Hi,
I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me. I am trying to get a basic idea of what a modern train like the GE Evolution might get mileage wise with its fuel economy. I do realize that there are many variables involved, such as load, weather conditions, grade of track, and probably so many more. Any info would be helpful.
Thanks,
~ Sasha
A lcomotives fuel economy is more easily measured in gallons per hour than mpg. The figure that i saw for an SD40-2 under a heavy load could use up to 100 gallons per hour. Sorry i can’t help specifically with the gevo.
Christian
Al Krug put together a nice resource that should answer your question:
I’ve often wondered, with higher fuel prices, if the railroads have issued any directives to engineers and yard crews about conserving fuel. ( Keep it under 55, and watch those jackrabbit starts?[;)])
They certainly have and it is an ongoing program. I think it was NS, but I saw a story about a computer assisted program that provides an engineer with en-route information on throttle settings.
jeaton your correct.
We are suppose to start seeing these locomotives you mentioned that tells us in real time the best throttle position to be in for maximum efficiency,though I’ve not seen any yet.
And the auto start/shutdown units and the Gevos are also suppose to be part of NS’s fuel savings plan.
The NS also puts a sticker on most units to place the reverser in the middle when setting.The units with auto start/shutdown will alert you with a bell on the computer display to place the engine reverser in the middle so it activates the auto shutdown process.
Another thing we used to observe on the Pocahontas Division was to run one engine online on east bound empty hopper trains.It may still be in our timetable,but we rarely get one unit empty hopper trains anymore.
I never thought it was saving fuel by doing this.I always felt it used more fuel running one motor hard than to work two units at a lower throttle position.
I have this mental picture of two engines lined up side by side on double track somewhere about to engage in a quarter mile drag race. After all, the starting lights are already there!
UP has the “Fuel Masters” program whereby they issue a company credit card & the fuel savings are shared with the engineer…all the info is obtained by downloading the tapes, which shows throttle position, dynamics vs. power braking, reverser centered in idle etc…the fact that this company with a rep for being “very tight” w/$$ is willing to do this shows the important relationship between fuel costs & the bottom line…after all it is the single biggest operating expense followed by wages.
A 16 cylinder dash 9 in throttle notch 8 will burn 210 gallons of diesel per hour, the 12 cylinder eveo at the same throttle setting will burn 201.6 gallons not much of a differance in the short term, but in the long term that is quite an ammount of fuel savings. Being the eveo’s are only out of action for 2 days every 92 for the fra inspection.
Rodney
You are to move weight. If your route is downgrade or level, you will not spend so much fuel per hour to move that weight. On stiff grades your engine will toss the miles per gallon out the window and become a thirsty beast guzzling in gallons PER hour.
While Im not a locomotive engineer, my CATS would drink 20-25 gallons an hour and Detriots would down 18-20 gallons. I dont know the figures for Cummins because those are high horse engines and not as good for lugging.
Ironically, I favor engines with greater torque and horse ratings because less work is required to do the same work. I remember winding out a Big Cam 4 350 Cummins to 1600 rpm to lug a 4 mile hill (5% townhill near Breezewood) at 18 mph with 39-40 ton. Later on I was to do the same job with a Mack 350 at 28-32 mph. And afterwards 500 Detroits, 550 cats at 45-50 mph for the same weight on the same hill. Detriots were designed to run down to the bottom lugging the engine versus a Cat that wants to stay just about in the sweet spot with hardly any input on the throttle.
It took me less time to run that hill as engines increased in power and work output.
Now I recall one 18-20% grade of two miles near the Canadian Border where the engine was basically either going to survive the pull or be destroyed should something fail. It survived the pull.
There was no alternative route out of that particular shipper without having to go into Canada and cross customs. Any other route that was flatter was much more favorable than that big hill. The fuel lost on that one hill was probably good for 50 miles on the scenic route around it.
Back to trains, what little I know is basic.
For example you need to cross a mountain. Your engines are necessary to lift a coal car (Or many coal cars; aka a train) over that hill.
You can do the work with a very big elevator or a locomotive. The required work is the same.
You want to have sufficient horsepower to do the actual lifting of the weight all the way
I’m pretty sure it is the other way around, especially for turbocharged engines. One chart for the 710G-16 engine showed about a 5% improvement in fuel efficiency at full output compared to running at 50% of full output. Peak efficiency was between run 7 and run 8.
Fuel economy on any road freight locomotive manufactured in the last 20 years is within a narrow range. Both manufacturers continue to achieve incremental improvements that when averaged over fleets of 1,000 locomotives or more add up to a very large operating cost savings over time, but on a per-trip basis the difference may be negligible between different locomotives.
As a rule of thumb, an SD70ACe or ES44AC, or their DC equivalents, will burn approximately 4,000 gallons every 1,000 to 1,500 miles in heavy-haul service with moderate grades.
RWM
Another factor is time, and time is money. While running two locomotives may cost more as a raw expenditure, the savings in labor costs and efficiency in getting the loads over the road may offset that.
Too, just the simple gallons per hour factors in. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that one locomotive can make the trip in 10 hours at 200 gph. If two locomotives can make the same trip in 8 hours at 100 gph per locomotive (total 200 gph) we’ve still saved 400 gallons of fuel.
I’m sure the bean counters have those numbers engraved in their heads.
You’re correct that time costs money.
But actually it’s the other way around, more speed=more fuel burn. Working the locomotive at its maximum rpm=less fuel burn per work output compared to mid-range rpms. Putting two locomotives on the train and getting it there faster will always burn more fuel. Higher speed=more rolling resistance and more air resistance, and it costs a little more to overcome gravity, too, as now the train is lifting two locomotives over each hill instead of one. The locomotive consumes some of its fuel just to power its own systems, too.
The people who have these numbers burned in their heads are the network planning and operations folks. I guess you could call them “bean counters” but most of them come out of the ranks or out of systems analysis backgrounds. Cost management is on a much, much lower level at the railway than often surmised.
Amount of power to put on the train is a carefully calculated economic tradeoff between cost of equipment, crew, locomotives, fuel, and track capacity. If there’s a low demand for track capacity, the carrying cost on equipment and lading is low, and the crew can get to the next terminal in 12 hours, economics dictates a very low hp/ton. If track capacity is in short supply, economics dictates a high hp/ton an
CSX has issued many directives for just this subject. Some of them are, if you don’t need all your locomotives to make it over the road, take some of them off line. If you are going to be stopped for more than 1/2 an hour, and weather conditions permit, shut down at least one of the locomtives on the train. There are more, but these are two that I can recall of the top of my head.
I have also seen charts of efficiency, horsepower-hours per gallon, or something like that. For a SD40-2, notches 4-8 have the same rating, 17.4. Therefore, 2 SD40-2s in run 5 consumes the same fuel, and makes the same hp, as 1 in run 8. I usually run 2 online, lower duty cycle on these old engines. I feel running the engines at less than rated capacity makes them last longer. Sometimes rail conditions (rain-snow-leaves) dictate all available axles to be powered, to get up the hill.