I realize there are a lot of variables for that question. I have four ALCO diesels, two RS-1s and two RS-3s, whose principle duty is running my commuter trains. Given a maximum theoretical round trip of 100 miles, how often would these diesels need to stop by my diesel fueling station for a fill up? Since these locos would do more stopping and starting than a freight diesel, I’m guessing that would affect mileage.
RS1: 1000 gal / 4 gal per mile = 250 miles
RS3: 1400 gal / 4 gal/mile = 350 miles
Literally YMMV.
That’s very helpful. I had found the specs for the RS-1 indicating it had a 1000 gallon tank but I couldn’t find anything that told me what kind of mileage it would get. Looks like 2-3 times a week would be a reasonable amount of fill ups.
I do not have the fuel usage in gallons per hour for the RS3, but here it is for the RS1
Notch 0 = 2.2 Notch1 = 4.5 Notch 2 = 11.8 Notch 3 = 19.5 Notch 4 - 28.1 Notch 5 = 38.2 Notch 6 = 47.0 Notch 7 = 63.8 Notch 8 = 78.1
Please remember that fuel usage is based upon the time that the engine is each notch setting.
OK, so it’s not a question of MPG but GPH. I learned something today.
Any idea on how each notch equates to MPH given that these locos pull 2-3 car heavyweight coaches. I think I read somewhere in researching this that the top speed for an RS-1 was 60 MPH
From the manual for the S-1, S-2 and RS-1:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/s1-gen.html
the top speed for an RS-1 is indeed 60 MPH. But it is noted that that is so for a gear ratio of 75:16. Alco may have offered other gear ratios, which would have had different top speeds.
Ed
Generally fleet management for commutter service is just refill every day. Assume the tanke is around 25% end of every day. Full service work over night. Cannt afford a unit going down at rush hour.
Since commutter returns to start every sday, not a big deal to refill. But figuring distance is more a frieght thing since they keep moving to new refueling points. Wind weather grades play a roll too in GPH use.
Shane
I cannot answer the question …
But, I will tell you this…
A certain siding in Portland Or. Had an x DRGW SD40 sitting there unattended and idling, for 72 hours.
( I know this because I regularly stopped there to photograph whatever was parked there… by the Third day, I seriously gave thought to taking the locomotive for a " spin" …)
What is the applied load to produce these numbers? They are certainly not the no-load consumption of the diesel engine at the governed rpm settings for the notches, but the combination of governor and load regulator would give the actual fuel burn, and that would in turn mean that you’d need to know the duty cycle.
You might approximate this for commuter service by getting an average for acceleration, another for track speed, and another for perhaps non-power-brake-stretched stops, and adding these for the route.
This was dramatically visible in the operation of the EL U34CH locomotives, which ran at a consistent 725rpm all the time (for synchronous HEP). When starting you could see orange laminar flame rise up in the exhaust as the throttle setting was advanced … but little smoke as the turbo was kept reasonably spooled on the mass flow keeping the engine turning at governed speed (that might have represented a high percentage of overall fuel burn; it seems to have been in those EMD passenger locomotives with HEP off the traction alternator). Certainly more fuel was burned but the engine turned no faster…
We used 4 gal per mile as a general rule of thumb on freight engines. For example, SD40’s or better had a roughly 1000 mile range.
There are soooooo many variables that saying an engine will use a specific amount of fuel is very difficult. Figuring you can get 2 round trips per RS1 and 3 round trips per RS3 would be pretty safe.
[(-D]
I cannot speak to trains, but a lot of buses do not even have fuel gauges. The buses are filled every night, and that is one less thing that anyone needs to worry about.
If I were running the railroad… the tanks would be sized to carry 150% of the fuel needed for the day, and would be filled every night.
-Kevin
It can really vary, Erie-Lackawanna bought SDP-45 without steam generators because the frame was longer to fit, if memory serves, a 4000 gallon fuel tank
“Conrail inherited all of their SDP45’s from the Erie Lackawanna, which purchased the units in two orders in 1969 for fast merchandise freights. The locomotives were powered by a 645-E3 prime mover producing 3,600 horsepower with a maximum speed of 70mph. Even though the locomotives were built for passenger service and have extra space in the rear of the locomotive for heating, the EL did not use this feature. Instead, they ordered the locomotives for the large fuel tank so the locomotives could be run between New York and Chicago without refueling, a feature also found on their SD45-2’s. Plus the larger fuel tank added the to the overall weight of the units, increasing their tractive effort.”
elsdp45.gif (1565×662) (trainweb.org)
That’s EMD for you, “Every Model Different”
Actually the EL SDP45’s and SD45-2’s with the extra large fuel tanks were bought to go from Marion, OH to either Chicago or New York and back to avoid the exorbitant fuel taxes those cities charged versus the lower taxed fuel in Ohio.
Rick Jesionowski
I’ve seen both stories - and plenty of people saying one story or the other is false.
I don’t know if we will ever get a definitive answer.
The answer to this question might be found when many other very important questions are answered. It has already been established that the locomotives will pull short, three car commuter trains consisting of heavy weight coaches. Empty train weight is about 240 tons, or about 80 tons per car. Horsepower-per-ton ratio for the RS-1 would be about 4.1. The RS-3 comes in at shade over 6, which is overkill on a 240 ton train which might gross out at 280-290 tons loaded.
What is the route topography? Grades and curves definitely affect fuel consumption, even on locomotives without cars.
How many station stops are there and what is the distance between them? Each start and stop sends more fuel up the stack. If the stations are on grades, the harder the engine has to work.
What type of schedule governs these trains, and what is track speed on this route?
Accelerating from speed restrictions, which are not unusual in commuter territory are other considerations to accommodate. How many are there?
If these units are operating in territory that has harsh winters, the customers will demand heated coaches and pot bellied stoves burning coal are not “sufficient”. Steam generators suck their fuel from the same tank as the diesel engine.
The engines in the locomotives are very different. The RS-1 is powered by an inline, six cylinder 539T. The RS-3 hosts a V-12 model 244.
Thinking like a bean counter, one would ask if the trains are the same (three cars) and the RS-1 is sufficient, is the RS-3 overkill. Would it be better to power both trains with RS-1s and release the RS-3 to a service where the additional horsepower can be effectively used? It could be backup power in case one of the RS-1s is ailing.
&n
Since diesel weighs only about 8lbs per US gallon the fuel tank size differences could not have a significant effect on tractive effort even if kept full. Diesel is not very tolerant of water contamination from condensation effects inside the fuel tanks which leads to a practice of keeping fuel tanks as full as is feasible. Best practice for reducing condensation effects would be to refill fuel tanks at or near the time of every engine shut down, time permitting.
I remember when attending a school for computer programming back in 1996, we were given a tour of Compuserve which was headquartered on the outskirts of Columbus, OH. We were shown their diesel powered back up generators which they seemed very proud of. They wanted their customers to have continuous access in the event of a power outage. A year or two later that day arrived and to their dismay, they learned that when diesel fuel sits for an extended period of time in cold weather, it turns into a gel and is unusable. Their back up plan had failed miserably.
Having managed an actual service track, a actual rail yard and a class 1 locomotive fleet, you take the engines to the fuel rack the fewest times possible. Taking an engine to the fuel rack is a time consuming process so is only done when necessary or convenient.
Prior to the 1990’s diesel engines weren’t shut down frequently, diesels were turned on after their quarterly inspection and if nothing failed, they were shut off again 92 days later when the engine had its next quarterly inspection. After the 1990’s the engines weren’t shut down if the temperature was forecast to be below 40 degrees.
On yard engines, they were fueled every three days. and were “leap frogged”. Engine 1 on the east end would go to the fuel track and engine 2 would be brought out to replace it, then the next day engine 3 on the west end would come in for fuel and engine 2 would replace it. The next day engine engine 4 would come to the fuel rack and engine 3 would replace it.
Road power was fueled more or less after every trip. Just remember a “trip” could be hundreds of miles. Power was also fueled where fuel was cheapest. Fueling was minimized in states where taxes were higher or fuel was more expensive.
It takes 3-4 hours to fuel and service units if its a hot move, 6-8 if its not (that includes time to hostle it to the service track, waiting for the engines ahead of it to be serviced, fueling it, sanding it, inspecting it, making any minor repairs, doing outbound power and air tests, then hostling it back to the ready track or outbound train.
A commuter engine probably wouldn’t be fueled in either the morning or evening rush hours, that would take too long, it would be serviced overnight or between 10am and 2 pm.
Much of this changed when they went to fuel trucks in the 1990’s and instead of bringing the engine to the fuel, they brought the fuel to the engine. That cut out all the hostling time
[quote user=“NHTX”]
The answer to this question might be found when many other very important questions are answered. It has already been established that the locomotives will pull short, three car commuter trains consisting of heavy weight coaches. Empty train weight is about 240 tons, or about 80 tons per car. Horsepower-per-ton ratio for the RS-1 would be about 4.1. The RS-3 comes in at shade over 6, which is overkill on a 240 ton train which might gross out at 280-290 tons loaded.
What is the route topography? Grades and curves definitely affect fuel consumption, even on locomotives without cars.
How many station stops are there and what is the distance between them? Each start and stop sends more fuel up the stack. If the stations are on grades, the harder the engine has to work.
What type of schedule governs these trains, and what is track speed on this route?
Accelerating from speed restrictions, which are not unusual in commuter territory are other considerations to accommodate. How many are there?
If these units are operating in territory that has harsh winters, the customers will demand heated coaches and pot bellied toves burning coal are not “sufficient”. Steam generators suck their fuel from the same tank as the diesel engine.
The engines in the locomotives are very different. The RS-1 is powered by an inline, six cylinder 539T. The RS-3 hosts a V-12 model 244.
Thinking like a bean counter, one would ask if the trains are the same (three cars) and the RS-1 is sufficient, is the RS-3 overkill. Would it be better to power both trains with RS-1s and release the RS-3 to a service where the additional horsepower can be effectively used? It could be backup power in case one of t
Believe it or not, this is one of the reasons so many data storage facilities are built in the South.
If you ever get the opportuntiy to watch an uninteruptable 4 megawatt diesel generator set do a load transfer test… TAKE IT! The noise is something from a pure nightmare. I don’t know why movie-makers have not recorded this noise for shear terror from a monster.
Fact… the starters on the 2,800 HP diesel generators at the Google site in South Georgia are a fully fail-safe design, and cost $20,000.00 each. Google replaces them every year as a maintenance item! I had a “used” one that was given to me, and I took it apart to see what a $20,000.00 starter could look like. It was beautiful. Everything was machined and manufactured to perfection.
Oh… Just by the way… there is no concern over emergency stand-by diesel generator sets starting in the North. If this story was true, they just did not follow the manufacturer’s procedures for maintaining the fuel. No need to worry about hospitals, airports, or drawbridges having emergency power up North. These are all well maintained.
-Kevin