GasRail LNG-powered locomotives - anybody know anything about this?

[Perd Hapley]

I just stumbled onto this while looking through a library card computer catalog. The articles I've found are a bit dated. Does anybody know where this idea is right now, or if it's fizzled?


http://www.swri.org/9what/releases/1998/rail.htm

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000122000001000130000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

[AJ Dual]

I'm guessing "fizzled".

CNG has about 25% the energy density of diesel. LNG, about 60-70%. And can be dangerous as all hell in failure mode, especially in the amounts a freight locomotive would need.

No direct knowledge, but I'd guess efficiency increases G.E. and competitors have worked into their diesel-electric locomotives have made any emissions savings CNG or LNG moot, or not worth the trouble.

[Perd Hapley]

Wait, it's obvious. Cheney must have killed it.

[birdman]

I'm guessing "fizzled".

CNG has about 25% the energy density of diesel. LNG, about 60-70%. And can be dangerous as all hell in failure mode, especially in the amounts a freight locomotive would need.

No direct knowledge, but I'd guess efficiency increases G.E. and competitors have worked into their diesel-electric locomotives have made any emissions savings CNG or LNG moot, or not worth the trouble.

Actually, it was probably cost (at the time, I bet this gets revisited as NG is now below diesel in $/MMBTu I believe).  Safety wise, the fact that the NG would disperse faster (and due to dispersion speed the actual FAE-like danger would be quite low) it might actually be safer than a pool of diesel. 

Hmm...have to look into this more.

[Tuco]

It actually was Cheney's idea from the get go.  The locomotives were to pull the boxcars loaded with chained proles to the FEMA camps at the abandoned military complexes.  The idea was abandoned when Alex Jones (who they don't dare silence) blew it apart with coast to coast radio coverage In 2004.
 

[Gewehr98]

My understanding is that both GE and EMD were running prototype LNG diesel locomotives quite some time ago. Union Pacific was toying with the idea in the 1990s. 

Maybe as they're playing with High Pressure Direct Injection, they can talk to the folks at Caterpillar, who've been running their versions on the highways already.

[Scout26]

And that ^^^ could very well be reason why.....Patents....

[drewtam]

No comment.   

[birdman]

Given current advancements in high speed generators and power control circuits, not to mention the higher efficiencies and lower maintenance, if they did go to NG, why not go with turbine engines?  They have sufficient volume for recuperated turbo shafts, which can stomp diesels in efficiency.

[AJ Dual]

Given current advancements in high speed generators and power control circuits, not to mention the higher efficiencies and lower maintenance, if they did go to NG, why not go with turbine engines?  They have sufficient volume for recuperated turbo shafts, which can stomp diesels in efficiency.

Not a bad idea.

And could one day even maybe be retrofitted to use high pressure steam instead... from a nuclear reactor. 

[MillCreek]

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1382170

[MechAg94]

In the 90's, there were tax breaks for using "alternative fuels" which included LNG and CNG.  The Houston Metro bus fleet ran a number of LNG buses for while.  I think I toured the LNG fuel terminal while an engineering student.  We toured there early, then toured the Budweiser plant in Houston.    I think the tax breaks for using alternative fuels ended in the late 90's due to budget cuts.  

As for safety, LNG lets you store more fuel in the tank than CNG at a lower pressure, but you need a cryogenic tank.  Also, natural gas or methane still has the issue of being explosive as a gas and lighter than air and can get trapped in confined areas.  Diesel doesn't have that issue.  A pool of fuel is one issue, a gas cloud in a tight area is quite another.  

For our senior project, we converted a Dodge minivan to run on propane.  Our van actually performed very well compared to a gas van.  Where it lost out showed the most when doing a 0-60 type acceleration.  Once up to speed, the acceleration tapered off and the gas van pulled away significantly.  

[charby]

My understanding is that both GE and EMD were running prototype LNG diesel locomotives quite some time ago. Union Pacific was toying with the idea in the 1990s. 

Maybe as they're playing with High Pressure Direct Injection, they can talk to the folks at Caterpillar, who've been running their versions on the highways already.

So was the Burlington Northern, Dad used to work for them and they were looking into and would run on whatever was cheaper at the time.

[AJ Dual]

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1382170

SUPERTRAIN!

[birdman]

Right now, natural gas is $2/MMBtu, equivalent to $0.286/gal diesel.
The confined space issue isn't a big deal for trains as well.

Conversion to NG of a conventional engine does mainly affect peak power, as NG is more susceptible to Pre-ignition, as it, doesn't have the evaporative charge-cooling effect as gasoline or diesel and must run excessive ignition timing, lower compression, or other things.  For this discussion, if you use a turbine, no issues.

The energy density is what AJ was referring to, energy density per unit VOLUME.  Diesel is 38MJ/L, CNG is about 1/4 of that.  However, by MASS it's actually higher.  While volumetric density matters significantly for on-road vehicles, for locomotives, much less so, especially with the ease that a LNG tank could be coupled directly behind the locomotive as a "tender"--and then it's all about cost.  A 6000hp locomotive would burn 2000gal per hour or more of diesel at full throttle, and tow let's say 5000 ton at 60mph.  That's (at $4/gal diesel) $0.026/ton-mile.  Natural gas would reduce the fuel cost to $0.002.

US freight rail costs about $0.03/ton-mile... Assuming an average of 25% throttle for conservatism, the fuel cost is 25% of that.

US  freight rail moved about 1.7 trillion ton-miles last year, which likely consumed about 2.8 billion gallons of diesel ($12 billion dollars), and required 50 million barrels of oil (at least...I'm being really conservative).  Switching to NG would save $8-10 billion in fuel per year.  There are 24000 locomotives in the US, which means the current fuel cost alone is about $500,000 each per year.  Hmm... Conversion costs are starting to look attractive.

[drewtam]

Given current advancements in high speed generators and power control circuits, not to mention the higher efficiencies and lower maintenance, if they did go to NG, why not go with turbine engines?  They have sufficient volume for recuperated turbo shafts, which can stomp diesels in efficiency.

My understanding is different...

Modern GT ~25% peak thermal efficiency
High speed diesel ~35-45% peak thermal efficiency (operates in the 800rpm to 2000rpm)
Low speed diesel ~50-55% peak thermal eff (operates less than 120rpm).

GT w recuperator... doesn't change the peak on a modern turbine (Pr > 16), but helps part load increase from the abysmal to something reasonably competitive by bringing turbine inlet temps back up to max rated. The recuperator can't help the peak thermal efficiency because the turbine inlet temp is already maxed at full load.

So 25% peak vs 45% peak... I don't think GTs will be making another try at the loco market. GE tried that, it failed.

Now the latest combined cycles has it all over any other heat engine in the world. ~60-70% peak thermal eff. But combined cycles are a locomotive of a different color. But that installed equipment is huge, and expensive.

[AJ Dual]

Right now, natural gas is $2/MMBtu, equivalent to $0.286/gal diesel.
The confined space issue isn't a big deal for trains as well.

Conversion to NG of a conventional engine does mainly affect peak power, as NG is more susceptible to Pre-ignition, as it, doesn't have the evaporative charge-cooling effect as gasoline or diesel and must run excessive ignition timing, lower compression, or other things.  For this discussion, if you use a turbine, no issues.

The energy density is what AJ was referring to, energy density per unit VOLUME.  Diesel is 38MJ/L, CNG is about 1/4 of that.  However, by MASS it's actually higher.  While volumetric density matters significantly for on-road vehicles, for locomotives, much less so, especially with the ease that a LNG tank could be coupled directly behind the locomotive as a "tender"--and then it's all about cost.  A 6000hp locomotive would burn 2000gal per hour or more of diesel at full throttle, and tow let's say 5000 ton at 60mph.  That's (at $4/gal diesel) $0.026/ton-mile.  Natural gas would reduce the fuel cost to $0.002.

US freight rail costs about $0.03/ton-mile... Assuming an average of 25% throttle for conservatism, the fuel cost is 25% of that.

US  freight rail moved about 1.7 trillion ton-miles last year, which likely consumed about 2.8 billion gallons of diesel ($12 billion dollars), and required 50 million barrels of oil (at least...I'm being really conservative).  Switching to NG would save $8-10 billion in fuel per year.  There are 24000 locomotives in the US, which means the current fuel cost alone is about $500,000 each per year.  Hmm... Conversion costs are starting to look attractive.

And added to that, while the lions share of oil consumed in the U.S. is "domestic", produced in or around North America, there's enough imported, and the global futures market, that the price isn't stable, and subject to political unrest overseas.

NG is all "domestic". There's talk of LNG supertankers, but the idea still seems to give people hives for some reason.

[Scout26]

NG is all "domestic". There's talk of LNG supertankers, but the idea still seems to give people hives for some reason.

Just because you'd have ships in the harbor filled with a highly explosive cargo....Nahhhhh. Just as long as they aren't French ships, you should be fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster

[birdman]

Just because you'd have ships in the harbor filled with a highly explosive cargo....Nahhhhh. Just as long as they aren't French ships, you should be fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster

Except in very specific circumstances that are difficult to achieve, the explosive yield of an LNG storage facility or ship is quite limited, as the evaporation rate is limited, and this the size of the combustible (proper range of air/fuel ratio) cloud is limited.  I actually had to do this analysis for a threat assessment...the overall yield was disappointing.  The problem is it takes heat to evaporate the LNG...and that heat input is limited by the contact area and spill rate.

So while it's dangerous, it's much less than the yield from other (ie ammonium nitrate) bulk ship-borne cargos...

[AJ Dual]

I thought oxygen displacement if prevailing winds blew inland towards inhabited areas was part of the concern.

Although one could say that for any liquid gaseous product being stored or transported I guess.

[Doggy Daddy]

It actually was Cheney's idea from the get go.  The locomotives were to pull the boxcars loaded with chained proles to the FEMA camps at the abandoned military complexes.  The idea was abandoned when Alex Jones (who they don't dare silence) blew it apart with coast to coast radio coverage In 2004.
 

Actually I believe the FEMA camps were to be at looted Home Depots and Walmarts. The abandoned military complexes will be needed by the NAL troops. 

²

DD

[birdman]

I thought oxygen displacement if prevailing winds blew inland towards inhabited areas was part of the concern.

Although one could say that for any liquid gaseous product being stored or transported I guess.

Natural gas is methane (dominantly).  Methane is lighter than air.
It won't displace any oxygen, and the rising column is actually what prevents significant explosive yield (bear in mind, "significant" means >1kT)