SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “freight locomotive”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

Design of Multi-Engine Freight Locomotive

This final report documents the completed engineering design of a modular, multi-engine renewable natural gas (RNG) hybrid freight locomotive. The project delivered a full systems design, component selection, and production and test plans for a near-zero-emission, Tier 5–capable line-haul locomotive, but did not proceed to fabrication or field testing due to withdrawal of the designated engine supplier.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Techno-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative Fuels for Locomotives in the U.S. Freight Rail Sector

Freight rail is more energy-efficient than truck transport over long-haul distances, offering a low-energy and emissions-intensive option for transporting freight. This study evaluates techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment of seven alternative unblended fuels for freight locomotive engines─biodiesel, renewable diesel (RD), bio-oils, methanol, dimethyl ether (DME), ethanol, and ammonia─across 16 fuel pathways utilizing soybean, corn, woody biomass, renewable hydrogen, and waste sources, e.g., sludge, manure, and industrial CO 2 , and compares these to conventional diesel. The minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) ranged from $\$2.05$ to $\$8.27$ per diesel gallon equivalent (2020 US dollars), with biocrude and RDs produced from hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) of sludge having the lowest MFSPs due to coproduct credits and avoided waste treatment cost. Life cycle GHG emissions ranged from −41 to 53 g of CO 2 e/MJ. RD from waste via HTL achieves negative emissions by diverting sludge/manure from GHG-intensive conventional management. Few pathways such as biocrude, methanol, and DME require additional control for SO X emissions in the refinery, while ethanol, FT-diesel, and bio-oil require additional control for particulate matter emissions. Bio-oil and RD from sludge have lower marginal abatement cost or MAC (–$\$38$/tonne CO 2 lowest) while methanol and ammonia with renewable hydrogen have higher MAC ($\$490$/tonne CO 2 maximum).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2024

An Action Plan for Rail Energy and Emissions Innovation

The Action Plan for Rail Energy and Emissions Innovation proposes actions to reduce and nearly eliminate emissions in the U.S. rail sector, in line with the U.S. economy-wide goal of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. It also proposes actions to leverage the rail system to reduce emissions from other modes. The national goal of achieving a zero-emission freight system by 2050 draws our attention to the fact that freight transport cannot be addressed simply mode by mode, but it should instead be treated as an interdependent system. This is especially true when pursuing decarbonization. This action plan presents how both rail transport and decarbonization intersect with our national transportation decarbonization blueprint, the decarbonization of the freight system, and national transmission goals. The intended audience of this report is the stakeholders who will advance rail decarbonization in a just and economical way by propelling the suite of actions listed here. This includes government at all levels, rail companies, locomotive manufacturers, labor unions, Amtrak, and more.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗