I’m not knowledgeable regarding issues like this on the railroad, so please understand I’m a learner about most stuff…
I ride the UTA public frontrunner at least once a week. It follows the UP line all the way from Ogden into Salt Lake. Once in awhile freight passes the train with unusual locomotive power. Last week a fairly new BNSF yard unit with the new BNSF logo and shiny paint left Salt Lake along with the rest of the UP power north towards Ogden as the Frontrunner reached Salt Lake.
What is behind the lending of power to other Class 1 railroads-what’s this called? Here in Ogden you’ll see CP power on a few Intermodal trains during crew changes several times a week and it’s just looked odd since I didn’t know what this was all about-lending of power?..
“Run-through” power is probably the most common form of this exchange, although railroads have been known to loan power to another railroad that’s short for some reason. As DRN notes, it’s done to save time. Rather than take the time to change the power at various points (both within the same railroad and if changing railroads, as would have been done in steam days), they just leave the power on and change crews.
That’s when the fun begins, though. Sometimes money changes hands, particularly if it’s definitely a one-time deal. Probably more often, though, the “horsepower hours” used are recorded and at some point the borrowing railroad provides an equal amount of horsepower hours back to the loaning railroad. Think of it as you borrowing your neighbor’s pickup to haul some building materials home, and as pay-back you loan him your sports car.
That rarely breaks even, though, so the railroads are left playing a game of who owes what to who. IIRC, the big boys have entire departments devoted to keeping track of it all - a daunting task when you consider all of the potential interchange points where exchanges might happen.
One other possible consideration is that a locomotive may have been sent to an off-line (for that railroad) facility for work, in which case it’ll regain home rails at the earliest opportunity.
Actually, keeping track of ‘Horsepower Hours’ is one of the simplest things that occur in the realm of big time railroading with the Class I carriers. The Class I carriers have computer programs that keep track of their own locomotive fleets and keep track of the Interchange Records as power moves on an off line and keep track of the accounts this power is applied to. Locomotive Managers get at least daily reports concerning the balance of the Horsepower Hour accounts vs all the railroads the carrier has Horsepower Hour agreements with…Managers review the figures and make decisions on how to attack the power utilization needs for their company…Bada bing, bada boom!
And it’s not just horsepower hours alone between connecting railroads, but how much fuel was in the fuel tank at the moment of interchange. Newer engines have fuel tank readings (gallons remaining) displayed inside the control compartment. Older units have fuel gauges mounted outside on the fuel tanks. The delivering locomotive engineer reports those fuel readings as part of his tieup report.
QUESTION: The newest G.E. and E.M.D. units have satellite hookups. Using space age technology the owning railroad can poll each unit for a performance download just about anyplace/anytime. Do you suppose this might include fuel readings as well?
when did we start putting fuel readings on tie up reports, what a tie up report, Gee I need to go back to engineer school, and now satellite I want either XM or DirectTV
There are “dynamic” AEI tags that can attempt this, but the big trouble is fuel gauges are notoriously terrible. I would never try to build a business process around them. They have lousy accuracy when they work and are broken often. The current “guestimate” methods of backing into fuel from ton-miles probably isn’t any worse than trying to use the tank gauges.
the presant method is the most reliable and cant be wrong ever. go to the tank look at the glass and take the reading. unless you cant read its hard to mess up
Well to tell the truth i dont, see the engines we run the GE models well they have 5000 gallon tanks and the EMD units are 4900 gallon tanks. Besides that i dont take fuel readings as its not my job, and when i bring yard engines up for fuel i sit and read the paper til they are done then go put the engines away. and being are engines dont have 4000 gallon tanks that would be impossible. Now ive taken the readings a few times on a GE and they go down into the 1300 gallon mark or so, ( cant remeber how far down) So to try and start something with me is not possible. the other thing we did was stick the tank, it goes like this take a yard stick or a broom stick and insert it into the tank, pull it out and read the wet spot, then go to side of tank and duplicate what you just did, there and read where it is half way down tank 3/4 down. or 2000 gallon tank 1/2 is 1000 gallons . thats even better than the sight glass if you can read. or see
OK, I just gotta know - What might those ‘‘at least 3 things wrong’’ be ? Because, as you probably know, ‘‘dipping’’ or ‘‘sticking’’ a fuel storage tank is an accepted method of getting at least a rough check on the gauges, and the running calculation or inventory of net fuel in vs. out for purpose of checking for thefts and undetected leaks underground, etc.
Ones I can think of are that the tank is not a constant shape from top to bottom, so the quantity of fuel represented by an inch will vary from typically less at the bottom and top to more at the middle; the odd shapes in the tank will also affect that; the longitudinal grade of the track and any super-elevation or out-of-cross-level condition will skew the the apparent reading; the possibility of contaminating the fuel with any foreign material on the broomstick; the crude and very approximate nature of the reading - probably no closer than 1/8 of the tank or 500 gallons or so, or about $1,000 to $1,500 worth - wonder how the accountants would feel about that if they ever knew; the fuel remaining on or soaking into the broom
Two, you can’t go straight down from the fuel fill to the bottom of the tank. How do you reproduce the angle for your measurement?
Three, using a broomstick for a dipstick is misusing a tool - a safety violation. (you gonna put that broom back on the locomotive, with an oil soaked wooden handle?)
Four, the broomstick is not calibrated. (This may actually be “2b”)
Cross level is an issue, but fuel gauges don’t account for it, either.
OK, thanks, Don. [tup] I think I also fairly got 3 and 4, buried in the middle of my longish paragraph; but as to 2 - no, I didn’t imagine that one at all. Perhaps someone did it or tried it a few times, though, for that to be recognized as a source of inaccuracy - or just your superior knowledge of the fuel filler pipe’s configuration and shape enabled you to envision it. Anyway, thanks again.
