Is anyone on the Forum aware of any programs in the US to develop and build locomotives fueled by natural gas or propane? Since the development of all the various shale deposits around the US, and the low price of nat gas, coupled (no pun intended) with it's favorable emissions profile compared with oil, it seems the time is right. Railroads, with their relatively few refueling stations (compared to all the gas stations in the US) could install the infrastructure relatively easily, and they already haul most of the LP around anyway. 10-15% of the gas that comes out of a nat gas well is propane, so unless we all start doing some serious barbequeing, there is going to be alot of the stuff around. Any thoughts? Ken
IIRC, there was some work done with LNG fueled locomotives on the west coast, but I have no idea what the outcome was.
Assuming it was more or less feasible but not economically advantageous at the time, the upcoming stricter emissions standards in CA might cause a rebirth.
I have several LP powered backup generators on site - perhaps a new direction for the genset concept.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
ss122Is anyone on the Forum aware of any programs in the US to develop and build locomotives fueled by natural gas or propane? Since the development of all the various shale deposits around the US, and the low price of nat gas, coupled (no pun intended) with it's favorable emissions profile compared with oil, it seems the time is right. Railroads, with their relatively few refueling stations (compared to all the gas stations in the US) could install the infrastructure relatively easily, and they already haul most of the LP around anyway. 10-15% of the gas that comes out of a nat gas well is propane, so unless we all start doing some serious barbequeing, there is going to be alot of the stuff around. Any thoughts? Ken
The UP did some brief experiments with LNG using a pair of SD60s, BN used CNG on a GP9 used in yard service. The biggest experiment was by BN using two pairs of SD40-2s running on RLM (Refrigerated Liquid Methane) running between the coal mines in Montana and the port of Superior, WI. RLM was chosen over either CNG or LNG because of the predictable combustion characteristics compared to the other two when used in a diesel engine, the locomotives performed fairly well but the costs didn't work out.
Then there are the 4 MK1200G locomotives running on the Los Angeles Junction Railway in LA, these are spark ignition engines powered by Cat on CNG. Two locomotives originally belonged to the UP and two to ATSF, when the initial lease period ended BNSF bought all 4 and assigned the former UP pair to join the two that they owned on the LAJ (BNSF subsidiary).
Here is a link to some photos on EMD's dual fuel conversion:
http://www.energyconversions.com/picturesemd.htm
Link showing conversion to NAPA Valley Wine Train, and its Alco locomotive conversion:
http://www.energyconversions.com/picturessip.htm
And then I stumbled on to this: Here'slink that shows the engine photos:
http://www.lngplants.com/SteamlocomotiveGas1910.html
Locomotives.htm
P. 322 MINERAL RESOURCES of the UNITED STATES 1910 TEXAS. Use of natural gas for locomotives. In the year 1910 natural gas was used in Texas for fuel, on a short railroad about 71 miles long, running from Bloomberg, on the Kansas City Southern Railroad, to Atlanta there being a natural gas line at each end of the road. It was demonstrated that steam could be raised quicker with the gas than with coal and would haul the same load, but the results were not entirely satisfactory on account of the increased danger to the trainmen and because the pressure of the gas was not high enough in the pipe line to give the pressure that was required in the drum. A gas drum, or tank, 6 feet in diameter and 36 feet long, was loaded on a flat car, which was coupled to the rear of the locomotive, and connected by pipes with the fire box. A burner having 36 openings through which the gas escaped as it was used, was placed on the grate bars with about 6 inches space between the burner and the walls of the box. Gas was charged into the tank with natural gas pressure, which was about 100 pounds, and was then connected to the gas burner in the fire box and regulated by a valve in the cab, which was handled by the fireman. The gas was used successfully for about 5 months, but at the end of that time an inexperienced fireman was put on, and while stopping at one of the stations, instead of cutting, the gas down, which was what he should have done, he made a mistake and turned the gas on. The fire door was kept in, the second notch, which permitted the fireman to see inside and know how the combustion was, and the gas, also seemed to burn better when the door this much. When the fireman turned the gas on instead of turning it off, the blaze came out of this space at the door and filled the cab with flames. Both the fireman and the engineer jumped off and the latter shut off the gas at the tank. Neither of the men were seriously burned. After this, the gas was used successfully for at least 3O days. In the meantime, the company decided that it would not like to run the risk of this happening again and would discontinue the use of gas and return to coal. Texas is beginning to assume importance as a gas producer. The principal gas-producing sections of the State are located in Clay and Navarro counties. During 1910, gas was discovered in Webb County and preparations have been made to supply the town of Laredo from this field. It is also reported that gas has been discovered in Coleman County, but whether of commercial value has not been ascertained. Considerable gas is produced from oil wells in this State and consumed for development and operating purposes in the field. The principal gas companies of tile State in 1910 were the Lone Star Gas Co., operating in Clay County, and the North Texas Gas Co., operating in Navarro County. The gas from these fields is supplied to the following-named places: Fort Worth, Dallas, Wichita Falls, Henrietta, Petrolia, Byers, Bellevue, Bowie, Sunset, Decatur, Alvord Rhome Bridgeport Irving, and Corsicana, all in Texas. As already stated in this report, some of the gas consumed in Texas is pipe(I from wells in the Caddo field, the cities of Marshall, Texarkana, Atlanta, and Queen City being thus supplied. The total number of gas wells in Texas at the close of 1910 was 59, of which 22 were completed in 1910. The statistics of the consumption of gas in Texas are included with those of the States of Louisiana and Alabama
Use of natural gas for locomotives. In the year 1910 natural gas was used in Texas for fuel, on a short railroad about 71 miles long, running from Bloomberg, on the Kansas City Southern Railroad, to Atlanta there being a natural gas line at each end of the road. It was demonstrated that steam could be raised quicker with the gas than with coal and would haul the same load, but the results were not entirely satisfactory on account of the increased danger to the trainmen and because the pressure of the gas was not high enough in the pipe line to give the pressure that was required in the drum. A gas drum, or tank, 6 feet in diameter and 36 feet long, was loaded on a flat car, which was coupled to the rear of the locomotive, and connected by pipes with the fire box. A burner having 36 openings through which the gas escaped as it was used, was placed on the grate bars with about 6 inches space between the burner and the walls of the box. Gas was charged into the tank with natural gas pressure, which was about 100 pounds, and was then connected to the gas burner in the fire box and regulated by a valve in the cab, which was handled by the fireman.
The gas was used successfully for about 5 months, but at the end of that time an inexperienced fireman was put on, and while stopping at one of the stations, instead of cutting, the gas down, which was what he should have done, he made a mistake and turned the gas on. The fire door was kept in, the second notch, which permitted the fireman to see inside and know how the combustion was, and the gas, also seemed to burn better when the door this much. When the fireman turned the gas on instead of turning it off, the blaze came out of this space at the door and filled the cab with flames. Both the fireman and the engineer jumped off and the latter shut off the gas at the tank. Neither of the men were seriously burned. After this, the gas was used successfully for at least 3O days. In the meantime, the company decided that it would not like to run the risk of this happening again and would discontinue the use of gas and return to coal.
Texas is beginning to assume importance as a gas producer. The principal gas-producing sections of the State are located in Clay and Navarro counties. During 1910, gas was discovered in Webb County and preparations have been made to supply the town of Laredo from this field. It is also reported that gas has been discovered in Coleman County, but whether of commercial value has not been ascertained. Considerable gas is produced from oil wells in this State and consumed for development and operating purposes in the field.
The principal gas companies of tile State in 1910 were the Lone Star Gas Co., operating in Clay County, and the North Texas Gas Co., operating in Navarro County. The gas from these fields is supplied to the following-named places: Fort Worth, Dallas, Wichita Falls, Henrietta, Petrolia, Byers, Bellevue, Bowie, Sunset, Decatur, Alvord Rhome Bridgeport Irving, and Corsicana, all in Texas. As already stated in this report, some of the gas consumed in Texas is pipe(I from wells in the Caddo field, the cities of Marshall, Texarkana, Atlanta, and Queen City being thus supplied. The total number of gas wells in Texas at the close of 1910 was 59, of which 22 were completed in 1910. The statistics of the consumption of gas in Texas are included with those of the States of Louisiana and Alabama
Here's a little info on the Burlington Northern's test of LNG technology:
http://qstation.org/BN_LNG/
The tenders are still stored in Staples, MN:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/look4trains/3783001758/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/look4trains/3783002508/in/photostream/
Jim
Visit look4trains.com
creepycrankLNG or LP is dangerous to handle and in the case of an accident. It is possible instead to manufacturer syndiesel from natural gas or even coal for use on railroads. Operationaly their will not be any difference.
LP Gas is a hazardous material (so is gasoline) but is relatively safe with proper equipment and handling. A sizable percentage of the Chicago Transit Authority's bus fleet in the 1950's and 1960's was fueled with propane, which is similar to LP gas.
CSSHEGEWISCH creepycrankLNG or LP is dangerous to handle and in the case of an accident. It is possible instead to manufacturer syndiesel from natural gas or even coal for use on railroads. Operationaly their will not be any difference. LP Gas is a hazardous material (so is gasoline) but is relatively safe with proper equipment and handling. A sizable percentage of the Chicago Transit Authority's bus fleet in the 1950's and 1960's was fueled with propane, which is similar to LP gas.
And there are thousands of transit buses operating today on Compressed natural gas..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
In the mid 1990's Union Pacific had a very serious, well funded program to produce LNG locomotives. Both EMD and GE built prototype locomotives for road testing. As stated above EMD converted a pair of SD60's while GE converted a pair of Dash 8's each with a tender between them. There were many challenges to overcome to supply the engines with the LNG at the right temperature and volume to equal the power the engines produced on diesel fuel. The thermal enegy of LNG is less than that of an equal volume of diesel fuel, as a rule of thumb to get equivalent HP about 1.5 times greater volume of LNG is required, along with a fuel injector that can deliver it to the cylinders. The engines would start and run in the lower power notches on diesel only, then at N5 LNG would be introduced. By N7 and N8 the engines would be on LNG only. This presented problems with fuel control, but the biggest problem was that each cylinder had to have a diesel injector along with a larger LNG injector. Since both types of locomotives employed modified standard engines (710G, 7FDL) designed for diesel only, the addition of a second and largerfuel injector to the cylinder head was the "straw that broke the camel's back" or more accurately, it weakened the cylinder heads to the point that they failed after a very short life. If LNG is to be sucessful, both EMD and GE will have to make a LNG engine.
While UP had intended to test both a pair of EMD SD60M's and GE C40-8W's burning LNG, this never took place. The UP was extremely power short at the time and had all 4 locomotives delivered in their normal configurations. The only alternative fuel locomotives they did test at the time were the MK1200G's.
Bryan Jones
tleary01 In the mid 1990's Union Pacific had a very serious, well funded program to produce LNG locomotives. Both EMD and GE built prototype locomotives for road testing. As stated above EMD converted a pair of SD60's while GE converted a pair of Dash 8's each with a tender between them. There were many challenges to overcome to supply the engines with the LNG at the right temperature and volume to equal the power the engines produced on diesel fuel. The thermal enegy of LNG is less than that of an equal volume of diesel fuel, as a rule of thumb to get equivalent HP about 1.5 times greater volume of LNG is required, along with a fuel injector that can deliver it to the cylinders. The engines would start and run in the lower power notches on diesel only, then at N5 LNG would be introduced. By N7 and N8 the engines would be on LNG only. This presented problems with fuel control, but the biggest problem was that each cylinder had to have a diesel injector along with a larger LNG injector. Since both types of locomotives employed modified standard engines (710G, 7FDL) designed for diesel only, the addition of a second and largerfuel injector to the cylinder head was the "straw that broke the camel's back" or more accurately, it weakened the cylinder heads to the point that they failed after a very short life. If LNG is to be sucessful, both EMD and GE will have to make a LNG engine.
General Electric does offer a line of dedicated gas fueled engines throgh their Jenbacher subsidiary...Cat also offers "off the shelf" large spark initiated gas engines..
CSSHEGEWISCHfueled with propane, which is similar to LP gas.
Or not quite - as I think about this, it's liquified petroleum gas, which is a mix of propane and butane. Still about the same thing...
For those who may not know this : the union Pacific tried in the mid to late 50s tried to convert a set of Big Blow turbines to LPG. They went as far as to convert a couple of tank cars as fuel tenders. The whole story is in Bill Kratvilles book Motive Power of the Union Pacific printed in 1959.
cnwfan51 For those who may not know this : the union Pacific tried in the mid to late 50s tried to convert a set of Big Blow turbines to LPG. They went as far as to convert a couple of tank cars as fuel tenders. The whole story is in Bill Kratvilles book Motive Power of the Union Pacific printed in 1959.
I seem to remember reading that the Propane fueled GTEL did operate on a series of test runs and (briefly) in revenue service in the early 60's?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.