Western Railroad Discussion > Alaska Railroad wants to move LNG by rail too

Interesting article.  It's not just UP:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060014956



Allen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/15 18:41 by bradleymckay.

LNG by rail?  If you think that bakken crude stuff is volatile, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LNG by rail?  If you think that bakken crude
> stuff is volatile, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Explain for those who don't know

westernking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Explain for those who don't know

Even with the language barrier, these videos give a pretty good peek at what to expect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Ljg1yncFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI0QWm4TxZU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLGM_2l0zok



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/15 21:30 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

Just think of the drama "Railroad Alaska" could have with the first shipment!

Tom Y

Is this significantly different that the propane tank cars?
Roger Beckett

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this significantly different than the propane
> tank cars?

I think the BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion) is worse and covers a wider area than LPG.  After watching those videos (there are many others floating around on the Internet), imagine the chain reaction of, say, an eighty car unit train going up.

To suggest shipping this stuff by rail when emotions are still so raw from Lac Megantic is perplexing, to say the least.

There is also a proposal to export propane to Asia via the Port of Portland, OR.  It would likely be brought in by rail from Alberta via CP/UP.


Allen



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/15 21:39 by bradleymckay.

  If a unit train of this stuff went up in a populated area it would make the terrible accident at LacMegantic look like a Sunday school picnic!! LNG is heavier than air and when the vessel carrying it is ruptured it flows to the ground and since its being kept at minus 260 f (to keep it liquid) as soon as it hits a warmer temp. it violently begins to boil back to a gas, forms a huge vapor cloud and when that cloud finds an ignition source...KABOOM !!!

  Hard to imagine what 100 plus tank cars of this stuff would look like in a wreck....but one things for sure...you don't want to be anywhere near it !!!

   The only way I could ever see LNG being transported by rail would be in cryogenic ( to keep it minus 260f)  tank cars built so strong that most of their weight would be taken up by the tank car structure leaving little room for the LNG ??

   Ross Rowland

 

FWIW, my understanding of the proposal is to carry LNG in ISO tank containers, not tank cars, and carry them in short, dedicated unit trains rather than sticking them on the already-too-long Fairbanks freight. This will be many times safer than sending all that fuel via truck up the narrow and crowded Parks Highway.

Time for a little fact checking. Otherwise Chicken Little will be running around (again).

The 2012 truck explosion in China was misreported as involving LNG (liquefied natural gas, which is mostly methane); the news was later corrected that it was hauling LPG (liquefied petroleum gas, which is mostly propane and butane).

Last, co614 talks about natural gas risks ... What co614 isn't saying is that he's involved in his own effort to get CNG onto rails as a locomotive fuel. Perhaps co614 could tell us why he is an expert on LNG risks. Especially since ... LNG itself doesn't burn, it's the non-liquid form natural gas which burns. And CNG is already natural gas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/15 10:08 by Labiche.

There's a short press release in the European press showing a rail car which looks at lot like an LNG tender, designed for hauling LNG.  The builder is a unit of Chart Industries.

http://www.lngindustry.com/liquid-natural-gas/27052014/LNG_transport_via_rail_665/

Pretty tough to find population in Alaska until it reaches Anchorage:)  But most of the RR does run by a highway might be a factor......

Labiche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Time for a little fact checking. Otherwise Chicken
> Little will be running around (again).
>
> The 2012 truck explosion in China was misreported
> as involving LNG (liquefied natural gas, which is
> mostly methane); the news was later corrected that
> it was hauling LPG (liquefied petroleum gas, which
> is mostly propane and butane).
>
> Last, co614 talks about natural gas risks ... What
> co614 isn't saying is that he's involved in his
> own effort to get CNG onto rails as a locomotive
> fuel. Perhaps co614 could tell us why he is an
> expert on LNG risks. Especially since ... LNG
> itself doesn't burn, it's the non-liquid form
> natural gas which burns. And CNG is already
> natural gas.

Those videos say it all.  Doesn't matter if Ross Rowland is an expert.  That sort of accident is just WAY too dangerous.  Way, way, way too dangerous.