Natural Gas Powered Locomotives

[Murphy Siding]

     Rather than the gas making the locomotive perform at only 60%-70% of the horsepower it would produce with diesel fuel, I picture the technology being tweaked to force 43%-67% more gas into the engine and retain the same horsepower.  If gas use cut the available horsepower by 30%-40%, I couldn't see the railroads having any interest at all.

     Another factor may be related to working for cleaner emissions.  Maybe the gas powered locomotive is Tier whatever compliable already?

[Euclid]

I interpret Mr. Midget to be saying that the third unit is needed to make up for the lower BTU content of natural gas compared to diesel; as opposed to a need for extra power to haul the fuel tender. 

[CShaveRR]

The gas is under pressure, so it weighs plenty.  I'm not sure whether we're talking CNG or LNG here; it looks like they're liquefying it by cooling it, so the cooling apparatus also weighs a bit.  Still, it's one car--shouldn't always be the tipping factor.

[Murphy Siding]

tdmidget

These are mostly "feel good" "look good" projects. One must consider that Natural gas has about 60-70% of the BTU content of Diesel.

This is why you must have the tender, a locomotive cannot carry the BTU equivalent in natural gas. Then you will need 3 power units instead of 2. Don't count on seeing a lot of these.

 

  Using your math, the gas would require between 43% and 67% more gas tank space on a locomotive to carry the equivalent BTU's of energy.  As I understood it, part of the tender being bigger has to do with keeping the gas pressurized(?)  Also, I thought I understood it that these tenders would allow locomotives to go much farther between fueling stops, hence the tender sized gas tank.

     I can't picture that you would need an extra locomotive for one extra car.  And besides, that tender is full of gas.  How much does that gas weigh?

[Murphy Siding]

     Hasn't this always been talked about as an alternative to expensive diesel fuel?  Does the drop in fuel prices mean a (big?) drop in interest in this technology?

[tdmidget]

These are mostly "feel good" "look good" projects. One must consider that Natural gas has about 60-70% of the BTU content of Diesel.

This is why you must have the tender, a locomotive cannot carry the BTU equivalent in natural gas. Then you will need 3 power units instead of 2. Don't count on seeing a lot of these.

[SALfan]

Domer66

Going from memory here, but I think Trains had a photo of FEC running two of their new ES44C4s with a NG car in between feeding both locos. I believe all 20 C4's have GE's Next Fuel capability. I think that photo was a test run between Tallahasee and St. Augustine. Can't remember the source, but I read somwhere that BNSF had split their ES44C4 from the NG car and ACE unit to have the GE unit go to the various shop forces for NG familiarization.

 

The FEC wouldn't have been running from St. Augustine to Tallahassee.  The line from Jacksonville thru Tallahassee is CSX.  FEC runs between Jacksonville and Miami, thru St. Augustine.

[SD70M-2Dude]

CN quit using the tank car based tender over a year ago, and constructed 2 new ones based off a well car.  But they have been stored in the Edmonton dead line for some time, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have ended the test program.

[DSchmitt]

From  https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_emg_lng_facts.pdf   dated 10/2015

"Union Pacific is planning to test LNG as a fuel source for locomotives in 2016, although exact timing is not yet determined. As the routes for the testing are planned, Union Pacific officials will meet with community leaders and first responders in all the areas where testing may take place to discuss all applicable safety precautions"

[kgbw49]

CN experimented with two SD40-2s but I don't know the status...

BNSF similarly uses a modified tank car in their testing...

FEC is using the LNG "Container" in a container well car approach - I suppose given the shorter running distance of their line the LNG containers are basically captive so can be smaller and moveable with a container-handler unit...

I am surmising that once LNG is fully deployed, the "standard" FEC road consist will end up looking somewhat like the first three units in the picture - ES44C4-LNG Tender-ES44C4 with the ES44C4s connected via their back ends to the LNG tender. We shall see what happens.

Long term, however, while diesel fuel and oil prices are down now, if one considers a 30 year or even 40 year working life of the ES44C4 fleet for FEC, LNG is still probably going to be the lower cost fuel over the long run, and of course will have lower emissions.

It will be interesting to see how the well car tender holds up to the constant "front end" stresses of long trains. Granted, in an 11,000 foot stack train, a well car has to be right behind the locomotives, but it is probably a different well car at the front end every time. Perhaps they will eventually have to mount the LNG container atop a "road-slug-style" locomotive frame - maybe then they can even power the axles. Time will tell. Fun stuff!

[Domer66]

Going from memory here, but I think Trains had a photo of FEC running two of their new ES44C4s with a NG car in between feeding both locos. I believe all 20 C4's have GE's Next Fuel capability. I think that photo was a test run between Tallahasee and St. Augustine. Can't remember the source, but I read somwhere that BNSF had split their ES44C4 from the NG car and ACE unit to have the GE unit go to the various shop forces for NG familiarization.

[JoeBlow]

Are any railroads besides BNSF experimenting with natural gas powered locomotives? 

 

Also, what is the status of BNSF's NGL experimental locomotive?

 

Thanks