alco_fan Are you a politician in real life? Hi_alco fan, I never tought of myself as a politician but I do watch a lot of the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNj0T4uK3lE Happy Railroading Bob
Are you a politician in real life? Hi_alco fan, I never tought of myself as a politician but I do watch a lot of the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNj0T4uK3lE Happy Railroading Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
OK. You found the one extremely limited exception in all of diesel locomotive history. Congratulations.
Note that those few engines were originally designed by EMD to run on diesel, operated on other fuels for only a realtively short time, and were restored to diesel operation or retired. From your source: "During the mid 1970s all of the 300-class GP9 units were returned to using diesel fuel, allowing the removal of the large pipes from the left side of the fuel tanks. (The SD24s were converted during the early 1960s.)"
Your earlier statements that suggested this was commonplace I still take issue to. This did not happen on other railroads because they did not have the gas turbines. So if the original poster was operating gas turbines, your answers to him would be partially correct. But he is not.
My source is from the same link posted earlier
http://www.utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
In an move to reduce operating costs, many of UP’s 300 class GP9s were equipped to burn low grade heavy fuel. This fuel was similar to the fuel that UP was using in its Gas Turbine locomotives. Those GP9 units that were modified to burn heavy fuel received a large 2,400 gallon fuel tank which contained the electrical heating coils needed to heat the fuel and keep it flowing.s a quote from the source.
I aint very smart but I do believe GP9s and SD24s are considered to be diesels
Bob
superbeBut you too are in error if you are saying that all diesels used diesel fuel.
Dude, that is why they are called "diesels". Name one _diesel locmotive_ that did not use _diesel fuel_, and cite your source. Remember, Gas turbines are not diesels, as you mistakenly suggested earlier.
alco_fan First generation, second generation, _all_ generation diesels used diesel fuel ... _by definition_. They did not burn fuel oil in the beginning, as you seem to suggest here in the first line. Bottom line, you posted some things in error ... and are trying to avoid admitting it, I guess. Are you a politician in real life? Hey Alco_Fan, Yes, I did confuse the two oils, the heavy bunker C and #2 diesel fuel. But you too are in error if you are saying that all diesels used diesel fuel. Bob
First generation, second generation, _all_ generation diesels used diesel fuel ... _by definition_. They did not burn fuel oil in the beginning, as you seem to suggest here in the first line.
Bottom line, you posted some things in error ... and are trying to avoid admitting it, I guess. Are you a politician in real life?
Hey Alco_Fan,
Yes, I did confuse the two oils, the heavy bunker C and #2 diesel fuel.
But you too are in error if you are saying that all diesels used diesel fuel.
superbeSteamers do not use diesel fuel.
Correct. Which is why it is a mystery that _you_ said
superbeEdit: Diesel was use by some later steam engines
You also said
superbeThe early diesels evolved with the building of the Vanderbuilt tender and coal burning locos were converted for the fuel. As Dr Wayne has said, they did use a heavy oil sometimes referred to as bunker oil used by steam ships. These engines and tenders weren't used in shifting due to the size of the tenders. The next gereration of diesels used the diesel fuel as we know of it today.
alco_fan superbe The black heavy fuel used for the Gas Turbines looked and acted like the black fuel used in ships and in steam locomotives. Gas turbines are _not_ diesels. They don't burn diesel fuel. You claimed that _steamers_ used diesel fuel. This reference does not suport that claim in any way.
superbe The black heavy fuel used for the Gas Turbines looked and acted like the black fuel used in ships and in steam locomotives.
Gas turbines are _not_ diesels. They don't burn diesel fuel.
You claimed that _steamers_ used diesel fuel. This reference does not suport that claim in any way.
Steamers do not use diesel fuel. Some steamers had their fire boxes modified to use the heavy oil commonly known as bunker oil.
superbeThe black heavy fuel used for the Gas Turbines looked and acted like the black fuel used in ships and in steam locomotives.
Thanks for the pics. However, this tank is for PTTX (Pine Tree Tours), which is a tourist line that takes its inspiration from a couple of tourist lines in my area. The track layout is inspired by the Charlie Russell Chew Choo (which I rode a number of years ago. First time riding on a train!) on Central Montana Rail out of Lewistown, MT. (As you can see, I have included hyperlinks if you are curious about either. The yard and car storage itself is not from the CMR, however. They is designed to fit the space.) The trains themselves takes its lead from the 1890s train in South Dakota (which I have not ridden).
Just as an aside, Forest Railway only has one "R" not two.
Hi, FRRY
Here's two photos of Diesel fuel tanks that I'm familiar with. First is a screen grab from a video I made in 1998 at Cresson, PA on the PRR main... (sorry it blends in with the background but it IS bright white)
The second is at the east end of Collinwood, Cleveland, Ohio at the CSX fuel facility. In both cases you can see that the tanks are well maintained, both railroads are proud to let the passing public know just who owns these tanks and there's no signs of any spilled fuel or rust or dirty streaks whatsoever.
(Courtesy Google Streetview)
SO, I say go ahead and paint your tanks to reflect the good public image that the Forrest Railway strives to project!
Have fun, Ed
To clarify the bands comment, if any of you have assembled a Rix tank, you know what I am thinking of. If not, the Rix kits have the individual riveted panels. Six of those panels are then glued together to make a "band." For a 29' foot tank, that creates 4 bands. That assembly type is where my bands statement came from.
The following although about steam turbines refers to steam locomotivies:
Bunker C is simply a generic name for one of several heavy residual fuels. Railroaders were not chemists. Many were veterans of the U. S. Navy, where the term "Bunker C" was very common. The black heavy fuel used for the Gas Turbines looked and acted like the black fuel used in ships and in steam locomotives. Right or wrong, they continued to use Bunker C as the name of the nasty black, residual fuel that made their daily lives so difficult. And railfans tend to use whatever names railroaders use.
EDIT: Here is the link fromwhich the quote came from
superbeThe early diesels evolved with the building of the Vanderbuilt tender and coal burning locos were converted for the fuel.
No steamer ever burned diesel as far as I know. What is your reference?
There were many oil-burning engines (oil, not diesel) that used Vanderbilt tenders, but most used other tender styles.
superbeThese engines and tenders weren't used in shifting due to the size of the tenders.
Many oil-burning engines were used for switching (shifting) with and without Vanderbilt style tenders. Certainly more common for switch engines not to be Vanderbilt, but this was true for coal-burners, too.
superbeThe next gereration of diesels used the diesel fuel as we know of it today.
I think you will find that _every_ diesel generation used diesel fuel as we know it today. What is your _specific_ reference for something different?
The early diesels evolved with the building of the Vanderbuilt tender and coal burning locos were converted for the fuel. As Dr Wayne has said, they did use a heavy oil sometimes referred to as bunker oil used by steam ships. These engines and tenders weren't used in shifting due to the size of the tenders.
The next gereration of diesels used the diesel fuel as we know of it today. Therefore no heating is required and no reason to use black paint. I'm confused about the bands as the early tanks were made with rivited steelplates and then welded steel tanks became the norm. Never seen fuel tanks with bands for petroleum products, but maybe I'm missing something.
IMO painting the tanks solid aluminum color would be more prototypical.
Given the advice is for both steam and diesel, I better clarify something. It is going to be used for diesel fuel. It will be fueling two S-4 switchers. One is for the "home" company (a private tourist line) which is used for handling coal for the passenger train engines and other switching duties. The other is for the "foreign" road that will use the fuel tank. It is a 29 footer.
wjstix If it was a situation where railroad A owned the fuel facility, but had an agreement to allow railroad B to use it, it probably would just have railroad A's colors and herald on it.
If it was a situation where railroad A owned the fuel facility, but had an agreement to allow railroad B to use it, it probably would just have railroad A's colors and herald on it.
Based on that and the above post, I think what I have decided to do is this: Paint the roof and bands 1, 3, and 4 black. Band 2 will be the green that the tourist company uses and then put the logos on the band.
If anyone sees a problem with this, please let me know.
If it's a fuel tank for steam locomotives, I'd guess that it would contain Bunker C oil. In that case, paint it black, both to hide the vent stains as Chuck mentioned, and to allow the sun to keep the tank warm - that stuff is like tar, and was often heated just to allow it to flow more freely.As Bob noted, unless the tank is prominently visible to the public, the railroad would not likely bother with heralds. There would, however, likely be stencilling to indicate the tank's contents and the capacity.
Wayne
First there would be no fuel tank for steamers so the tank would be for diesel fuel. It has been the custom in the oil industry to paint storage tanks a light color, usually aluminum or even white, to reflect the sun's rays to keep the contents cool.
Edit: Diesel was use by some later steam engines but the tank would not be for lubricating oil but for fuel.
Unless the RR wanted to use the tank to "advertise" the RR to the public there would be no herald.
Tanks, post depression, tend to be painted silver (aluminum), light green or black. Railrads love K.I.S.S. I would paint it one color, the one of the railroad who controls the buildings, and then put both heralds (they would have to be the same size) on the tank. Mulitple colors on a tank would be more expensive and horizontal bands would lead to arguements on which road's color was on top.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
If it's a tank holding fuel (diesel or steam engine oil), it would depend on who owns it. If it's in an area jointly owned by the two railroads, then using both heralds would make sense. If it was a situation where railroad A owned the fuel facility, but had an agreement to allow railroad B to use it, it probably would just have railroad A's colors and herald on it.
For example, the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Ry. leased several stalls in the Soo Line's roundhouse in Shoreham (north Minneapolis) shops/yard. Everything was lettered for the Soo, since they owned the tanks, roundhouse etc. It didn't have both railroad's colors or heralds, just Soo.
If this is a tank for locomotive fuel, having a band for each using railroad (with the name or a herald decaled on) wouldn't be unreasonable. The senior or larger railroad would usually insist on being on top, with the junior below.
However, if the tank is for steam loco fuel, it would more likely be painted black all over, since it wouldn't show the vent spills as readily. Having two small heralds on the same level (away from the vent pipes, if possible) would be the way to go. I can't think of anything that would do less for a railroad's image than brownish black streaks of grunge on a green paint background.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I purchased a Rix Products Oil Tank and am to the point of painting it. I had the thought to paint the roof, top and bottom bands black and the two other bands each in a different green as there are two different rail entities that would need the tank. My questionis this: Other than some checkerboard tanks that I have seen, would this sort of scheme be prototypical. (Yes, I know about the "This is my railroad" rule, but I don't want to go too far out of bounds.) Thank you to the forums for help that can be provided.