Several weeks back, there was a thread dealing with a runaway train and someone attempting to shoot the fuel cut-off valve. I stated that I had one put a bullet through a fuel tank of an old locomotive. In conversation with my co-workers about this incident, I was informed that it indeed was not a locomotive fuel tank. This got me thinking?
Just what would it take to put a hole in a fuel tank? Do the Railroads have problems with debris on the tracks? Any information and stories would be welcome
I think fuel tanks are double walled.
I have seen fuel tanks crack or rip in derailments.
I have seen a fuel tank tare open when a man who was found to be mentally unstable,piled up large rocks in the middle of the “gauge” (between the rails).The lead engine stuck the pile of rocks.The tank leaked slow at first ,but when the crew was weighing the coal train they was on,they stated to smell it more and more .Then it cracked open and poured out at a much faster rate.
I was on the work train that dug the contaminated ballast up.It was an all day job.
The tanks are single walled and debris is a problem. There have been all sorts of attempts at improving the situation but I’m not aware of any that have been implemented, other than what GE incorporated in their Genesis locomotive design. That has a compartmentalized tank perhaps with some sort of lining or bladder on the inside.
A couple of years ago, an ICE loco’s fuel tank was damaged by rockslide debris, and spread most of its contents along the line west of MacGregor, IA, before the crew realized they had a problem.
The solution Don mentioned – a tough but flexible bladder inside the tank – is about the only way one can go. The problem is rather simple, when you think about it: building a single or even double wall tank which could take the force (even slowly) of a 100 ton plus locomotive going over an object lodged firmly in the roadbed is pretty close to hopeless (3" thick steel wall? might do it…). There are, however, other problems with bladders, and sooner or later you run into a cost/benefit type of problem.
Isn’t the ICE a EMU high speed train?? Why would it have a feul tank??
Not in Iowa, it isn’t…[;)]
Brian was talking about the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern.
On our old 1950 Baldwin DRS 6-6-1500 at the Arizona Railway Museum, the fuel tank is single walled and apparently made of 1/4 or 1/2 inch welded plate, which is quite heavier than a lot of equipmant I’ve seen (keep in mind I don’t deal with stuff less than 40 years old very much).
Perhaps the safest way to fit a fuel tank is how Baldwin installed the tanks for AS-16s that didn’t have steam generators, putting them inside the short hood. The tanks were usually 900 gallons, but there’s more space available if it were desired to use a larger tank, and the external 1200 gallon belly mounted tank could also be used as well.
As for current locomotives, I think adding an 1/8" thick outer skin spaced about an inch out around the outside of the tank would make an excellent FOD deflector. Sure, it would get punctured alot more often than the normal tank wall, but just having it there to deflect or redirect larger objects to a less threatening angle could significantly reduce the number of tank failures due to flying rocks and debris. Then all you’d have to do is put a sheet metal patch on the hole, and you’re protected for another trip.
I’m not sure what you could do about protecting against cracks and punctures during derailment, aside from building it as armored as a battleship. Fuel spills with always be a problem, but perhaps some sort of entraping system or something to absorbe the fuel if it leaks could be developed. Like a foam lining around the tank that if it comes in contact with the fuel will react, expanding and absorbing the fuel like a sponge. Actually, didn’t they use something like that in WWII aircraft?
Anyway, there are ways to safeguard fueltanks and other equipment, it’s just a matter of weather the railroads want to use them or not.
Matthew Imbrogno
-Mechanical Vollenteer, Arizona Railway Museum
www.azrymuseum.org
Wow…installing a fuel tank in the front…{short hood}, doesn’t sound very safe…I’m thinking of a crossing crash with a heavy truck, etc…and smashing that tank to the point of bursting it…Wouldn’t that have been a fire hazard for the crew…!
They were called “Self sealing fuel tanks” and all American aircraft in WWII carried them. It was a regular sheet metal tank, that was coated with a type of rubber, that when exposed to fuel, would plug the leak. I forget the name of the material, at them moment. The British used something similar called “Linatex” to line the tanks of the Spitfire and Hurricane. In fact, the Hurricane, having a tank behind the engine, the RAF figured that the engine would protect the tank from any damage, but after quite a few pilots died or were horribly burned, (burning fuel from the punctured tank would incinerate the pilot) during the Battle of Britain, the RAF decided to line that fuel tank as well.
I often wondered about the tanks on a locomotive, and I wonder if a self sealing tank would be practical…
Alco’s early ‘S’ switcher and the RS1/RS2/RSC2 had the fuel tank under the floor of the cab! Nice to be standing or sitting on all that fuel!
Current engines have welded steel tanks. A ‘bladder’ will only work if you have a penetration like the rifle shot described. Most derailments where the fuel tank would be ripped open would tear/rupture the bladder as well. The E8/E9 series of EMD passenger engines had a 1250 gallon fuel tank ‘inside’ of a 1350 gallon boiler water tank. The UP DDA40X engines had ‘skids’ built into the tank for derailment protection. Current 4,000-5,000 galllon tanks are single wall construction.
Jim
NJT asked Conrail about applying Kevlar panels to the front, rear end sheets and the bottom of the fuel tank for punture protection during the GP40P rebuilds. We looked into it, but the cost was outrageous and NJT dropped the request.
LMAO!!
Self-sealing fuel bladders are used in every form of motor racing carrying every type of liquid fuel. They have made fires after a crash a thing of the past, so rarely does that happen these days. They work with diesel too, since Audi just won the 24 Hours of Le Mans with a diesel engined car.
I suspect the reason they are not used on locomotives is that old one: the cost.
Jack
I dunno, but I’m thinking that its a bigger technical challenge to seal a 3000 gal diesel tank than a 20 gallon auto tank…
And, I would guess that the cost-benefit ratio is pretty small…how many fuel spills each year would be prevented, vs how many locomotives are in service? $10,000 each would be quiet a chunck to prevent a dozen spills a year…
Since when does that reasoning matter! If it did, we’d still have single hulled tankers bringing oil to us! One hull rupture every two years out of all the tankers afloat and they mandated double hulled tankers! Stats proved that more oil was spilt in connecting and disconnecting hoses than all other kinds of spills, but we are still paying the extra for double hulls; not in better connection procedures!
Good Point. Emotion is more important when seeking legislation. and 1,000,000 or more gallons of heavy, bird encrusting crude, has a much larger emotional impact than 1,000 gallons of Diesel. At least, it shows up better on the 10 o’clock news…
The total cost of a tanker spill is awfully hard to capture. Some of the crude from the Exxon Valdez is still lying around on the bottom. Is it a good thing? No. Is it bad? How bad? What’s the “cost” of this? Who knows?
Dumping a whole taker’s worth of crude in one spot is certainly worse than dribs and drabs over a long period of time spread around ports throughout the world, no?
Are double hulls worth it? Can anyone say assuredly yes or no?
Dumping 4000 gallons of #2 onto the ROW is a much easier thing to calculate. You just dig it up and land fill it - similar to gas station tank leak remediation.
Self sealing fuel tanks do work astonishingly well, all things considered. For what they are intended to do: seal punctures. However, unhappily, the most typical failure in a locomotive fuel tank is a gash, with significant length and significant displacement of the edges. Self sealing tanks do not work in such instances. I might also note that they aren’t perfect…
Placing the fuel tanks above the main frame rails is a good way to protect them from track debris and most derailments (not all). However, you run into the question: where? The fuel tank is a fairly large volume; there just isn’t that much extra space in the clearance envelope.