World Grain - April 2013 - 76

FEATURE: SUBSTITUTE FUELS FOR TRUCKS, RAILROADS

vestment, NG-fueled trucks will save
$25,000 in fuel cost per truck per year.
Under the assumption of no change
in government programs and business
as usual, EIA projects that NG heavyduty truck sales will be about 26,000
per year by 2035. The total number of
heavy duty NG trucks in the ﬂeet would
be 275,000 units.
RAILROAD FUELING OPTIONS
In 2010, the seven U.S. Class 1 railroads, (each with revenues exceeding $398
million) consumed 3.5 billion gallons of

ered locomotives, particularly in those
in heavy duty, line haul service. The
lower Btu content of biodiesel generally
caused reduced locomotive power. The
use of biodiesel created handling, storage and engine performance problems
associated with high gel temperatures
and oxidation of biodiesel. Railroads
were also concerned about the higher
cost of biodiesel and potential problems
with manufacturer’s warranties on diesel engines and fuel injection systems.
The general conclusion from the biodiesel tests on railroad locomotives is

Low-cost biodiesel feedstock supplies such as inedible fats and
cooking oils are approaching their availability limits. The biodiesel industry may be forced to use more higher-cost virgin
vegetable oil feedstocks.

diesel fuel, according to the Association
of American Railroads (AAR). That was
only 10.4% of the diesel fuel consumed
by medium and heavy-duty trucks in the
same year. Therefore, the potential to reduce the total number of gallons of diesel
fuel consumed by railroads is sharply lower than for heavy duty trucks. The three
possible short-to-medium term substitutes
for diesel fuel for the railroad industry are
biodiesel, NG and electricity.
Numerous biodiesel performance tests
have been made on diesel engines in
North American railroad locomotives.
These tests, including various blends
of biodiesel and diesel, raised serious
concerns about the use of biodiesel by
railroads, according to researchers at
the Transportation Technology Center,
Pueblo, Colorado, U.S. A major concern
was the compatibility between biodiesel
fuel and medium-speed diesel locomotive
engines. These issues included material
compatibility, fuel system compatibility
including fuel leakage, and engine oil dilution. These issues were more serious on
heavy-duty, line-haul locomotives than on
lower power switch engine locomotives.
These tests indicated there were higher NOx emissions from biodiesel pow76

that railroads are unlikely to use biodiesel beyond the federal and state usage mandates. However, if synthetic
diesel fuels become available at prices
below petroleum-based diesel, railroads
may begin substituting some synthetic
diesel fuels for petroleum-based diesel.
The AAR reports that railroads have
been experimenting with NG products as
fuel for locomotives for over 75 years. The
ﬁrst experiment took place in Missouri
in 1936. The Joplin-Pittsburg Railroad
placed a propane-fueled, 450-hp sparkignited locomotive in service. This locomotive was later put in local service by
the Kansas City Public Service Company.
Several experiments were conducted from
1959-80. One experiment, with a gas turbine locomotive, was abandoned because
of low fuel efﬁciency; other experiments
were conducted with locomotives using
propane and CNG.
In 1992, the Burlington Northern
Railroad converted two diesel-electric
SD-40 locomotives to run on a duel
LNG-diesel mode. A 25,000-gallon
LNG tender, placed between the two
locomotives, provided the fuel for both
locomotives. The two locomotives were
then placed in unit train coal service.

They were converted back to diesel fuel
and general service in 1995.
In 1993, MK Rail Corp. introduced a
LNG-fueled switch engine. Burlington
Northern and Union Paciﬁc each purchased two of these new switch engines.
All four switch engines are still in service in California. The LPG is hauled
into California by truck from Arizona.
The conversion from diesel to dual
diesel-LNG fuels reduced the horsepower of the switch engines from 2,000
to 1,250. The fuel consumption of the
converted diesel-LNG engines to do the
same work increased by 33%.
These early experiments lead the railroad industry to conclude that NG was not
likely to provide adequate power needed
for heavy-duty, long-distance unit trains
service with the locomotive technology
available at that time. NG would require
major investments in refueling facilities
across the entire railroad system.
NG prices at that time would not generate the savings needed to ﬁnance these refueling investments. There were no NOx
beneﬁts and all other pollutant emissions
were much higher than from the clean
burning diesel electric locomotives.
These early experiments were run
when diesel and NG prices were close
to each other. Since then, NG prices
have fallen dramatically relative to diesel fuel. These much lower NG prices
have motivated all Class I railroads to
begin reevaluating the possibility of using NG to power both long haul, heavy
duty locomotives and switch. One railroad is currently testing the use of LNG
in one train using fuel tenders from earlier 1990s experiments.
These reevaluations and actual experiments will determine if NG technologies
can provide the power and clean burning
performance of diesel-electric technologies at a lower cost. If the answer is yes,
the railroad industry will likely invest in
NG locomotives, fuel tenders, refueling
and maintenance and repair facilities.
ELECTRIFIED RAILROADS
In the 1920s, the railroad system in
the northeast U.S., called the Northeast
April 2013 / World Grain / www.World-Grain.com

http://www.World-Grain.com

World Grain - April 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of World Grain - April 2013