Joe looks like that CN has plans to convert an SD70 M2 and also to develop a different tender to run with the 70's.

I found a little more on the CN Program:

Canadian National has modified two 3000-h.p. SD40-2W locomotives to burn natural gas instead of diesel fuel. Nos. 5258 and 5261 are testing now on the 300-mile run between Edmonton and Fort MacMurray, Alberta, with a former Union Pacific fuel tender between them.

They've been converted to burn a 90 per cent natural gas/ ten per cent diesel mixture using conversion kits supplied by Energy Conversions Inc. of Tacoma, Wash. The units are said to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 70 per cent compared to an identical locomotive burning pure diesel.

CN also intends to convert a pair of 4300-h.p. SD70M-2s to burn liquefied natural gas, with lab testing in 2013 and road testing beginning the year after that. This project will also develop a standardized fuel tender.

I like the caboose.

CN ORDERS 4 TENDERS FOR MORE LNG TESTING

 Well, I have got the raw cab, a sd45 for parts, some spare electrics (like smoke units). I'm going to need some decals, paint, board, etc. Looks like this project will be slower than my last one.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.n...ture.aspx?id=3164444

 Still have to decide which tank car to modify.

I've got to finish my scratch build, upgrade three engines, and scratch build my new long flatcars and trailers.

Oh boy, G scale though.

Nope. That's a long porch there!

http://www.rrpicturearchives.n...ture.aspx?id=3164453

Looks like I'd better use the sd40-2 and flare them out.

Look at the (multi colored?) marker lights.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.n...ture.aspx?id=3164393

Joe that CN 5261 has a fresh paint job.

Joe tonight  I saw a guy in Canada looking for some o scale cn stuff say he would take delivery of it in your town.

Why would you need smoke units? An LNG or NG powered locomotive that is smoking at the exhaust has got something wrong with it!

Come to think of it, that holds true for standard diesels, too. If you see a diesel that is smoking, it needs maintenance. I've never understood the need for a smoke unit in a diesel.

 You know, I usually need to shut them off. Some guests don't like the smell and it gets strong indoors. I usually have them off to draw less power. Sometimes I turn them on and act like she blew a cylinder just for fun!

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAow2-yxRyY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAow2-yxRyY

 Usually it goes over big with steamers, as a guy like you might just guess!

To me it would make more sense to us NG in trailer trucks as Boone Pickens thought,

because railroads already haul more tonnage at less fuel cost than trucks.

But I thought you all would like to see the lone remaining example of the BN

experiment that is still in BN colors. I understand the other locomotive is

still owned by BNSF and has been repainted.

These were taken at the Cumberland Md CSX freight yard, and the engine is the last in a locomotive consist backing into a freight track to pick up a mixed and go west over Sand Patch.

E

Ed, 

Currently, the railroads would be able to save MORE THAN 50% of the price of diesel fuel by using LNG, even after all the expense of liquifying the natural gas. THAT is one HUGE amount of savings!

For example, the Union Pacific Railroad is the nation's BIGGEST user/purchaser of diesel fuel, behind the U.S. Navy, something like two million dollars A DAY!!!!

A 50% savings is much more than Chicken Feed.

Yes, quite a savings. But I wonder how much fuel the nations truck haulers use..and the amount of emissions that would be cut?

But there is another advantage to LNG or NG not mentioned here. If oil supplies for

some odd reason become hard to access, say for instance, middle east oil becomes hard to get, our own NG would be nice to have.

Ed

All of this is an end run around electrification that could utilize any number of fuels in a power generating plant and many are converting to natural gas. In the meantime, its the fuel of the week game. Demand versus availability as it relates to cost always shifts over time. When compared to diesel, an electric locomotive can have a significantly longer lifespan as in the GG1. Of course the issue is the upfront cost and the more it is delayed the higher the cost as well as it's looked at as a all or nothing proposition wherein even Conrail was studying electrifying it's mountain territory. Dual electric- diesel combinations have been around a long time. The upfront costs could be absorbed by a consortium but then the immediate solution is faster, less expensive when it comes to oil or LNG. All of this is based on the usual mindset of short term goals.

Sorry electroliner, but the North American Continent is NOT capable of financing electrification! There is insufficient electrical power to even "light" our cities, let alone supply electrical energy to tens of thousands of track miles of railroad lines. Not to mention the HUGE expense of electric locomotives, the interface between signal systems, AND wayside communities (do you have ANY idea how bad the electro-magnetic interference is from 60 Hertz 50,000 volt AC overhead Catenery is?).

Besides, in the "big picture" of railroading, the modern, computer controlled, diesel electric locomotive is actually more efficient at the rail!

Outside of financing none of the barriers you listed have either proved solvable elsewhere or are very generic and theoretical.

 Wow, I got schooled again. Didn't know that. I'd be surprised if they could get a complete network across the USA for charging cars. I'd be stunned if they considered wiring the tracks.

 Rich, it's model RR again, but I was thinking over my use of smoke on these toy diesel engines of mine. I think it represents the loco's struggling to pull the large trains I try and connect. When I watch real videos, The locos are usually chugging or loading down to do the job up a grade or to get up to speed. To me, the smoke units in these toys helps me imagine it's really happening. It probably still is, but these electric toy engines hide it well.

So just whom do you propose pay for all this electrification?  The railroads?  NOPE! The taxpayers?  Sure.  The electric companies?  I doubt it.

Please remember that all the electrification of all the railroads through out the rest of the world is all GOVERNMENT operated and maintained/paid for.

But our Gov't has the money....Oh wait...

A first generation Alco in turbo lag!  But generally, a smoking diesel today has serious issues!

I agree inasmuch as everything else, it will take a major turn of events to even consider this although its the best option. When looking into a serious consideration made toward partial electrification there were three class one's that mulled this over, which coincided with that period of oil shortages..gas rationing..

If LNG takes off as practical alternative to oil as the case with power generation, as well as other applications coming on line like buses, etc..one wonders if demand increases what that will do to costs..

Like anything else the cost of LNG will go up. If anything it might keep the cost of shipping down or at least the same. In terms of infrastructure Railroads verses Trucks and Buses. The railroads will have an easer time by being able to convert existing facilities or adding a tank car or two to provide fuel and insure range.

Doug  

Actually, electrification is no longer the "best option", for the North American Continent! As I stated earlier, the modern computer controlled 4000+HP, diesel electric locomotives are MORE EFFICIENT, at the rail head!

Another new factor in all this Natural Gas availability, is that it has become essentially a "by product" of Fracking for oil. The Natural Gas is literally coming out of the ground about as fast as the oil!

 I'm watching a different version of the Feather River Canon I taped on tv right now. There's three UP SD90MACs pulling a train with more several engines in tow (offline). The three engines are clearly smoking. I watched a bunch of trains last night on U-tube with different brands and ages (all modern) of diesel and most were clearly smoking. Maybe not ideal, I just see it a lot?

 I think sometimes the smoke looks like a "toy" outside. Inside, if it's set to min, it looks real to me. I know a lot of guys don't use it. I just like it. It's a visual stimulus that adds to the scene. MTH announced that they were getting into HO and releasing ACes a few years back. I went to order them. They retracted the fact that they would include smoke units. I cancelled my interest and stayed in the larger scales.

Maybe, but rarely is diesel exhaust/smoke WHITE.

Another issue would be security and maintenance on electrified lines. The next issue would be nature, snow ,floods, wind etc.  Then you have the EPA with the new carbon restrictions on power stations. Converting a diesel engine to run on LNG is for more cost effective.

In a presentation at HHP Summit 2012 (“Natural Gas for High Horsepower Applications&rdquo, Normand Pellerin, Assistant Vice President, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian National Railway, noted that the design of a natural gas tender for rail applications has many consideration, including: the volume of tank (range); output power; system mass; cost; controllability, fuel flow and distribution on-board; fuel safety; collision/rupture safety; exhaust fire / explosion; gas / cryo link between loco and tender; contamination of fuel at refuel; gradient effects on fuel flow (fuel slosh); icing up of fuel lines; readiness levels of technology; failure of tender coupling; thermal cycling; fatigue life; vibration (at cold); adequate grounding; static build-up; method of transferring; type, size, location of compressors pumps; location and size of heat exchanger, pressure regulator; cooling components; complexity of systems; time to fill, ( less than 30 minutes ); sizing of the fuel system; gas supply pressure available; and number of nozzles—among others.

Pellerin noted that a 72-foot LNG tank car-based tender with 25.5 kgal of LNG could support a range of about 2,200 miles (3,540 km), with two locos per tender; a 53-foot intermodal unit-based tender (12.5 kgal) could offer similar range with 1 loco per tender. Westport’s tender will offer more than 10 kgal capacity.

The Westport LNG Tender leverages our substantial expertise in LNG storage, cryogenic systems, and natural gas fuel delivery for mobile applications to create a product that will immediately help railroads to validate the value of LNG in their operations today, with a built-in upgrade pathway to the next-generation locomotives coming over the next few years.

—Nicholas Sonntag, Executive Vice-President at Westport

Putting the LNG on a Westport LNG Tender, rather than simply replacing the diesel fuel tanks on existing locomotives, offers a number of advantages, Westport says:

Experts weigh in on LNG

Written by  William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief

William C. Vantuono

 

Programs to evaluate LNG (liquefied natural gas) as a locomotive fuel are expanding throughout the rail industry, led by such stakeholders as GE Transportation, Electro-Motive Diesel, BNSF, Union Pacific, CN, Clean Energy Fuels, Chart Industries, Westport Innovations, Waste Management, and many others. At the 2013 GE Transportation/Norfolk Southern Railroad Sustainability Symposium, a panel of industry experts talked about current LNG projects, and the potential of this relatively new alternative to diesel fuel.

The LNG Landscape panelists (pictured, left to right)—GE Oil & Gas Senior Manager John Westerheide, GE Transportation Locomotive Business Operations Executive Graciela Trillanes, Association of American Railroads Assistant Vice President Environmental and Hazmat Bob Fronczak, Clean Energy Fuels Assistant Vice President LNG Production & Rail Koby Knight, and Waste Management Sustainability Services Director Tom Carpenter—addressed technological, operational, economic, regulatory, sustainability, and safety considerations for LNG locomotives and fuel tenders.

In general, “there are huge environmental and economic benefits associated with going to LNG,” Bob Fronczak said. “We believe that LNG’s greenhouse gas emissions will be lower than diesel fuel, able to meet Tier 4 standards, though there is no data at present to support this.”

In terms of reduced fuel cost, a savings of up to $200,000 per year per locomotive (at current LNG prices) is estimated. Test programs at BNSF and Union Pacific are expected to start in the fourth quarter and last at least one to two years. LNG locomotives could be in widespread use by 2016 or 2017.

Development of an industry-standard fuel tender is under the auspices of the AAR Natural Gas Fuel Tender Technical Advisory Group, a joint effort of the AAR Locomotive, Tank Car, and Equipment Engineering Committees. This task force is tackling regulatory and safety issues. For example, under current FEMA rules, LNG is not permitted to move by rail, unless there is an FRA waiver. The committee has met with locomotive builders as a group, and separately, and is working with the FRA to develop national standards for LNG. More than 100 potential failure modes have been identified and submitted to FRA and Transport Canada.

Unlike household natural gas, the odorants (mercaptans) that assist in the detection of a leak cannot be used in a locomotive application. Instead, methane detectors must be in place to detect an LNG leak, because LNG is colorless and odorless. The most vulnerable spots for a leak would be the connection from the fueling facility to the fuel tender, and from the fuel tender to the locomotive.

There are several methods to deliver LNG fuel to the locomotive prime-mover. All require the LNG, which is cryogenic methane chilled to –260 degrees F with other elements (water, propane butane, etc.,) removed, to be vaporized (heated to a gas). This process takes place on the fuel tender. In the engine’s power assemblies (cylinders), diesel fuel, which ignites under high compression, is used to ignite the LNG. This method provides some operational flexibility, depending upon the LNG/diesel ratio. High pressure (5,000 to 8,000 psi) and low pressure (125 psi) fuel delivery methods are being looked at. High pressure fuel delivery requires port or direct injection at the cylinder.

According to Graciela Trillanes, GE Transportation’s method (currently under test at its Erie, Pa., plant) is 80% LNG, 20% diesel, using an existing ECO engine. This ratio allows the engine to revert to 100% diesel in the event of an LNG-related failure or the unavailability of an LNG stationary or mobile refueling station. At a 95% LNG/5% diesel ratio, reverting to 100% diesel is not possible. A 100% LNG engine would require a spark at the cylinder (and major modifications to existing engine technology), since LNG does not ignite under compression. Thus, the “dual fuel” engine appears the way to go, at least until LNG fueling solutions can be deployed industry-wide. Also, as an initial step, deploying 80% LNG locomotives would be an easier, more cost-effective solution for the railroads, according to Tom Carpenter .

Fuel tenders can be configured in two forms, a 10,000-gallon ISO tank, or a 25,000-gallon tender that closely resembles a tank car. An LNG-powered freight train using 25,000-gallon LNG fuel tenders should be able to operate, for example, between Los Angeles and Chicago one-way without a refueling stop, improving locomotive utilization. The ISO LNG tank, though of lower capacity, offers more operational flexibility and potentially lower cost. At 40 feet in length and enclosed in a steel cage, the ISO tank can be mounted in a modified well (doublestack intermodal) car, and can be easily removed when empty and replaced with a full tank transported by truck, thus eliminating the cost and logistical constraints of a dedicated LNG fueling station. For a purpose-built 25,000-gallon fuel tender, for which the AAR is developing a design, the most modern refueling equipment will provide a refueling time of 30 to 45 minutes (about 400 gallons per minute, according to Koby Knight)—longer than a diesel refueling stop, but required less frequently.

Fuel tender safety is of course a prime consideration. In general, LNG is safer than diesel or gasoline, since it does not ignite in liquid form. If it spills, it vaporizes instantly (at –100 degrees F) and dissipates. Dissipation is affected by such factors as humidity and wind. In gaseous form, LNG will ignite only under very specific temperature conditions (a least 1,000 degrees F) and oxygen concentrations. LNG cryogenic tanks, supplied by companies like Chart Industries and Westport Innovations, are highly crashworthy, built to withstand 9 Gs of impaxt force. They are constructed as a double tank—an inner tank (typically stainless steel, though aluminum is sometimes used) encased in a flexible material, and enclosed in a carbon-steel or stainless steel outer tank. A vacuum is created in the space between the inner and outer tanks.

LNG has been in use in the transportation industry (mainly trucks and buses) since the mid-1990s, and was tested on the Burlington Northern Railroad in the late 1980s and early 1990s. (The fuel tenders being prepared for BNSF’s tests with GE and EMD locomotives are BN’s original tenders from those years, rebuilt and modernized). LNG, said Clean Energy’s Knight, “is a sustainability and energy security initiative. The way to make LNG work for the rail industry is through state-of-the-art engine technology and the expertise required for it. The engine technology has come of age. What needs to be carefully look at is the business aspect: What is the cost per hour of operating an LNG locomotive?”

A symposium participant from CN, which began an LNG test program last year using a fuel tender located between two EMD locomotives, said the estimated cost of a fuel tender is $1 million—“a potential complication. The economic analysis lies with the tender.” Operationally, “unit coal trains are a tight operational process and may make the most sense, at least initially, for LNG. And the fastest way to refuel a tender is with an LNG truck. Adding an LNG plant is costly and doesn’t make sense. Using a truck lessens local community concerns, as it does not require pipes, etc. And how many people will be needed for switching and refueling operations?”

These and many other variables will be addressed in the coming months, and at the upcoming High Horsepower Summit in Chicago, Sept. 16-19.

 

 

The issue of efficiency as opposed to availability and cost of fuel are two entirely different aspects of the same issue inasmuch as fracking has it's own issues as we saw in the case of the catastrophe in Canada, and then there are environmental concerns over this effecting the safety of available groundwater.Fracking only came to be when the situation with oil called for alternatives.I am taking a long term view of viability whereas you seem to be taking a short term. All it would take for this to go bye-bye is another Love Canal wherein an entire town's water supply is contaminated.Then what do you do with all your eggs in the LNG basket that you spent millions to convert your motive power to run on..idle the engines on a dead line..and face increased fuel costs due to available supplies..its not as simple as you seem to think this is as everything is in flux.

No. It has been well documented, years ago, that the line losses in 60 HZ, 50,000 volt railroad electrification, are greater than the efficiency losses within a 3000 to 3600HP diesel electric locomotive, at the rail head. Now, some 20 years AFTER those "electrification studies", the modern, computer controlled, diesel electric locomotive at 4000+ HP has an even greater advantage, no matter WHAT fuel it burns!

There is one advantage with Natural Gas:  You can burn it, and you would not have to worry about Tietr 4 Locomotives.

CN retrofitted two 3,000-horsepower locomotives with engines that run on a fuel mix of 90-per-cent liquefied natural gas and 10-per-cent diesel. (Canadian National Railway)

5 June 2013

Earlier CN testing of LNG using a tank-car (non-Westport)-based tender with two converted test locomotives. Click to enlarge.

Westport Innovations Inc. launched a liquefied natural gas (LNG) locomotive tender product solution with an order for four tenders from Canadian National Railway (CN); CN is currently testing two Electro-Motive Diesel locomotives converted for operation on natural gas. (Earlier post.) The first tender to supply fuel to an adjacent natural-gas powered locomotive will be delivered in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Westport is collaborating with INOXCVA, a leading manufacturer of cryogenic transportation equipment, on these tenders. Westport and INOXCVA have entered into an agreement for cryogenic systems to be able to rapidly meet the near-term demand in the rail industry.

CN implemented its natural gas test program in 2012. Testing with LNG will continue in 2013 and CN will also advance the technology for using it in high horsepower locomotives. BNSF railway will also begin testing a small number of locomotives using liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative fuel later this year.

In a presentation at HHP Summit 2012 (“Natural Gas for High Horsepower Applications&rdquo, Normand Pellerin, Assistant Vice President, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian National Railway, noted that the design of a natural gas tender for rail applications has many consideration, including: the volume of tank (range); output power; system mass; cost; controllability, fuel flow and distribution on-board; fuel safety; collision/rupture safety; exhaust fire / explosion; gas / cryo link between loco and tender; contamination of fuel at refuel; gradient effects on fuel flow (fuel slosh); icing up of fuel lines; readiness levels of technology; failure of tender coupling; thermal cycling; fatigue life; vibration (at cold); adequate grounding; static build-up; method of transferring; type, size, location of compressors pumps; location and size of heat exchanger, pressure regulator; cooling components; complexity of systems; time to fill, ( less than 30 minutes ); sizing of the fuel system; gas supply pressure available; and number of nozzles—among others.

Pellerin noted that a 72-foot LNG tank car-based tender with 25.5 kgal of LNG could support a range of about 2,200 miles (3,540 km), with two locos per tender; a 53-foot intermodal unit-based tender (12.5 kgal) could offer similar range with 1 loco per tender. Westport’s tender will offer more than 10 kgal capacity.

The Westport LNG Tender leverages our substantial expertise in LNG storage, cryogenic systems, and natural gas fuel delivery for mobile applications to create a product that will immediately help railroads to validate the value of LNG in their operations today, with a built-in upgrade pathway to the next-generation locomotives coming over the next few years.

—Nicholas Sonntag, Executive Vice-President at Westport

Putting the LNG on a Westport LNG Tender, rather than simply replacing the diesel fuel tanks on existing locomotives, offers a number of advantages, Westport says:

• More than 10,000 gallons LNG capacity—provides longer range than a diesel locomotive, reducing the need for LNG refueling infrastructure and refueling stops

• Intelligent fueling controls will allow tenders to supply fuel to natural gas locomotives from virtually any manufacturer, reducing operational complexity and investment in different proprietary fuel supply solutions.

• Each tender can support two locomotives, reducing the capital investment required to move to LNG.

• Utilizes an industry standard vehicle design and 40' LNG ISO tank, which minimizes cost and will allow production volumes to be rapidly increased as the industry migrates to LNG.

CN is testing natural gas locomotives and Westport’s experience in providing LNG solutions for transportation makes it the natural partner for us. These tenders will be used immediately with our dual fuel locomotives in mainline service, allowing CN to continue to explore this technology as a means to advance the company’s sustainability agenda and improve environmental emissions.

—Gerry Weber, CN Vice-President Supply, Fleet and Fuel Management

Westport has also been collaborating with Caterpillar Inc. since June 2012 to co-develop natural gas technology for Caterpillar products, including the next generation of locomotives. The first high pressure direct injection (HPDI) locomotive will be demonstrated in 2014 through a consortium program funded by Sustainable Technology Development Canada in partnership with Canadian National Railway, Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD, a subsidiary of Progress Rail Services, a Caterpillar company), and Gaz Metro.

Caterpillar and Westport are combining technologies and expertise, including Westport HPDI technology and Caterpillar’s off-road engine and machine product technology, to develop these new natural gas products. Commercial production of HPDI locomotives by EMD is expected in 2017.

June 5, 2013 in Natural Gas, Rail | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

BNSF TESTING LNG ALSO:

Western Railroad Discussion > How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Date: 10/30/13 09:44 How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: Lackawanna484 any sightings of the test units yet? [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 10:14 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: BN_FAN It's just barely getting underway. Apparently some of the ten test units to be converted have been released and are out roaming the system. Here's the most recent info I could find including a photo of 9131, I haven't been able to determine where on Facebook it was copied from: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=152984 Doug Stark Lackawanna484 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > any sightings of the test units yet? [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 11:49 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: eightandsand Not sure how accurate that list is; I had 8127 leading a few weeks ago and it was definitely running on diesel fuel. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 13:18 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: Lackawanna484 eightandsand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure how accurate that list is; I had 8127 > leading a few weeks ago and it was definitely > running on diesel fuel. I was wondering if they'd just use the diesel fuel to start the engine and then switch over to NG, or just run it on diesel fuel. I don't know about LNG, but compressed natural gas could take 8-10 hours to fuel a locomotive. Depending on any number of factors. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 13:20 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: 1019X I don't know what technology BNSF is using but some of the LNG modification systems allow the engine to run on 100% diesel if LNG is not available. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 14:54 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: contactpatch The Facebook posting is almost entirely trash, a real farce. Whoever posted must be smoking really cheap corn silk or dried acorns. There was another Facebook posting which included a photo of the BNSF 9131 ACe and the LNG tender 933501 at EMD; it seems logical that the ACe 9130 (included in the iriginal Facebook list) would be the "other" LNG unit. Diesel fuel tenders can't carry LNG because LNG is a liquid at a temperature of minus 260 degrees F; the BN had 2 LNG tenders, BNSF reported to still have both, one shown in the Facebook posting with the photo. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/13 15:18 by contactpatch. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 15:45 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: fbe I believe there is always some diesel in the mix because LPG does not have the lubrication properties diesel does. This lubrication is needed to keep the diesel prime move happy. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 16:15 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: 1019X Unlike diesel fuel, LNG does not ignite from compression. If you convert a diesel engine to run on LNG you have to do one of two methods. You either have to install spark plugs or inject a small amount of diesel with the LNG. The diesel fuel ignites from compression which then ignites the LNG. One system that I am familiar with uses a 95%LNG - 5% diesel mix. It is a fairly simple conversion, the diesel injectors,fuel lines, etc are still used. A hole is bored in the cylinder head for an LNG injector. The LNG injection is micro processor controlled. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 17:07 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: Lackawanna484 contactpatch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (snip) > > Diesel fuel tenders can't carry LNG because LNG is > a liquid at a temperature of minus 260 degrees F; > the BN had 2 LNG tenders, BNSF reported to still > have both, one shown in the Facebook posting with > the photo. Yes. I thought I read that the BNSF test would be for compressed natural gas (CNG) rather than liquid (LNG). The CNG storage tank can be operated under regular exterior temps, but it takes longer to fill and gives you less distance per tank. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 17:13 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: contactpatch Lackawanna484 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > contactpatch Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > (snip) > > > > Diesel fuel tenders can't carry LNG because LNG > is > > a liquid at a temperature of minus 260 degrees > F; > > the BN had 2 LNG tenders, BNSF reported to > still > > have both, one shown in the Facebook posting > with > > the photo. > > Yes. > > I thought I read that the BNSF test would be for > compressed natural gas (CNG) rather than liquid > (LNG). > > The CNG storage tank can be operated under regular > exterior temps, but it takes longer to fill and > gives you less distance per tank. Nope, LNG. LNG itself gives any operating range of about 55% per gallon compared to diesel! which is why LNG requires a tender. CNG gives an operating range of only about 20% per gallon of volume compared to diesel. Also, CNG is stored at really high pressures, around 4,000 PSI. Those pressures result in having small high-pressure tanks. No tank cars exist anywhere near those pressures! One more thing, one doesn't just "bore a hole in a cylinder head" (for a gas injector) like drilling a hole in a piece of furniture. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/13 17:15 by contactpatch. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/30/13 21:52 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: alamode Both BNSF 9130 and 9131 are hooked up to a fuel tender at EMD's McCook, IL facility. They do run tests with their engines running. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 10/31/13 06:24 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: Lackawanna484 thanks for all the information [ Reply To This Message ] [ Quote ]   Date: 11/01/13 20:19 Re: How's the BNSF test of LNG locomotives doing? Author: 1019X "One more thing, one doesn't just "bore a hole in a cylinder head" (for a gas injector) like drilling a hole in a piece of furniture" I agree, what I saw was done by a company in the business of making LNG conversions and it was certainly was a researched, engineered conversion, made in their shop that was working quite well in service. If you thought I meant Joe went out with his Black & Decker and drilled a hole, I apologize.

I wonder what would be the horsepower which would be at the railhead of a computer controlled pure electric locomotive the size of a 4000-4400 hp diesel?

But on the other hand, we in 3R have to worry about power loses on our layouts.  I can understand the line losses for long distance electrical transmission lines.

 any special Sure looks like CN is cutting the capacity of the ISO LNG TANKER about in half. Also the test runs have been mostly in low populated areas. I am sure safety has to be a concern. Wonder if there are special things being done to the crew area of the engines for safety?

 I am still wondering what CN & other roads are going to do for saftey between the ISO WITH THE LNG and the Diesel itself to increase safety? Wonder if they may require some other type of car tp be spaced between the ISO & the diesel???