Natural gas-powered locomotive

[Ploughman]

Just found this item

Will this appear between 2 x 66s in the future?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...omotive-drives-cn-into-eco-friendlyer-future/

Canadian National Railway is exploring whether its feasible to use cheap and relatively clean natural gas to power its trains instead of diesel.

CN has retrofitted two of its existing diesel-fired locomotives to run mainly on natural gas. It’s testing the locomotives along the 480-kilometre stretch between Edmonton, a key energy processing and pipeline hub, and the oilsands epicentre of Fort McMurray, Alta.

Longer term, CN and three other partners are looking at developing an all-new natural gas locomotive engine as well as a specialized tank car to carry the fuel.

Natural gas giant Encana Corp. (TSXCA) is providing the fuelling, which, along with maintenance, will be taking place in Edmonton.

Energy Conversion Inc., the U.S. company that’s supplying the conversion kits to CN, says the move will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 70 per cent over a locomotive duty cycle.

“Natural gas has a lower carbon content compared with diesel fuel, so that locomotives using natural gas — if the railway technology employing this form of energy ultimately proves viable — would produce significantly fewer carbon dioxide emissions,” said CN chief operating officer Keith Creel in a release.

Railcars currently carry machinery and construction materials up to the oilsands, and extraction byproducts such as petroleum coke and sulphur south.

 

[Pen Mill]

It would be interesting to know how serious they are and what consumption in miles per tonne they're getting..
I presume there would be maybe 50 tonnes of deadweight in the fuel tank.

 

[kylemore]

I know this is a bit off the wall but what about Locomotives powered by a fuel abundantly available thoughout the UK, in fact we're sitting on Billions of tons of the stuff and extracting it and moving it would create 1000s of UK jobs ie COAL!

 

[Pen Mill]

I know this is a bit off the wall but what about Locomotives powered by a fuel abundantly available thoughout the UK, in fact we're sitting on Billions of tons of the stuff and extracting it and moving it would create 1000s of UK jobs ie COAL!

Stop it choking everyone and creating a black lining in the sky and you've cracked it !

EDIT : as a spotter in the 60s , I can vouch that there was nothing romantic about big black locos billowing loads of black smoke into the sjy and down peoples' throats..

 

[kylemore]

Stop it choking everyone and creating a black lining in the sky and you've cracked it !

EDIT : as a spotter in the 60s , I can vouch that there was nothing romantic about big black locos billowing loads of black smoke into the sjy and down peoples' throats..

I can remember travelling on steam trains - just!
Yes you're right just going back to the days of steam locos is not on the cards, I was thinking more of UK coal powering UK power stations supplying power to a largely electrified network.
Yes they should be as clean as possible but it all comes down to what you believe about "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

 

[jopsuk]

I know this is a bit off the wall but what about Locomotives powered by a fuel abundantly available thoughout the UK, in fact we're sitting on Billions of tons of the stuff and extracting it and moving it would create 1000s of UK jobs ie COAL!

How do you propose actually using coal in a way that is efficient and doesn't create signfificant levels of local particulate pollution? Unless your answer includes the words "electrification", "carbon capture and storage" and "scrubbers" you are in the realms of pure fantasy.

 

[kylemore]

How do you propose actually using coal in a way that is efficient and doesn't create signfificant levels of local particulate pollution? Unless your answer includes the words "electrification", "carbon capture and storage" and "scrubbers" you are in the realms of pure fantasy.

Electrification yes, scrubbers - whatever, carbon capture and storage - nonsense.
Yes there is a determined anti-coal propanganda, particularly where the people are particularly gullible ie the USA & UK, in fact in the UK it's been going on since the forces behind the "Thatcher project" decided their narrow selfish interests were more important than the interests of the UK and it's people (you could even call that treason!), hence the deliberate destruction of the British Coal industry.
One man's "fantasy" is another man's "reality"!

 

[PaxVobiscum]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...omotive-drives-cn-into-eco-friendlyer-future/

I wonder how much the deposit on that cannister is?

 

[HSTEd]

Only viable way to use coal is probably hydrogenation into liquid fuels at this point. (And I would much prefer to build fast breeder reactors that could use that 120,000t of depleted uranium that is sitting in drums at Capenhurst and Washington, since that incurs no mining costs or environmental damage whatsoever, long live the fast breeder reactor).


Anyway, the Russians have a similar locomotive that also runs on LNG/CNG, unfortunately its range is awful.

It will be interesting if they can manage to overcome this with this experimental locomotive that appears to be used only on a branch line.
The other obvious choice is to use things like Pearl GTL to make very high quality diesel with near zero particulate emissions.

 

[junglejames]

Electrification yes, scrubbers - whatever, carbon capture and storage - nonsense.
Yes there is a determined anti-coal propanganda, particularly where the people are particularly gullible ie the USA & UK, in fact in the UK it's been going on since the forces behind the "Thatcher project" decided their narrow selfish interests were more important than the interests of the UK and it's people (you could even call that treason!), hence the deliberate destruction of the British Coal industry.
One man's "fantasy" is another man's "reality"!

Now whilst i myself dont mind using coal fired power stations, that is because there isnt much else to use (Gas is needed for other uses, and renewable energy is too unreliable and only any good on small scales in this country, leaving coal and nuclear the only viable alternatives).
Your claims however that we are gullible and pollution is no problem, is a load of rubbish. You dont even need to touch on whether there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Take a look at the skies over China. Its dirty and disgusting, and all down to pollution. Id rather kill myself than live somewhere like that, underneath those skies. We cannot let ourselves go down that route. Pollution really does need to be reduced however possible. What we in most of Europe are doing is a good thing. To claim its us being gullible is absolute bull.

 

[Yew]

Maybe its time to look at coal burning gas turbines again? They did them in america in the 60's had problems with PT wear, also Ruston has previously operated some TB's based on coal.
With modern blade coatings its possible the bade wear issues could be mitigated, however there may be issues with Nox and particulates.

 

[A0wen]

Electrification yes, scrubbers - whatever, carbon capture and storage - nonsense.
Yes there is a determined anti-coal propanganda, particularly where the people are particularly gullible ie the USA & UK, in fact in the UK it's been going on since the forces behind the "Thatcher project" decided their narrow selfish interests were more important than the interests of the UK and it's people (you could even call that treason!), hence the deliberate destruction of the British Coal industry.
One man's "fantasy" is another man's "reality"!

Unfortunately, you're big on the fantasy and slightly short on the facts.

Perhaps here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Incidentally, the USA is still the world's second largest producer of coal - by quite a margin.

In fact the EU in general has been moving away from both coal production and consumption and it has tended to be used by poorer countries which are developing very quickly - China, India, Russia, South Africa.

Most tellingly the main reason not to burn more coal is not ideological but instead the health impacts it has, specifically:

A number of adverse health,[54] and environmental effects of coal burning exist,[55] especially in power stations, and of coal mining, including:
Coal-fired power plants shortened nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer.[56]
Generation of hundreds of millions of tons of waste products, including fly ash, bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals
Acid rain from high sulfur coal
Interference with groundwater and water table levels due to mining
Contamination of land and waterways and destruction of homes from fly ash spills. such as the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill
Impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land uses
Dust nuisance
Subsidence above tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure
Uncontrollable coal seam fire which may burn for decades or centuries
Coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture systems are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure.
Coal-fired power plants emit mercury, selenium, and arsenic, which are harmful to human health and the environment.[57]
Release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, causes climate change and global warming, according to the IPCC and the EPA. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.[58]

Now, if you want to live in a more polluted country with greater dependence on coal in the mistaken belief the only reason we don't have a coal industry in this country is ideological, feel free to move to China or Russia, where I'm sure they'll oblige.

Me? I'd much rather live in and let my children grow up in a less polluted more civilised country.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Just found this item
Will this appear between 2 x 66s in the future?

Well, I wouldn't advise trying it between a pair of class 70s... :roll:

 

[kylemore]

Unfortunately, you're big on the fantasy and slightly short on the facts.

Perhaps here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Incidentally, the USA is still the world's second largest producer of coal - by quite a margin.

In fact the EU in general has been moving away from both coal production and consumption and it has tended to be used by poorer countries which are developing very quickly - China, India, Russia, South Africa.

Most tellingly the main reason not to burn more coal is not ideological but instead the health impacts it has, specifically:

A number of adverse health,[54] and environmental effects of coal burning exist,[55] especially in power stations, and of coal mining, including:
Coal-fired power plants shortened nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer.[56]
Generation of hundreds of millions of tons of waste products, including fly ash, bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals
Acid rain from high sulfur coal
Interference with groundwater and water table levels due to mining
Contamination of land and waterways and destruction of homes from fly ash spills. such as the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill
Impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land uses
Dust nuisance
Subsidence above tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure
Uncontrollable coal seam fire which may burn for decades or centuries
Coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture systems are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure.
Coal-fired power plants emit mercury, selenium, and arsenic, which are harmful to human health and the environment.[57]
Release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, causes climate change and global warming, according to the IPCC and the EPA. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.[58]

Now, if you want to live in a more polluted country with greater dependence on coal in the mistaken belief the only reason we don't have a coal industry in this country is ideological, feel free to move to China or Russia, where I'm sure they'll oblige.

Me? I'd much rather live in and let my children grow up in a less polluted more civilised country.

Goodness! I'm amazed our ancestors managed to make it through the industrial revolution and up to the 1960s, which I suppose you could call the coal age.
Not only that there were ever increasing numbers of them and they steadily managed to live longer as the years went by.
Yes the climate is changing, mind you it always has done, the change since the industrial economy really got going in the 1880s has been marginal and indeed for the last 16 years temperature has been flat with no global warming. Now if you really wanted to see climate change go back to the 1600s when London looked like the South Pole for weeks on end or perhaps to the 1300s when the Norsemen were growing crops in GREENland where there is now only frozen wastes!

 

[John55]

Well, I wouldn't advise trying it between a pair of class 70s... :roll:

Why ever not? The engine in the class 70 is a gas engine modified to burn on diesel. It would probably work better on gas than diesel.

 

[NLC1072]

Why ever not? The engine in the class 70 is a gas engine modified to burn on diesel. It would probably work better on gas than diesel.

The spontaneous combustion qualities of the 70's make this a questionable idea at best!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The spontaneous combustion qualities of the 70's make this a questionable idea at best!

Exactly my thoughts!

With three out of twenty 70s now having err... overheated... and one other example trying to imitate a rocking horse, it is starting to look a bit like a cursed class!

 

[John55]

Exactly my thoughts!

With three out of twenty 70s now having err... overheated... and one other example trying to imitate a rocking horse, it is starting to look a bit like a cursed class!

I only know of 2 fires one of which was caused by human error (i.e. not reconnecting a fuel line). I am not convinced there is much justification for this idea.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 3rd one was an electrical fire reported on this forum a few days ago.

 

[brianthegiant]

I can remember travelling on steam trains - just!
Yes you're right just going back to the days of steam locos is not on the cards, I was thinking more of UK coal powering UK power stations supplying power to a largely electrified network.
Yes they should be as clean as possible but it all comes down to what you believe about "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

From your double quotes and other comments, should we take it that you don't wish to accept what is now widely accepted as scientific fact?
A) that the climate is changing
B) Climate change is caused largely by greenhouse gases - C02, methane, etc
C) Emissions of said gases are at record high levels and continuing to rise
D) There is very strong evidence of cause & effect between these gases and climate change. i.e. climate change is man-made.

The reality is that the people who publicly claim climate change doesn't exist or that it isn't man-made in the media are not publishing climate scientists, since climate scientists are unanimous that it does and it is.

Of course you can continue to deny the science, much like tobacco companies denied a link between smoking and cancer, but that doesn't change the facts.

Whilst it's relatively easy to claim climate change is a conspiracy, in reality, what that approach really means is to leave an even bigger mess for future generations, which in my view is not a responsible course of action whether or not you have children/grandchildren.

 

[LE Greys]

From your double quotes and other comments, should we take it that you don't wish to accept what is now widely accepted as scientific fact?
A) that the climate is changing
B) Climate change is caused largely by greenhouse gases - C02, methane, etc
C) Emissions of said gases are at record high levels and continuing to rise
D) There is very strong evidence of cause & effect between these gases and climate change. i.e. climate change is man-made.

The reality is that the people who publicly claim climate change doesn't exist or that it isn't man-made in the media are not publishing climate scientists, since climate scientists are unanimous that it does and it is.

Of course you can continue to deny the science, much like tobacco companies denied a link between smoking and cancer, but that doesn't change the facts.

Whilst it's relatively easy to claim climate change is a conspiracy, in reality, what that approach really means is to leave an even bigger mess for future generations, which in my view is not a responsible course of action whether or not you have children/grandchildren.

Hear! Hear!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To get back to the point, there have been plenty of strange fuels used by locomotives. Wood-firing was common in many places, while gas turbines have burnt paraffin, diesel, bunker fuel and even pulvarised coal. There was also a notable electro-steam class of shunters in Switzerland. A natural gas loco might be a good addition to this, provided the numbers stack up. However, I think electricity is still the way to go.

 

[brianthegiant]

For those still denying climate change, this interview with broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough makes compelling viewing:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2012/oct/25/david-attenborough-climate-change-video

he says scientists and environmentalists have been cautious of overstating the dangers of global warming, but recent evidence of melting polar caps shows the situation is worse than had been thought. He also discusses population growth and disappearing habitats

 

[AndyLandy]

If this can become a reality:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120509123900.htm

I would expect the future of locomotive power would be using fuel cells.

 

[LexyBoy]

You'd want a way of storing hydrogen too, it's not easy to do in a way that gives you a sensible energy density.

 

[AndyLandy]

You'd want a way of storing hydrogen too, it's not easy to do in a way that gives you a sensible energy density.

Hmm, that's an interesting point. At the very least, fuel cells might be able to form the electricity supply for electric trains. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if someone finds a way of more efficiently storing the hydrogen.

 

[HSTEd]

The japanese are still working on it.

I am not too hopefully really short of using high temperature "direct reforming" fuel cells.

We are really stuck with advanced diesel engines, atleast until HCCI finally works... if it ever does.

 

[kylemore]

For those still denying climate change, this interview with broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough makes compelling viewing:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2012/oct/25/david-attenborough-climate-change-video

he says scientists and environmentalists have been cautious of overstating the dangers of global warming, but recent evidence of melting polar caps shows the situation is worse than had been thought. He also discusses population growth and disappearing habitats

I would submit David Bellamy is as qualified as David Attenborough to comment however you won't find his views easily as his TV career was over the minute he started publicly expressing his sceptical opinion of man made global warming.
Those who parrot the "Official" view are constantly in our faces, those who dare to question are ridiculed and have every obstacle up to and including career destruction put in their way - no wonder the "majority" support man made global warming or climate change as we have now to call it.
As for the polar caps the southern one has advanced recently.

 

[paulusthegnome]

Here in the western U.S.A, both the Class A railroads (Union Pacific and Burlington Northern) have significant Natural Gas fuel programs, either LNG or CNG. The rapid fall in NG prices (my home heating bill has halved in the past two years) and increasing anti-pollution (particulate matter and sulphide) measures have promoted interest in NG burning locomotives. The West has a surplus NG capacity and an extensive infrastructure for producing LNG for export to Japan.
We also have the big mountain ranges and long grades requiring helper locomotives working shuttles from a fixed depot. These are ideal conditions for NG fuel experiments.

 

[Teaboy1]

There is no reason why a loco cannot be built using a spark ignition gas engine, many manufacturers produce them for power generation (Jenbacher, CAT, MHI, etc) and they come in pretty big configurations. I come across these engines burning landfill gas or mine gas all the time, there are 3 at Cadeby pit (site of), 4 at Maltby pit and all over the midlands where you have landfill. Typically these are V12's
The only drawback would be the need to tow a large tank on LNG behind said loco and evaporating liquid into gas and piping it into throttle but fitting an actual gas engine into a loco should be possible if and when manufacturers get the orders.
However such a large LNG tanker behind any loco would be route restricted and a certain no-go in say Channel tunnel or where fire & explosion risk is too high .... so that would exclude most industrial installations like power plants and refineries etc etc. But emission would be most favorable I guess. Probably not likely to happen while diesel is in such favor and still relatively cheap.

 

[LE Greys]

I would submit David Bellamy is as qualified as David Attenborough to comment however you won't find his views easily as his TV career was over the minute he started publicly expressing his sceptical opinion of man made global warming.
Those who parrot the "Official" view are constantly in our faces, those who dare to question are ridiculed and have every obstacle up to and including career destruction put in their way - no wonder the "majority" support man made global warming or climate change as we have now to call it.
As for the polar caps the southern one has advanced recently.

To avoid this degenerating into a shouting match, I suggest the best answer is to look at the data. To do that, look at the Milankovitch Cycles, which are so widely-accepted that they are used as a standard means to measure time in paleoclimatology. This has been widely known since 1976, which happens to be about the same time that climate change concerns appeared. The reason, climate behaviour is currently running contrary to the Milankovitch Cycles, it is getting warmer instead of colder.

So if the Earth is not following the pattern it has followed for thousands, if not millions, of years, what is going on?

Incidentally, there are problems, but that is the case in many different theories (including evolution, general relativity and even gravity).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no reason why a loco cannot be built using a spark ignition gas engine, many manufacturers produce them for power generation (Jenbacher, CAT, MHI, etc) and they come in pretty big configurations. I come across these engines burning landfill gas or mine gas all the time, there are 3 at Cadeby pit (site of), 4 at Maltby pit and all over the midlands where you have landfill. Typically these are V12's
The only drawback would be the need to tow a large tank on LNG behind said loco and evaporating liquid into gas and piping it into throttle but fitting an actual gas engine into a loco should be possible if and when manufacturers get the orders.
However such a large LNG tanker behind any loco would be route restricted and a certain no-go in say Channel tunnel or where fire & explosion risk is too high .... so that would exclude most industrial installations like power plants and refineries etc etc. But emission would be most favorable I guess. Probably not likely to happen while diesel is in such favor and still relatively cheap.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.