You are on page 1of 47

Alternative

FuelRTME
NT OF
EN
Transit Buses
A

ER
DEP

GY
I CA
U N IT

ER
ED

M

ST A
AT E S OF

Produced for the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL),
a U.S. DOE national laboratory

35th St.
Colucci Pkwy.

Craig Ave.

DART’s LNG Bus Fleet
Final Results
Alt Blvd.

D ALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT’S
(DART) LNG BUS FLEET:
Final Results
Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation
by

Kevin Chandler, Battelle
Paul Norton, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Nigel Clark, West Virginia University

October 2000

The authors wish to acknowledge the help and cooperation of the staff,
in particular Rocky Rogers and Darryl Spencer, at the host site, Dallas
Area Rapid Transit. The authors also acknowledge the editorial contri-
butions of Vincent Brown at Battelle and Stefanie Woodward at NREL.

World Wide Web: http://www.afdc.doe.gov
National Alternative Fuels Hotline: 1-800-423-1DOE

Notice

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of
the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com-
pleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or ser-
vice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not neces-
sarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions
of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.doe.gov/bridge
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.ht

ii

Final Results Alternative Fuel
Transit Buses

Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Alternative Fuel Projects at DOE and NREL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
The Transit Bus Evaluation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Host Site Profile: Dallas Area Rapid Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
DART’s LNG Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
DART’s Involvement in Air Quality Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Project Design and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
DART’s Facilities and Bulk Fuel Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Project Start-Up at DART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
LNG Engine Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Range and Fuel Gauge Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Other Fueling Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Bus Use in Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Average Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Monthly Miles Driven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Fuel Economy, Maintenance, and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Fuel Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Fuel Cost per Gallon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Fuel Cost per Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Engine Oil Consumption and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Factors Affecting Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Warranty Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Overall Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Overall Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Emissions Testing Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
LNG Technology Progress in Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Fuel Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Emissions Testing Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Future LNG Operations at DART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
References and Related Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Appendix A. Fleet Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Appendix B. Emissions Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
iii

iv .

The field study at DART was $0. the LNG and diesel fleets performed the work DART Objective expected during the evaluation period. and higher engine and fuel system In addition. Department of Energy (DOE) Office start-up period. account of the obstacles overcome and the lessons learned in adapting alternative Overall. The objective of the DOE research project. the LNG buses to operate on restricted compared with the performance of 5 diesel routes and schedules.799 per mile. giving the diesel Transit Bus Evaluation Project. the diesel buses performed ational. higher fuel costs per mile dri- ven. Five additional LNG buses were added to the evaluation after the The U. of Heavy Vehicle Technologies sponsored a research project to collect and analyze data Results on the performance and operation costs of Some early start-up issues required 15 of DART’s LNG buses in revenue service. By most other measures of information on the cost. this information should benefit maintenance costs per mile driven than decision makers by providing a real-world the diesel buses. managed by the National Renewable Energy The LNG buses emitted less nitrogen Laboratory. As part of a $16 mil. began operating a large fleet of heavy-duty buses powered by liquefied The data collection was designed to natural gas (LNG).S. Methods Data were gathered daily from fuel and maintenance tracking systems for more than 1 year. The LNG as one alternative to conventional diesel buses had lower energy equivalent fuel fuel for heavy-duty transit bus applications. the operating cost comparison fuel buses to a transit site previously was mixed. maintenance.773. research and development efforts should The 10 original LNG buses averaged be focused. issues were resolved. buses an advantage of $0. The data parameters included • Fuel consumption • Mileage and dispatching records • Engine oil additions and oil/filter changes Executive Summary • Preventive maintenance action records In 1998. unbiased diesel buses. operation. cause as little disruption for DART as lion commitment to alternative fuels. economy. diesel buses. and emissions characteristics of LNG better than the LNG buses. oper. possible. and the diesel buses part of DOE’s ongoing Alternative Fuel averaged $0. v . It also identi. a public transit agency in Dallas. (such as roadcalls) and warranty repairs Texas. The operating costs for designed for diesel buses. Dallas Area Rapid Transit • Records of unscheduled maintenance (DART). was to provide transportation oxides and particulate matter than the professionals with quantitative. The original evaluation fleets DART operates 139 LNG buses serviced consisted of 10 LNG buses and 5 similar by two new LNG fueling stations. but after these buses operating on comparable routes. the original LNG buses averaged about fies technology areas where future 3% higher than for the diesel buses.026 per mile.

358 miles in service (380 miles in tions. and reliability. DART is sion systems. the DART LNG buses persisted through at $0. work continues on the LNG buses. DOE. DART had resolved resources needed to make alternative nearly all the problems with the LNG fuel programs work. the manufacturer. working with Cummins and ZF (the ing systems. fire suppres. with early failure of engine components DART is also working to optimize the (e. DART’s two facilities for fueling and servicing LNG buses have room to Obstacles Overcome grow.713—about 8% less than the the end of the study period. • All critical systems need to be inte- grated through strong communication Future LNG Operations at DART and accurate information within the transit agency. which all they can about potential problems provided an acceptable range of with alternative fuels in field opera. At DART’s alternative fuels: request.) economy 5%–10% by optimizing the shift points of the transmission and by Cummins resolved several problems improving engine component design. well below opportunity to learn many lessons about DART’s goal of 400 miles. and other participants the (277 miles in track tests). all routes (except a few of the longest) originating from the Northwest facility. NovaBUS. driveaways during fueling. DART continues to work on optimizing lems with methane sensors. and onboard LNG fuel tank system. fuel mileage. operating range. pected contingencies and exercise patience through the start-up process. The LNG buses have operated on large fleets of LNG vehicles. to success and to invest the personal energy.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses However. • Critical vehicle systems should undergo redesigning the LNG fueling nozzle to engineering design validation and/or prevent leaking. fuel filling. spark plugs. and financial By spring 2000. the LNG bus operations. DART experienced problems with its LNG fleet. Agencies should plan for unex.g. manufacturers and component suppli- and be able to respond to the needs of ers. and a starter • Transit agencies need to be committed lockout switch at the fueling door. DART Early in the deployment of the LNG continues to evaluate the operation of buses. Some engine problems with the lowest operating cost per mile. exploring the use of a performance tests before vehicles are breakaway hose to prevent damage from put into service. turbocharger. Lessons Learned The original LNG buses were designed with a three-tank system that provided The LNG bus evaluation project provided a range of only 250 miles in service DART. track tests). Design diesel buses. and multiplex.. electronics. the new LNG buses showed wastegate). infrastructure. New procurements for buses have a provision for LNG buses. vi . DART also resolved prob. (Some of these problems transmission vendor) to raise the fuel also occurred with the diesel fleet. buses by applying the lessons learned • The LNG industry needs to improve its from start-up and by cooperating with own technology support infrastructure. Other obstacles overcome included ensuring full tanks at each fueling stop. • Transit agency employees should learn added a fourth LNG tank.

htm research and development efforts should be focused. This report summarizes the results of the LNG study at DART. or CH4). It also identifies http://www.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Overview What Is LNG Fuel and How Is It Processed? Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). Between burned very cleanly. a transit agency based in Dallas. professionals with summary information on the cost.html lessons learned in adapting – Alternative Fuels Data Center: http://www. in double-wall. fuel tanks. It is produced mainly at and emissions characteristics LNG storage locations operated by natural gas suppliers. Compared to conventional fuels. LNG is stored tion as part of the U. odorless.com/welcome. fleet now includes 139 LNG Methane is the simplest molecule of the fossil fuels and can be buses in service.gov alternative fuel buses to a site previously geared toward – Zeus Development Corp. It presents to provide transportation no threat to soil. operational.ngvc. It is The purpose of this report is nontoxic. transit bus applications./LNG Express: diesel buses. Compared to the ment of Energy (DOE)/National fuel tanks required for using compressed natural gas (CNG) in vehicles Renewable Energy Laboratory operating over similar ranges. Further technical background. Each decision makers by providing offers further information about LNG: a real-world account of the obstacles overcome and the – Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition: http://www. and at cryo- of LNG as one alternative to genic extraction plants in gas-producing states. 1 . it occupies only 1/600 the volume of natural November 1998. research methods. vacuum-insulated pressure vessels. data on DART’s LNG and diesel buses were collected for evalua. and more expensive than diesel Bus Evaluation Project.lngexpress. LNG is used primarily for international trade in natural gas and for maintenance. The report should also benefit This information was adapted from the following Web sites.ch-iv. Because it must be kept at such cold temperatures. meeting seasonal demands for natural gas.afdc.S. and detailed discussions are pre- sented in a companion document (DART’s LNG Bus Fleet Final Data Report. It has an octane rating of 130 and excellent February 1999 and January 2000. Only a handful of conventional diesel fuel for large-scale liquefaction facilities in the United States provide LNG fuel for transportation. from its Northwest facility since At atmospheric pressure.doe. that has been purified and fied natural gas (LNG) buses condensed to liquid form by cooling cryogenically to -260°F (-162°C). LNG fuel tanks are smaller and lighter. they are larger. heavier. or groundwater. Depart. Liquefied natural gas is a naturally occurring mixture of hydro- Texas. LNG’s flammability is limited.com/lng/lngfact. noncorrosive. properties for spark-ignited internal combustion engines. surface water. and noncarcinogenic. The LNG bus gas in vapor form. (NREL) Alternative Fuel Transit However. carbons (mainly methane. June 2000). NREL.htm technology areas where future – CH-IV Cryogenics: http://www.org/qa. data. has been operating lique.

leum and to benefit users and than 1. Craig Ave. unbiased and won the 1997 Transit Agency evaluations of the newest genera. provide comprehensive. Texas.S.S. of the Year award from the tion of alternative fuel engine and American Public Transportation vehicle technologies. NREL and participating companies Sites have been selected accord- across the United States are evalu. The participating host site for RT A ER DEP GY I CA U N IT ER ED M ST A AT E S OF Produced for the U. Alternative Colucci Pkwy. These fuels have included buses and engines. biodiesel. vehicles.000 passengers is to compare heavy-duty buses daily. new site are published separately. and propane (liquefied interest in using alternative fuels. and successfully to reduce U. a U. Rapid Transit Transit Buses 35th St. the environment. After analysis. a U. Fuel ME NT OF EN chasing AFVs. ing to the kind of alternative fuel ating several types of alternative technology in use. compressed natural gas of diesel comparison (“control”) (CNG). collection and evaluation. Association. and Colucci Pkwy. consumption of imported petro. including rail (see using an alternative fuel with those Figure 1). a public Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2 .S. DART operates more 35th St. A ER DEP GY I CA U N IT ER nomics of alternative fuel vehicles ED M ST A AT E S OF Produced for the U.S. Final Results The Transit Bus Evaluation a 700 square mile service area that includes Dallas and Project 12 suburban cities. the types of fuels. the program seeks to environmental-minded policy. analysis. railcars. DOE national laboratory • Fleet managers can make Host Site Profile: Dallas Area informed decisions when pur. and stration sites and continues to reporting activities for the DART add new sites for further data LNG bus evaluation. business development and Specifically. petroleum gas). The overall objective of the ongoing DOE/NREL Alternative DART estimates that it serves Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation Project more than 200. The transit national laboratory) managed the bus program includes 15 demon- data collection. Its buses cover more than DART’s LNG Bus Fleet 130 local and express routes in Alt Blvd. transit agency based in Dallas.000 buses.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Alternative Fuel Projects at Heavy-duty alternative fuel transit DOE and NREL buses have been evaluated through data collection and On behalf of DOE. DART is a leader in using conventional diesel fuel. DOE national laboratory Start-Up Report Alt Blvd. Department of Energy (DOE) by the National Renewable (AFVs) objectively so that Energy Laboratory (NREL). vans. the availability LNG. peer review. Department of Energy (DOE) by the National Renewable DART’s LNG Bus Fleet • AFVs can be used more widely this study was DART. and the transit agency’s methanol. Craig Ave. and One of NREL’s missions is to DOE approval. ethanol. results from each Alternative FuelRT ME NT OF EN Transit Buses assess the performance and eco. NREL (a DOE analysis since 1993.S.

NovaBus installed the fourth and began operating in November LNG tank in the 90 LNG buses 1998. and Because of lower than expected other engine-related issues. The first of the 110 LNG with a three-tank system.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses DART’s LNG Buses buses to 380 miles. New Mexico) were were modified at DART and delivered to DART in early 1998. DART decided to shows an LNG bus at DART. the range and fuel economy. DART DART contract with NovaBUS requested that NovaBUS add a was changed in July 1999 so fourth LNG tank on each bus to the last 60 LNG buses (of the increase the range of the LNG 200 ordered) would be diesel. Texas 3 . Courtesy of DART/PIX 09175 Figure 1. Figure 2 delivered. increase the LNG bus order from Figure 3 shows one of the diesel 40 to 90 during the second year buses evaluated. of the contract and from 20 to 40 during the third year. In part because of operating range. (The LNG DART’s fleet now includes 139 LNG buses were originally designed buses.) The buses ordered from NovaBUS 49 LNG buses already in Dallas (Roswell. DART bus and rail operations in Dallas. fuel economy. Before any buses were delivered after April 1999.

”) Figure 3. and several needed more time to resolve modifications to the fuel gauges problems before adding more onboard the buses and to LNG LNG buses to the fleet.” the additional 5 buses will be referred to as the “new LNG buses. The comparison of engines was deemed acceptable based on the similar maximum torque and horsepower of these models and on previous discussions with Cummins.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Thus. but they used Cummins M11-280 engines. The diesel buses in the evalua- tion started operating in May 1998. 5 more LNG buses were added to the evalua- tion. the original 10 LNG buses will be referred to as the “original LNG buses. These buses had design enhancements to improve operating range and were placed into service in June 1999. but the September 1999. The 5 diesel buses used for comparison were also model year 1998 NovaBUS Courtesy of DART/PIX 09148 RTS-style buses. Texas were used to transport passen- gers along all routes served by DART’s Northwest facility. Courtesy of DART/PIX 09149 To better understand fuel econ- omy and optimized operation of the LNG buses. The LNG fleet at DART equipped with Cummins thus stood at 139 buses. With L10-280G engines. DART tank on each bus. DART station operating procedures. 140 LNG buses were the addition of the fourth LNG planned in the final order. One of DART’s diesel buses 4 . As shown in Table 1. (Throughout this report. Drivers reported no driving differences between the DART fleet NovaBUS LNG and the diesel buses. mobile side of the operations was disappointing in the beginning. DART LNG bus on the road in Dallas. The LNG and diesel buses Figure 2. the 10 alternative fuel buses originally DART never accepted the first planned for evaluation in this LNG bus in the order (the pilot study were model year 1998 bus) because it needed design NovaBUS RTS-style buses changes. the has had great success with the range problem was resolved by program infrastructure.

The LNG buses cost DART has a long-standing com- approximately $330. 41% of DART’s DART’s LNG program planning motor fuel fleet is powered by for fueling and bus ordering natural gas. all data for South Oak Cliff was completed in LNG buses in this report are from 1999 and started operating in the original set of 10 LNG buses.920 Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 39. In addition to the diesel buses cost about the 139 LNG buses.500 Unless otherwise noted. and the station at ters included 5 . DART in- vested approximately $16 million The LNG buses cost about between 1995 and 2000 for LNG $40.500 39.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Table 1. 200 CNG paratransit vans. Torque Fuel System 125 gallons 4 LNG MVE. ates 2 CNG buses. 20 CNG trol- leys. Storage Capacity 221 LNG gallons (132 diesel equivalent gallons) Transmission ZF 5HP590 ZF 5HP590 Manufacturer/Model Catalytic Converter Used (Y/N) Yes Yes Curb Weight (lbs) 28.740 30. Two LNG fueling stations were planned. tanks. 40 foot NovaBUS. Horsepower 900 lb-ft @ 1200 rpm 900 lb-ft @ 1300 rpm Max. DART’s Involvement in Air and 148 CNG automobiles and Quality Improvement trucks. began in 1995.000 more than the diesel buses and facilities.000 each. early 2000. Inc. one at Project Design and Northwest and one at South Oak Cliff. 5 new Chassis Manufacturer/Model NovaBUS. Overall. buses DART ordered at the same time. 1999 Engine Manufacturer/ Cummins M11-280.000 each mitment to environmental (including the fourth LNG tank). DART oper- $290. 1998 Cummins L10-280G. Vehicle Descriptions for DART Evaluation Buses Description Diesel Control LNG Number of Buses 5 10 original. The data parame- controls). Year Engine Ratings 280 hp @ 2000 rpm 280 hp @ 2100 rpm Max. 40 foot Chassis Model Year 1998 1998. The LNG fueling station at Data Collection Northwest was completed in Data were gathered from DART’s 1998 (with modifications in fuel and maintenance tracking 1999 to optimize automatic systems daily. improvement. 1998 Model. Overall.

. parts lists.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses • Diesel fuel consumption by DART staff had access to all data vehicle and fill being collected from their site and other data available from • LNG fuel consumption by the project. • Engine oil additions and oil/ filter changes The study design included the • Preventive maintenance action tracking of safety incidents affect- (PMA) work orders. evaluations. ing the vehicles or occurring at labor records. maintenance (e. and related DART’s fueling station or in the documents maintenance facilities. Summaries of the vehicle and fill data collected.g. roadcalls [RCs]) • Records of repairs covered by manufacturer warranty The data collection was designed to cause as little disruption for DART as possible. Data were sent from the transit site to an NREL contractor for analysis. and • Mileage data from each vehicle analyses were distributed to des- • Dispatching logs ignated staff at DART for review and input. no such incidents were reported • Records of unscheduled during the data collection period. 6 . However. DART generally sent copies (electronic and/or paper) of data that had already been collected as part of normal business operations.

Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses DART’s Facilities and Bulk Fuel Storage DART operates nearly 1. Figures 5 and 6 show the fueling In March 1998. For maintenance. visual and three pumps rated at 60 gallons audible alarms are activated and per minute (gpm) and 110 some of the overhead doors open pounds per square inch gauge. The facility consists of two concentrations approaching the 30. automatically. ventilation. LNG buses are and three LNG dispensers parked outside if maintenance is (located alongside diesel fuel not completed during a work dispensers). metro- politan area. the enclosed facilities at Northwest and South Oak Cliff were built with LNG in mind. and air conditioning (HVAC) were rated with enough air changes to dissipate small nat. The LNG buses are stored outside or under an open-air sunscreen to reduce the heat (Figure 4). These buses are operated from three bus facilities: • East Dallas Equipment Service Garage • Northwest Equipment Service Garage • South Oak Cliff Bus Operations Facility Each facility operates about Figure 4a.).000-gallon storage tanks. DART buses parked outdoors at the Northwest facility ural gas leaks safely. DART buses parked under an open-air sunscreen at the Northwest 200 full-size transit buses. When the Chart Industries (formerly MVE. Figure 4b.000 Courtesy of Kevin Chandler/PIX 07849 buses and vans across 700 square miles in the Dallas. The heating. The facilities are also equipped with infrared and methane/combustible gas suppliers and vendors included detectors and alarms. shift. Other tanks inside the canopy over to 7 . Texas. facility DART also has about 250 buses Courtesy of DART/PIX 09149 maintained and operated by a contractor. station from outside the North- sioned Lone Star Energy to west facility (no tanks showing) develop an LNG fueling station and inside with piping from the at the Northwest facility. DART commis. combustible range. detectors measure methane at Inc.

The LNG buses are cleaned and fueled at the same islands as the diesel buses (three lanes and three sets of dispensers). LNG can be pumped at 50 gpm onboard the buses (see Figure 8).000-gallon tanks. Northwest fueling station. The operation of the LNG fueling station is con- Figure 5.5 Figure 8. construction. LNG fueling station at Northwest as seen from the street trolled from a computer at the shift manager’s station in the Courtesy of Kevin Chandler/PIX 07850 maintenance shop. DART fueling station receiving bulk LNG from supply Energy Company. The cooldown cycle can take 12–30 minutes. engine oil. showing canopy where fuel lines run from tracking system at the fueling tank to fueling lanes Courtesy of Kevin Chandler/PIX 09197 island. Figure 7 shows the The cost for the two LNG stations station receiving bulk fuel from and the maintenance facility a Lone Star Energy tanker truck. The Northwest LNG fueling design was modified to incorpo- facility was designed to service a rate lessons learned. connected to DART bus cycle that is required before LNG and start-up. three pumps. The data are periodically uploaded to the DART network computer system. and the lanes. and three dispensers. Each bus is equipped with an electronic hubodometer that communicates directly with the Fleetwatch® Figure 6. The Fleetwatch® system electronically records the type and amount of fuel. 8 . Courtesy of DART/PIX 09179 The station was constructed after the dispensers in the fueling the Northwest station. and other fluids added to the bus. Once fueling has begun at the Northwest station. The fueling process at DART begins when the bus enters the fueling island. modifications at Northwest and South Oak Cliff was about $7. It has two 20. maximum of 210 LNG buses nightly. A sister LNG fueling station at DART’s South Oak Cliff facility was also installed by Lone Star Figure 7. LNG fueling hoses The station has a cooldown million for design. This cycle consists of recirculating the LNG in the piping from the fuel storage tanks to the dispensers (about 300 feet of piping) and the hose at the dispenser (about 65 feet per dispenser).Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Courtesy of Kevin Chandler/PIX 07177 fueling.

with no midday LNG Engine Issues refueling. which is in line 9 . fuel mileage. The LNG buses on the LNG buses. required 400 miles. however. turbocharger.. when the first LNG buses rately compare their true fuel efficiencies. The LNG program Because LNG contains less energy per gallon than diesel fuel. The expected spark plugs. energy as a gallon of diesel fuel. coils. In DART LNG buses persisted service for DART. cylinder head design. the with the LNG buses by applying turbo actuator. These problems were partly related to the large size of DART’s LNG fleet and the capacity of the LNG industry to respond quickly to problems in has the the field. When the LNG buses Cummins resolved several prob.g. DART had issues with spark plugs and resolved nearly all the problems wires. Diesel equivalent gallons began in revenue service. Because 1. Early are commonly used to solve this problem. compar- officially started in November ing simple miles per gallons of LNG and diesel trucks would not accu- 1998.67 gallons same and fuel-related issues. Design work con- up and by cooperating with tinues to optimize the power manufacturers and component train and increase fuel economy suppliers. first began to operate. the LNG buses through the end of the study had a fuel economy of approxi- period.2 mpg. Cummins is addressing mately 1. fuel filling.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Project Start-Up at DART The first LNG bus was delivered to DART in January 1998. DART experi. the range lems with early failure of engine was significantly lower than the components (e. have been operating with no restrictions on all routes at the Range and Fuel Gauge Issues Northwest facility.67 gallons of LNG are range. DART of diesel of LNG energy as resolved problems with methane sensors. and wastegate. 1 diesel equivalent gallon. and What Is a Diesel Equivalent Gallon? began limited operations in the Dallas region. 1 gallon 1. the wastegate. In addition to engine. and multiplexing systems. except for a few of the longest routes. DART dispatches most buses on two runs during a standard operating day.6 mpg. electronics.) fuel economy for the LNG buses Some engine problems with the was approximately 2. (Some of the same problems also occurred with the diesel fleet. 1. valves. and the lessons learned from start. A diesel equivalent gallon in the deployment of the LNG is the quantity of LNG (or any other fuel) that contains the same buses. and reliability.) By spring 2000.67 gallons of LNG contain enced problems with operating the same energy as 1 gallon of diesel fuel. fire suppression systems.

the fueler Originally. which has been process. is on the end of a tank.62 mpg. Leaking causes ice to form on the nozzle. which makes connecting and disconnecting the nozzle dif- ficult.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses with the industry average for LNG tank had higher pressure LNG buses operating in a (higher resistance to having LNG “rough transit” duty cycle (i. other tanks to fill first and the fuel nozzle would occasionally The LNG buses were originally shut down automatically because designed with a three-tank of back pressure before filling the system that provided 154 usable higher pressure tank. a level indicator and in track tests).C. causing signifi- Figure 9. this provided a range of only To ensure all tanks were filled 250 miles in service (277 miles with fuel. As a last resort. In July 1999. the fuel- acceptable for DART’s service. At 1. fueler can thus easily see whether This gave the LNG buses a range a tank is not filled completely of 358 miles in service (380 miles and can restart the fueling in track tests). This would cause the low average speed). One possible solution is to add a breakaway fitting (standard 10 . DART pressure indicator for each tank asked NovaBUS to add a fourth were installed at the fuel fill loca- LNG tank. Other Fueling Issues Courtesy of DART/PIX 09180 The nozzle used for transferring LNG into the bus sometimes leaked and needed to be rebuilt. The usable LNG capacity 221 gallons. Fuel level and pressure indicators on LNG buses at DART cant damage to the dispenser. This fuel tank was nearly empty. Another fueling issue has been the need for a breakaway fueling hose to prevent damage and fuel loss when the bus is driven away from the fuel station while the LNG hose is still connected. Because each vent valve of LNG onboard the buses. er can start the vent filling proce- dure by manually opening the The desire to maximize range vent valve for each tank that is required ensuring a full fill not full. This adds 10 to 15 minutes to the situation occurred when one fueling process. Carter. and by the end of data collection seemed to work better. which made the total tion on each bus (Figure 9). This occurred five times at the Northwest station.. J. LNG gallons. The nozzle was redesigned by the vendor.e. and damages the seal on the nozzle. flow in) or was “hotter” than the nearly 50% idle time and very other tanks. the fuel level indicator may have to crawl under the bus could show nearly full when one to open and close the valve.

onboard and A it B IC AT T R E S OF A M E uses U. and financial resources to make alternative fuel programs work. • The LNG industry needs to improve its own technology support infrastructure. diesel. Another option is to add • Transit agency employees should learn all they can about the an electrical circuit to disable alternative fuel being introduced.doe. Av luc Co ig Cra *A report that focuses on DART’s start-up experi- ence is available from the National Alternative Fuels Hotline (1-800-423-1363) or on the World DAR T’s L Wide Web (http://www. infrastructure. ora tory strong communication and accurate information within the transit agency. chassis. including engines. • Transit agencies need to be committed to success and to invest the personal energy. rnat iv Fuele Trans RTMENT O PA DE F EN U N IT ED S ERGY • All critical systems. Bus Fina Fleet l Res u ults 11 .gov). and exercise patience through the start-up process.S.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses equipment in CNG. The support required for 100-plus LNG vehicles in revenue service is far greater than the support Alte required for a few or a dozen in a demonstration project. operations. the vehicles involved in the the starter on the bus when the project.afdc. need to be integrated through the use of nal R lab EL). DO abora Renew y (DOE En atio tory (N able ) operations. and day-to-day e En e Na nt of r the a U ergy L tional Energ . and be able to respond to the needs of large fleets of LNG vehicles. and Lessons Learned at Start-Up* gasoline fueling systems) to the hose. and potential problems with alternative fuels in field fueling door is open. y. Agencies should do extensive advance planning. Alt NG Blv d. kw ci P e. • Critical vehicle systems should undergo engineering design validation and/or performance tests before vehicles are put into service.S . including planning for unexpected contingencies. De Produ by th partm ced fo stationary fuel equipment. 35t hS t.

The major the diesel buses. LNG buses averaged $0.026 12 or more hours a day. 7 months). difference in operations was that early on. buses an advantage of $0. January 2000. Some per mile. 4535. The being evaluated. 4536. first PMA and then run for about 1 year of service (except for the Overall.773 per mile. the period of restricted operation for the LNG buses Bus Use in Transit Service meant that the diesel buses were The buses and data collection operated for more miles than the periods used in this study are LNG buses.799 per mile. The maintenance costs per mile vehicle lifetimes began after the driven than the diesel buses. giving the diesel DART are used 6 days a week. This was done to ing costs for the original LNG represent the same operational buses averaged about 3% higher time frame for each fleet than for the diesel buses. the operating cost com. the diesel buses performed evaluation in this report focus on better than the LNG buses. The operat. The LNG buses emitted less The fuel and maintenance data nitrogen oxides and particulate for all vehicles were collected matter than the diesel buses. showed the lowest period. The maintenance data equivalent fuel economy. The diesel buses averaged The diesel and LNG buses at $0. both the LNG and the operating cost per mile. new LNG buses. Early Table 2. The analyses and tion. Evaluation Vehicles and Data Evaluation Periods Bus Fleet Bus Numbers Start of Fuel Data Maintenance Service Period Data Period Diesel 4220–4224 May 1998 Feb 99–Jan 00 Jun 98–Jun 99 Original LNG 4320–4329 Nov 1998 Feb 99–Jan 00 Jan 99–Jan 00 New LNG 4502. which ran for parison was mixed. higher periods were chosen to match fuel costs per mile driven. The only the data periods shown in LNG buses had a lower energy Table 2. at diesel fleets were doing the $0. shown in Table 2.713—about 8% lower than work DART expected. 4539 Jun 1999 Jun 99–Jan 00 Jun 99–Jan 00 12 .Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Evaluation Results By the end of the evaluation however. 4513. By between the start of service and most other measures of opera. buses also run on Sunday. and similar vehicle lifetimes for the higher engine and fuel system diesel and LNG buses. The new LNG buses.

compared to the Original LNG 4324 average speed for the diesel 4325 buses (13. Only a few of Diesel LNG x New LNG the longest routes were restricted to diesel buses. Average monthly miles driven per bus Because the LNG buses had shorter range in the beginning. Monthly average mileage per bus of the LNG buses. all buses 0 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 were randomly dispatched on one or two routes. Once the fourth LNG tank was installed 4326 and optimized. Average Speed Figure 11. 4502 4513 Monthly Miles Driven New LNG 4535 The LNG buses traveled as much 4536 as 34% fewer miles each month 4539 than the diesel buses during the AVG period of restricted operation.232 monthly miles Original LNG New LNG Diesel 13 . The diesel buses averaged AVG 4. Figure 11 shows 4224 the monthly average miles per bus. 2000 all the LNG buses could be used in the same way the diesel buses 1000 were used. Therefore. except as 4329 mentioned. Once the range restriction was lifted.7 mph).321 monthly miles per bus 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Average monthly miles driven and the original LNG buses averaged 3. the LNG buses 4327 were operated on all routes from 4328 the Northwest facility. With the increased AVG range. Once the 4000 x range problems were resolved with the fourth LNG tank and 3000 optimization of the LNG system. the reduced range caused the LNG buses to 6000 x be used on only a few routes 5000 during the week and not much x x x x x on the weekends.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses during the start of operation Figure 10. the LNG and diesel bues had the same average speed.4 mph). Figure 10 shows the monthly 4220 average mileage per bus for 4221 each fleet during the evaluation 4222 Diesel period (February 1999 through 4223 January 2000). 4320 they were restricted from some 4321 of the routes. their 4322 average speed was slightly higher 4323 (14.

so even though the LNG fuel cost was lower (on an AVG energy equivalent basis) than the comparable diesel fuel. original 0 1 2 3 4 LNG. according to the fuel supplier.67. 4502 4513 Fuel Economy. fuel cost 4220 for DART was 32% more per mile 4221 for the LNG buses than for the 4222 diesel buses in the evaluation. After Sep- 4328 tember 1999. diesel fuel. On average. hence.486 miles.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses per bus. 14 . A Miles per gallon diesel equivalent gallon is the Miles per LNG gallon Diesel equivalent gallons were calculated based on quantity of LNG that contains a standard LNG gallon and divided by 1. and new LNG buses. LNG at this site is essentially all methane (at least 98%. Miles per diesel gallon gallons have been calculated based on a standard LNG gallon divided by 1. The LNG used the same energy as 1 gallon of equivalent gallon during the evaluation was confirmed by DART’s fuel supplier to be essentially pure methane. the conversion factor for pure methane. the LNG bus fuel economy was 28% lower than the diesel bus fuel economy on a diesel equivalent gallon basis. The new LNG 4320 buses had the fourth LNG tank 4321 and full range since starting oper- ation in June 1999. Fuel economy evaluation period. their 4322 average monthly miles per bus 4323 are in line with those of the diesel buses at 4. and Costs New LNG 4535 4536 The LNG buses used more fuel 4539 per mile. Diesel 4223 Fuel Economy 4224 Figure 12 shows the fuel AVG economy for the diesel. Lone Star Energy.67 (the Miles per diesel conversion factor for pure methane). The Original LNG 4324 original LNG buses had a lower 4325 range than the diesel buses and 4326 saw lower vehicle usage until 4327 September 1999 when the fourth LNG tank was installed. the original LNG 4329 bus monthly mileage quickly AVG increased to the level of the diesel buses. Diesel equivalent See sidebar page 9. as required by contract). 25% lower during the Figure 12. Maintenance.

82 per diesel equiva- duty transit operation.000 miles for the diesel engines was $1. The average diesel fuel cost used for the evaluation was $0. Fuel costs in the future for Bus Fleet Final Data Report.238 per mile.09 per gallon in fuel and maintenance costs. The average cost for LNG fuel used for the 15 . from $0.70 (February costs were very low compared to 1999) to $1. basis over the Central Business District (CBD) driving cycle. the fuel lent gallon).03 quarts of engine oil per The driving cycle for the buses 1. air conditioning was not Engine oil cost for the LNG running during the WVU testing engines was 31% higher per and there was little idle time quart than for the diesel during the emissions testing.90 per gallon.85 per quart for service. make up the fuel cost per in Appendix H of DART’s LNG mile.72 quarts than that tested by West Virginia per 1.000 miles). January 2000. diesel and LNG could be different June 2000) show average LNG than the average fuel costs used bus fuel economy of 14% lower in this evaluation. The higher cost oil for the LNG ditioning running. The oil cost per 1.314 per mile and diesel Fuel economy measurements was $0. The newer LNG buses with four LNG tanks had the Fuel consumption cost for the same average fuel economy as LNG buses was 32% higher the evaluation LNG buses. The natural engines is due to the low ash gas engines are spark-ignited and content specified by Cummins have higher fuel consumption at and the low volume purchase idle/low speed than the diesel of this oil by DART.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Based on past experience with evaluation was $0. the diesel and LNG buses the LNG engines and $0. than for the diesel buses—LNG was $0.000 miles. The DART LNG buses consumed 2. gallon ($0. The fuel made at DART as part of the costs. the time idling with their air con. However. coupled with the difference emissions testing on a chassis in energy equivalent fuel econ- dynamometer (described in detail omies. for the Fuel Cost per Gallon LNG engines it was $2. depending on than the average diesel bus fuel changing fuel prices and changes economy on an energy equivalent in LNG vehicle fuel efficiency. Diesel fuel costs rose significantly per-mile engine oil consumption during 1999. This Engine Oil Consumption is substantially better than the and Cost 28% difference seen in actual operation.65 per typically spend 50% or more of quart for the diesel engines.49 per LNG natural gas vehicles in heavy. economy difference is within the expected range of 15% to 30% Fuel Cost per Mile lower. In engines—$0. (compression-ignition) engines. Also. the diesel buses has been different in service consumed 18% less (1. University (WVU) for emissions.

because the changes had systems such as multiplexing of already been put in place. air intake. most the troubleshooting and adjust- notably that the NovaBUS vehi- ments for the diesel buses cles were the first new buses occurred earlier on the “learning purchased by DART in more curve” for the DART staff. repairs following accidents. The portion of the maintenance costs for engine.Cab.and fuel-related (includes exhaust. computer-controlled engine and Similarly. the cost for trouble- transmission technologies (both shooting the 5 new LNG new to DART). fuel. original LNG. were some of the systems DART engineers and maintenance staff had to learn and troubleshoot in Maintenance Costs by Vehicle a short time (see Figure 13). seats. and the first DART that were resolved with NovaBUS ever ordered from that manufac- and component suppliers during turer.Engine. body. Thus. and hubodometer) 2. cab and sheet metal repairs. accessory repairs (such as radios). DART maintenance staff inspecting LNG fuel system 16 .Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Factors Affecting Maintenance Phasing the arrival of the new Costs buses also affected maintenance cost values. Therefore. antilock brake buses was lower than for the systems. DART’s transit bus operation. and a new axle model original 10. New buses. or controls onboard the bus because the time required to (instead of using hard wiring). and cooling repairs) Figure 13. The top four categories ranked by cost are the same for the diesel. non-lighting electrical. by several unusual factors. the maintenance the first months of diesel bus staff had to adapt to a number operation resulted in lower of new technologies in the maintenance costs for the LNG diesel and LNG buses. and accessories (includes body repairs. Issues than 10 years. engine. glass.and fuel-related systems was 8% higher for the LNG buses than for the diesel Courtesy of DART/PIX 09176 buses. System Added to these technologies and Figure 14 shows the relative procedures were the LNG fuel share of the major systems con- systems. painting. which were new to tributing to maintenance costs. make adjustments was reduced. farebox. and new LNG buses: 1. The diesel buses Maintenance costs for the were put into service 6 months DART evaluation were affected before the LNG buses.

4 times higher across major systems preventive maintenance) for the new LNG buses). body. For the new LNG buses. Brakes 7% ences seen between the diesel • Air intake system – The costs and LNG fleets. Fuel 25% costs were about 17% higher that of the diesel buses. In the following costs were higher.Brakes All Other Maintenance fuel system was for labor to 21% Cab. Original LNG because of problems with • Cooling system – The costs accessories such as surveillance were nearly the same for the equipment. 8% higher than the diesel buses. The parts and labor diesel buses. are as follows: for the diesel and the original PMA 14% • Cab. LNG buses. Most LNG bus maintenance for the 4. Accessories buses were due to spark plugs 35% lifetimes are covered. In this 17% tems – Costs were 39% higher case. There 16% maintenance cost difference should be no extra costs for than the original LNG buses inspections on any of the study because of lower labor costs for fleets.and fuel-related sys. The costs were essentially the same PMA new LNG buses had a lower for the study fleets. • Engine system – Costs were Brakes and fuel-related systems. systems unrelated to the engine. and wires changed as part of Brief summaries of the differ. • PMA inspections – As expected. 11% the engine.PMA inspection (includes only higher for the original LNG Figure 14. Body. preventive maintenance. Accessories The diesel bus maintenance costs troubleshoot problems such as 38% were higher than expected for low power and fuel leaks. PMA show differences between the 13% • Non-lighting electrical sys. diesel and the original LNG All Other • Engine. system maintenance. and some of their were low and nearly the same causes.and fuel-related nal LNG buses and 3% lower systems would be expected to for the new LNG buses. Engine. Only about 40% higher for the origi. Accessories Brakes 40% had maintenance costs 33% the diesel buses. Body. Fuel 25% troubleshooting. 17 . were in approximately the same service. several systems unrelated for the original LNG buses and Diesel to the drivetrain required 56% higher for the new LNG significant maintenance for the buses. the new LNG buses 10%. Body. because the vehicles Engine. For the new LNG tems – Diesel bus maintenance buses. Most parts All Other discussion. The • Fuel system – The LNG mainte.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses 3. only the per-mile Maintenance costs for the original LNG 19% results from the similar vehicle Cab. Maintenance 11% tems – The original LNG buses the cost was about half that of Cab. buses. the cost was about half Engine. Share of maintenance costs labor for inspections during buses and 2. New LNG • Exhaust system – The mainte- nance costs were 59% lower for • Brake system – Both study the original LNG buses and fleets of LNG buses had about 80% lower for the new LNG the same costs for brake buses than for the diesel buses. Fuel LNG and diesel buses. diesel buses required more nance costs were much higher labor to troubleshoot the than the diesel buses (3 times antilock brake systems. and accessories sys.

the new LNG systems other than the engine- buses 76% lower. the diesel buses overall but slightly higher for had the highest costs for warranty the diesel buses. An RC is defined in this report • Tire systems – All tire costs as an on-road failure of an in- were covered under a lease service transit bus that requires a arrangement. and drive shaft nance costs were about 34% systems – Maintenance costs lower for the original LNG for the study buses were low. at $10.674. higher for the original LNG buses and 55% lower for the Figure 15 shows average miles new LNG buses than for the between RCs for the diesel and diesel buses. • HVAC systems – The original LNG buses had maintenance The low miles between RCs for costs 12% lower than the the diesel buses were caused by diesel buses. The per-bus • Frame. replacements covered by In this analysis the diesel buses the warranty.54). back into service immediately. made toward troubleshooting and resolving start-up problems. bus is fixed on the road and put • Transmission – The mainte. • Air system – Most repairs for the air system are assigned to Warranty Costs the brakes. repairs ($17. this nance costs were about 73% is not considered an RC. and suspen. The original LNG buses for all data.660. These higher costs were caused mostly by bumper This trend is consistent with module replacements due to DART and NovaBUS working minor accidents and labor for through the maintenance prob- problems with radius rod lems of the buses as they arrived. costs were lower for the original sion systems – The diesel bus LNG buses. with the air conditioning both sets of LNG buses had miles motors and problems that were between RC results that were mostly covered under warranty.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses • Lighting system – The mainte. buses and 70% lower for the new LNG buses than for the Roadcalls diesel buses. If the failed tire replacements.0051 per mile for to complete the route. and suspen- On a cost per bus basis across all sion systems. The maintenance costs were nearly new LNG buses had the lowest double those for the LNG per-bus costs.65. were put into service 6 months 18 .57.101.and fuel-related issues. and the and original LNG buses LNG buses have had many more required significant labor hours engine. • Axle. wheel. This LNG buses had higher costs chart shows that the trend for because of higher parts costs each study fleet is upward and and occasional unscheduled indicates the progress DART has maintenance. For for troubleshooting problems engine. 50% lower than the diesel buses.and fuel-related systems. door. buses. The diesel and fuel-related systems. steering. at $8. These were low data collected. with a consistent replacement bus to be dispatched cost of $0.

DSL Avg x LNG Avg New LNG Avg exhaust. Engine. as beginning after the first PMA and discussed earlier. full year used for the diesel and The labor hours were also lower original LNG bus evaluation. 1000 fuel. year before the new LNG buses. buses. systems maintenance costs Similar vehicle lifetimes were were significantly higher for chosen to represent the period the original LNG buses. cab. cab. non-lighting electrical. (Labor costs were calculated Overall Operating Costs using a constant average rate of $50 per hour. x x x x x x x x and frame. 4000 x HVAC. and 3000 suspension 2000 x • Original LNG – engine/fuel- related. many of the problems with the nance costs per bus across the diesel buses were resolved for original LNG. These 9% lower than the diesel buses. These costs were lower because in the accessory systems Figure 16 shows the total mainte.) Figure 17 provides a summary of operating costs for the diesel. wheels. The tive maintenance costs were original LNG buses showed lower because the data evalua- significantly lower parts costs tion period was shorter than the per bus than the diesel buses.and fuel-related with no warranty work included. steering. and engine/fuel related Overall Maintenance Costs The following analysis covers This difference was caused by total maintenance costs for maintenance of accessory similar vehicle lifetime periods systems. and drive shaft 0 May-98 July-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 Jan-99 Mar-99 May-99 July-99 Sep-99 Nov-99 Jan-00 • New LNG – body. Also.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses before the first LNG buses and a Figure 15. HVAC. running for about 1 year. body. and new LNG buses (does not include out-of-fuel RCs) The highest warranty cost 6000 systems for each fleet were as follows: 5000 • Diesel – body. for the original LNG buses. new LNG. non-lighting electrical. original LNG. acces- sories. and new LNG total maintenance cost per mile study groups of buses. x x x x x axles. drive shaft. the vehicle usage for the new LNG buses were has been 17% higher for the much lower than for the diesel diesel buses. Average miles between RCs for diesel. and axles. results are only for the similar 19 . accessories. the preven- diesel fleets evaluated. Focus- ing on only the similar vehicle Total maintenance costs per mile lifetime results. and the LNG buses. The original LNG buses had a original LNG. cab. non-lighting electrical. wheels. accessories.

the three fleets analyzed time cycle to evaluate each bus. Although the new LNG buses had operating nitrogen oxide emissions were costs 8% lower than the diesel quite variable. The total maintenance LNG buses had 17% lower costs were higher for the diesel nitrogen oxide emissions than buses as explained earlier. the buses.000 • Actual fuel costs during the study were used: 50. oped under DOE sponsorship. how. and to shown in Figure 18. the diesel buses. Mechanical and Aerospace Engi- Total operating costs include fuel neering using one of its trans- and maintenance costs.2 for by the manufacturers 10. lated emissions than the diesel buses.000 • Maintenance costs did not 20. The LNG buses were much This means that the original LNG lower in carbon monoxide and buses had operating costs 3% particulate matter emissions than higher than the diesel buses.002 (These laboratories were devel- per mile).Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses g p In Calculating the Overall Figure 16. equipped with oxidation catalysts.8 60.773 for the diesel buses. the original LNG non-methane hydrocarbons than buses had costs 33% higher. Engine oil mometer emissions laboratories.90 per gallon 40. also had significantly lower related systems.000 100 0. and the diesel buses (assumed to be the new LNG buses had costs non-methane). on average.799 for the original buses had less of all four regu- LNG buses.000 400 0. Both fleets were 10% higher than the diesel buses. Results are $0.000 500 1.) WVU used the CBD speed-versus- Overall. and portable heavy-duty chassis dyna- exclude driver labor.000 tal costs and driver labor were not included 8.000 • Maintenance labor cost was 0 0 0 0 assumed to be $50 per hour Avg Miles Avg Parts Cost Avg Labor Hours Total Maintenance per Bus per Bus in $ per Bus Cost per Mile in $ Emissions Testing Results Original LNG New LNG Diesel Emissions tests on the diesel and original LNG buses were con- ducted by the WVU Department of vehicle lifetime data periods.000 include warranty repairs paid 2.6 • Diesel: $0. for the engine. costs were low (maximum $0.and fuel.000 • LNG: $0.85 per diesel energy 4.000 6.713 per Tests were conducted in February mile for the new LNG buses to and March 1999. The the diesel buses.000 200 0. The LNG a high of $0.000 10.4 equivalent gallon 30. The LNG buses ever. had very similar operating costs. 20 . Total maintenance costs per bus Operating Costs: 80. ranging from a low of $0.000 300 0.0 • Vehicle and fueling station capi- 70.

Emissions testing results 30 NOx .Particulate matter HC .01g/mi) Original LNG Diesel 21 .75 1. g/mi HC/NHMC x 10. However.Oxides of nitrogen PM . g/mi MPEG a.25 0. As per Mile discussed in the fuel economy section. Figure 18. g/mi PM x 10.Hydrocarbon NMHC . In addition. however. the LNG bus Fuel Cost emissions were still significantly per Mile lower than those of the clean diesel buses. PM values for LNG were below the detectable limit (<0. Overall operating costs per mile in $ relatively low emissions results because oxidation catalysts were used. the diesel buses had Figure 17.Carbon monoxide CO2 . g/mi CO.0 Cost per Mile in $ from the actual revenue service duty cycle for the diesel and LNG Original LNG New LNG Diesel buses.Carbon dioxide MPEG . the CBD cycle used in emissions testing differed 0 0. the CBD cycle does not take into account peri- ods of idling with auxiliary loads such as air conditioning.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses In general. g/mi CO2 /100. The average miles per diesel Maintenance equivalent gallon obtained Cost per Mile during emissions testing for the LNG buses were much higher than the result obtained from Total Cost in-use fuel economy data.Miles per diesel equivalent gallon 10 a 0 NOx.Non-methane hydrocarbon 20 CO .50 0.

Final Results from and diesel fuel together) engine the National Renewable Energy for LNG operations. 40 foot Nova Bus. Tri-Met used Houston Metro (Houston. HTB-748 Voith. because used open loop natural gas fuel the LNG technology evaluated at system technology.000 Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 39.500 22 .500 39. In this report. Torque 840 lb-ft @ 1200 rpm 750 lb-ft @ 1300 rpm 900 lb-ft @ 1300 rpm Fuel System 70 gallons 174 gallons LNG 221 gallons LNG Storage Capacity 43 gallons diesel Transmission Allison. 40 foot Chassis Model Year 1992 1993 1998. This engine One conclusion was that. development equipment. another LNG site evaluation was needed The LNG technology being to investigate operating costs and planned at DART was the newest reliability on more mature LNG available in the industry using fuel system technology that did the Cummins L10-280G engine not use a cryogenic pump and a fuel system from MVE.500 39. for LNG operations.560 30. D-863 ADR ZF 5HP590 Manufacturer/Model Catalytic Converter Used (Y/N) No Yes Yes Curb Weight (lbs) 30. and is no these sites was considered early longer available from Cummins.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses LNG Technology Progress in Transit LNG transit bus technology was onboard the bus.. 1999 Engine Manufacturer/Model DDC 6V92TA PING Cummins L10-240G Cummins L10-280G Engine Ratings Max. Table 3. LNG and Houston Metro has phased transit buses were studied at most of them out. Vehicle Descriptions for LNG Evaluation Buses Description Houston Metro Tri-Met DART Number of LNG Buses 10 10 10 Chassis Manufacturer/Model Mercedes. Program). Oregon). 40 foot Flxible. Horsepower 277 hp @ 2100 rpm 240 hp @ 2100 rpm 280 hp @ 2100 rpm Max. Houston Metro evaluated in the original used the Detroit Diesel (DDC) DOE/NREL evaluation report 6V92TA PING (pilot injection nat- from 1996 (Alternative Fuel ural gas) dual-fuel (natural gas Transit Buses. Inc. Texas) the Cummins L10-240G engine and Tri-Met (Portland. This engine Laboratory Vehicle Evaluation is no longer available from DDC.030 31.

20 tems results show that the DART LNG buses ran a much longer $1.and fuel-related sys- $1. Other Maint. wheelchair 3. $0. air for the LNG buses were 1. and Houston Metro.60 than for diesel at all three sites. excluding the engine and the fuel system. engine. However. fuel-related maintenance costs fuel. non-lighting electrical. DART also chose to Houston buy diesel buses that would match the LNG technology buses Tri-Met almost identically. the engine and Tri-Met. Figure 20.and fuel-related systems maintenance (the bottom portion Eng/Fuel Maint. $0. Table 3 shows a summary of vehicle descrip- tions for Houston Metro.and Fuel-Related Systems Only earlier technology at Houston Houston Metro and Tri-Met. and DART during the evaluation period. In the early (60%) higher than for the diesel LNG fleets at Houston Metro and buses. the distance between RCs was essentially the same for the diesel and the LNG buses.00 distance between RCs than the Houston Metro or Tri-Met LNG $0. This DART section investigates how the DART LNG results compare to the Engine. Both Figure 19. Tri-Met and DART LNG buses. Tri-Met. and other features). For DART Diesel DART LNG Tri-Met Diesel Tri-Met LNG Houston Diesel Houston LNG engine. At DART. Operational costs per mile ($) The engine. Fuel & Oil of the stacked bars). At Tri-Met.40 Maintenance Costs $0.6 times intake. costs for the 23 . Tri-Met.and and fuel-related systems (engine. and cooling). Miles between roadcalls the engine and the fuel system had been used in several vehicle Entire Bus applications. The first set of bars shows RCs for all systems Houston Metro LNG buses were (including the door.80 buses. DART Roadcalls 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Figure 19 shows mileage between Diesel LNG RCs for Houston Metro. the the diesel buses at Houston second set is for the engine.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses without a cryogenic pump.00 Tri-Met. these systems resulted in more RCs for LNG $0.8 times (280%) higher than for lifts. Metro. the diesel buses traveled fuel-related maintenance costs significantly further between RCs. At DART.20 Figure 20 shows total operating costs by vehicle group at DART.

Tri-Met. $25 dual-fuel buses could operate on per hour was used. Carbon $2. For the spark-ignited $4. On average. The Tri-Met LNG buses had a fuel economy 30% lower The overall maintenance costs at than the diesel buses at Tri-Met. diesel only. $1. the LNG and diesel buses at DART. but could also be very $0.18 g/mi).01 g/mi and as high as 58. and were rarely used and fuel-related maintenance in the dual-fuel mode. difference for an LNG bus with a higher horsepower engine Fuel Economy (240 hp at Tri-Met and 280 hp at DART). However. and DART for the LNG Emissions Testing Results and diesel buses at each site. The hour. but the dual-fuel three sites were calculated with LNG/diesel buses were not oper- a constant labor rate of $50 per ated in LNG mode often. For the 1996 report. On average. Figure 21 shows fuel economy results for Houston Metro.96 to 2.50 high. Houston. the older 24 .00 the diesel buses that averaged 1. LNG buses had the best fuel (The maintenance data for all economy.8 g/mi. This was true Figure 21.) The engine.50 carbon monoxide and nitrogen $1.50 dioxide emissions were about $2.50 Cummins engine at Tri-Met. diesel bus maintenance costs this is a similar fuel economy were comparable.00 oxide could be low for the LNG buses. At DART. but were Diesel LNG as low as 0. Fuel economy results in miles per diesel equivalent gallon for Houston Metro and Tri-Met LNG buses.3 times (33%) gallon basis.03 g/mi compared to $3.00 the same for the LNG and diesel buses (2430 g/mi). There costs for LNG buses were signifi. The Houston Metro higher than for the diesel buses. For emissions testing results from Houston Metro LNG buses WVU’s mobile chassis dynamome- showed a 13% lower fuel ter.00 LNG buses showed extremely low particulate matter results $3. However. results from early natural gas economy on a diesel equivalent engines were generally erratic because of the open loop fuel control design.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses were only 1. the $4.02 to 0.50 (0. the carbon $0.00 monoxide results for the LNG Houston Metro Tri-Met DART buses were about the same as the diesel buses (10 g/mi). were problems with the dual-fuel cantly lower at DART than at operation of the LNG buses at Houston Metro or Tri-Met. Houston Metro and Tri-Met were This result is consistent with the significantly higher for the LNG DART LNG buses having a fuel buses than for the diesel control economy 28% lower than the buses.

25 .3 g/mi nitrogen oxide. 21. the emissions results were much more consistent and generally lower for the LNG buses. For the DART LNG and diesel buses on the CBD cycle. Overall bus reliability and maintenance costs were comparable with diesel. and 0.32 g/mi for particulate matter.44 g/mi for carbon monoxide. but are not yet at the same level. The diesel buses at DART were much cleaner than earlier diesel bus emissions: 4. The reliability and maintenance costs for the engine. Summary Generally.5 g/mi nitrogen oxide.23 g/mi for carbon monoxide.01 g/mi. reliability. <0.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses technology nitrogen oxide results for the LNG buses were about 20% higher than the average for the diesel buses (41 to 45 g/mi for diesel buses). 25. but were as low as 31 g/mi and as high as 67 g/mi.and fuel-related systems have improved compared with diesel technology. and maintenance costs have improved significantly from earlier LNG bus designs evaluated in the 1996 study. and particulate matter that was lower than the detectable limit of WVU’s equipment. The LNG buses at DART had an average of 0. the results of the DART LNG bus evaluation show that emissions. The wide swings in emissions results were attributed to the tune of the engine or improperly functioning fuel control on the LNG buses.

The buses were product. The fuel costs were 32% have difficulty telling the buses higher for the LNG buses than apart. especially related the L10 engine has been dis- to range. daily pullout requirements. failure of engine components (turbocharger. and wastegate). The LNG emissions were tems have nearly all been cleaner yet. A fourth LNG tank Cummins’ current heavy-duty was added for onboard storage natural gas engine for the of LNG.and fuel- explore ways to increase fuel related systems compared to economy by 5% to 10%. Sev- design. clean. This emissions test- resolved through a team effort ing at DART was a state-of-the- at DART and with the vendors.70 miles per diesel about the same. the LNG buses were • Total operating costs for the being treated the same as the LNG buses were only 3% diesel buses in meeting the higher than the diesel buses. The resolution of specified to have a 400-mile problems with the L10 is range and could achieve only applicable to the C8. spark plugs. DART. and other sys. art comparison for transit with 1998 technology. the engine. the fueling engines at DART were very station nozzle. with start-up of LNG continued as a commercial operations.and fuel-related system RCs on the diesel buses. • As of the end of the study period. • The fuel economy has been • Miles between RCs for the LNG steady at 1. we can continue to cause difficulties conclude several major points: for the DART LNG buses. This fourth tank pro- transit market. 277 miles. WVU showed that the diesel fuel system (leaks). Cummins is vided enough fuel to achieve a addressing issues with spark range of 380 miles.62 miles per LNG and diesel buses overall were gallon or 2. for the diesel buses.3G. However. drivers buses. cylinder head DART deemed acceptable.and fuel-related • The drivers report that the systems were 33% higher for the LNG buses are well matched in LNG buses than for the diesel performance to diesel. • Emissions testing results from exhaust valve. had 50% fewer miles between and Cummins continue to RCs for the engine.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Summary and Conclusions Based on the evaluation of the • Some engine problems DART LNG transit buses. ZF. 26 . The LNG buses equivalent gallon. eral other problems with early and wastegate. which plugs and wires. turbo actuator. Cummins is still working on • DART has had significant these problems even though problems. coils. the maintenance costs for the engine.

This has resulted in a improved compared with diesel much higher available fueling technology. opportunity to use more of the South Oak Cliff operations facili. At the opment equipment. as high as 70 gpm. included buses at Houston A consortium of industry part. but are not yet at rate. The technol- ners on an “LNG task force” ogy was considered early devel- overcame the problems. nology. significant capacity left: 139 LNG buses were moved to South Oak ate the operation of its LNG fleet. Metro and Tri-Met. The new improved from earlier LNG bus LNG station at South Oak Cliff designs. Future LNG Operations at DART The South Oak Cliff facility will New procurements for buses at $16 million for buses and facilities. and mainte- still exploring breakaway fitting nance costs have generally and hose designs. these from the storage tanks to the same costs for the engine. or 40% of capacity. DART continues to evalu. DART continues to work on opti.and fueling island that Northwest fuel-related systems have has. DOE/NREL published the size of the LNG fleet at an evaluation report on LNG DART challenged the LNG and transit bus technology that natural gas vehicle industries. house and maintain nearly half DART have a provision for LNG The two LNG fueling stations have the current LNG fleet. reliability. Fifty LNG buses. LNG fueling facility there is oper.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses • The problems with range and • In 1996. DART has the ational. DART was chosen as the Some problems have been site because the technology experienced with fueling noz- then being planned there was zle leaks and driveaways with the newest in the industry. and the new buses that could be filled nightly. damage to the dispensing sys- tem. The overall reliability does not have the extensive and maintenance costs were length of piping (300 feet) comparable with diesel. all 139 LNG report concluded that another buses were making pullout LNG site evaluation was needed nearly every day. The nozzle has been • The results of the DART LNG redesigned and seems to be bus evaluation show that emis- managing leaks better. 27 . and the end of the study. the same level. DART is sions. is that DART has invested using LNG. to investigate the operating costs and reliability on more • The two LNG fueling stations mature LNG fuel system tech- are working well for DART. buses of a maximum 350 LNG Cliff in May 2000. capacity of its fuel stations and ties have room to increase their One issue for LNG operations continue to reduce emissions by LNG fleets. Both the Northwest and mizing the LNG bus operations.

TX 75266-7258 600 N. TX 77391 214/828-6780 614/424-5127 281/890-6228 DART LONE STAR ENERGY COMPANY WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY (Now a part of Blue Fuels) Nigel Clark Rocky Rogers Assistant Vice President Stanley T.O. Maintenance Project Manager Senior Account Representative 4209 Main Street 505 King Avenue P. NM 88202-5670 505/347-7350 28 .A. INC. Box 12066 Dallas. CO 80401 Engineering Project Manager 303/275-4424 42 Earl Cummings Loop West P. Paul Street Morgantown. 2311 214/828-6721 Dallas.) Roswell. OH 43201 Spring. TX 75201 214/875-3854 DART CUMMINS SOUTHERN PLAINS. Box 5670 (R.O. Taylor Department of Mechanical & Technical Services General Manager Aerospace Engineering 4209 Main Street 300 South St. O. Watson Road 214/828-6804 P. Box 660163 Regional Sales Manager Dallas.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Contacts DART BATTELLE CHART-APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES Michael Hubbell Kevin Chandler George Laux Vice President.C. TX 75266-7258 Columbus. WV 26506-6106 Dallas. Box 90027 Arlington. Darryl Spencer Fleet Systems Engineer Jason Ruble P.O. TX 75266-7258 Suite 750 EC 304/293-3111 ext. TX 76004-3027 NREL 817/640-6896 Paul Norton NOVABUS Senior Engineer 1617 Cole Boulevard Dan Moats Golden.I.

29 . Wang. Raley’s LNG Truck Fleet. S. 1999. OH. SAE International. Battelle. #981392. Battelle. Bailey. Clark. NREL/BR-540-23402. D. N. SAE Pub.. P. W. P. 1998. L. Golden. N. Warrendale. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Raley’s LNG Truck Site. NREL/BR-540- 27678. Battelle.. Bata. Update from the NREL Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation Program. P.. CO. PA.. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. J.. Warrendale. CO. Chandler. DART’s LNG Bus Fleet Final Data Report. 1998. D. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). #981393. Chandler. N.. #973203. P. Norton. OH. Golden. Columbus.. Rapp. 1996. Chandler. D. Norton. NREL/SP-425- 21606. Start-Up Experience. Emissions from Trucks and Buses Powered by Cummins L-10 Natural Gas Engines. Lyons. Alternative Fuel Truck Evaluation Project – Design and Preliminary Results.. Gautam. Final Data Report. PA. P. White. SAE International. Golden. #1999- 01-1505. 1997. Warrendale. P. Wang. Norton.. DART’s LNG Bus Fleet. Battelle. Golden. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.... SAE International. Battelle. PA.... Emissions from Trucks Using Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel. W. Start-Up Experience. Chandler... Goguen. K. CO. N. NREL/BR-540-25118. Battelle. Warrendale. CO. SAE International. Eberhardt. Waste Management’s LNG Truck Fleet.. 1997. 2000. Clark. American Public Transit Association. Cleveland.. Natural Gas and Diesel Transit Bus Emissions: Review and Recent Data. Chandler. Warrendale. K. Norton. N. K. 2000. PA. Clark. 1999.. Golden. M. NREL/BR-540-24744.. Alternative Fuel Transit Buses. R. 1998. Lyons. M.. Golden. NREL/BR-540-28124. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). SAE Pub. NREL/BR-540-26617.. 1998. Norton. 1999. K. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. #982426.. Norton. 1998. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Norton. CO. K. Clark. CO. SAE Pub. CO. The Pierce Transit Success Story. Battelle. 1999... B. 2000. Gautam. SAE Pub. Clark. SAE Pub.. Start Up Experience. Start-Up Experience. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 1999 Bus Conference.. Golden. Battelle.. Final Results. Clark. Raley’s LNG Truck Fleet. Golden. Lyons. CO.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses References and Related Reports Battelle.. Chandler. N.. Interim Results from Alternative Fuel Truck Evaluation Project. K. Vertin. SAE Interna- tional. Dual-Fuel Truck Fleet. Clark. C. PA. Using CNG Trucks in National Parks.

SAE Pub. SAE International.. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.... Rapp. CO. The First Transportable Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory. Kelly. P.. #912668.. Warrendale.. Palmer. Bata. N. Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation Program Results. K. Norton.. 1991. J. Clark. Norton. W. #932952. L. Alternative Fuel Transit Buses. D.. P. Chandler. Motta.. #961082... Palmer. Columbus.. 1993.. D. K.. K. Lyons.. 30 . OH.. Wang. PA.. Sun. Bata.. R. Malcosky.. Schumacher. SAE Pub. Lyons. N. K. Battelle. Final Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation Results. Gautam. N. L. Golden. Lyons. J. Howell. Kelly. Schumacher. M.. W.. L. X. M. R. Norton. N. Warrendale. K. Warrendale. Gautam.. R. Smith. Clark... Chandler. D. A.. SAE Pub. PA. 1996. R.. R. 1996.. T.. Long. Loth. SAE International.. Wang.... G. B. SAE International.Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Chandler. Kelly.. K. NREL/TP-425-20513. N.. Clark. M. PA. Malcosky. P. 1996.. Final Results from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Vehicle Evaluation Program. Emissions Comparisons of Twenty-Six Heavy-Duty Vehicles Operated on Con- ventional Alternative Fuels. Motta. Schumacher. Motta..

Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Appendix A Fleet Summary Statistics 31 .

1/00 7/99 .6 2809.115 0.672 369.799 0.238 0.773 0.420 0. Gal.68 Total Labor Hours 1925.849 136.398 Total Operating Cost per Mile 0.534 0.743 63. Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas.219.62 Representative Fleet MPG (energy equiv) 3.563 171.358 Period Used for Maintenance Op Analysis 6/98 .1 797.78 2.314 0.713 Maintenance Costs Diesel LNG LNG Control 4300 4500 Fleet Mileage 243.321 3.415 Representative Fleet MPG 3.85 0.93 17.5/99 1/99 .314 Number of Make-Up Oil Quarts per Mile 0.087.368 0.102 Total Unscheduled Repair cost per Mile 0. TX) Fleet Summary Statistics Fleet Operations and Economics Diesel LNG LNG Control 4300 4500 Number of Vehicles 5 10 5 Period Used for Fuel and Oil Op Analysis 2/99-1/00 2/99-1/00 6/9-1/00 Total Number of Months in Period 12 12 8 Fuel and Oil Analysis Base Fleet Mileage 218.280.454.807.90 0.002 0.001 Oil Cost per Quart 0.232 4.429 Average Monthly Mileage per Vehicle 4.484 0.85 Fuel Cost per Mile 0.1/00 Total Number of Months in Period 12 12 6 Maintenance Analysis Base Fleet Mileage 243.002 0.001 0.70 2.65 0.116.606 402.114 0.74 54.8 Average Labor Cost 96.429 Total Parts Cost 33.90 0.228.85 0.43 57.606 402.71 Average Fuel Cost as Reported (with tax) 0.674.618 143.484 0.002 0.74 194.00 per hour) Total Maintenance Cost 130.618 143.85 Oil Cost per Mile 0.78 1. 57.001 Total Scheduled Repair Cost per Mile 0.70 Ratio of MPG (AF/DC) 0.887.296 Total Maintenance Cost per Mile 0.00 140.51 0.398 32 .534 0.50 (@ $50.62 1.18 Total Maintenance Cost per Mile 0.50 39.51 per Gal D2 per Gal LNG per Gal LNG Average Fuel Cost per Energy Equivalent 0.71 0.486 Fleet Fuel Usage in Diesel #2 Equiv.

47 Labor Hours 315.985.12 2.1008 Exhaust System Repairs (ATA VMRS 43) Parts Cost 102.127.00 Total Cost (for system) 7.791.0426 0.083.50 Total Cost (for system) 22.43.2 2.00 12.169.00 608.24 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.6 Average Labor Cost 15.22 49.00 9.6 12.107.66 5.0009 Fuel System Repairs (ATA NVMRS 44) Parts Cost 87.0 Average Labor Cost 6.293.16 623.0018 0.8 739.201.43 4. 31-Charging.50 5.678.103.472.18 18.121.89 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.0448 0.0 Average Labor Cost 981.935.0 88.44 120.815.0049 0.50 100.0147 0.0321 0.0299 Electrical System Repairs (ATA VMRS 30-Electrical General.077.7 254.0117 Power Plant (Engine) Repairs (ATA VMRS 45) Parts Cost 3.606 402.801.45) Parts Cost 6.0044 0.429 Total Engine/Fuel-Related Systems (ATA VMRS 30.00 4.106.32.18 5.887.112.50 Total Cost (for system) 1.43 601.330.0307 0.471.3 21.026.19 4.50 13.93 1.88 135.199.263.12 7.Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System Similar Vehicle Lifetimes Diesel LNG LNG Control 4300 4500 Fleet Mileage 243.97 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.3 106.72 12.33.7 182.87 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.618 143.26 5.50 Total Cost (for system) 7.42.0914 0.87 Labor Hours 19.375.00 2.325.701.01 Labor Hours 22.062.51 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.312.44.1 57.31.41.457.00 Total Cost (for system) 1.24 Labor Hours 134.44 728.39 Labor Hours 82.93 17.38 35.1 262.082.733.50 36. 32-Cranking.8 Average Labor Cost 4.6 Average Labor Cost 1.1220 0.50 1.26 14.406.19 1. 33-Ignition) Parts Cost 1.400.0502 33 .

667.44 601.50 387.5 Average Labor Cost 1.50 Total Cost (for system) 2.00 15.57 14.033.5 5.74 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.1612 34 .569.91 629.50 10.5 Average Labor Cost 31.216.1701 0.26 6.037.59 Labor Hours 636. Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System (continued) Diesel LNG LNG Control 4300 4500 Air Intake System Repairs (ATA VMRS 41) Parts Cost 1.5 Average Labor Cost 10.65 Labor Hours 218.0108 0.2 54.0 1.34 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.26 2.356.27 4.949.0036 Brake System Repairs (ATA VMRS 13) Parts Cost 1.889.50 275.0100 0.77 7.310.0163 0.24 1.0350 0.349.77 23.00 Total Cost (for system) 12.019.0 81.0044 Cooling System Repairs (ATA VMRS 42) Parts Cost 499.0 80.495.00 75.00 4.74 2. 50-Accessories.0094 0.749.803.1 837.623.44 526.73 131.325.00 Total Cost (for system) 2.0301 Transmission Repairs (ATA VMRS 27) Parts Cost 1. Body and Accessories Systems Repairs (ATA VMRS 02-Cab and Sheet Metal.248.00 Total Cost (for system) 2.34 Labor Hours 50.0042 Cab.4 303.112.519.915.3 24. 71-Body) Parts Cost 18.050.437.50 41.0072 0.434.21 Labor Hours 35.77 4.00 4.74 Labor Hours 22.249.872.725.00 2.286.5 Average Labor Cost 1.7 7.65 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.03 26.09 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.585.53 68.3 200.0507 0.2053 0.086.8 Average Labor Cost 1.50 1.71 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.27 322.009.23 518.0092 0.07 4.172.50 Total Cost (for system) 50.222.077.41 354.122.77 1.

Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System (continued) Diesel LNG LNG Control 4300 4500 Inspections Only – No Parts Replacements (101) Parts Cost 0.967.00 1.301.200.00 9.18 9.0 184.0217 0.00 535.4 133.17 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.754.00 Total Cost (for system) 8.0643 HVAC System Repairs (ATA VMRS 01) Parts Cost 875.50 750.53 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.8 10.453.437.82 4.96 2.18 2.217.47 Labor Hours 71.630.0065 0.4 Average Labor Cost 17.0714 0.108.131.61 940.8 36.00 200.190.260.25 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.381.46 804. 15-Steering.940.0225 0.5 15.82 5.82 726.217.61 7.00 0. Steering.00 1.200.865.17 Labor Hours 88.25 Labor Hours 28. and Suspension Repairs (ATA VMRS 14-Frame.623.7 Average Labor Cost 4.50 1.0341 0.00 6.627.50 28.674.23 282.00 6.00 Total Cost (for system) 6.00 Total Cost (for system) 5.0143 0.629.00 0. 16-Suspension) Parts Cost 3.421.0 Average Labor Cost 3.048.0101 Frame.0190 0.0700 0.825.47 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.5 137.7 32.50 Total Cost (for system) 17.68 1.50 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.23 82.00 9.3 25.0051 Air System Repairs (ATA VMRS 10) Parts Cost 671.00 Labor Hours 347.68 193.8 564.387.586.0135 35 .183.296.96 1.690.82 191.0286 0.46 1.0020 Lighting System Repairs (ATA VMRS 34) Parts Cost 1.0 Average Labor Cost 1.5 4.2 Average Labor Cost 6.50 28.0087 0.53 Labor Hours 132.387.00 Total Cost (for system) 2.

5 3. Average labor cost is assumed to be $50 per hour.237. 22-Rear Axle.162.0049 0. If no part was replaced in a given repair.172.8 23.The engine and fuel-related systems were chosen to include only those systems of the vehicles that could be directly affected by the selection of an alternative fuel.00 354.00 0. Warranty costs are not included.237.3 13..5 23. ATA VMRS 71-Body represents mostly windows and windshields.50 175. and Drive Shaft Repairs (ATA VMRS 11-Front Axle. etc. ATA VMRS 02-Cab and Sheet Metal represents seats.00 1. 18-Wheels.21 Labor Hours 11. Alternative Fuel Final Results Transit Buses Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System (continued) Diesel LNG LNG Control 4300 4500 Axle.00 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.. 5.0029 0. 4. ATA VMRS 50-Accessories represents fire extinguishers.00 0. then the code was chosen according to the system being worked on. 101 was created to track labor costs for PM inspections. 3. doors. 24-Drive Shaft Parts Cost 45.0 Average Labor Cost 1. 36 .50 179. In general. 7. etc.990.162.0025 0. ATA VMRS coding is based on parts that were replaced. 6.00 Total Cost (for system) 620.0025 Tire Repairs (ATA VMRS 17) Parts Cost 0.50 650.5 Average Labor Cost 575. Wheel.21 Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.00 Labor Hours 24.50 1. 2.0051 0.59 1.50 650.00 Total Cost (for system) 1. Diesel and LNG fuel prices shown include state tax.59 817.50 1.0045 Notes 1. test kits. inspections (with no part replacements) were included only in the overall totals (not by sys- tem).

Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses Appendix B Emissions Test Results 37 .

70 12.26 19.16 28.16 0.54 36329 1.29 13. CO NOx FIDHC CH4 NMHC PM CO2 Mile/gal BTU/mile Miles Odometer LNG Average 0.13 0.50 0.33 24.87 33608 1.25 13.99 38300 3152 4224 4.60 35769 2.08 31851 1.98 41000 3154 4222 4.49 0.99 5300 3133 4322 0.2 11.85 33855.17 10.25 13.1 3.24 0.17 1459.98 36600 St Dev 0.05 e 2573 2.4 3.49 0.32 2639.44 25.62 35894 1.21 21.04 e 2286 3. CO NOx FIDHC CH4 NMHC PM CO2 Mile/gal BTU/mile Miles Odometer 3119 4324 0.20 25.43 0.05 e 2147 3.03 e 2346 3.41 2798 3.5 0.70 4.04 6900 3124 4329 0.98 9300 3141 4326 0.07 e 2165 3.9 12.39 12.3 1.20 1.55 0.06 e 2099 3.7 0.98 41800 Average 4.00 10700 Average 0.18 21.25 0.52 36486 1.05 2236.0 11.9 13.8 10.51 1.4 13.9 14.24 2678 3.996 9150 Diesel Average 4. Vehicle No.0 1.48 1.6 11.8 1.9 0.02 2213 CV % 33% 34% 11% 11% 26% 7% 7% 7% 1% 24% Emissions Summary–Diesel Baseline Vehicles (g/mile) Test No.23 21.99 11400 3136 4323 0.25 33.44 37405 2.70 2.29 23.97 9900 3139 4325 0.03 e 2053 3.8 0.98 11600 3146 4327 0.4 0.23 2760.322 2639.05 e 2086 3.05 e 2236.87 44760 2.4 16.01 160.8 15.08 0.6 0.00 9150 St Dev 0. Vehicle No.7 0.16 0.16 114.99 17600 3157 4220 5.1 12.322 38879.38 26.05 e 2244 3.33 0.35 32.6 11.984 36600 (LNG-diesel)/diesel -95% -17% 1081% -96% -15% -14% 15% 1% -75% e – too low to be detectable with a single CBD test cycle Final Results .1 0.02 9600 3121 4321 0.9 12.70 12.31 2620 3.15 23.40 3.38 0.87 33599 1.6 12.38 Emissions Summary–LNG Baseline Vehicles (g/mile) Test No.48 1.13 0.846 33855.00 10500 Transit Buses 3127 4328 0.80 1.438 25.234 21.2 14.2 12.3 1.42 37602 1.11 2620 3.7 1.01 0.98 44300 3164 4221 4.08 7.99 6300 Alternative Fuel 3130 4320 0.1 1.8 0.05 e 2362 3. CO NOx FIDHC PM CO2 Mile/gal BTU/mile Miles Odometer 3148 4223 3.9 13.32 38879.16 1.01 10835 CV % 16% 17% 11% 51% 4% 4% 4% 0% 30% Comparison–LNG Fueled Vehicles to Diesel Baseline Vehicles (g/mile) Fuel Type Test No.7 1.4 0.10 3.29 39116 1.2 11.70 0.14 40948 2.16 40691 1.8 14.92 23.1 14.24 39691 1.79 34327 1.54 2481 4.

Final Results Alternative Fuel Transit Buses 39 .

Golden. a U. Department of Energy national laboratory NREL 1617 Cole Blvd. BUS STOP Produced by the Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). CO 80401-3393 NREL/BR-540-28739 October 2000 Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper. including 20% postconsumer waste .S.