The two MK1200G LNG Switchers that ATSF bought, as well as the two that UP originally leased are all alive and well on the LAJ - the Los Angeles Junction Railway, based in Vernon, CA, near to BNSF's Hobart Yard - southwest of downtion LA.
I think that they are the 1200 / 1201 / 1202 / 1203...
See the "General Discussion" post by David Lustig back on 10-10-05 - there have been a few articles on the LAJ here ard there - it seems like there was one in R & R not too far back (2005?ish?) as well as a Paint Shop article in MR re their CF7s probably around that same time.
Also - check out: rrpicturesarchives.net and search for MK1200G and/or LAJ.
Jerry Pier wrote: Diesel engines don't work with natural gas because it won't compression ignite. This can be overcome with spark ignition, which makes it no longer a diesel, or pilot ignition, which requires carrying diesel fuel as well as natural gas and doesn't seem to be worth the trouble. Southwest Research Institute did some work on the latter for EMD but the contract was cancelled before the program was completed. A more effective solution is to replace the diesel-alternator unit with a recuperated gas turbine driving a high-speed (22,000 rpm) permanent magnet alternator. A 5000 hp gas turbine gen set including a 3700 kW alternator and with all the necessary electronics would weigh less than half of the power train it would be replacing. The recuperated gas turbine will provide a BSFC of 0.39 over a 40% to 100% power range and it is highly compatible with natural gas. The cost of CNG at current prices is about 30% of diesel# 2 so the economics are good. However, there are some minor difficulties:The recuperated version of the service-proven 5000 hp TF50 gas turbine is very feasible but has yet to be built. One-time conversion development is estimated at $8 to $10 million. (Recuperation is the key to low sfc's at less than full power.)The TF50R will cost more than a 5000 hp diesel but should run 24,000 hours before overhaul. It requires no cooling water or lubricant sump, which simplifies things. In addition the TF50R will go from a cold start to full power in 90 seconds so overnight idling is eliminated.A 2400 kW high-speed alternator has been built and tested. Upgrading to 3700 should be routine. Eliminating the planetary gear train on the output of the turbine will raise efficiency by 6%.The lower power density of CNG at 300 psi compared to diesel#2 will require 47 times more fuel tank volume. to match the 5800 gallons of an SD50MAC. This will require a lot of space. The short length of the turbine gen set and its 64-ton lighter weight may help here. CNG at 3000 psi would obviously lower the volume requirements proportionately but compression and tank costs would be higher. All of the above difficulties could be solved with a demonstration grant. Both DOT and the railroads would have an incentive to fund such a program in today's environment. GE and EMD could be expected to be less enthusiastic in that they have a lot of investment and contributed value in their excellent diesel engines. A builder like WABTEC using engines from another source would seem to be well positioned to provide the platform. I would not expect a mandate, or even a rush, to convert to natural gas but since Class 1 Railroads burn over a billion gallons of fuel per year, even a 10% conversion would have a significant impact oil consumption as well as costs and I have not even touched on emissions improvement.
Diesel engines don't work with natural gas because it won't compression ignite. This can be overcome with spark ignition, which makes it no longer a diesel, or pilot ignition, which requires carrying diesel fuel as well as natural gas and doesn't seem to be worth the trouble. Southwest Research Institute did some work on the latter for EMD but the contract was cancelled before the program was completed.
A more effective solution is to replace the diesel-alternator unit with a recuperated gas turbine driving a high-speed (22,000 rpm) permanent magnet alternator. A 5000 hp gas turbine gen set including a 3700 kW alternator and with all the necessary electronics would weigh less than half of the power train it would be replacing. The recuperated gas turbine will provide a BSFC of 0.39 over a 40% to 100% power range and it is highly compatible with natural gas. The cost of CNG at current prices is about 30% of diesel# 2 so the economics are good.
However, there are some minor difficulties:
All of the above difficulties could be solved with a demonstration grant. Both DOT and the railroads would have an incentive to fund such a program in today's environment. GE and EMD could be expected to be less enthusiastic in that they have a lot of investment and contributed value in their excellent diesel engines. A builder like WABTEC using engines from another source would seem to be well positioned to provide the platform.
I would not expect a mandate, or even a rush, to convert to natural gas but since Class 1 Railroads burn over a billion gallons of fuel per year, even a 10% conversion would have a significant impact oil consumption as well as costs and I have not even touched on emissions improvement.
Railpower Technologies has been trying to raise funds to develop the exact type of gas turbine locomotive you're talking about since the company was founded. They've also tried to interest both Rolls Royce and Solar Turbines(CATERPILLAR owned gas turbine manufacturer) in a strategic partnership. At this point thay seem to have given up on that project.
Power Conversion inc. has sold a number of diesel conversion kits, as mentioned in earlier posts. In addition CAT sells off the shelf spark ignition versions of many of their larger diesel gensets (such as the 3400 series variant that powers the MK/MP1200G). CAT has been fairly succesfull in selling such engines for utility/backup use, As has GE(Jenbacher).
At one time Tom Blasingame (former MK rail engineering consultant) was trying to interest Colt Industries, who at that time owned the Fairbanks Morse opposing piston diesel engine line, in adapting the dual fuel version(again popular for utility use) of their engine for locomotive use.
So I think that this is clearly a case of lack of railroads interest in the technology (at least for the time being) rather than technical issues.
I would not expect to see WABTEC really try to take on GE/EMD as a builder of mainline freight power as the company is a major component supplier to both manufacturers. Maybe if CAT partnered with Railpower. ..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Thanks for the information.
From everything stated, it would look like GE has the best technology to make the first mass produced CNG Locomotives.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I wonder if GE would offer a EVOLUTION type locomotive using a Jenbacher engine in place of the GEVO prime mover. Jenbacher is a GE owned European manufacturer of CNG and LNG fueled spark initiated engines. I mention this because GE is developing a modified diesel fueled version of the engine for locomotive use (4000 HP units being built for UK operations where the tight loading gauge prohibits using the GEVO).
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/recip_engines/en/index.htm
In reference to the dual-fuel operation with an SP Baldwin, this probably worked to some extent because of the size and low speed of the De La Vergne engine, which had a large bore and stroke (12.75" x 15.75") and a slow top speed (625 RPM).
I'll have to look but one of the bn gas units was made back into a regular engine and is now in a lease fleet.I saw it on csx near garrett indiana.
stay safe
joe
Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").
When BN started down the LNG path, there was a big differentail between the cost of nat'l gas and #2 diesel. As more power plants were built or convert to nat'l gas, the price differentail eroded to the point that BN dropped the program.
About the same time, the AAR had a large test program with SouthWest Research in San Antonio to test a wide variety of alternate fuels on EMD and GE locomotive engines. There were a lot of possibilities, but none were economically viable.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Why has General Electric not yet offered a Compressed Natural Gas Locomotive to meet and exceed the E.P.A. emissions regulations?
http://www.energyconversions.com/
The website for the company I mentioned in my earlier post.
Thats really interesting..that this technology is still being worked on. This would be a good potential article for Trains. I vaguely remember that Baldwin did a dual fuel conversion for SP many years ago ....I believe it was a diesel to run on the crude Bunker C oil....I dont recall the details but I do recall Baldwin claiming success, which I took with a grain of salt.It would be interesting to know the modifications they did to produce a safe fuel tender on the BN for this natural gas experiment. I am surprised given UP's past willingness to be innovative with engine configurations aka "The Big Blow" etc...that they aren't conducting trials now. I cant imagine a more opportune time..I saw from the Energy Conversions Inc site that Napa Valley has an engine, apparently successfully, running on natural gas.....
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
I remember reading in Extra 2200 South that BN and UP had technical issues with the converted SD40-2,SD60 and C40-8(UP only) units. These were modified to run in a "dual fuel" configuration i.e a small amount of diesel fuel was used as a "pilot light" to combust the LNG (they also experimented with CNG in a modified GP9). According to X2200S there were problems with modifing the EMD 710 and GE FDL cylinder heads to get the mixing of the fuels correct.
However, the company that was BN/UP's partner in the project, Energy Conversions inc., has continued to develop both Dual fuel and Spark initiated (which converts a diesel engine to Spark ignition) applications and IINM has had some success in overcoming the issues..
The experiment ended about 1996. I remember a LNG 'fueling station' being setup at Staples, MN. Here is a link with more info:
http://qstation.org/BN_LNG/
Jim Bernier
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I have heard more than once T Boone Picken's persistant pitch for natural gas as an interim solution to the oil problem which seems to be a reasonable, common sense strategy...well, heres another hurricane..more cost spikes..What happened to the follow up strategy to these (BN) methane based "experiments" with motive power? I just read the abstract of a paper where they conducted a very thorough study and determined that this natural gas fuel could be dealt with in a safe manner, be cost effective and to paraphrase the conclusion, would place BNSF "in a competitive position". So......what happened?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.