I believe I've read other places that there is a weight limit on the size of a locomotive that can burn LNG, something about the size of the explosive danger of the tank involved? I think that a 3' gauge Crown American is about the largest locomotive that can run on LNG. Anyone know for sure?

Hello,

The danger does exist but Im not sure how different this would be from a typical LNG tank car application.

http://www.gatx.com/wps/wcm/connect/GAT ... k/Pressure

In addition, the following field trial was done some time ago. Maybe safety regs have changed since that time? The LNG trailer car looks quite sizable.

http://www.energyconversions.com/media/BN7890r800.jpg

It looks like Energy Conversions still actively promotes this. Whether any railroads are revisting this since natural gas prices may moderate for a while....I don't know. Emissions regs (aside from CO2) are ever tightening, these conversions may have more application for severe non-attainment areas of the country.

Regard,

Randy

I was under the impression it had to do with the open-flame of a firebox and limiting the possible "blast zone" from the whole locomotive going up. Yeah, I'm familiar with LPG tank cars, I held a card on CSX and ran more than a few up and down the East Coast.

Steam locomotives are exempt from EPA regulations,and if you are burning good coal, smoke should not be a major problem. As everyone knows if this is going to be a totally steam powered operation, as good as the 614 is, she is, the inevitable need for annuals, boiler washes, and just plain old cussedness.....any plans for a suitable back up locomotive and what would fit the bill?

Reading 2100?

[ducks and runs]

952?

912?

B&LE 643?

[runs off to foxhole, dons helmet, and pops head back up......]


PRR 1361?

[ducks back in and digs further down]

The Greenbrier? C&O territory? Any one of the surviving Kanawha's. Or....#490. Hands down!

Les

1309

Lets just assume the backup power will be a NYC Hudson thats been hid in a tunnel/shop/barn/mine since back in the day, and it was fresh from a major overhaul when it was stored. Because that's just as likely as the rest of this fantasy.

Paul,

Good points. With regards to open flame. Modern gas combustion burners have flame safety relays along with a flame detectors. If you have a flame-out at full fire, it immediately shuts the supply valve. Unless some joker manually resets the flame safety or puts it on auto reset, you run the risk of gas ignition where you do not want it.

I was designing industrial ovens for 10 years, we had more than one new oven test where someone reset the burner, turned on the gas and had an explosion in the firing tube. If you were close to it the sound was ear-splitting....assuming the the ductwork holds together.

The other key component in the burner is the blower. Which forces freash air in the combustion chamber and creates the proper fuel-air ratio. If that blower continues to run, it helps in purging the combustion area.

You bring up a good point of clarification, LPG tank cars are probably safer. LNG cars would have to be insulated and under pressure. Plus with LNG you can have boil off and if not captured, it vents to the surroundings. There could be a problem, especially going though a tunnel or worse through the tunnel tank first. In the BN test I referenced in a previous post, a diesel locomotive would have an ignition risk due to its exhaust stack. Yes its internal combustion but the close proximity issue would apply there too.

Randy

Les,

You're right, a 2700 could handle this train just as well as the 614. I'd love to see 614 but there are 12 2700's to choose from. Judging by 765's numerous performances on the NRT, there's no doubt a 2700 could do just as good a job. The 2700's WERE dual-purpose engines AFAIK. 2789 would look nice wouldn't it? From what your website has stated over the years, the firebox needs SOME work but not a LOT of work. Can't wait for you guys to get back to rebuilding that Kanawha. I can't wait until the day comes when we can line up 765, 1225 and 2789, all under steam, side by side.

The 490 would be nice but I'm not sure if it would be up to hauling a large train (20+ cars) which I'm guessing this train would command.

Rob Gardner

To amend my earlier post (just before the out-of-line and uncalled for "Loose Lips Sink Ships" comment), I had forgotten that there were that many more "AMC" 2-8-4s around. 759, 765 and 1225 came to mind immediately, but I forgot about the C&Os. Just how many AMC Berks (or 2-10-4s, or any other AMC design, for that matter) are still round, anyway?

As far as I know, there are 12 C&O Kanawha's, 6 NKP Berkshire's and 2 2-8-4's from the Pere Marquette. Unfortunately none survive from the Erie or W&LE, and none of the 2-10-4's survivied either.