Join the discussion on the following article:
BNSF receives GE LNG test set
Currently LNG is expensive to “condense and purify”. The cost ~vs~ Calorie output is NOT good currently. The future for this fuel involves a “pusher”, or “launching” locomotive to get the train rolling ( on long non stop sections). I dont see LNG having the “Fortitude” to haul freight, cheap…
Currently LNG is expensive to “condense and purify”. The cost ~vs~ Calorie output is NOT good currently. The future for this fuel involves a “pusher”, or “launching” locomotive to get the train rolling ( on long non stop sections). I dont see LNG having the “Fortitude” to haul freight, cheap…
Currently LNG is expensive to “condense and purify”. The cost ~vs~ Calorie output is NOT good currently. The future for this fuel involves a “pusher”, or “launching” locomotive to get the train rolling ( on long non stop sections). I dont see LNG having the “Fortitude” to haul freight, cheap…
Mr. Bell, why would they need a pusher under the same circumstances where the same locomotive model running on diesel fuel wouldn’t?
(And please don’t click Submit 3 times.)
There is no difference in horsepower output at each notch for a dual fuel (diesel and natural gas) powered locomotive vs. a straight diesel. Therefore there is no need for additional locomotives to get the train rolling with a dual fuel locomotive, which is what is being offered by both EMD and GE. Performance for a dual fuel NG locomotive should be virtually the same as for a straight diesel.
LNG and CNG are both very cost effective alternatives to diesel. The cost per DGE (Diesel Gallon Equivalent) of CNG or LNG can be half to one third the cost of diesel.
That being said since these are dual fuel locomotives, you have to take the NG substitution rate into account as well as well as the cost of the new infrastructure, NG conversion kit, and fuel tender, when looking at the overall economics.