I do not have any locomotives, but we do have a fleet of cars. Br. Louie comes out and fuels each car in the morning, so I usually depart the garage without ever checking the fuel gauge. If I take a car out too early it might not have been fueled yet, and out here that can be dangerous in the winter time, since none of our cars can make two round trips to Bismarck without refuling. Of course automobiles are easier to refule than locomotives, since there are many more gas stations than fueling depots for locomotives. Besides a stop at the gas station allows one to go potty, to buy a hot dog or an ice cream and then continue on the way. How can you do that on a locomotive. Sure you got a head in the nose, but is that really a comodious option?
When LION was in NAVY (him served on an aircraft carrier) the tankers chased us all around the Gulf refueling us every few days, weapons, food and sotres were also replentished at sea, but every 30 days or so the ship had to pull into port just to give the crews a break. Locomotives are no different. The crews need a break, and you may as well refuel the engine while you are stopped.
Hey this is better than the old steamy locomotives which had to be refueld and watered far more frequently. But the railroad, like the Navy (I suppose) wants to keep the bunkers as full as possible, for you never know when you may suddenly be deployed to a different ocean, and it will take many days before your retinue of supply ships can reach you. (Been there, done that, got the medals to show for it.)
Yes, there is such a requirement, and UP’s Bailey Yard has fuel pads on several of their run through tracks to service through freight and unit trains, with a “pit crew” who can service and inspect a locomotive(s) in under an hour.
Memory says their goal is 45 minutes per train……
Trains magazine had an article about Bailey Yard a few years ago, and there is a History Channel documentary on railroading that also features this operation.
I have a number of times observed NS trains stopped well ‘short’ of the end of a siding (either on the main or side track) when making a meet on the ex-Southern line east of Memphis. The crews do this to walk a block to Wendy’s and a Shell convenience store. I’m sure this happens many other places, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them have easy acces for a fuel truck. (Although I’d draw the line at crews nipping into the Shakers in Waverly, Nebraska that was mentioned in another thread!)
In most cases trains are fueled at a crew change but not every crew change. Its not needed from a fuel standpoint and would cause too much delay. Crew changes can take a few minutes while fueling take a lot longer. A Chicago to Los Angeles train might change crews 10 times and only be fueled twice.
Conrail’s intermodal trains had a range of 1200 miles. Most would fuel at Elkhart and Harrisburg in one direction only, so would go 900 miles or so between fuelings.
The other answer is “every chance they get”. If you pass a mainline fueling station, you get fuel. If a consist gets serviced, it gets fueled. So, could be as little as a few hundred miles.
Yet another answer is “too often”. Many times, the fueling event is just topping off a mostly full tank.
Hunting for a functional, reliable, tank gauge to use in planning fueling has been a wild goose chase. Being able to implement a fuel useage algorithm to be used for planning fueling - also not happening.
The main goal of fueling planning is to steer away from high tax/cost locations to lower cost.
The reason I posted this question is that I read in another forum that the eastbound trains NS is diverting onto the old PRR mainline are being refueled in Fort Wayne, IN, with a tanker truck operated by Locomotive Services Inc. In a location that is otherwise “nowhere”.
So, by use of a contractor at an interim point, it appears that this taking on of fuel is necessary, as opposed to optional.
They also state that the next crew change point is Mansfield OH, with the eventual destination of Conway yerd.
Something must be going on such that those trains are already too fuel depleted to make it only as much further as Conway.
It may not be a necessity, but simply a convenient point to do so.
Both UP and BNSF send fuel trucks to the PTRA to service their units, be they on unit trains or just the local, even though both carriers have major yards with service facilities really close by.
UP’s Englewood and Settagast yards are only a few miles away, and BNSF’s New South Yard is a half hour hop from us.
It may be that the units being fueled may not be stopping at Conway for any
Hadn’t considered that possibility. So you are suggesting that they might be receiving this fuel (delivery) as part of a larger, overall fuel service contract, where the tanker at this site is just a piece of the bigger picture?
OUr little yard got a fuel truck. From what I understood, the truck (or at least trailer) was owned by the railroad - while the driver (and possible tractor) were contracted out.
One area I dispatched used a truck for mainline refueling. And certain trains had to get fuel no matter what, others only if they were below a certain threshold… I don’t think there is one unified plan. Just a mish-mash of instructions that can change on a whim.
These are likely run-thru trains coming to NS over Chicago. Fuel tax is higher in IL than IN, so that’s why Ft. Wayne rather than Chicago. Normally, these trains would use Chicago Line and fuel at Elkhart, but recent changes have moved some over to the NKP.
Direct from truck fueling is common in lots of places on the RR, but not a lot is done on mainlines.
I have written an alogorthym for fueling engines, bassed upon fueel on hand and fuel used per gallon for each specific locomotive which is in a database table. It includes all 9 levels of fuel usze from idle thru run 8.
Not to belittle your efforts, but big deal. Fueling is company physical characteristics dependent. Where the terminals are, where the ‘preferred’ fuel vendors are, what terminals can ‘afford’ the delay their fueling method causes. There are multiple operational variables that only apply to the individual carrier and it’s overall operating philosophy.
After reading the article on “Run Through” agreements in the July 2015 issue of Trains magazine, I think they have answered this.
Most, if not all of these diverted trains appear to be originating out West. Once the receiving railroad refuels a run-through consist, they are no longer liable to the originating railroad for fuel depletion. So, refueling these trains soon after taking posession makes sense as a cost-control measure. Now I assume that a part of this entails the locos being freshly refueled (again) just prior to return. But it makes perfect sense to do this, this way.
Part of me was initially wondering how far away these interchange consists must have been coming from, to be “empty” by the time they arrive here. But with this new explanation that they are topping off to control an obligation, it makes perfect sense.