[mountainlion]

So you can go farther with a natural gas tender car. So how much farther than that would a locomotive go with a standard fuel tender car? Libretards don't want overall consideration of their utopian wet dreams they demand some of the most unreasonable dreams. I am surprised they are not demanding solar powered trains.

[rottndog]

I wonder how well an LNG tender survives derailment. That seems like one hell of a bomb on rails.

[thackney]

So you can go farther with a natural gas tender car. So how much farther than that would a locomotive go with a standard fuel tender car?

It depends how big a fuel tank you want to add.

LNG takes more volume than diesel to provide the same amount of energy. The LNG train descriptions I have read about describe adding and additional car to carry the fuel instead of diesel tanks on the engine car.

[American Constitutionalist]

Liberals and Marxist demand the discomforts of others but yet rarely if any give up their own pleasures.

[Triple]

Your point is well taken about an unfair comparison on range with an LNG tender.

The reason for writing it that way is that LNG is refueling station limited, right now. So with a tender, LNG has workable range.

I think LNG is better than diesel on a couple of fronts - cost per gallon equivalent, and we produce Natgas in the US. No more exporting our $$ and jobs for a more costly fuel.

[DuncanWaring]

They should just mount windmills on top of all the cars; that would generate power to run the locomotive.

Would probably require some sort of auxiliary power to accelerate from a stop, though.

Yes, it's satire