive adventure in an alternative fuel source, in @ 20 different ways, over that of easy to use, diesel fuel.

The explosion hazard would be financially catastrophic, due to injuries, public out cry, and lawsuits.

Crew training on the filling of NG fuel tanks, and training on the operation of newfangled NG locomotives would be expensive.

Multiple Unit setup of diesel with NG locos in a consist, might not be compatible with one another.

The loco crew, operator error factor, would be huge using a newfangled alternative fuel source like NG.

The manufacturing of a new fuel souce loco would be very cost ineffective ... And what if all those thousands of new generation locos had to be scrapped, if NG experimental program adventure did not pan out as expected ?

So what happened to the Hindenberg, just might, be what would happen to experimental NG locos ... We don't fly lighter than air ships anymore ... as it was just a radical unsound plan, with lots of hazards and accidents.

Thats the reason why we don't have Noookclear Fusion locomotives

 

[JohnnyC1]

Post #4 is really not that: "off the wall".

Financially, NG would be a very expensive adventure in an alternative fuel source, in @ 20 different ways, over that of easy to use, diesel fuel.

The manufacturing of a new fuel souce loco would be very cost ineffective ... And what if all those thousands of new generation locos had to be scrapped, if NG experimental program adventure did not pan out as expected ?

[

1. Ok, give one example of 20, give a source. Remember, there are already locomotives than use LNG in use.

2 What new locomotive, a diesel engine will burn just about anything, the existing engines are retrofitted to burn LNG.

John

 

[kws4000]

Don't you already have some standards? It's not like the US doesn't have any electric locomotives. And as if it's a good reason - "Oh, sorry, sir. We, the mighty Americans, can not just simply decide on a national standard. That would be an outrage! Paperwork is the hardest work!"

*akhem

Eurotunnel Class 9: standard gauge, 100 mph, 9400 hp, regenerative brakes, a high pantograph, etc.

Why wouldn't it? Quieter, faster, more powerful, cheaper to run locos! The only possibility why it wouldn't work is if you halted the project half done.

"Okay Bob! This is Trainz simulator! And that is your Class 9! I will come back in 3 hours to see your progress."

Here there might be a problem since I don't know what are run through units...

This is by far the best reason why you wouldn't electrify the railways. The wiring itself wouldn't be very expensive, but the substations and power plants...

So the fact remains that 50 years ago it was to impossible. But now the price for diesel fuel has risen quite much. Moderns electric locomotives now spend less electricity for more power. The regenerative brakes help reduce power usage by up to some 20%.

Well, cars roll right in front of their front yard and kill much more people yearly than exploding freight cars on trains.

Sensible talking points!
1) The GN/NP/Milwaukee systems are gone, the NEC is all we got, and we really want to convert it to standard industrial frequency, while currently it is extremely non-standard, increasing costs up the wazoo due to the extra equipment needed to swap currents on the fly, besides extra maintenance.
2) You win
3) Although a lot of HP is good, we still need lots more TE in the good ol' U S of A (you know, the stuff that would shred European couplers like lettuce). That means more adhesive weight, which means an unnecessary expenditure on wasted horsepower.
4) Have you heard about the issues we've had with implementation of PTC? Needs lots of new transmitters on Indian reservations. Electrification means hundreds more holes being dug on said properties. Given present rate of inspections by reservation officials, the first catenary would have to be replaced before it could even be used.
5) Not necessarily operations, but maintenance as well, including more micro-goats to move dead loks in sheds with overhead cranes. Diesels can be fired right up and drove out. Not so with electrics.
6) Run-through means that a locomotive from one railroad stays with a train that is handed over to another line due to lack of available units, or just as a way to speed up operations without having to disconnect, get out of the way, reconnect, pump up air, test, then go. With run-through, fuel up without uncoupling and go after getting a new crew. EX: BNSF Z-stack leaves LA, transfers to NS in Chicago, then runs straight through to New York. Or CN oil train leaves the Bakken, moves to BNSF in CHI to St Loius, then UP or KCS south to Texas refineries (idk specs, sue me)
7) Correct & correct
8) People are idiots
Further, do you really want to electrify the whole US? Willing to run wire up to some towns 150 miles distant that receive 1 carload a year, if that?

Ah yes, regarding paperwork: That's why we invented the computer, to go to a paperless work environment. But paperwork relating to accidental death is the worst sort of paperwork, besides perhaps taxes.

 

[viesturs]

3) Although a lot of HP is good, we still need lots more TE in the good ol' U S of A (you know, the stuff that would shred European couplers like lettuce). That means more adhesive weight, which means an unnecessary expenditure on wasted horsepower.

I actually don't know, how to solve this... Perhaps the locomotive can be like a double stack container flat with the engine at the bottom and a container, serving also as an adhesive weight, could be on the top

I am so fond of the European couplers! It's so funny to read that France has over the period of two years spent 4,4 million € to allow 4100 t freight trains to increase capacity while our trains normally are 5200 t heavy. Of course, that is not as heavy as your American ones, but it's still quite good.

4) Have you heard about the issues we've had with implementation of PTC? Needs lots of new transmitters on Indian reservations. Electrification means hundreds more holes being dug on said properties. Given present rate of inspections by reservation officials, the first catenary would have to be replaced before it could even be used.

Hmm... In my country we will soon start a major electrification project - all the catenary and substations are going to be built within the railway land. Parts of those are within some nature reservations but they will allow it because the end result is more ecologically friendly. I don't know though how the Indian reservations work... And why would they have to be replaced? The only reason I could think of is if they accidentally put the poles some 10 meters from the tracks, outside of the railway property.

5) Not necessarily operations, but maintenance as well, including more micro-goats to move dead loks in sheds with overhead cranes. Diesels can be fired right up and drove out. Not so with electrics.

Maybe the locomotives could be fitted with batteries for such situations where there are no wires? Modern trams have them so they can easily use the catenary-less maintenance sheds. The batteries would also be heavy so - AN ADHESIVE WEIGHT! But I don't know which of the options would be less expensive.

6) Run-through means that a locomotive from one railroad stays with a train that is handed over to another line due to lack of available units, or just as a way to speed up operations without having to disconnect, get out of the way, reconnect, pump up air, test, then go. With run-through, fuel up without uncoupling and go after getting a new crew. EX: BNSF Z-stack leaves LA, transfers to NS in Chicago, then runs straight through to New York. Or CN oil train leaves the Bakken, moves to BNSF in CHI to St Loius, then UP or KCS south to Texas refineries (idk specs, sue me)
Further, do you really want to electrify the whole US? Willing to run wire up to some towns 150 miles distant that receive 1 carload a year, if that?

That's wasn't my idea. I sort of thought that only the main freight arteries should get the electrification. And it might be okay to start with a single transcontinental route. I'm not good at economics but probably after the electrification of that line the transportation costs would drop. Then more and more cargo would switch to this, the cheaper line. The competitor railroads would soon realize that their amounts of freight are dropping, so they will start to electrify theirs too! That's the idea at least...

Interestingly, my country's national railway company has started a plan to until 2022 electrify about 390 (+90) miles of our 1000 mile long unelectrified railways to replace diesel powered freight trains with electric powered ones on the main lines because they too think that diesel will become more expensive in the future. In the project they will also replace all the 160 miles of our 3kV DC network with 25kV AC. In total - we will have 55% of our railways electrified.
I think this shows that if a 25 000 sq. mile small country can change the existing electrification system and electrify all the main railway lines then the almighty America could do it on their scale too

But there should be some alternatives to electrification on the unimportant lines...

 

[viscas91]

*akhem

Eurotunnel Class 9: standard gauge, 100 mph, 9400 hp, regenerative brakes, a high pantograph, etc.

This locomotive looks wierd...it looks like a toy...i didn't like the design..:/

 

[viesturs]

Eurotunnel Class 9: standard gauge, 100 mph, 9400 hp, regenerative brakes, a high pantograph, etc.

This locomotive looks wierd...it looks like a toy...i didn't like the design..:/

It's not like people have to look at it since it operates only on the Channel Tunnel and sees daylight only for a short while - at the end stations

 

[viscas91]

It's not like people have to look at it since it operates only on the Channel Tunnel and sees daylight only for a short while - at the end stations

Hmmm...its 9000hp...they should use it more..