Steven Leeson: That was a plumber's nightmare. They were with us in Tacoma for quite a while testing. The locomotive would switch to LPG in 5th notch and higher. Since LPG has less BTUs than diesel, they lost about 30 percent horsepower when it switched over. The fuel to air density ratio was really touchy, even a change in altitude or barometric pressure made a dramatic shift in power. Like it's former GP-9 that was also tried previously, it ended up being converted back to a conventional diesel. The GP-9 with 1000 Horsepower using LPG was useless and sent to Ceeco in Tacoma for parts. [I believe he meant LNG instead of LPG. The two locomotives were used to haul Powder River Basin coal trains during 1991-96. [qstation]]
By double stacking the tanks, a tender can carry 20,000 gallons. That is enough fuel to travel the Los Angles-Chicago route without a refueling. Furthermore, refueling can consist of swapping the containers to reduce the dwell time in the terminals.
 |
| 1 |
 |
| 2 |
In 1993, BN concluded LNG was reliable, safe and beneficial. [ieeexplore] So why did the project end in 1996? Because gas was only twice as cheap as diesel fuel back then. In 2013, it was five times as cheap and BNSF started another LNG trial. [RailwayAge] From the 1993 trials, BNSF did continue to use four 1200 HP switch locomotives built by Morrison-Kundsen until the end of their design lifetime. [WeAreThePractitioners, offshore] Yard switching has the advantage of low usage between overnight refills and the need for only one special refueling station. But now those fuel usage advantages make yard switching a candidate for battery power.
Natural gas becoming cheap because of fracking is why BNSF started another test program in 2013. LNG should start in long-haul, high density routes were a few refueling facilities can serve a lot of fuel usage. The 1990s experiment did revenue service between coal mines in Montana and power plants in Minnesota and BN's coal piers at Superior, WI. Today, intermodal trains between Los Angles and Chicago would be a good candidate. BN subcontracted the refueling to "Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., which was (and still is) in the business of safely handling gasses and cryogenic liquids." [offshore, RailwayAge]
One fuel tender design builds on container train technology.
 |
| WeAreThePractitioners |
The remaining impediment to using LNG seems to be regulations. Railroads want to run unit trains of LNG from natural gas basins to ocean-going ports for export. Union and civic leaders are screaming about the safety issues of running "train bombs." [CBS12] First of all, I've seen both of these types of "leaders' complain about issues that really were not problems. I think some of them feel that they have to complain to justify the existence of their jobs. Second of all, a tender carries a lot less LNG than a unit train. Third of all, is it a bomb or just a big fire? Having read about unit trains carrying crude oil, I think all of these trains should have a tank car between the locos and the front-end buffer car that carries fire fighting foam material. And maybe even a foam generator that can be carried by a skid steer. If a town doesn't have a skid steer (landscape company, tractor dealer, etc.), a local farmer probably does. The same foam fighting solution could be used by LNG unit trains. Fourth of all, LNG is safer than propane. (BN contracted in 1990 with the Los Alamos National Laboratory for a safety analysis. LNG and CNG are safer than LPG (propane) [RailwayAge]) Do those civic and union leaders have any idea how much propane is rolling across our country in trucks as well as trains? When I was writing these notes, I happened to see a westbound BNSF mixed freight train when I was going back home from the library in Downers Grove, IL. So I did an analysis of all of the placarded tank cars. This is what I saw:
- 4 2031: 157 Nitric acid, other than red fuming, with not more than 65% nitric acid
- 4 1987: 127 Alcohols, n.o.s.
- 1 3295: 128 Hydrocarbons, liquid, n.o.s.
- 1 1760: 154 Ferrous chloride, solution
- 1 1993: 131 Compound, cleaning liquid (flammable)
- several 3257: 131 Nitriles, poisonous, flammable, n.o.s. It is labeled HOT ASPHALT.
- 1 1075: 115 Butane
In my placard notes, I have listed the results of analyzing some trains in the past.
I did a Google search on "lng iso container testing". I didn't read any of the results. I'm just happy there were some results. But I did not find anything that looked like crash testing LNG freight cars and tenders at the railroad testing facility in Colorado.
LNG reduces pollution, both particulates and emissions (CO2 and NOX), "perhaps even besting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's stringent Tier 4 air emission standard." [ProgressiveRailroading] Given the complexity of a Tier 4 locomotive, this has to be a significant advantage.
 |
| WeAreThePractitioners |
CN borrowed the LNG tender pictured at the top of these notes to do experiments in 2012. They even repainted the tender in CN colors. These tender cars were designed to withstand the buff and draft forces within the locomotive consist because BN had frame and/or drawbar fatigue in the diesel tender cars that were used during the 1980s oil crises. Those 1980s tenders were just modified existing tank cars. [WeAreThePractitioners, RailwayAge] (Another article said CN borrowed a UP tender. [ProgressiveRailroading])
I noticed that the middle "locomotive" in this Florida East Coast consist looked strange. Then I remembered that they converted to using LNG and that "strange" unit would be the fuel tender. They converted in 2017. [CBS12] FEC is also hauling LNG containers between a New Fortress Energy liquification plant and Ports Miami and Everglades. [fecrwy]
 |
| Screenshot |
Norfolk Southern is borrowing BNSF SD70ACes #9130 and #9131 for compressed natural gas experiments using a purpose built tender. The tender uses 28 separate CNG tanks. I'm glad to hear that it is several smaller tanks. But if a tank fails, are the other tanks strong enough to withstand any resulting boom from the first tank? The tender carries the equivalent of 4,600 gallons of diesel fuel. The experiment was planned to run for 6 months in 2019 or 2020. [trains] But I could not find any results of the experiment.
 |
| trains |
BNSF reports that it evaluated LNG from 2013-17. [energy] They did develop a new tender for this trial and it carries 23,800 gallons. [rrpicturearchives] But I still can't find the results of that evaluation.
Update: just a few hours after I published, this came up on my Facebook timeline.
 |
| safe_image for PHMSA, FRA Capping LNG By Rail? |
No comments:
Post a Comment