Question about Diesel locomotives and fuel mileage

[daveshoe]

With all the talk in the local paper about the need for retrofitting scrubbers on power plants,the local news rag put Diesel trucks in the same category as spewers of fine particulates that will just flat kill people. My thinking is that if we still ran trains in this country,that particulates could be greatly reduced. The reduced truck traffic could also save lives.

Before everybody thinks that this should be posted on the Political Forum,I will get to my questions. How much fuel per ton does it take to run a freight train? How much fuel per ton does it take to run a loaded semi truck? How much fuel per ton does it take to move a ton of freight through the ocean? I seem to remember that a train will move a ton one mile on just ounces of fuel,but have no idea if that is correct. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Dl5treez]

We don't have a rail infrastructure to support mass consumer product delivery on the scale it would take to eliminate interstate truck shipping.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Dave, it is my understanding it takes about 1/3 the fuel to move X tons of freight by rail versus semi. On level ground it only takes about 1 HP per ton to keep a train moving at track speed (40-50mph).



There has been more and more freight shifted over to rail. Don't know any numbers but a significantly higher percentage is moved by rail compared to 20 years ago. The real problem is rail is stretched to capacity. . . lack of tracks and cars.



Vaughn

 

[TowPro]

I saw on TV that the Ship was the most effeciant fuel wize for moving goods, but your still going to need the truck to move the goods from the port or RR terminal to final destination.

 

[Jim Smith]

Right on the mark. Trains should be hauling most everything across country. Trucks should then pick up from the trains and deliver locally. Truckers don't get upset. You would be employed by the rail roads or the short haul delivery. Rail infrastructure would have to be re built to match capacity. It would help the deteriorating highway situation as well. Over the road haulers could also be able to spend more time at home. This probably will happen in the near future due to fuel shortfalls. It makes sense for everybody.

 

[klenger]

No shortage of trains along the UP track along I-10 here.

 

[azpete]

No shortage of trains along the UP track along I-10 here.

And most of them run during rush hours.

 

[C. Harlan]

Rush hour or night time, it's not up to them to decide when to roll that train. There is a little guy at the main center who coordinates safe margins between trains, and makes sure that everything is rolling smoothly. . If that safe margin has to go along with the next train in front of it, to keep the one following behind from getting too close, then I guess your rush hour commute is screwed. . I have to cross 2 sets of tracks in the morning, and I plan accordingly, and leave early to accommodate, should there be a coal train or something of that sort.



As far as trucks go, what good would it be to take the OTR driver out of the equation? Our country was built, not solely, but a good chunk of it was brought to you by a Truck Driver. Think of how many people would be out of a job, begging for a handout, and such... Also, think about all the fine looking Chicken Trucks you see going down the road, Stylin' and profilin', all shined up and stretched out, running from coast to coast. . We wouldn't see anymore of those... I love rolling down the highway, and Looking at clean, shiny trucks. . It may not be for everyone, but that's my thing. . I drive a Black Pete 379 extended hood (525 "Big red Peckerhead" Cummins Powered) part time for a friend, so I guess I notice some trucks. .



Just thought I would add my $. 02 worth. .



-Chris-

 

[Jim Smith]

Chris , keep on doing your thing, I think its great. However , I think changes will be coming because of fuel availability in the future. You and I might not see it but my kids will. I'll probably have to give up my 5th wheel and diesel.

 

[klenger]

There's a company around here that hauls dirt. On the back of the trucks is a sign: "If you have it, a truck brought it".

 

[SHobbs]

A little more on what Chris said. Trains are set to run about 2 miles apart, any more than that and it is dangerous. Most tracks run on signals similar to traffic signals and after passing a signal you have roughly 2 miles till the next one. Dispatchers just coordinate the movements of trains such as which will one will take a side track and allow another to pass, as far as the signals they are done by computer. The dispatchers enter the movements they want and the computer sets up the signals for such movements. On some of our mainlines they get pretty congested just depends on how many trains are out there. Now if there is suicide by train a crossing accident or derailment things get ugly fast.



Klenger, I10 is along the Sunset Corridor. That is Union Pacifics main route from the W. coast.



As far as economy well I have seen some plates in the cab stating that 20 gal. per hour at idle is what the loco consumes. Not sure if thats right or not. Forget MPG's its more like GPM (gallons per mile). Last time I was on a coal train that traveled 197 miles at 19,000 tons gross it took 1500 gallons for that 197 mile trip. Thats three 4400hp. GE engines, two on the head end and one on the rear. This trip was not flat, there are some 1- 1 1/2% grade hills that require full throttle most of the trip.

 

[klenger]

I park my 5h wheel about 1/2 mile from the "Sunset Corridor" and spent a bunch of time last winter hiking the tracks looking for USGS benchmarks. Some interesting history regarding Esmond Station near here.

 

[bmoeller]

Chris is right. The 18 wheeler won't be going away any time soon. Won't be seeing a set of rails going to every farm or ranch for sure. Some a WAY out in the sticks.



Anyone complaining about mileage and such, needs to remember one thing. Most of the emissions crap is REDUCING mileage. Personally, I would prefer larger (visible) particulates. As with, let's say oil filters, they and our "filters" are able to filter larger particles, than smaller ones.



One thing I would like to know is, has anyone EVER (outside of someone who conssitantly runs engines inside without good ventilation, i. e, high concentrations of exhaust) been hurt by the emissions? I have been around old smokey diesels (mostly old farm tractors) nearly all of my 27yrs on this rock, and in good health. Diesels are, overall, MUCH cleaner than a gasser. Visible soot or not.



Question- Which engine, gas or diesel (in an enclosed building) will kill you first?



Answer- A gasser. The diesel will make your eyes burn and really irritate your lungs for a while, but diesels don't put out any, or very little, carbon minoxide.



szumigalas-



Even if trains moved more frieght cross country, and more rail terminals, we truckers won't be spending anymore time at home, than before. If it were to happen, all we would be doing is getting more loads to the terminals than we could before, in the same time frame. Besides, roads are cheaper to build. Plus, the tree huggers will be happier too, because we aren't "depleting the world" of trees (which is more BS) for all of the needed railroad ties for new, or maintaining the existing rails. There are more trees now than there were when this country was being settled. Won't be seeing a train pulling a 9%+ grade in the mountains anytime soon. Don't even know if anything over 2-3% is possible. The road system is much more established. MANY miles of rails were taken out over the years.

 

[daveshoe]

Keep it coming

A little more on what Chris said. Trains are set to run about 2 miles apart, any more than that and it is dangerous. Most tracks run on signals similar to traffic signals and after passing a signal you have roughly 2 miles till the next one. Dispatchers just coordinate the movements of trains such as which will one will take a side track and allow another to pass, as far as the signals they are done by computer. The dispatchers enter the movements they want and the computer sets up the signals for such movements. On some of our mainlines they get pretty congested just depends on how many trains are out there. Now if there is suicide by train a crossing accident or derailment things get ugly fast.



Klenger, I10 is along the Sunset Corridor. That is Union Pacifics main route from the W. coast.



As far as economy well I have seen some plates in the cab stating that 20 gal. per hour at idle is what the loco consumes. Not sure if thats right or not. Forget MPG's its more like GPM (gallons per mile). Last time I was on a coal train that traveled 197 miles at 19,000 tons gross it took 1500 gallons for that 197 mile trip. Thats three 4400hp. GE engines, two on the head end and one on the rear. This trip was not flat, there are some 1- 1 1/2% grade hills that require full throttle most of the trip.

o

Ok,if I am right, you just moved 38 million pound of GVW 197 miles for 1500 gallons of fuel. The fuel is lower grade than Diesel#2. My best guess is a loaded semi weighs 50 thousand. 760 trucks moving freight 197 miles would consume 14972 gallons of fuel at 10 MPG hauling the same weight the same distance. If these figures are correct,please inform me. I will reserve any further political comment for later. [I do realize that we are not going to eliminate big trucks,nor should we]If the comments are too political for this forum,I will post them elsewhere and advise you here.

 

[SHobbs]

Now keep in mind that I took these readings from the monitor from inside the cab. Also that was the heaviest train we run down here and being that it is 19,000 tons with only around 13,000 H. P they do have to be ran at full throttle. There is a stretch of mainline south of Waco that is like a table top, you only need barely above idle to keep the train at 50 M. P. H so the fuel consumption would be much better.

 

[bmoeller]

o

Ok,if I am right, you just moved 38 million pound of GVW 197 miles for 1500 gallons of fuel. The fuel is lower grade than Diesel#2. My best guess is a loaded semi weighs 50 thousand. 760 trucks moving freight 197 miles would consume 14972 gallons of fuel at 10 MPG hauling the same weight the same distance. If these figures are correct,please inform me. I will reserve any further political comment for later. [I do realize that we are not going to eliminate big trucks,nor should we]If the comments are too political for this forum,I will post them elsewhere and advise you here.

A loaded semi grosses out at 80k pounds, for a 5 axle truck (with closed tandem on the trailer). Depending on the trailer and truck empty weights, that would be roughly a payload of 35-55k pounds. With my current rig, I can haul up to 50-51k pounds with the bullrack. Depends on how much fuel or crap in the trailer I have. 54. 5k with the grain wagon.



Mileage figures are way off. More like the 4. 5 to 7mpg. I get around 4. 7-6. 6mpg with mine. The worst mileage is in the winter.

 

[nickleinonen]

on a long haul [cross country] it is cheaper in the end to run it by rail, but for shorter trips [within provence/state] it is cheaper by truck. 1hp per ton for train is an average. at work when i am working the dispatch [testing/inspecting the locomotive consists before they head out to hook up to their train] some trains are speced for less than 1hp/ton and some are near 2hp/ton. . on westbound trains leaving my yard [toronto], they if they are going up around lake superior to winnipeg, they need to be full to the point you can see fuel when you pull the cap on the tank, when they hit the diesel shop at winnipeg [symington yard] they usually have a few hundred gallons in the tank. . most trains going out that way have 2-4 units on them [depending on hp/ton]. about 1,400 miles & about 4,000 gallons for that trip [per locomotive]

 

[TWilkening]

The railroads had the right of way to put tracks in the middle of alot of the interstates, which they probably should have. I don't have anything against truckers, but every bit of saved fuel counts. In the TDR mag a while back, they were talking about how current biodiesel production could cut our foreign dependence by 2%. While in the grand scheme of things, 2% is not alot, think of the amount in gallons. It's not a good thing that the money we pay to buy the oil goes to parties who won't be satisfied until we cease to exist.

 

[SHobbs]

Nick,



Which railroad do you work for? They do the same thing here, must be a railroad thing. The only trains here that run at least 2 to 1 are the stack trains. What we call junk trains ( more than one product ) are more like . 5 to 1 and everytime you come to a hill you just creep up the dang thing. The stack trains are sweet and will fly up any hill you throw at them of course being a higher priority speed is the key.

 

[daveshoe]

I guess what I am trying to establish is the facts as I see them. Where i live,there used to be lumber yards at 2,4,6,10,and 12 miles away. All were served by rail. Now even the yards that sit by the tracks do not have rail service Fifteen years ago,I could easily locate a lumber yard in any town that was big enough to support one---just follow the train tracks till I spotted it. what I will ask of the guys who are in the rail business, ''given the present fuel price/traffic on the interstates,was it a wise thing to remove so many miles of track?'' Could we handle more goods by train than we do now?

If ''global warming'' is here now and it is necessary to do something about it,I sure do not see any politician bemoaning the amount of fuel being consumed by truck vs, train. Couple that with the fact that stuff we used to build here is shipped from China--just look at the total amount of fuel consumed to get products to the end user

Meanwhile,our brilliant politicians want us to buy twisty lightbulbs and recycle soft drink cans. It just seems to me that we need more regional terminals and more short haul truckers and let the trains save us some money. It should not make a difference that tracks have been removed. Much of the rail beds still exist ,and the right-of ways are there as well. It seems to me that if we can afford all the clean air technology to make fuel burn cleaner [in trucks],we could at least look at how much cleaner our air could be if we simply burned less fuel even if it was burned in a ''dirty'' Diesel locomotive.