Coal-Fueled Diesel Experiments (?)

[Anonymous]

I understand that GE took a C39-8, #609 and retrofitted it to burn coal, and that BN tried similar experiments with coal dust in the mid-80s. Does anyone have any information regarding these experiments? I may have a limited brain capacity, but this is kind of hard to figure out.

[espeefoamer]

I recall reading somewhere,(probably an old Trains magazine)that the C&O tried this in1947.I believe the unit was an E7.

[jchnhtfd]

I don't have any specific information on the rail experiments... I suppose it might be possible but as BN9924 said, it's a little hard to envision! Some of the big GE turbines on UP were tried on pulverised coal, though, and it is used in gas turbines (usually in what is called combined cycle generation) in stationary powerplants. There are some horrible engineering problems associated with the technology, though -- largely from variable fuel quality and from erosion of turbine blades.

[dehusman]

It's sorta like pouring sand into the cycliners of an engine or shoveling sand into a jet engine. Ok, flammable sand.

Unfortunately for the mechanical engineers, its really cheap, abundant flammable sand so somebody keeps trying it every several years.

Dave H.

[daveklepper]

Probably isn't any more far fetched than the Fuel Cell Hydrogen thing (why not use electricity directly in motors instead of using it to make Hydrogen?) which looking at the General Motors website could easily lead to Global hunger! Dave

[Anonymous]

You might be thinking of the ACE (American Coal Enterprises) project. This was actually a plan to build modern steam locomotives (proposed drawings of them look like diesels on steam frames). BN and Chessie were part of this project, but unfortunately it didn't happen. A very informative and interesting article about it is at www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html .

[Anonymous]

EMD and other stationary reciprocating engines have been run on coal dust for power generation. And as was stated, it is a very abrasive material and wear was a factor.
Ken

[M636C]

I think Rudolf Diesel was originally planning to use gunpowder, and did carry out some tests with coal dust before changing to oil, which wasn't used for fuel much when he was developing his engine. The first Diesel was built by MAN in Germany. It, and a lot of other engines sucked the fuel in with the air (called Air Blast Injection) rather than being injected at high pressure as oil is in modern engines.

You could arrange to force powdered coal into the inlet air of an FDL-16, possibly using some oil to start combustion, but the wear would be frightening, since some silicon (sand) would get in.

Natural Gas would be better, but isn't as cheap as coal.

[locomutt]

I don't know about the diesels,but C&Oand N&W
did try the steam turbine electrics. I think maybe other
roads tryed,but these are the only 2 I know about[V]

locomutt[:)] [:)]

[trolasater]

One option is to burn coal in a combustion unit called a
"gasifier" and burn the flammable gases generated in
a gas turbine. A gasifier limits the amount of air available,
producing carbon monoxide rich smoke which itself has
fuel value. The heating value can be greatly increased by
injecting steam into the gasifier. The steam is partially
"burned", becoming hydrogen. This is the producer gas
generated from coal that was commercially used for
heating and cooking until the 1950s when natural gas
became available. Trains once ran an article about
Russian railroads showing a producer gas car that
produced gas fuel for unit reefer trains.

Gasifiers can also use wood waste and old tires.

[Anonymous]

Rudolf Diesel's first experiments were with vegetable oil not petroleum.
The engines worked just fine.
The latest effort towards corn and soy-based fuels is just history repeating itself.

The UP ran a coal-fired, one-of-a-kind locomotive in the 1960s (?). The 80 (later 8080). There's even an O-scale model of it at my local hobby shop.
The locomotive was in three parts. The front was an Alco converted for the project. It's primary, albeit not only, function was to provide the controls. The center section was a converted GN electric chassis (similar to the Little Joes). It housed the actual turbine and generator. The third unit contained the coal crushing/"liquification" hardware.
It looked like a diesel, even a lot like the gas turbines, but it wasn't.
C&O had a coal-fired turbine, too. I think they built several, maybe as many as four.
I read that the clinkers just ate these various experiments to pieces.
Hank Morris

[espeefoamer]

hankmorris,The U.P.unit you mentioned was a turbine.the problem was pitting on the turbine blades.

[Anonymous]

Pitting due to all kinds of impurities (clinkers) in the coal that couldn't be cleaned. This is the major problem with coal-fired turbines and cylinder (like internal combustion--not steam) engines, the clinkers are abhorrently abrasive and pit the turbine blades and cylinder heads.
One wonders what a high-speed centrifugal filter inserted before the turbine blades or cylinder heads might accomplish. I would think it could successfully spin out any clinkers of appreciable size. What was left shouldn't be so damaging. But, what do I know?

[jchnhtfd]

Fascinating thread... couple of thoughts. As I subtly (?) mentioned, and others seconded, it is the abrasive character of the impurities in the coal which raise havoc with turbine blades -- as Uncle Pete found out. And others. Gasifier technology is excellent, and is used in a number of stationary powerplants with very good results. Problem: weight. Like, lots of weight. Also, depending on the exact gasifier technology and the coal, there is a potential problem with a group of very nasty compounds called polyaromatic hydrocarbons (you don't want to know -- but they cost millions to clean out of the environment and are why you don't want to buy an old coal gasification site). The centrifugal filter has its points, but my first reaction (I'll check into it) is that the pressure (energy) loss through it would be prohibitive.

If you run out of oil, there are other ways to power trains...

[locomutt]

Jamie,and others,
It seems like a lot of these colums are run more on B.S.
than oil,coalor whatever.[}:)]

locomutt[8D]

[locomutt]

Okay guys,
What is with the "new" engines powered only by a fuel cell[?]
If I understood what I read,they take the prime mover and generator
out,and only use the fuel cells to power the unit[?]
I really don't understand.[:{] Please somebody with more smarts
than me answer this[:D] How do the "fuel cells" get recharged[?]

locomutt[8D]

[jchnhtfd]

locomutt: BS? I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. I and others try, as best we can, in our fields of experience, to understand and answer questions. In general, 'BS' (as the abbreviation is commonly understood) is avoided, as much as possible. As I will with regard to your question on fuel cells.

Fuel cells operate (as simply put as possible) by taking a chemical reaction which would normally create heat (such as combining diesel fuel or hydrogen etc. with oxygen in an engine) and splitting it up in such a way that the chemical reaction is obliged -- if you will -- to go through a wire in the form of an electric current, thus generating electricity directly, rather than having the heat produced drive a prime mover which drives a generator. In principle, any fuel can be used provided that it can be made either a liquid or a gas. In current practice, hydrogen is the fuel of choice, although a good deal of progress is being made in using natural gas and heavier hydrocarbons. It is also necessary that the fuel be almost totally free of impurities, such as sulphur.

'Recharging' a fuel cell is a matter of simply refilling the fuel tank, just as with any internal combustion engine.

Source to wheel efficiencies ('miles per gallon', if you will) are comparable, at the present time, to the newer diesels. Emissions, in principle, are much less -- and much more benign (being water for hydrogen fuelled fuel cells, and water and carbon dioxide for natural gas units).

I hope this helps some, and I assure you, it is not BS.

Jamie (James C. Hall, PhD, PE)

[locomutt]

Jamie,
Sorry about the B.S. reference[V]
And thanks for the info on fuel cell.
I really wasn't sure how they worked.
locomutt[:D]

And as for the other,I do try to use my
experince in life to reflect on things that I
have done,and things that I know about!

[filmteknik]

The UP coal-fired turbine project (sponsored by coal interests) seemed kinda crazy in that I have not heard of succesfull long terms tests of such a system in a stationary application. One would think they would get all the bugs out of the concept before putting it on the road.

BTW, there was a inertial ash separator after the compressor and combustor section head of the turbine section. Not good enough apparently.

[Anonymous]

Now you've got me thinking about electrostatic precipitators. If the hot gases went through one at the top and an auger removed the sludge at the bottom the gasses shouldn't be abrasive. Corrosive, maybe, but I would think not abrasive.

[carnej1]

I believe what the person who started this thread was asking about was a late 1980's/early 1990's General Electric project. If you can find a copy of the November 1988 edition of TRAINS,details of the project can be found in an article entitled "GENERAL ELECTRIC: A PROPHECY FULFILLED"(pp.32-41).
The program had a number of participants and sponsors including GE,The U.S Department of Energy, Burlington Northern,Norfolk Southern, and State Energy Development agencies in New York and Pennsylvania. The idea was to modify a GE FDL-16 prime mover to run of a special coal slurry fuel:essentially a mixture of powdered coal and Diesel Fuel. The engine was to be installed in a GE test locomotive:C39-8 #607. As part of the development work for this experiment GE built and tested a one cylinder diesel using the same fuel.
Although I have have not been able to find too much info on the outcome of the project I do know that it was not considered a technical success. I have read that they were able to get the unit to operate on the fuel but problems kept it from being tested in actual railroad service. I assume that the big probems would have been engine wear as well as extremely dirty emissions.
I seem to remember reading another TRAINS article(in the last 3-4 years,as I recall) profiling GE's Surface Transportation Systems' Locomotive Plant in Erie,Pa. which mentioned that the test locomotive was still on the property(though I could swear it was said to be a DASH 8-39B) but that it's prime mover had been converted back to conventional operation.

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by locomutt

Jamie,
Sorry about the B.S. reference[V]
And thanks for the info on fuel cell.
I really wasn't sure how they worked.
locomutt[:D]

And as for the other,I do try to use my
experince in life to reflect on things that I
have done,and things that I know about!

Locomutt:

We'll give you a break on this one. To us mudchickens, BS means "Back Sight" as in point of reference that we are looking at from our total station/theodolite/transit/level (as opposed to "el toro poopo") and FS is our "Fore Sight". Technophobia is not encouraged here. If it does not make sense, take Mookie's lead and start asking questions. Ya jest might larn sompthin' Bubba![;)]

A little FS is a good thing!
Mudchicken

[Anonymous]

I'm somewhat suprised no one has mentioned the possibilities of using synthetic coal to power modern steam or steam/traction hybrid locomotives. Synthetic coals are manufactured by either mechanical or chemical removal of the ash and other impurities, leaving a nearly pure carbon product of around 12,000 Btu/lb. Using such a product would eliminate many of the problems of using coal in modern engines, with no need for post-combustion flue gas clean up or waste product removal on the locomotive itself.

If interested, examples of synthetic coal products/concepts can be found on the following links:

www.cenfuelfpu.com/index.html

www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/factsheets/rsbud/adcconvdemo.html

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

I'm somewhat suprised no one has mentioned the possibilities of using synthetic coal to power modern steam or steam/traction hybrid locomotives.

If you are going to go to the trouble of manufacturing a synthetic fuel why not just use the SASOL process used in South Africa to turn coal into diesel fuel? Then NO modifications to any existing locomotives is necessary.

[Anonymous]

[
If you are going to go to the trouble of manufacturing a synthetic fuel why not just use the SASOL process used in South Africa to turn coal into diesel fuel? Then NO modifications to any existing locomotives is necessary.

[carnej1]

That combined traction locomotive would be one complex beast. I suspect that North American Railroads will stick with electric traction in whatever motive power they purchase. Maybe a combined cycle gas turbine/steam turbine/electric(wow, I've found a concept even more complex than the previous one) would be more efficient. I've read that UP's experimental coal fueled gas turbine reached 20% thermal efficiency, and by using the exhaust heat to make turbine steam this could be improved on. A better and more plausible solution might be to use the synthetic coal derived fuel in a fuel cell,with these you can achieve 90% thermal efficiency in ideal conditions, and the have very clean emissions.......

[jchnhtfd]

Keep in mind one minor detail...

Whatever you propose to build for a railroad... whether it's track or bridges (my area) or engines... has got to be as close to bulletproof and indestructible as it can possibly be made. Fancy has no place on a railroad.