BN did a similar experiment

The BN experimented with a similar idea of LPG locomotives in the 80's. And they also experimented with diesel fuel tenders as well.

Craig

Fuel Tenders

I knew that BN had done so, and there is a model of that from Athearn I believe it is.

I also have some CSX fuel tenders that I run between some of my CSX locos. These were kit-bashed from Athearn 62' tank cars

Interesting discussions here about successes and failures in these experiments...
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,2492520

Prime mover

What is the engine like?

Rich

What's interesting to me is

Old shot of a BN RLM Tender

This is from Staples, MN almost ten years ago. Two tenders were stored there for a long time. 

Now if you got really inventive....

Hi all,

Now if you got really inventive, given that the control runs for the MU controls are bing passed down the tank car: 

• If you ballasted up the tank car frame to maximum permitted axle loading
• and swapped out the bogies under the tank car frame and replaced them with traction bogies
• and tapped into the MU  control wiring;

then you have effectively got another locomotive for not much additional outlay, that is both captive to and the fuel source for both locomotive outboard of the LNG fuel tanker. Apart from possibly having to flameproof some of the electrics??  

I'm not sure...

... you'd get approval on an LPG tank car with high voltage electrical lines running down it's length and electric motors right underneath.

...Just thinking about all the Murphy possibilities....

FEC GE ES44AC units

The FEC units burn either diesel or LNG, when running LNG it is a mixture as I understand something like 80%LNG 20%diesel. There are 12 tenders and 24 GE ES44s that operate most of the mainline trains. 

You can find out more information on FEC and its' operation on the FECrailway Yahoo group. 

Correction to FEC GEs

The FEC GE units are ES44c4 which designates that they have center axle idle (no traction motor) on each 6 wheel truck. 

FEC paper

FEC has an advantage with a LNG liquefaction facility on line in Miami. Here is a link to a FEC paper:
http://www.northfloridatpo.com/images/uploads/FRA_LNG_Strategies.pdf

Regards, Volker

LNG

If true, that would be quite illogical. If a locomotive can carry oil under the engine, where the damage in case of accident is higher, why not in a slug?

Is makes lots of sense to power the tender, in fact the russians already did in a LNG powered GTEL, the Sinara GT1:

11285 hp split over the engine and tender (16 axles total). The LNG tank is not meant to be swapped, but everything John Garraty suggested is on it, plus a driving cab.

I have no idea of what FEC expects to accomplish using the GEVOs  as LNG powered locomotives, the GTEL concept makes far more sense than using a converted diesel prime mover.

Regards,

Fred Frailey had a blog un

Fred Frailey had a blog un the Trains website in 2013 explaining the commercial benefits of LNG:
http://www.http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2013/04/19/up-next-to-test-gas-locomotives.aspx

It were the economics and the development stalled on the other Class 1 railroads because of lower diesel fuel costs. FEC has a manageable locomotive fleet compared to the other Class 1s and proceeded.

There still is a long term economical benefit and they get an ecological benefit too: Less CO2, less SO2, less PM (30% of Tier 4 limit). NOX are still Tier 3 to get the desired fuel efficiency.

IIRC turbines are only fuel economic when run full power. In freight service the lighter weight of a turbine would be compensated by more ballast. The Sinara GT1 was built for Russia's national railway company. Perhaps fuel economy was not the first goal.
Regards, Volker

I remember reading in Trains

Economy

Fuel economy is a major component of the decision making process, but there are other benefits that should be taken into account: Maintenance is one of them, and a turbine is much less complex, with only one one moving part (the turbine core) instead of the all the pistons, crankshaft, camshafts etc.

There is a reason airlines moved away from piston engines decades ago and went for turbines and turboprops, back then it was for increased power and weight savings, but nowadays turbines are so reliable and maintenance are way cheaper than it was back when UP tested the GTELs.

I get your point on the Russia - Natural Gas connection, but it is also worth mentioning that a lot of Europe's locomotives are powered by natural gas, although the generators are stationary and electricity is sent to the locomotives through overhead wires. Russia has a enormous supply of gas, but does not have the same proportion of electrified lines most of EU has, just like the US. The investment needed to electrify all the tracks to tap the natural gas supply into the railways may be too much for Russia. US railroads also do not wish to make this investment. Similar problems, probably similar solutions as well.

As for the fuel economy only on high outputs, there are several solutions. Using two GTELs and one powered LNG tender, when there is no need for all the power one GTEL shuts down and start drawing traction power from the remaining GTEL just like the tender. That way you can have the equivalent to 3 or 4 4400hp locomotive and keep the GTEL always running at maximum power. Since the introduction of the Gensets having 2 or more prime movers cutting in or out as needed has become less troublesome and time consuming, so perhaps the power consist can be one GTEL locomotive with one high output GTEL for on the road moves and a smaller GTEL or diesel genset for idling (or both for higher power needs, even if some turbines can deliver nearly twice their rated power for short periods), while the second GTEL may have the same configuration or just the higher power GTEL.

Regards,

I'm not against using LNG as

I'm not against using LNG as locomotive fuel. In power plants has an additional advantage: its output can be regulated quite easily so theyare good for peak loads while coal power plants are better suited as base load plants.

Regarding the GTEL Genset, I'm not sure what engineers will say if the jet engines needs about 50 seconds for start-up. They weren't glad with slow loading diesel gensets. I think the jet engines are less fuel efficient than diesel engines of the same power.

But if it works, why not.....
Regards, Volker

LNG Locomotives

I believe BNSF was trying LNG as a fuel a just a few years ago:  

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/locomotives-is-lng-the-next-generation.html

Some trucking companies are trying LNG and CNG as fuel, too.  The big disadvantage of LNG is that it's cold: -259 F.  CNG tends to be high pressure, which scares some people.

LNG vehicles are banned from

LNG vehicles are banned from most tunnels, too.

I doubt that's much of an issue for the FEC... but what about some of these other railroads? Obviously, they're not subjected to the same rules as public road vehicles, but are they under similar restrictions?

 Florida East Coast Railway

Florida East Coast Railway converts locomotive fleet to LNG

FLORIDA East Coast Railway (FECR) has become the first North American railway to adopt liquefied natural gas (LNG) for its entire line-haul locomotive fleet.

https://www.railjournal.com/regions/north-america/florida-east-coast-railway-converts-locomotive-fleet-to-lng

On November 9 FECR officially unveiled its modified fleet of 24 GE ES44AC locomotives, which operate in pairs with a purpose-built fuel tender supplied by Chart Industries, United States.

FECR is also the first railway to haul LNG as a commodity under a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) waiver.

LNG has been tested as a locomotive fuel for 25 years in North America and is still under evaluation by several Class 1 railways including BNSF. The fuel has been adopted by FECR as an alternative to diesel for two reasons. Firstly, FECR’s line-haul locomotive fleet is captive, operating solely on the Jacksonville – Miami main line. Secondly, FECR has access to a ready source of LNG through Florida East Coast Industries’ LNG plant at Titusville.

The EPA Tier 3-compliant locomotives look identical to standard ES44ACs, but their GEVO prime-movers have been retrofitted by GE with its NextFuel low-pressure technology. According to the manufacturer, NextFuel gives railways the flexibility to run on both diesel fuel and LNG with up to 80% gas substitution or 100% diesel.

The gas substitution method retains diesel for compression ignition purposes. A 100% LNG engine would require a spark ignition, like a petrol engine.

The fuel tender was specially-developed by Chart Industries and consists of a cryogenic tank permanently mounted on a wagon, with the vehicle weighing in 67.9 tonnes when fully loaded.

The tender is designed to withstand a side impact from a lorry without damage and the vehicle is fully enclosed beneath the frame to eliminate the risk of a projectile piercing the tank from beneath in the event of a derailment. The design was extensively computer-modelled to simulate worse-case side impact and derailment scenarios.

The cryogenic tank comprises an inner stainless-steel tank within an outer carbon-steel tank, separated by a layer of thermal insulation, the tank is secured to the wagon and protected by a massive steel frame with collision posts.

A gasification system takes the LNG and transforms it into a gas for the fuel injection system. Safety features include valves that snap shut automatically if the LNG plumbing is damaged, preventing leakage.

Refilling an empty tender takes around 90 minutes and provides enough fuel for up to 1450km of heavy-haul service operating at a maximum speed of 97km/h. This is sufficient for an 1100km round trip between Jacksonville and Miami, including idling time and potential delays.

The Prime Mover

is not modified.

When I worked on Cummins 30+ years ago the "oil field" engines were started on diesel but ran on nat gas.  The only mods to the cylinder head was a spark plug and they added a carburetor on the air intake.

These new ones still run as compression engines.  The 20% fuel oil is combusted by compression and ignites the nat gas.  It is atomized by something else.  Maybe a special injector in the specialized NextFuel head.

I understand the principle but I'm toooo far outa date for the details..

Hydrogen is also on the way

In Europe in the few coming years, most of the diesel engines use  must be prohibited for cars, trucks and locomotives, Europe thing diesel engine emit too  much polluants.

It was not specified where and which European company (country) will use it but studies to use hydrogen fuel  for train are on the way.

And the studies are not looking for a fuel cell but by using directly hydrogen in the motor because of the fuel cell cost and the stability of the cell.

It's just a remake of an old concept, German WWII fighter plane had used hydrogen injection to get more instant power, and the results were great.

I europe many constructor look at the use of hydrogen, not just the fuel cell concept, but the use of hydrogen fuel.

The hydrogen is tomorrow costly to produce, but has nearly no polluant trash residues; if you produce hydrogen by electrolysis and if the electricity come from Wind energy or sun voltaic, or hydro electric ressources, you have a nearly no polluant production cycle.

This is the emphasis of hydrogen production in Europe.

Further a conventionnal motor and car concept is recycled now by 93% and a electric car or such concept, because of the battery is only 60% recycled.

Hydrogen is also available in never ending quantities, much more the whole earth could never use.

In the coming years the use of  hydrogen could be a real solution of a nearly no polluant fuel.

The hydrogen is tomorrow

That's a laughtable statement.   Those forms of energy production would never produce the amount of energy needed. But hey Europe is good at doing dumb things.  

Hydrogen

But have all the considerations been given to hydrogen,....EXTREMELY small molecule that is VERY susceptible to leaking.

hobbes1310 said: That's a

hobbes1310 said: That's a laughtable statement.   Those forms of energy production would never produce the amount of energy needed. But hey Europe is good at doing dumb things. 

You think first and laugh afterwards.

Europe has decided to minimize CO2 emissions as far as possible. That means that coal power plants will be replaced by renewable energies (Wind, photo voltaic) whenever possible. The average share in electricity supply is about 35% in Germany, the peak is about 55%.

The problem with renewables is they are not adjustable to demand. You need ways to buffer the renewable energy when there is a surplus and empty the buffers if demand is higher than supply. Until buffering is solved gas power plants are needed to cover peaks.

Hydrogen production with renewable energies is one way to buffer renewable energy. You can reuse it for electricity production for the grid or other uses or burn it directly.

In Germany two Alstom Coradia iLint Hydrogen Fuel Cell EMU's started revenue service in this September.

https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/11/04/and-now-hydrogen-power-alstoms-new-fuel-cell-powered-train/

Regards, Volker

Marc said: In Europe in the

Marc said: In Europe in the few coming years, most of the diesel engines use  must be prohibited for cars, trucks and locomotives, Europe thing diesel engine emit too  much polluants.

I think that is kind of exaggerated.

The EU submitted emission limits for PM, NOx etc for roads to protect people's health in 2010. In more than 40 cities in Germany the limits are still exceeded after 8 years. On the other hand there are emission limits for cars, trucks, locomotives. But we know from the VW scandal that our car manufacturers tried to find ways around the standards.

So diesel cars might be banned from these cities or areas in these cities with the exception of EURO 6 cars. But there won't be a general ban. At least in Germany the government needs the lower CO2 output of diesel engines in cars and trucks to reduce CO2 emissions down to the promised limit.
Regards, Volker