Eastern Railroad Discussion > NS to test CNG-fueled power set

NS will start testing industry's first CNG tender soon on the Pocahontas Division between Williamson, W.Va., and Lambert’s Point, Norfolk, Va., using BNSF locomotives and this first of its kind CNG tender in “captive” coal loop (loads and empty returns) service.
https://www.railwayage.com/news/cngmotive-moves-to-the-next-level/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/19 03:11 by JPB.

Only a matter of when not if that the big railroads switch from diesel to ng. As we speak ng is selling for about 85 cents a gallon vs. the railroads paying about $ 2.10gal. for diesel. The big rails burn 4 billion gallons a year. Do the math.  Also, with Tier 5 emissions on the horizon the only feasible way to get there is ng.

   I applaud NS for their foresight and willingness to take the lead.  

   Ross Rowland 

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only a matter of when not if that the big
> railroads switch from diesel to ng. As we speak ng
> is selling for about 85 cents a gallon vs. the
> railroads paying about $ 2.10gal. for diesel. The
> big rails burn 4 billion gallons a year. Do the
> math.  Also, with Tier 5 emissions on the horizon
> the only feasible way to get there is ng.
>
>    I applaud NS for their foresight and
> willingness to take the lead.  
>
>    Ross Rowland 

Natural Gas won't remain that cheap once it is in greater demand.

Also, no one thought that diesel could meet Euro 6 and yet that has been accomplish with room to spare.

Posted from Android

And there has been some debate about the fuel tender...

It will be interesting to see what NS thinks of them.

Posted from Android

Hasn't the FEC given up on gas? I know BNSF has.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/19 07:41 by tomstp.

Can one of you knowledgeable fellows give a summary explanation of CNG vs. LNG?  I read the linked article and it's not clear to me what the advantages of this new system are except faster re-fueling which seems to be a mechanical innovation not related to the fuel type.
(pre-emptive comment: Google is not my friend; TO members are.)

And I wonder if it's worth the risk for a train to tow around a natural gas bomb between two big locomotives.  Seems riskier than an entrained tank car.  Comments?
Thanks!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/19 07:48 by RRTom.

It will be intereting to see if NS ikes this.  That Scott fellow must be a smart dude.  I loved EMD.  They had a engineer(not locomotive) that sent me almost every operating manual back to the SD9s.

Randy Lundgren
Elgin, TX

 

The $$$/gallon thing is misleading as there's quite a difference in btu value of CNG and diesel.

Out

NS is hardly taking the lead on the gas testing.  Lets see now, early testing had CSX, UP nd BN with special tank cars, GE did testing. and later BNSF did testing and FEC tested and recently is or was using the gas tanks in a well cars as fuel tenders.  Seems like NS is the tail end Charlie.
When BNSF finished up on tests I think I read that Matt Rose felt the price spread on gas/diesel didnt warrent the massive infrastructure investment

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS is hardly taking the lead on the gas testing. 
> Lets see now, early testing had CSX, UP nd BN with
> special tank cars, GE did testing. and later BNSF
> did testing and FEC tested and recently is or was
> using the gas tanks in a well cars as fuel
> tenders.  Seems like NS is the tail end Charlie.
> When BNSF finished up on tests I think I read that
> Matt Rose felt the price spread on gas/diesel
> didnt warrent the massive infrastructure
> investment

NS is testing compressed natural gas.  The others were all liquified natural gas.

chuchubob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS is testing compressed natural gas.  The others
> were all liquified natural gas.

Just placating the "Greens"!

Next up: high horsepower battery based locomotives will be testing on BNSF:
https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/service/battery-electric-locomotive.html

Posted from iPhone

JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next up: high horsepower battery based locomotives
> will be testing on BNSF:
> https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/service/b
> attery-electric-locomotive.html

Think of the expense as PR, not research.

Didn’t NS test battery powered units?

Gary


JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next up: high horsepower battery based locomotives
> will be testing on BNSF:
> https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/service/b
> attery-electric-locomotive.html
>
> Posted from iPhone

mully Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn’t NS test battery powered units?
>
> Gary

Unsuccessful:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,4767895,4768022#msg-4768022

mully Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn’t NS test battery powered units?
>
> Gary


Yes. The unit is in storage.

Posted from Android

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can one of you knowledgeable fellows give a summary explanation of CNG vs. LNG?  I read the
> linked article and it's not clear to me what the advantages of this new system are except faster
> re-fueling which seems to be a mechanical innovation not related to the fuel type.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) puts gas under high compression (typically 3,000psi).  Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) also uses compression but in addition cools the gas to extremely low temperatures, which converts the gas into a liquid.  With LNG you need advanced refrigeration technology to keep it as a liquid until you need to use it, but it is more efficient to transport than CNG because it is denser, and subsequently contains a higher BTU rating per unit of volume.  


> And I wonder if it's worth the risk for a train to tow around a natural gas bomb between two big
> locomotives.  Seems riskier than an entrained tank car.  Comments?

The fuel tenders go through pretty exhaustive crash and leak tests - I would think they're probably way safer than hauling ethanol or LNG in tank cars. 

The FEC's LNG program is going full tilt - most of the road freights use a pair of GE's mated to a LNG fuel tender.  Of course they have a pretty ideal situation for their use - a fairly short mainline with predictable daily schedules.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/19 12:57 by rbenko.

Thanks rbenko.

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS is hardly taking the lead on the gas testing. 
> Lets see now, early testing had CSX, UP nd BN with
> special tank cars, GE did testing. and later BNSF
> did testing and FEC tested and recently is or was
> using the gas tanks in a well cars as fuel
> tenders.  Seems like NS is the tail end Charlie.
> When BNSF finished up on tests I think I read that
> Matt Rose felt the price spread on gas/diesel
> didnt warrent the massive infrastructure
> investment

CSX's experiment with AC4400CW's #28, 29 & 30 was not with LNG or CNG. It was with diesel and the theory was that the fuel tender would keep the fuel tanks on both locomotives completely full and would allow for maximum adhesion and tractive effort, from the mines to the Electric Fuels of Florida Crystal River plant and return, hopefully eliminating the use of helpers as well.

Russ

A number of years ago our family oil business was asked about putting in a CNG dispenser and compressor/storage in our existing  gasoline/diesel locations  for car and truck CNG fueling. The dispenser alone was $150,000 and the compressor/storage was another $75,000 but the really big killer was the cost to compress the gas to 3600 psi and the storage size needed for sufficient capacity to move customers throught the facility. Fueling a standard car tank of 20 gallons took about 5 minutes and required the driver or an attendant to be present at the hose assembly. Trucks were about 15 minutes minimum. I can't imagine the facility costs to fuel locomotives tanks of 4,000-5,000 gallons in a timely manner. Also natural gas when it becomes POPULAR and used in more methods than now will return to it's normal $11-13 pricing versus the $2-3 now seen due to oversupply. ------- Ken