LNG... as in liquified natural gas?

the stuff is so hazardous to transport, that when it goes by ship all marine traffic in the area is halted for the duration.

placing it on the rails for fuel sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

can any trainmen comment on the regs for rail transport?

Didn't the BN try this years ago?.....Looks like an accident waiting to happen.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.n...ture.aspx?id=3164406

Here is the CN press release regarding this.

Curt

CN tests natural gas/diesel fuel powered locomotives between Edmonton and Fort McMurray, Alta.

EDMONTON, Sept. 27, 2012 — CN (TSX: CNR) (NYSE: CNI) announced today it is testing two mainline diesel-electric locomotives fuelled principally by natural gas in revenue service in northern Alberta.

Keith Creel, executive vice-president and chief operating officer, said: “CN launched this locomotive test to explore the use of natural gas as a potential alternative to conventional diesel fuel. This reflects CN's continuing drive to look for ways to improve operating efficiency and advance the company's sustainability agenda.

“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.”

CN retrofitted the diesel engines in two 3,000-horsepower Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD, a subsidiary of Progress Rail Services, a Caterpillar Company (NYSE: CAT)) -- SD40-2 locomotives to run on natural gas using conversion kits supplied by Energy Conversions Inc. (ECI) of Tacoma, Wash. ECI says the hybrid fuel locomotive will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 70 per cent over a locomotive duty cycle. Click on here to view the locomotive set.

The retrofitted locomotives, using 90 per cent natural gas, with 10 per cent diesel fuel for ignition, are paired with a natural gas fuel tender, or specially equipped and protected tank car, between them. The tender was upgraded by a unit of Chart Industries, Inc., (NASDAQ: GTLS), located in New Prague, Minn. Natural gas fueling is being provided by Encana Corporation (TSX: ECA) (NYSE: ECA).

The natural gas fuelled locomotives are testing on the 300-mile run north of Edmonton to Fort McMurray, rail gateway to the oil sands region of northern Alberta. Fueling and maintenance take place in Edmonton.

CN is also working with EMD, Westport Innovations Inc. (TSX: WPT) (NASDAQ: WPRT) and Gaz Métro Transport Solutions (GMTS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Gaz Métro, on a longer term project to explore a state-of-the-art natural gas railway engine and a standardized railway tender.

CN will provide two 4,300-horsepower SD70M-2 EMD locomotives for the test program. EMD, in addition to the engine conversion, will supply technical expertise to integrate the natural gas engine, related components and controls into the locomotive, including Westport™ high-pressure direct injection (HPDI) technology and natural gas fuel system technologies. GMTS will develop natural gas liquefaction requirements and distribution systems. An innovative natural gas tender for this initiative will be jointly developed by the project partners.

The CN-led group expects to conduct engine laboratory tests in 2013 and to roll out the prototype main-line locomotives for road tests in 2014.

As part of the project, Westport secured a funding commitment of C$2.3 million from the Canadian government's Sustainable Development Technology Canada program to develop the HPDI technology for high-horsepower applications.

CN leads the North American rail industry in fuel efficiency, consuming close to 15 per cent less fuel per gross-ton-mile overall than the industry average. CN's lower fuel consumption results in significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

I believe BN for a while in the eighties used tank cars as "tenders" for diesel fuel, having two diesels with a tank car between them as a semi-permanent "set". But AFAIK it was just regular diesel fuel being used.

Ahhh ok thanks stix, I think you're right.

The BN did conduct tests using natural gas as a locomotive fuel, first in the mid 1980's using compressed natural gas and then again in the early 1990's using natural gas that was held in the tender as refrigerated liquid methane.  As the OP noted in the footnote of his opening post, the current CN locomotive / fuel tender set appears to be outwardly similar to that used by BN in their tests.

Curt

Yes you are right Curt, I found this on the BN's use of LNG.

http://www.qstation.org/BN_LNG/

and here...http://crudeoilpeak.info/solut...ocomotive-conversion

Now are they CNG or LNG? 

Now is this an experiment to get around Tier 4 requirements?

I've done quite a bit of research on natural gas.   I've sat on industry roundtable discussions and done a ton of research towards converting a fleet of trucks, buses and cars where I work.  This is what I've found so far.

CN is wise to do an experiment to use cheap, readily available fuel that has a huge amount of upside potential.   Right now natural gas is less than half  the price of an equivalent amount of diesel fuel.  Buying in bulk right now with the depressed market it is only 1/3 the price!  It is so abundant that they're shutting down wells because the demand isn't there...yet.  A side advantage is that it burns so cleanly that maintenance is reduced and longevity is increased by a large percentage.

I readily admit there are safety issues, as Whyhog points.  But the upside potential is so huge and the economics at this time are so favorable that any company that uses large amounts of fuel with centralized fueling capabilities owes it to themselves to find a way to use it.  Want energy independence?  Here's a huge way to get there with lower energy costs to boot.  Natural gas powered cars, trucks and buses are turning up in greater quantities with trash trucks and buses being most favorable currently.  Right now the huge downside is storing, fueling and carrying the large, pressurized tanks necessary to hold large enough quantities to be practical.  You'll also note there is scant government involvement at this time.  This is being done by private industry because the economics look promising. 

The BN trials were a start back then but the vast quantities and super cheap price we're seeing now weren't available.  Quite simply the market told them it wouldn't work.  Now is different. 

The big issues right now are safety, fueling capabilities and storage while operating.  I totally understand how an operating department or engineer would think it's a giant PITA.  If the issues can be solved by technology improvements this fuel source is the way to go.  Let's put it this way:  They've just announced that a gas station is installing a commercial CNG fueling station about 2 miles from my house.  If I could get my hands on a CNG powered car for a reasonable price I'd buy one tomorrow. 

there are some great explanations in this thread. I think we'd all agree that COMPRESSED natural gas is far safer in this application than LIQUIFIED natural gas, though it surely would not yield the same storage capacity.

Nothing ventured nothinh gained!

You really fooled me!  I thought you meant they were testing Narrow Gauge locomotives!

1. That tank car (tender) of supercold liquid natural gas right behind the lead unit _IS_ a safety hazard regardless of what the RR and company say. If this were a commercial shipment it would have to be at least the 6th car from _all_ engines per HazMat regs.

Which makes me wonder how they got by with that? And, how is CN getting by with it?

Shades of UP #57 in the early '50s!  If it works, lets harness this stuff to a

gas turbine and let the fun begin.  No. 18 over at IRM is just waiting for a

rebuild and another few more years on point! 

As I recall, the biggest problem/issue with the BN LNG tests was the fact that the liquefaction of the Natural Gas was prohibitively expensive.

Sure, the Natural Gas is cheap, just like hydrogen, but the PROCESS to liquefy the Natural gas, or PRODUCE hydrogen, cost sooooo much, it winds up way too expensive in the long run. 

Houston METRO is ordering new 40' buses with CNG, because of the lower costs of fuel. 

Also, NG powered items would not come under Tier 4, which covers diesels, right?

....of course you've got the whole documentary 'Gasland' dealing with the concerns of fracking and claims of ground water being contaminated.

I have a bi-fuel - CNG / Gasoline GMC 2500 truck, it will get about 115 miles on 3,600Lb tank of CNG. According to some mechanics you can go longer between oil changes.  I notice a big difference power wise when truck switches over to Gasoline - Probably a +30 horsepower difference, but that's just going by the seat of my pants feeling.

PS - In the winter months, upon first start up the truck runs horribly when cold due to CNG's high ignition point of 1076 degrees Fahrenheit.

I would think that perhaps the unmodified or slightly modified tanker is to be used soley for testing and that a more robust trailing unit could be devised, if this is the path they chose..

Personaly I think it looks cool! Wonder if MTH will make it?

Around here mile long tank trains loaded with methanol go east and empties go west so I don't see what the big deal is about it.

As fas as the 'documentary" Gasland is concerned I've seen water wells spew out crude oil and methane gas 40+ years ago..and no oil wells within 150 miles so go figure?

Another insight is here: 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/0...gas-diesel/index.htm

If you look close at the top of the Tank car they "a black tarp" covering up something along most of the length of the car. It looks like 2 ropes/bands runing around the tank???

As for the safety aspect of this; LNG is explosive but the steel used in those tanker bodies are many inches thick and are designed to survivie crash damage. In a derailment the engine usually stays on the tracks or if it it derails it seldom tumbles over. Notice that the tanker is sandwiched between two engines. The UP experimented using propane as a fuel back in the 60's and the experiment was a success from an operational point of view but a failure costwise. With the price of todays oil it would not surprise me if LNG is the fuel of the future for many freight railroads.

You have obviously NOT been to a lot of railroad locomotive derailments/wrecks/collisions!

As far as safety is concerned, in my mind the jury is till out. I have seen train wrecks as well as the enormous forces they generate, let alone at high speeds. I have seen enough news reports of Hazmat teams being dispatched as well as exploding or dramatically flaming tank cars being cooled at the risk of life and limb. Theory is one thing, reality is another. The only thing that is both idiot and fool proof is a hermetically sealed steel box that is empty. 

Ummmm....

Rusty

From a fire fighter's blog..a photo of a tank car explosion. ( one of ten depicted) I am not trying to be a naysayer..but a little real world perspective does not hurt as a precautionary tale of theory versus reality.

Did anyone hear hpw long CN will run this test? Also wonder if the testing will consist of only how well it works and how much it cost or will they also try some CRASH TESTING TO LEARN MORE about the TANK DESIGN?. Do we know ANYTHING ABOUT THE TANK DESIGN they are using in the testing? I do hope that CN will do a broad range of testing. Maybe it would be done in phases depending on how good the results are from a previous phase.

A few more pictures of the TEST set up. The top of the Tank seems to have a few things going on.

it hasnt been renumbered because it is still owned by Union Pacific...CN is only leasing it in case the Natural Gas trial does not do weill

Thanks for the photos. And just when we thought the idea of tenders were a relic of the past. I can't imagine someone climbing up on a tank car enroute if there is a feed or flow issue..maybe it will configured as a B unit..somehow that just doesn't look right.. as it is..and thats a big tank.. the wheels look dwarfed compared to the tank body..kind of like skate board wheels on a SUV.

Again thanks for the photos but this now begs the question...

it hasnt been renumbered because it is still owned by Union Pacific...CN is only leasing it in case the Natural Gas trial does not do well

What was up doing with a NG fuel tender? What did the UP's set up look like? sorry, this is the first time I herd of the UP experimenting with NG locos too!

 Bill, the cab I got for that G scale would make my SD40-2 look like that CN engine?? Maybe if I just flare out the radiator grilles too?

Here is a link to a lot of info on alt fuels and time lines for the past testing.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard...ment/112807lngqa.pdf  

The conclusion back in Nov. 2003 was as follows:

In summary limited operation in a laboratory environment showed that significant NOx reduction could be achieved by operating a locomotive engine with LNG however the lack of durable and reliable fuel injection, gas delivery, and control system components made an over the road and/or an in railroad service demonstration impractical if not impossible.

Joe, following is the spec on CN 5261 wich is a wide cab. I am not sure about the grills. The LNG has about half the BTU/ Gal of #2 Diesel fuel. The grill question needs tp be looked at a little more.

The TANK Tender is A LOT BIGGER THAN the original pictures makes it look. The last set of pictures that show the UP car and then the newly painted CN TANK TENDER maks the TENDER LOOK A LOT LONGER. i THINK IT WOULD BE COOL TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE HARDWARE UP ON THE TOP OF THE CAR.

Does it mean the railroads trnsport LNG regularly?