Posted on 10/09/2013 7:18:36 AM PDT by thackney
Soon old-school diesel locomotives could be replaced by ones powered mainly by liquified natural gas.
GE Transportation presented retrofit technology that enables locomotives to use both diesel and liquid natural gas at Railway Interchange 2013, the North American rail industry’s largest trade show and technical conference, the International Railway Journal reported.
The system allows up to 80 percent natural gas substitution. The LNG is cryogenically stored in a tender and enables trains to travel further without refueling.
New LNG powered locomotives will allow many industry players to meet stringent Tier 4 locomotive emissions standards set to take effect Jan. 1, 2015, Railway Age magazine reported.
Using LNG as a locomotive fuel could also be a huge economic advantage for the industry, "the next big opportunity for taking cost out of our operations,” BNSF Railway chief executive Matt Rose said in the Railway Age article.
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes with LNG, and so far the railroads and their suppliers and consultants have been a bit tight-lipped about their efforts. But, the relative silence promises to be broken in the near future, as BNSF races ahead with a project to test three EMD and three GE LNG-fueled locomotives for one year.
I like the idea of NG for transportation, but man the potential of the fireballs after a derailing are frightening.
I wonder how well an LNG tender survives derailment. That seems like one hell of a bomb on rails.
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.
Liberals and Marxist demand the discomforts of others but yet rarely if any give up their own pleasures.
People go nuts for electric cars, I say why aren’t we using more LNG for cars and trucks?
The state of Connecticut routinely buys duel-fuel cars (gas and LNG) but have no refueling station anywhere near where most people use the cars, the capitol.
LNG has to vaporize before it can ignite. Once it is vaporized it has to be mixed with air down to a 15% concentration before it can be ignited. Less than 5% and it won't ignite either.
While the methane vapor is being diluted, it is also being warmed with the ambient air. Methane is much lighter than air and when sufficiently warmed, it rises rather than pools on the ground.
While you can spill LNG, vaporize, dilute then ignite, it really is not capable of a mass explosion. Once you ignite the edge of a vapor cloud, it is going to feed the fire fast, but it is going to be a rising flame, not a ground explosion of the entire mass at once.
LNG must be kept at -260°F or it boils off and has to be vented when the pressure rises too high. LNG is not a good choice for consumers, especially those parking in a garage. CNG (compressed, not liquid nat gas) is better for us basic consumers.
LNG works better for long haul truckers, or service vehicles that return every night to a maintenance garage. It has become a good fuel choice for many garbage trucks and UPS type delivery vehicles.
What would be the difference with this tank and the thousands of other tanks filled with other type of gases such as propane?
BTTT
Trains carry a lot of dangerous chemicals safely every day. Is an LNG car likely to increase it’s risk profile significantly?
Trains are a great application for LNG as they have well defined routes and can be refueled at a limited number of specific points.
That is not correct. Their fuel is EPA controlled and is also switching to the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) used today on our highways.
I believe it would be possible to convert existing diesel-electric locomotives to burn natural gas. I know that when I was studying mechanical engineering in the 1950s, “dual-fuel” engines in sizes comparable to current locomotive power were used in domestic electric power generation. These were basically similar to diesel, obtaining 95% of their power from natural gas, with fuel ignition provided by a small charge of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder at the start of the power stroke. The LNG, carried in the “fuel tender”, could be vaporized by waste heat from the engine exhaust. This would greatly reduce the cost of new power by saving the existing locomotive engines with fairly simple modifications.
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.
Would probably require some sort of auxiliary power to accelerate from a stop, though.
Yes, it's satire
Ford is leading the private sector charge on NG powered vehicles. I have concerns about power and miles per gallon but don’t doubt that Ford will continue to improve them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.