Something Big for the UP
How about an LNG-fueled 10,000 HP locomotive utilizing two 5000 HP aero derivative gas turbine alternator units feeding rectified power to a common DC bus from which the AC propulsion system would draw its power. A 16,000-gallon tender would be used to carry the LNG. This should provide 1.3 times the working range of an SD80. A small (300-500 HP) spark ignited piston engine, also fueled by LNG, could be used for hostelling and auxiliary power when the main turbines are shut down.
The use of two 5000 HP gas turbines instead of one 10,000 HP unit permits running one turbine at full power when on the level, and thus getting maximum fuel economy, and bringing the second unit on line for train start-up and up grade operations. A gas turbine will go from stop to full power in 90 seconds so this type of operation is both feasible and practical The alternators would be direct drive high speed air bearing units, eliminating losses from gear reductions It would seem that two 3-axle trucks would handle the tractive effort but the tender’s 2-axle trucks might also be powered, which would produce more dynamic braking (a problem with the early gas turbine locomotives).
LNG has a cost of about $3.00/million BTU’s as compared to $25 for diesel#2. However the specific fuel consumption of the turbine is 1.3 times that of the diesel so the adjusted cost difference is $21/ million BTU’s. The exhaust emissions will be at least 38% lower than that of an equivalent diesel. Modern day aero-derivative gas turbines will run 12.000 hours on diesel#2 with little or no maintenance. The cleanliness of Natural Gas can be expected to double this time.
All of this is based on existing technology. In the case of the high-speed alternators, 2000 kW units have been produced and upgrading to 4000 kW would seem to be quite straightforward. 5000 HP dual shaft turbines are readily available from Honeywell and Pratt and Whitney as well as others. We have major cost savings and cleaner air, all we need is a buyer and a builder.
Jerry Pier
Just one question, Jerry,
What venture capitalist is going to finance this highly questionable scheme? And would UP want to run it if it was built?
A lot of things based on the existing technology of the time were never taken beyond the 'imagineering' stage because they made no economic sense. If you want to see some examples, find a bunch of Popular Mechanix/Popular Science mags from the 1944-45 period.
I'm still waiting for my flying car.
Chuck
Back in the 50's, UP bought 50+ gas turbine locomotives from GE because they would burn Bunker "C" at 4.8 cents/gallon as opposed to 11 cents for diesel #2. The locomotives ran quite well as witnessed by the fact that they kept buying them. The final buy was the "Big Blow" a 10,000 HP unit. Bunker "C" caused acidity and ash problems that reduced turbine blade life but these were manageable.but by this time, EMD had come out with the multiple unit design that offered more flexibility as well as more dynamic braking. In addition, the price difference between Bunker "C" and diesel #2 went down reducing the incentive and the turbine units were retired . The UP application was less than satisfactory , not because of basic problems witth gas turbine propulsion, but rather because of a lack of good control technology, inappropriate operating practices and misapplication of particular industrial gas turbines to railroad use. Never the less, UP operated a significant number of gas turbine units for 16 years, developing the largest body of freight service experience available to the present time.
A valid question is, "Would a 63% fuel savings make UP, or any railroad, think about a modern LNG-powered gas turbine locomotive?". If up-front money is needed, the FRA and EPA might fund a demonstration but it would go faster without their help. The international Railway Gazette reports that the the Russians have developed a 6000 hp LNG fueled locomotive (GT-001) for service in Siberia. It has successfully hauled 10,000 trailing tonnes (11,025 tons) and more such locomotives are being built. This is not "Popular Mechanics" day dreaming.
I wrote the submission to stir up thinking a bit and it seems to have worked.
I will agree that the design is a novel application of existing technology, but how much of a market is there for what is basically a 10,000 HP gen-set road locomotive? New fuel facilities would also have to be built to handle LNG and this is not going to be cheap, even if such a locomotive is restricted to certain routes to minimize the initial outlay.
If and I emphasize IF -- the way to make this work would be to marry a diesel unit to this turbine unit(s) (locomotive). Then when the incremental turbine unit was not needed the Diesel could provide the necessary power to switch and run flat lands. Once the power required exceeded the diesel's available one or more turbines could be started and provide the extra horsepower. Now the way to really use this setup would be to allow power to go either way to the diesel or turbine. That way adhesion at very low speeds would not limit the diesel and fewer traction motors would be needed on the turbine unit. Present mother - slug technology is already accomplishing this setup.
Railpower Industries(now in bankruptcy and perhaps soon out of business) designed a CNG powered Gas Turbine Electric locomotive they called the CINGL (Compressed Integrated Natural Gas Locomotive) and tried to market it to the North American Railroad industry. They were planning on using industrial/power turbines rather than areoderivatives. One of the big problems they had was that they were unable to reach a partnership with a turbine manufacturer (they approached both Rolls Royce (Allison) and Solar Turbine (a CATERPILLAR subsidiary). Because of this they were not able to fund a demonstrator.
Their main rational for the turbine was that it allowed much more available space on the locomotive for composite CNG tanks (CNG's lower cost per BTU than LNG was a major selling point). Interestingly their website used to have a line drawing off the locomotive with Union Pacific lettering (long ago deleted). There was also an annual report with a picture of a scale model in CN livery.
The basic model was to use a 5500HP turbine but the claimed that they could develop a 10,000HP version. The most recent proposal would have used a Solar Mercury 50 model gas turbine which is intercooled and recuperative thus offering better part load fuel consumption than an aeroderivative unit.
Here's the original patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=5XokAAAAEBAJ&dq=natural+gas+turbine+locomotive
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
blue streak 1 If and I emphasize IF -- the way to make this work would be to marry a diesel unit to this turbine unit(s) (locomotive). Then when the incremental turbine unit was not needed the Diesel could provide the necessary power to switch and run flat lands. Once the power required exceeded the diesel's available one or more turbines could be started and provide the extra horsepower. Now the way to really use this setup would be to allow power to go either way to the diesel or turbine. That way adhesion at very low speeds would not limit the diesel and fewer traction motors would be needed on the turbine unit. Present mother - slug technology is already accomplishing this setup.
Railpower (actually a predecessor company) designed that as well..
http://www.google.com/patents?id=6-oBAAAAEBAJ&dq=gas+turbine+diesel+locomotive
I can think of no reason you would want to do this. The idea of gas turbine power in the proposed case is to make possible the use of low cost natural gas and to get significant emissions improvment as a bonus. I have nothing against diesel engines bur natural gas will not compression ignite and the diesel's emissions will always ne high on NOx.
The only negatives that might be deal breakers, that I can think of, are:
-LNG is scary stuff compared to #2 diesel (which is only slightly more scary than water)
- A fueled LNG tank will vent when warmed - with possible greenhouse gas emission problems (if they become regulated).
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Jerry PierI can think of no reason you would want to do this. The idea of gas turbine power in the proposed case is to make possible the use of low cost natural gas and to get significant emissions improvment as a bonus. I have nothing against diesel engines bur natural gas will not compression ignite and the diesel's emissions will always ne high on NOx. Jerry Pier
Jerry Pier I can think of no reason you would want to do this. The idea of gas turbine power in the proposed case is to make possible the use of low cost natural gas and to get significant emissions improvment as a bonus. I have nothing against diesel engines bur natural gas will not compression ignite and the diesel's emissions will always ne high on NOx. Jerry Pier
Unfortunately the North American RR industry apparently isn't interested in the technology given that Railpower presented it and there were no takers... The industry is very, very conservative in it's mechanical/motive power practices and there are many times that railfans think something is a neat idea but the folks who do it for a living don't (and IMHO they know their business a bit better than us hobbyists). The same facts have been stated in discussions we've had on the forums about other alternative locomotive technology (new build steam locomotives, etc.).. Too bad though as this subject fascinates me..
As far as LNG/CNG fueled diesel engines as pointed out in another post CAT offers spark ignition versions of it's large engines to the utility/power industry as do several other manufacturers (GE being one)..
Jerry, I have a better idea, instead of towing around a LNG tender behind the locomotive, lets plunk the turbines on the ground at a convenient location alongside the tracks where a Natural Gas pipeline is located. Being on the ground we can use waste heat recovery systems if they make economic sense. Admittedly the wires from the generators to the traction motors will be longer, so it would make sense to boost the voltage to 25 or 50kV and use transformers on the locomotives. The stationing of the turbines and generators on the ground also means that they are no longer are exposed to loading shocks from in-train forces.
I thought BN tried LNG is converted Diesels a few years back.
The deal is that you mix natural gas with the intake air, and you use a small amount of Diesel fule in the injectors as a kind of spark plug.
So there may be some advantage to turbines, but you could do this with Diesels and an LNG tender.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicI thought BN tried LNG is converted Diesels a few years back. The deal is that you mix natural gas with the intake air, and you use a small amount of Diesel fule in the injectors as a kind of spark plug. So there may be some advantage to turbines, but you could do this with Diesels and an LNG tender.
BN tried RLM (Refrigerated Liquid Methane ), the reason for using RLM vs. LNG is more predictable combustion properties of the RLM. Since pipeline LNG is a mixture of various hydrocarbon gases (Methane, Ethane, Propane, and Butane), it is possible to develop unequal piston thrust, this isn't a serious problem with small displacement per cylinder engines, but is a problem with railroad sized engines.
carnej1 Jerry Pier I can think of no reason you would want to do this. The idea of gas turbine power in the proposed case is to make possible the use of low cost natural gas and to get significant emissions improvment as a bonus. I have nothing against diesel engines bur natural gas will not compression ignite and the diesel's emissions will always ne high on NOx. Jerry Pier Unfortunately the North American RR industry apparently isn't interested in the technology given that Railpower presented it and there were no takers... The industry is very, very conservative in it's mechanical/motive power practices and there are many times that railfans think something is a neat idea but the folks who do it for a living don't (and IMHO they know their business a bit better than us hobbyists). The same facts have been stated in discussions we've had on the forums about other alternative locomotive technology (new build steam locomotives, etc.).. Too bad though as this subject fascinates me.. As far as LNG/CNG fueled diesel engines as pointed out in another post CAT offers spark ignition versions of it's large engines to the utility/power industry as do several other manufacturers (GE being one)..
I would like to retire the argument that railroad professionals "know the business a bit better than us hobbyists." Yes, that is most likely the case, but if that is the answer to anything speculative that a railfan wants to discuss, what is the point of having this forum?
Secondly, Jerry Pier worked on the Amtrak Turboliners, so I think he has more insight into the pros and cons of turbines in railroad applications than some of the railfans who are offering the scolding that he is not a professional railroader.
Thirdly, as to professional railroaders knowing how to run their own business, sometimes you have to bring in people from outside the business. In my humble opinion as a small shareholder, bringing in outsider Alan Mulallay to replace family scion Bill Ford to run Ford Motor Company is one of the smartest things they have done recently. And yes, I have heard criticism from gearhead blogs (cough, Robert Farago, cough) that Mulallay has said dumb things such as being impressed with the Ford Focus, but it seems the Ford Focus is the only car they are selling in large numbers right now. Besides, in coming from Boeing, Mr. Mullallay knows that the airline customers of jet planes are first and foremost concerned about fuel economy and the cost of repairs, and bringing those concerns front and center at Ford is the right thing for them to do right now rather than worry about a styling, performance, or sporty car "hit."
Fourth, as the discussion suggests, the use of cheaper methane or natural gas fuel may not require turbines -- it may be more a matter of conversions of some Diesel locomotives and the use of LNG tenders, something that BNSF already has experience with.
I would find this interesting if a railroad would be willing to try this -- if they aren't willing to try LNG tenders, they certainly won't be interested in something more radical such as coal burning locomotives, whether steam or gas turbine through some kind of gasifier arrangement.
Paul MilenkovicI would like to retire the argument that railroad professionals "know the business a bit better than us hobbyists."
I agree that you can't always assume RRers know best, and I are one!
The problem is that RRs generally can't afford to extrapolate. The times they do they have been known to get bit in the behind. (HDL and H engines anyone?) And, capital is SO scarce on the RRs, that "extrapolation" type extravaganzas don't happen often. It's why ECP hasn't happened yet.....
I find Jerry's idea intriguing because it combines some more-or-less proven technologies that provide benefits and solutions on several fronts.
An idea I had was to go "small" instead of big. Build, small, mostly cabless, 2000 HP, AC traction, two axle locomotives. Combine with ECP and DPU to do true distributed power - a power unit, a dozen or so cars, another power unit, etc.. Reduced buff and draft in the train would translate to lighter, cheaper to build freight cars, which could shorten a car's lifecycle, getting more state of the art car designs into sevice, quicker.
Jerry Pier LNG has a cost of about $3.00/million BTU’s as compared to $25 for diesel#2. However the specific fuel consumption of the turbine is 1.3 times that of the diesel so the adjusted cost difference is $21/ million BTU’s.
Actually, #2 diesel (130,00 btu/gal) at $1.40/gal (today's futures price) comes to under $11 per million btu's, compared to natural gas (not LNG) at about $3.30 per million btu's. Then the natural gas needs to be liquified, which takes energy. I don't know how much that costs, but it's not free. If you add 10% it gets to about $3.60 per MMbtu, then multiply that by the 1.3 factor you mentioned it's about $4.70/MMbtu. Still a good deal, but the advantage is closer to $6/MMbtu than $21/MMbtu.
Railroads probably think that if they became huge consumers of natgas the arbitrage process would drive the prices closer together, and eliminate the advantage they would have spent so much to obtain. There would also be a huge investment in the infrastructure required to support this conversion.
Visit look4trains.com
Paul Milenkovic carnej1 Jerry Pier I can think of no reason you would want to do this. The idea of gas turbine power in the proposed case is to make possible the use of low cost natural gas and to get significant emissions improvment as a bonus. I have nothing against diesel engines bur natural gas will not compression ignite and the diesel's emissions will always ne high on NOx. Jerry Pier Unfortunately the North American RR industry apparently isn't interested in the technology given that Railpower presented it and there were no takers... The industry is very, very conservative in it's mechanical/motive power practices and there are many times that railfans think something is a neat idea but the folks who do it for a living don't (and IMHO they know their business a bit better than us hobbyists). The same facts have been stated in discussions we've had on the forums about other alternative locomotive technology (new build steam locomotives, etc.).. Too bad though as this subject fascinates me.. As far as LNG/CNG fueled diesel engines as pointed out in another post CAT offers spark ignition versions of it's large engines to the utility/power industry as do several other manufacturers (GE being one).. I would like to retire the argument that railroad professionals "know the business a bit better than us hobbyists." Yes, that is most likely the case, but if that is the answer to anything speculative that a railfan wants to discuss, what is the point of having this forum? Secondly, Jerry Pier worked on the Amtrak Turboliners, so I think he has more insight into the pros and cons of turbines in railroad applications than some of the railfans who are offering the scolding that he is not a professional railroader. Thirdly, as to professional railroaders knowing how to run their own business, sometimes you have to bring in people from outside the business. In my humble opinion as a small shareholder, bringing in outsider Alan Mulallay to replace family scion Bill Ford to run Ford Motor Company is one of the smartest things they have done recently. And yes, I have heard criticism from gearhead blogs (cough, Robert Farago, cough) that Mulallay has said dumb things such as being impressed with the Ford Focus, but it seems the Ford Focus is the only car they are selling in large numbers right now. Besides, in coming from Boeing, Mr. Mullallay knows that the airline customers of jet planes are first and foremost concerned about fuel economy and the cost of repairs, and bringing those concerns front and center at Ford is the right thing for them to do right now rather than worry about a styling, performance, or sporty car "hit." Fourth, as the discussion suggests, the use of cheaper methane or natural gas fuel may not require turbines -- it may be more a matter of conversions of some Diesel locomotives and the use of LNG tenders, something that BNSF already has experience with. I would find this interesting if a railroad would be willing to try this -- if they aren't willing to try LNG tenders, they certainly won't be interested in something more radical such as coal burning locomotives, whether steam or gas turbine through some kind of gasifier arrangement.
Well, I admit that was a rather blanket statement and I was not taking a shot at Jerry. I don't think there was anything technically unfeasible about the Railpower proposal for instance.
I do enjoy speculation about alternative technologies but as I pointed out, the industry is very conservative in it's mechanical practices and unless something provides an overwhelming economic benefit and/or performance benefit (A.C traction for instance) they are unlikely to adopt it. I always hoped Railpower would the funding to build a demonstrator for the CINGL (and customers would buy it).
I do think CNG/LNG RR fuel is an idea whose day may yet come
oltmannd Paul MilenkovicI would like to retire the argument that railroad professionals "know the business a bit better than us hobbyists." I agree that you can't always assume RRers know best, and I are one! The problem is that RRs generally can't afford to extrapolate. The times they do they have been known to get bit in the behind. (HDL and H engines anyone?) And, capital is SO scarce on the RRs, that "extrapolation" type extravaganzas don't happen often. It's why ECP hasn't happened yet..... I find Jerry's idea intriguing because it combines some more-or-less proven technologies that provide benefits and solutions on several fronts. An idea I had was to go "small" instead of big. Build, small, mostly cabless, 2000 HP, AC traction, two axle locomotives. Combine with ECP and DPU to do true distributed power - a power unit, a dozen or so cars, another power unit, etc.. Reduced buff and draft in the train would translate to lighter, cheaper to build freight cars, which could shorten a car's lifecycle, getting more state of the art car designs into sevice, quicker.
Your idea has shades of John Kneiling's integral train concept from the 60's and 70's although he proposed applying the powerplant/propulsion system directly to the cars (not quite like an EMU/DMU as powered cars would be spread out through the length of the train rather than having every car powered)...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.