I am looking for any information on the gallons per hour used by all diesel locomotives. I need the idol and all 8 notch setting figures. I have some of the EMD and some GE units, but am lacking them for many of the manufacturers. Any help will ge GREATLY apprecitated.
Thanks In Advance
Ora
Here you go: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm
Larry:
That is the one that I have. It is a good strart eventhough it is missing some information for the some of the locos that are listed.
Ira
A book mark provided by the UP gives fuel usage for the GE C44AC, the EMD SD70ACE and the average for the AC fleet. D = dynamic brake T = throttle. Usage is in gallons (g) per hour.
C44AC D4=13g D3=8g D2=6 D1=4g Idle=3g T1=12g T2=27g T3=54g T4=79g T5=109g T6=140g T7=171g T8=210g
SD70ACE D4=14g D3=9g D2=6g D1=4g Idle=3g T1=12g T2=23g T3=47g T4=64g T5=86g T6=133g T7=164g T8=187g
AC fleet D4=13g D3=8g D2=6g D1=4g Idle=3g T1=13g T2=25g T3=53g T4=74g T5=100g T6=138g T7=169g T8=201g
Jeff
Jeff:
Exactly which models fall under the AC fleet fuel usage guidlines?
Thanks
Ira
It would be interesting to see how the ES44AC compares with the AC4400CW, since it gets the same power out of four cylinders fewer. Or does the UP classification somehow not take that into consideration?
Do you have these other pages from Al Krug’s website ?
http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/dash9.htm “Dash 9 - 44CW” specifications, including “C44 Fuel Use & Horsepower by Throttle Position”
http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/SD70MAC.htm SD70MAC specifications, also including a fuel usage rate table.
At first glance a simple question But-----
Gallons per some unit of horse power ? but ---------
Gallons per some unit of tractive effort ? but ----------
Gallons per unit of tractive force for each throttle notch ? ------------
Since the same model of locomotive may have different brands of traction motors ?? such as AC or DC
Not so easy to answer ??
The way we used to do comparisons between locomotive models to infor purchasing decisions was based on equal work. We measured work at the output of the main generator headed for the traction motors (net traction HP). We weighted the output and fuel at each notch by the Conrail notch duty cycle in order to figure out the total work output and fuel consumed. Then we took that as baseline and figured fuel to produce that same output with a different model. We then added or subtracted an increment of idle fuel consumption to account for replacement ratio.
We validated the theoretical numbers two ways. One, with long term power meter and throttle clocks on some locomotives and two, by short-term head to head manned instrumented tests and load box tests where we could correct to standard conditions.
It is difficult to measure the losses from wire to coupler, because the precision needed to measure drawbar HP and work from an insturmented coupler wasn’t generally sufficient. We assumed no difference between traction motor efficiency (DC) and never investigated whether there was any or not.
We generally found that EMD and GE’s claims were dead on.
Both GE and EMD generally include the AC designation in their locomotive model numbers (i.e AC44000CW, SD70ACe) so most of the time it is easy to tell however ther are a couple of notable exceptions:
1:The GE ES44C-4 (a ES44AC derivative with 4 rather than 6 traction motors) is in fact AC motor equipped. Currently only BNSF rosters the model but Florida Easy Coast has ordered some.
2: There are some older EMD switcher and roadswitcher models that have AC in the model number but use DC traction motors; particularly the GP38AC, MP15AC and GP15AC. There units were marketed long before AC traction motors were available for North American freight locomotives and The “AC” in the model designation means that they were built with an alternator rather than the then standard-to-the -model Generator.
Reading Don’s post above causes me to wonder 2 things:
With all the modern computers and instrumentation technology, could or is better data being obtained with a modernized dynamometer car ?
Does any/ either locomotive manufacturer possess or use a stationary test plant dynamometer, like the PRR used to do at Altoona with steam locomotives - running in place on a set of rollers (kind of like a 'treadmill for locomotives) instead of rails ? See, for example:
http://www.billspennsyphotos.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=72302797 - T-1 #6110 at Altoona in April 1944
Unless you are really interested in the tractive effort and only care about the horsepower, you can direct the alternator input into the dynamic brakes, and if you can measure the fuel in and the voltage and current out, you can measure the power and efficiency to whatever detail you want.
No need for rollers.
For road testing, a calibrated coupler shank with strain gauges to measure the force applied to the train. combined with a feed from the locomotive data system giving speed and power to the rail won’t need much more than a laptop to collect, sitting in the trailing cab of the locomotives. No need for a dynamometer car.
M636C
M636C has it right. A “dynamometer car” these days is just a strain-gauged coupler. You only need the “car” if you need a longer term place to house people during a test run. If the coupler is in the car, you always have it when you need it, too.
There often is interest in knowing the relationship from traction HP (electrical) and drawbar HP but it is difficult to get good, solid numbers. Since the “drivetrain” parts don’t vary much - and the changes are typically upstream from the main generator, measuring the electrical output is a good way of determining the effect of the changes.
Measuring fuel consumption is much simpler in a stationary environment. You can use a very accurate scale and can correct results to standard conditions. On the road, you typically wind up using a day tank setup. Flow meters in the supply and return line lack sufficient precision and accuracy. You also get stuck having to do head-to-head comparisons since correcting back to standard conditions is hard when conditions are changing minute to minute.
AAR test center in Pueblo, I think… But I can’t recall why it got built or who’s using it for what. You generally don’t need one since you can individually test the parts - traction motor, gear set, bearings, etc.
It would be what ever AC (the modern ones, not the old GP38AC types) that UP rostered at the time the usage was figured. It would include both EMD and GE locomotives. Because I don’t know the time frame, I can’t say for sure what models it includes. For example, the SD9043 engines that have been sidelined are probably included, but those are no longer active. (At least I haven’t seen a working one in quite a while. The only ones I’ve seen are stored dead at Missouri Valley IA.)
Jeff