According to the article linked below, Caterpillar will partner with Westport to develop natural gas engines for its products, including locomotives.
Locomotives fueled by natural gas have been tested several times, most recently the four MK1200G switchers owned by BNSF and operated by Los Angeles Junction Ry. The problem seems to lie in the fact that they are oddballs and the lack of widespread infrastructure to support them.
This technology is not new. BN and then BNSF had two LNG powered locomotives, 7149 and 7890. I know that 7149 is off the roster, sold to HLM Leasing and will try to track down the lineage of 7890.
Earlier in the last century, diesels were the odd-balls. Looking at the current prices of natural gas and upcoming diesel emission rules may make natural gas an attractive option.
I have the information on BNSF 7890 LNG locomotive.
BNSF 7890 was retired 11-18-08.
This is a logical development as CAT currently offers natural gas and dual fueled versions of some of it’sdiesel engines targeted at the power generation market… In fact the MK1200G locomotives mentioned in this thread use CAT engines.
GE could also compete in this emerging market segment as it owns an Austrian manufacturer of natural gas engines, Jenbacher…
Just FYI, I believe that the BN SD40-2s that were converted to NG 7890 and the other were both remotored to Diesel before the merger.
As noted in my previous post. BN 7890 became BNSF 7890 and ran until its retiremen in 2009, so one of the units mde it through the merger well into BNSF history as a LNG unit…
I don’t see why they are teaming up to develop new engines especially for locomotives. CAT makes a phenomenal gas engine that are maybe the most reliable and they are definitely the best on the market when it come to meeting emissions. I would rather run the CAT engines over the competing Superior, Cooper, or Waukesha machines, They also have more power than ant of those and will will move more gas with a reciprocating compressor than any other engine out there.
Natural Gas — Much easier to handle and cheaper than hydrogen. There will be some carbon emissions from methane, ethane, propane in natural gas.
Most natural gas has been processed between coming out of the ground and getting to the end user. Depending on the process, you can recover 50 - 80% of the ethane and up to all of the propane and heavier. Without this process over half of the plastics would not be possible. In my plant I recover about 78% ethane and 99% propane and heavier but in other plants I have seen recoveries as high as 92% ethane and 100% Propane, It all depends on the process. There are set numbers in place that set the maximum limit for liquids heavier than methane in the gas stream (called a dewpoint) that processors must meet so utilities have clean safe gas to sell to consumers. I have actually been shut in by my customers because I had some issues in my process and I couldn’t make that required dewpoint. I was able to fix the issue and move some gas to a customer who doesn’t have a dewpoint requirement and was able cool off the process and make the requirements.
Despite what all the conspiracy theorists will tell you, there is one very good reason why alternative fuels such as propane, natural gas, etc, for internal combustion engines have not been a success, that is btu’s/pound.
Compared to gasoline, for any given top speed or distance traveled, or any combination of the two, you have to carry more dead weight in fuel to cover the same parameter. Historically, the corresponding lack of performance and its’ associated cost because of this, has negated the widespread use of alternative fuels. With the ongoing development of computer controlled combustion this deficit may finally be closing.
It is fortunate that gasoline was used in internal combustion engines in the nineteenth century, for if it hadn’t been discovered until after WWI it would be classed as a regulated explosive.
Bruce
The tenders used in this project, BNGT 100 and 101, sat in the Staples, MN yard for many years. Here are some photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/look4trains/3783001758/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/look4trains/3783002508/in/photostream/
With the current low price of natural gas, it seems like this is a project that is just waiting to be revived. I’m not sure it’s related, but the natural gas tenders are no longer in Staples. Anyone know where they went?
Jim
No, this is wrong, note the post above this with photos of the tank cars that have been sitting in storage for years.
After the experiment ended in 1996. Both units were returned to diesel power.
7149 was sold to Helm. 7890 got painted in H1, but never ran on LNG again after 96. Look at any more recent photo and you’ll notice the conspicuous absence of the tank cars…because they’re running on Diesel fuel in their fuel tanks.
200 year supply or longer this is worth checking out. Oh yes the EPA likes the low level carbon foot print also.[Y]
Didn’t BN also try natural gas in the 80’s? I seem to remember a pair of GP 9’s that bracketed a “tender” car for compressed natural gas that was made up of a bunch of individual cylinders running the length of the car instead of the larger tank cars in the pictures above. I seem to remember that they were held captive in service between Minneapolis and Duluth or some such.
True. and a couple of the earlier posts on the thread mentioned the Sd40-2s they converted as well…
The following link leads to a story about the latest attempt to use natural gas as a locomotive fuel.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/09/27/edmonton-cn-natural-gas-train.html?cmp=rss
We shall see if they have any better luck than anyone else so far.
Bruce
Article says it’s a 300-mile run, so fuel capacity won’t be an issue, at least for the duration of this test.
Railroads - and especially locomotives - are less sensitive (though not completely so) to tare weight issues than most other modes of transportation (except perhaps waterways). With the extraordinarily low price of natural gas right now in terms of $/ Btu and hence per HP-Hr at the rail*, that’s a big incentive and payback ‘margin’ of savings to find a way to live with the disadvantages, be they more frequent refueling, the tare weight of the connected CNG tank car, etc. It might not be suitable for high-speed long-haul service where the locos aren’t changed and the tanks are nearly dry at each refueling stop, but for yard, local freight, branch line, and shorter runs in manifest freight service - where the locos are at a terminal or servicing location anyway every 12 to 24 hours or so - the CNG fuel might not be that much of an additional disruption to the normal flow of operations.
*Anybody know what the magnitude of those savings are ?
- Paul North.
Answering my own question . . .
Let’s use a 3,000 HP SD40-2 with a 645-16 engine running at full power for 1 hour as a basis for this comparison.
At Throttle Position 8, it uses 164.4 gals. of fuel per hour, for 18.2 Hp-hr./ gal. (3,000 Hp x 1 hr. / 164.4 gals.) - see the “Locomotive Fuel Use” webpage at Al Krug’s “Railroad Facts and Figures” website at: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm
At $4.00 / gal. for fuel on-board (pro-rate anyplace here if you’d rather use a different cost), that loco is using 164.4 gals. x $4.00 / gal. = $658 of fuel per hour; divide by 3,000 HP to get 21.9 cents per Hp-hr. (same as $4.00 per gal. divided by 18.2 Hp-hr./ gal. = 22 cents, or $0.22 per Hp-Hr).
For natural gas power, the same engine needs 7,020 Btu (British Thermal Unit) per Hp-Hr. (BSFC =Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, which is at the drive shaft output, not at the rail, but we’ll use it for now) per this chart on this page: http://www.energyconversions.com/emdspec.htm#645 turbo specs
Natural gas futures for November are currently going for about $3.32 per million Btus (MMBtu), but I’m going to use $4.00 to allow for costs to get it on-board, slight price increases, etc. - also, that makes for easy adjustments and correlations for future changes in these price ratios.
7,020 Btu/ Hp-hr. x $4.00 / million Btu = $0.0281 or 2.81 cents per Hp-Hr - which is less than 13% as much as diesel fuel !!!
(For checking and future reference, note that 1 million Btus divided by 7,020 Btus per Hp-hr. = 142.4 Hp-hr. per million Btus. Thus, $4.00 per MMBtu divided by 142.4 Hp-hr. in that same MMBtu also = $0.0281 per Hp-Hr.)
So at 3,000 HP output for 1 hour at $0.0281 per Hp-Hr., our SD40-2 would be us