An interesting article

An interesting article, from Dad this afternoon.

http://www.anga.us/blog/2013/5/16/all-aboard-freight-rail-giant-testing-natural-gas-powered-locomotives

 

Keith, I believe that BN tried something like this 20 or 30 years ago. I remember a photo in Trains showing two Geeps with a fuel tank car between them. I'm curious about the photo in your Dad's article. The fuel tanks don't look any different than those on a normal locomotive. Is there any way you can get a follow-up on this experiment?

 

Wow, this is very old news. BNSF will be testing multiple engines. They have 2 fuel tenders ready and will be using EMD SD70ACes and some GE's as well. Here is a shot by Neil Stutzman of one of the test platforms:

 

I thought I recall something like this years ago.
Unfortunately, I have no other information other
than what's in the article. Probably have to do
some major searching to find out more.
Regardless, still interesting news.

 

Just found this bit on the BNSF website:

BNSF to test liquefied natural gas in road locomotives
FORT WORTH, Texas, March 6, 2013 ::

BNSF will begin testing a small number of locomotives using liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative fuel later this year, as will be announced by Matthew K. Rose, BNSF chairman and CEO at the CERAWeek conference on March 6.

"The use of liquefied natural gas as an alternative fuel is a potential transformational change for our railroad and for our industry," said Rose. "While there are daunting technical and regulatory challenges still to be faced, this pilot project is an important first step that will allow BNSF to evaluate the technical and economic viability of the use of liquefied natural gas in through-freight service, potentially reducing fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions, thereby providing environmental and energy security benefits to our nation."

BNSF has been working with the two principal locomotive manufacturers, GE and EMD, a unit of Caterpillar, to develop the natural gas engine technology that will be used in the pilot.

The use of natural gas as a transportation fuel results in the emission of fewer greenhouse gases and particulates than diesel fuel.

The idea of using natural gas as fuel in locomotives is not new. The former Burlington Northern used natural gas locomotives in the 1980s and 1990s. BNSF also tested LNG switch locomotives in Los Angeles until they reached the end of their useful life a few years ago.

Improved economics and technology make the use of natural gas in long-haul service more operationally feasible today. The BNSF pilot will be a first step to consider how the technology could be implemented. However, even though natural gas in long-haul service has enormous potential, several significant regulatory challenges need to be addressed.

"The changed market for natural gas in the United States is a critical part of our decision to explore it as a locomotive fuel and in this pilot we will test natural gas engine technology in railroad service," Rose added. "We will be working with the equipment manufacturers, the various regulatory agencies and government officials to address the necessary actions to accomplish this."

About the photo: The former Burlington Northern used natural gas locomotives in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

Maybe also something to do with the Tier 4
emission standards in California, and elsewhere?
My guess at the moment. Would be interesting to see how
they plan on doing this. Will they need an aux tender to carry fuel?

 

Apparently so. I have no data what the energy content per gallon comparing LNG to diesel fuel. However, I know that natural gas has about 20% less energy per gallon than propane, and diesel has higher energy per gallon than propane, though I don't know how much. So I assume the fuel tender in the photo would be needed for an LNG powered locomotive to travel the same miles as a diesel powered unit with its under-frame fuel tanks.

 

I thought a propane tanker was considered a haz-mat car and required a buffer car? Now they're going to place one next to the engines?

 

I believe there are different regulations for LNG vs. propane. The most important being that propane is heavier than air, whereas LNG is lighter than air. Propane will puddle in low spots, around derailed cars, and flow down roads and creek beds. Whereas LNG will quickly disperse upwards into the atmosphere, even more quickly if there was a breeze, therefore much safer during accident recovery and cleanup.

 

Earlier BN Attempt:

"Using a dual-fuel, 16-cylinder turbocharged engine, Burlington Northern 7890 was the first demonstration of a direct injection natural gas locomotive. Burlington Northern 7890 and 7149 dual-fuel natural gas locomotives were operated in tandem service coupled to a 20,000-gallon LNG tender car, the locomotive pair achieved full horse power and had a range of more than 800 miles between refueling stops"

 

Canadian National testing their own pair as well:

http://www.cn.ca/en/news/2012/09/media_news_cn_tests_natural_gas_locomotives_20120927

 

When BN tried these before, they fuel was cheaper by far. Just no bang for the buck, LNG does not produce the heat that diesel does there for not as much horse power. When it takes 6 locomotives to get the power of 3 BNSF is not going to be pleased with LNG. BN was not pleased for the same reason, NO POWER. These would be limited use locomotive state of California would be good place for these to roam. We have captured service pool locomotives there right now. LPG tanks are Haz-Mat, Enough $$$ you can change the rules to make them fit your needs.

 

By the definition of haz-mat wouldn't the fuel tanks underneath an engine also vehaz-mat?

Also I believe you are wrong. I believe the Sd40s achieved full HP, they just didn't save money. However the cost of diesel is significantly higher and the cost of LNG is significantly lower.

 

Your right, they achieved full horse power rating, all the while burning three times as much LNG as diesel. Meaning they burn 3 gallons of LNG to one gallon of diesel to achieve the same thing. LNG does not have the BTU or heat, that diesel does. So it has to burn more to get the same amount of horsepower. Also just to throw this in it takes special fueling facilities to accommodate this type of fuel, as the LNG in this application is under VERY high pressure and these facilities to refuel are expensive to build and maintain. And as for the Haz-Mat thing, locomotive fuel tanks are part of the propellent system and fall under different regulations. Haz-Mat Tank cars are a unpropelled special use tank car used for hauling single bulk load Haz-Mat commodity, Liquid, Gas or Compressed Gas. That will go BOOM!-----> Just Sayin