Use of GTL fuel in railway locomotives?

[putabidin]

You were all very helpful in the past. Could you help with this question, please?

Is there any prospect of diesel trains being transferred to run on GTL fuel? I believe that there is no conversion cost.

 

[najaB]

And GTL fuel is?

 

[route:oxford]

You were all very helpful in the past. Could you help with this question, please?

Is there any prospect of diesel trains being transferred to run on GTL fuel? I believe that there is no conversion cost.

Maybe...

The engine within a diesel loco isn't necessarily owned by the same people who own the loco, also the engine warranty means strict rules have to be followed.

 

[daikilo]

You were all very helpful in the past. Could you help with this question, please?

Is there any prospect of diesel trains being transferred to run on GTL fuel? I believe that there is no conversion cost.

GTL (gas to liquid) is a generic term but the specific conversion processes are complex ang lead to a fuel generally considered expensive compared to other fuels.

Technically GTL process exist to produce a diesel equivalent able to run in existing diesel engines with zero or minor modification and essentially without specific handling and storage techniques.

 

[najaB]

GTL (gas to liquid) is a generic term but the specific conversion processes are complex ang lead to a fuel generally considered expensive compared to other fuels.

Thanks. With that in mind: putabidin - why the interest?

 

[randyrippley]

Synthetic paraffin production using natural methane as a precursor. Said to be cleaner due to lack of sulphur and nitrogen impurities. Bound to be a cost though........
Heres Shell's take on the idea
http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/natural-gas/gas-to-liquids.html

 

[xotGD]

If you are thinking of Fischer-Tropsch conversion technology then the process produces a 'drop in' diesel fuel with high cetane number and near to zero sulphur content. Therefore there ought not to be any problems using this fuel on the railways.

Biodiesel is a different matter - the chemical composition is very different to regular diesel.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Using alternative fuels in locomotives will depend on a number of factors. A few which I can think of off the top of my head...

1: Is the prime mover able to burn said fuel.
2: How much would any conversion cost.
3: If conversion and use is not manufacturer approved, what happens with warranty claims.
4: Will there be an increase in maintenance.
5: What would be the potential for failures.
6: Increase in infrastructure costs within depots.
7: Overall cost of the actual product.

There are probably many more factors to consider.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

so are we talking technically similar to an LPG conversion for a petrol engine?

Would there be a cost benefit in the production and use of GTL as opposed to diesel much as LPG is almost half the cost of Petrol??

 

[hwl]

If you are thinking of Fischer-Tropsch conversion technology then the process produces a 'drop in' diesel fuel with high cetane number and near to zero sulphur content. Therefore there ought not to be any problems using this fuel on the railways.

F-T has only been used twice (Germany WW2 and South Africa under sanctions) to produce fuel when there was no other other option for the country concerned as it was and is much more expensive!

 

[hwl]

so are we talking technically similar to an LPG conversion for a petrol engine?

Would there be a cost benefit in the production and use of GTL as opposed to diesel much as LPG is almost half the cost of Petrol??

It can be a drop in fuel option but the production route is very different. Still a liquid fuel...

There would be big cost "cost" rather than a cost "benefit".

 

[randyrippley]

so are we talking technically similar to an LPG conversion for a petrol engine?

Would there be a cost benefit in the production and use of GTL as opposed to diesel much as LPG is almost half the cost of Petrol??

No, nothing of the type. No conversion to the engine required at all. The GTL synthetic diesel paraffin is a drop-in replacement for existing fuel, with little or no engine mods required.

As to cost, thats complicated as it depends on the availability of methane - much of which is flared off many oil wells and refineries at present as an ususable waste product. The technical complexity of compressing methane and transporting it safely makes its use impossible at many sites. This process effectively uses a feedstock which is free, though the cost of the required chemical processing will be higher than conventional distillation

 

[Roast Veg]

This will happen if legislation demands or rewards its use, and not before.

 

[daikilo]

This will happen if legislation demands or rewards its use, and not before.

Such as Mr. Kahn & Co deciding that all diesel trains running within the M25 ring must be LEZ/ULEZ compliant? Just an example of course, not a suggestion.

 

[HSTEd]

F-T has only been used twice (Germany WW2 and South Africa under sanctions) to produce fuel when there was no other other option for the country concerned as it was and is much more expensive!

Sasol's F-T based CTL infrastructure continues to operate. There is apparently a CTL plant operating on a kiloton/a scale in Inner Mongolia but I don't know much about it. But that might be direct coal liquefaction instead of F-T.
And a variant of the F-T process referred to as the Shell MDS process is currently operating on a huge scale at the Pearl GTL plant in Qatar.

so are we talking technically similar to an LPG conversion for a petrol engine?

Would there be a cost benefit in the production and use of GTL as opposed to diesel much as LPG is almost half the cost of Petrol??

I can make GTL fuels that require absolutely no modification whatsoever as they meet or exceed all the required standards for petrol, diesel or whatever other fuel you want.
And contain literally zero sulfur.

 

[najaB]

Such as Mr. Kahn & Co deciding that all diesel trains running within the M25 ring must be LEZ/ULEZ compliant? Just an example of course, not a suggestion.

If F-T fuel is a drop-in replacement then the exhaust gases will likely be the same as 'real' diesel.

 

[kevjs]

Such as Mr. Kahn & Co deciding that all diesel trains running within the M25 ring must be LEZ/ULEZ compliant? Just an example of course, not a suggestion.

How likely are these to happen? - Nottingham and Derby are two provincial cities where are due to get ULEZ by the end of the decade.

In the former case at least already have a bus LEZ barring the most polluting buses from the city centre, and NCT (Nottingham City Transport) are planning on buying no further diesel engine buses (along with looking at the options to upgrade or prematurely replace their single decker fleet) and are due to start rolling out new gas power buses (the MediLink and P&R services operated by CT4N being nearly all electric).

Being two all diesel stations the train is quickly heading towards being the most polluting form of transport in the centre. I guess both cities will be heavily impacted on what happens in the new East Midlands franchise to a large degree and presumably Battery-DMU's would be another other here (if not full on D-EMU Hybrids?)

 

[455driver]

Such as Mr. Kahn & Co deciding that all diesel trains running within the M25 ring must be LEZ/ULEZ compliant? Just an example of course, not a suggestion.

Or the TOCs will terminate all diesel Trains outside THESE/ULEZ and tell the passenger's why they're being inconvenienced.

 

[Roast Veg]

For rail vehicles the emissions ratings will continue to be measured with the EU tiering system for the forseeable future. I'm having a browse through the legislation regarding compliance and can't find a date for tier IV (the documents seem out of date as well, as the alterations for the IIIb inclusion are not mentioned), however when such a time rolls around, one possible solution may well be that manufacturers "demand" GTL fuel to meet the standard in a compact package. I don't see this as likely since the running cost of such a thing would make it pretty infeasible, and since a limited number of pollutants are removed it might not even work well enough.

 

[xotGD]

If F-T fuel is a drop-in replacement then the exhaust gases will likely be the same as 'real' diesel.

About the same amount of CO2 but virtually zero sulphur dioxide and also lower NOx emissions.

If you go for "BTL" rather than GTL (biomass to liquid but still via FT) then you can sort of call it near to carbon neutral.

 

[daikilo]

Or the TOCs will terminate all diesel Trains outside THESE/ULEZ and tell the passenger's why they're being inconvenienced.

With the public dislike for (debate around) diesel right now I woulldn't want to be in those TOC PR departments, not to mention legal checking external statements and internal EMails. But I was just trying to give an example of what such a "directive" could be because I think it is not to be neglected if the GTL process can produce adequate quantities at a reasonable price.

 

[daikilo]

About the same amount of CO2 but virtually zero sulphur dioxide and also lower NOx emissions.

If you go for "BTL" rather than GTL (biomass to liquid but still via FT) then you can sort of call it near to carbon neutral.

And I get the impression (not confirmed yet) significantly lower particulates. For me, the answer to this is very significant potential interest re GTL

 

[HSTEd]

Since the fuels tend to be very very high spec they tend to burn cleaner as a result.

 

[putabidin]

Thanks. With that in mind: putabidin - why the interest?

Looking to the future I was hoping that this fuel might replace diesel in locos and DMUs (you know my interest in Marylebone Station).

I believe it is already in use abroad and there are no conversion costs as it is a straight substitution.

 

[putabidin]

Using alternative fuels in locomotives will depend on a number of factors. A few which I can think of off the top of my head...

1: Is the prime mover able to burn said fuel.
2: How much would any conversion cost.
3: If conversion and use is not manufacturer approved, what happens with warranty claims.
4: Will there be an increase in maintenance.
5: What would be the potential for failures.
6: Increase in infrastructure costs within depots.
7: Overall cost of the actual product.

There are probably many more factors to consider.

1: Is the prime mover able to burn said fuel.
2: How much would any conversion cost.
3: If conversion and use is not manufacturer approved, what happens with warranty claims.
4: Will there be an increase in maintenance.
5: What would be the potential for failures.
6: Increase in infrastructure costs within depots.
7: Overall cost of the actual product.

I believe there is no conversion cost. I have also read that some of the extra cost of the fuel is offset by a lowering of maintenance costs as no soot is produced.
The fuel is not produced in sufficient quantities yet to lower the cost, but the demand for lower NOx pollution could lead to the economies of scale necessary to make costs competitive.

 

[putabidin]

I am expecting that, when the current Chiltern franchise comes up for renewal, the updated conditions will include the requirement to switch diesel to new, much less polluting fuels, such as GTL, and battery power where practical.
I am actually hoping that this Chiltern would make this move before 2021 as environmental pressure is mounting to increase production of these fuels now.
Any such move would enhance their chances of renewing their franchise, assuming they want it.

 

[putabidin]

If you want to know why I am interested in any possibility of lowering the pollution levels at Marylebone Station, by reducing idling and replacing the use of diesel, read this from a resident. For those of you who say that she shouldn't have chosen to live there in the first place, remember the huge increase in train movements over the last 6 years, a result of the success of the Chiltern franchise.

"I live on the West side of Balcombe St with a garden close to and windows that open towards Marylebone Station. I have noticed a serious increase in diesel fumes that make opening windows and sitting in my garden unbearable. My daughter is an asthma sufferer and since April 2014 she has moved from occasional use of a blue inhaler to using a brown inhaler twice a day to prevent attacks. My other daughter goes to St. Mary’s School Enford St which has been named as one of the school with the worst air pollution in the country. Please add my name and testimony to any campaign you have to stop trains idling pointlessly in the station"

 

[daikilo]

I believe there is no conversion cost. I have also read that some of the extra cost of the fuel is offset by a lowering of maintenance costs as no soot is produced.
The fuel is not produced in sufficient quantities yet to lower the cost, but the demand for lower NOx pollution could lead to the economies of scale necessary to make costs competitive.

Well, as many of the contributions in this thread have said, there are advantages including lowering of certain polutants including particulates.

I don't think the issue for cost is the need for economies of scale, as the Pearl plant in Qatar is already huge.

In the Shell article they cite the case of DB using the fuel in shunting locos at a specific location with environmental constraints. If such fuel was used for e.g. HSTs or equivalent then they would burn it for their entire operation to "solve" a local issue. As far as I am aware there is little or no benefit on noise emisions.

 

[putabidin]

f such fuel was used for e.g. HSTs or equivalent then they would burn it for their entire operation to "solve" a local issue. As far as I am aware there is little or no benefit on noise emisions.

Maybe calling it a local issue is a bit unfair. In London as a whole rail is responsible for 8% of all NOx emissions. This is the same as all TFL buses and four times that of taxis. Much publicity and legislation is being directed at these two latter polluters, little or nothing is being targetted to rail emissions.

I am hoping that the legislation which exempts railways from complying with environmental controls will be reversed and a new Clean Air Act might be introduced.

Noise emission will not be affected. That's a seperate matter and much discussed on a previous thread.

 

[4973]

but the demand for lower NOx pollution

You need to get expert advice on this one.

My understanding is that the NOx production is due to the higher combustion temperature in compression ignition (i.e.diesel) engines and that is what makes them more fuel efficient than petrol ones.

A change of fuel is unlikely to affect that.