 |
Re: Albuquerque diesel? Mouse lies again.... Not a word about diesel, CNG maybe? Or a CNG hybrid...
Author: FUD
Date: 10-05-2019 - 08:25
Unfortunately, there aren't many CNG locomotive stories. Not because they don't work (they do) but because other considerations continue to push US railroads to diesel.
A brief bit in Wikipedia: [en.wikipedia.org]
A promoter: [en.wikipedia.org]
A skeptic: [energyskeptic.com]
A movie: [www.youtube.com]
An ARB evaluation: [ww3.arb.ca.gov]
The downside of CNG for locomotives, as with long-haul trucks, is storage density. Tanks are big. That's not a problem where the vehicle can be refueled once or twice a day, as with a bus, but can be in trucking if it doesn't return to the yard regularly. So NG in trucking (and in some locomotive tests) tends to be LNG.
SacRT was an early adopter of CNG buses, and yes, there were teething problems. They worked through the problems and developed a reliable system based on it. Arguably, CNG reliance prevented them from going bankrupt during some of the diesel price spikes, as well as, of course, the benefits for air quality at a time when diesel emission controls were in their infancy.
I've driven CNG cars and light trucks. They work fine. The only real issues were (and are): range, which is similar to what we get out of EVs now (150-250 miles); and fueling, unless operating out of a central facility with on-site fueling for daily use. Unlike EVs, of course, refueling is quick (similar to diesel). And the range issue is addressed in CNG conversions by leaving the gasoline fuel system intact with automatic switchover; the downside to that is loss of usable space somewhere (the State's Chevy Cavaliers had the CNG tank in the trunk, so luggage space was reduced to a couple of briefcases).
A brief bit in Wikipedia: [en.wikipedia.org]
A promoter: [en.wikipedia.org]
A skeptic: [energyskeptic.com]
A movie: [www.youtube.com]
An ARB evaluation: [ww3.arb.ca.gov]
The downside of CNG for locomotives, as with long-haul trucks, is storage density. Tanks are big. That's not a problem where the vehicle can be refueled once or twice a day, as with a bus, but can be in trucking if it doesn't return to the yard regularly. So NG in trucking (and in some locomotive tests) tends to be LNG.
SacRT was an early adopter of CNG buses, and yes, there were teething problems. They worked through the problems and developed a reliable system based on it. Arguably, CNG reliance prevented them from going bankrupt during some of the diesel price spikes, as well as, of course, the benefits for air quality at a time when diesel emission controls were in their infancy.
I've driven CNG cars and light trucks. They work fine. The only real issues were (and are): range, which is similar to what we get out of EVs now (150-250 miles); and fueling, unless operating out of a central facility with on-site fueling for daily use. Unlike EVs, of course, refueling is quick (similar to diesel). And the range issue is addressed in CNG conversions by leaving the gasoline fuel system intact with automatic switchover; the downside to that is loss of usable space somewhere (the State's Chevy Cavaliers had the CNG tank in the trunk, so luggage space was reduced to a couple of briefcases).
