NHTX I consulted two employee's timetables of eastern railroads that ran extensive commuter services in the mid 1960s. They agree with your presumption that longer distance runs, usually 25 miles or more, tend to layover at the "away" terminal, while shorter runs deadheaded back to their initial points. The first timetable was New Haven's No. 19, effective October 25, 1964. New Haven ran commuter service on four main routes radiating from Boston's South Station. They were Stoughton, 18.91 miles, Providence R.I. at 43.78 miles, Blackstone 39.58 miles, and Avery (Needham Heights), 13.62 miles. One thing that must be noted is, New Haven operated Budd RDCs on all of these routes. Our focus is locomotive hauled trains, as John inquired about. The Providence and Blackstone trains laid over at those points after their evening runs. The Stoughton train deadheaded back to Boston each evening and morning. Conventional trains on the Needham Branch laid over at Needham Junction or Avery (Needham Heights) during the New Haven years. Penn Central changed this and gathered the whole mess, GP-9s, E-8s and even a SW-1500, plus coaches, and drug the whole mess back into Boston, once the evening rush was over. Each operator of commuter service, private or, government agency, establishes their own policies and practices for operations. Under PC, servicing of the Needham Branch locomotives was done at New Haven's "A" Street engine facility. After pulling into South Station, a reverse move south, past the Boston Engine Terminal to South Bay Junction, about 1.10 miles, then a forward move down the freight main to the Boston Freight Terminal in South Boston, another mile or so, led to the small "A" St. engine facility. The other employee's timetable and, railroad that had an extensive operation from Hoboken throughout northern New Jersey and up into southern New York is the Erie Lackawanna's Timetable No.2, effective April 25, 1965. Unlike the New Haven, EL operated no Budd RDCs. They had Lackawanna's 3000 volt electric multiple units instead, and like the NH only locomotive hauled routes are of interest. A few of the routes from Hoboken I looked at were, the Newark Branch via Nutley to Paterson Jct. 17.5 miles, the Northern Branch to Nyack NY via Tenafly 28.1 miles, Dover via Boonton, 37.59 miles, Port Jervis line to Suffern NY, 30.5 miles and on to Port Jervis 87.2 miles from Hoboken. None of these lines showed deadhead moves which if I remember correctly are given a train number in the timetable preceded by an X. Non MU runs closer to Hoboken that have deadhead legs are South Paterson, 14.9 miles, Carlton Hill 9.6 miles and Waldwick via Boonton at 23.5 miles. I cannot speak for pre 1964-65, or the years between then and now. EL's commuter service behind diesel in those years was worth modeling if you like Stillwell and open-vestibule "Wyatt Earp" coaches pulled by RS-2s, RS-3s, GP-7s, PA-1s and E-8s. I completely agree, most shorter commuter runs have a deadhead component. Much more than 25-30 miles, it is stop-and-stay. Modeling a major terminal and having your branches terminate out of sight in staging gives a lot of intense railroading on a short stretch of track. Enjoy!
I consulted two employee's timetables of eastern railroads that ran extensive commuter services in the mid 1960s. They agree with your presumption that longer distance runs, usually 25 miles or more, tend to layover at the "away" terminal, while shorter runs deadheaded back to their initial points.
The first timetable was New Haven's No. 19, effective October 25, 1964. New Haven ran commuter service on four main routes radiating from Boston's South Station. They were Stoughton, 18.91 miles, Providence R.I. at 43.78 miles, Blackstone 39.58 miles, and Avery (Needham Heights), 13.62 miles. One thing that must be noted is, New Haven operated Budd RDCs on all of these routes. Our focus is locomotive hauled trains, as John inquired about.
The Providence and Blackstone trains laid over at those points after their evening runs. The Stoughton train deadheaded back to Boston each evening and morning. Conventional trains on the Needham Branch laid over at Needham Junction or Avery (Needham Heights) during the New Haven years. Penn Central changed this and gathered the whole mess, GP-9s, E-8s and even a SW-1500, plus coaches, and drug the whole mess back into Boston, once the evening rush was over. Each operator of commuter service, private or, government agency, establishes their own policies and practices for operations. Under PC, servicing of the Needham Branch locomotives was done at New Haven's "A" Street engine facility. After pulling into South Station, a reverse move south, past the Boston Engine Terminal to South Bay Junction, about 1.10 miles, then a forward move down the freight main to the Boston Freight Terminal in South Boston, another mile or so, led to the small "A" St. engine facility.
The other employee's timetable and, railroad that had an extensive operation from Hoboken throughout northern New Jersey and up into southern New York is the Erie Lackawanna's Timetable No.2, effective April 25, 1965. Unlike the New Haven, EL operated no Budd RDCs. They had Lackawanna's 3000 volt electric multiple units instead, and like the NH only locomotive hauled routes are of interest. A few of the routes from Hoboken I looked at were, the Newark Branch via Nutley to Paterson Jct. 17.5 miles, the Northern Branch to Nyack NY via Tenafly 28.1 miles, Dover via Boonton, 37.59 miles, Port Jervis line to Suffern NY, 30.5 miles and on to Port Jervis 87.2 miles from Hoboken. None of these lines showed deadhead moves which if I remember correctly are given a train number in the timetable preceded by an X.
Non MU runs closer to Hoboken that have deadhead legs are South Paterson, 14.9 miles, Carlton Hill 9.6 miles and Waldwick via Boonton at 23.5 miles. I cannot speak for pre 1964-65, or the years between then and now. EL's commuter service behind diesel in those years was worth modeling if you like Stillwell and open-vestibule "Wyatt Earp" coaches pulled by RS-2s, RS-3s, GP-7s, PA-1s and E-8s.
I completely agree, most shorter commuter runs have a deadhead component. Much more than 25-30 miles, it is stop-and-stay. Modeling a major terminal and having your branches terminate out of sight in staging gives a lot of intense railroading on a short stretch of track. Enjoy!
Thanks for some very good information. It confirms some of what I believed. My railroad is freelanced but I want it to be plausible. I'm not a believer in the "Your railroad, your rules" approach. If others want to go that route, I wouldn't criticize them, but I'm trying to create a world that makes some sense even if it is fictional.
South Paterson
My commuter operations operate solely during the morning and evening rush hour. All the trains operate over the modeled portion of the line and then disappear into staging for the evening commuter trains. Theoretically, they serve different branchlines in the commuter district. The morning commuter trains get broken up upon arriving in my main city and are parked in the coach yard.
Perhaps it is my ignorance but my impression has been that on longer commuter runs, the equipment would layover at night in destination town and return to my main city in the morning. I got these impressions from reading about commuter operations on the Lackawanna and NYOW. These commuter runs extended some distance from the terminals on the Jersey shore of the Hudson across from Manhattan. I can see commuter trains which went no further than the suburbs returning to the home base at the end of the day but for a extended commuter run, would they come all the way home?
My layout is set in 1956 but I have read up on a modern commuter service that runs from Hoboken to Port Jervis as a joint operation of New Jersey Transit and Metro-North.
Port Jervis Line - Wikipedia
This is considerably longer than my operation but it is still considered commuter service to NYC. My fictional railroad runs in the same area and I see it operating in much the same way. The timetable for a Hoboken/Port Jervis run is a bit confusing but if I am reading it correctly, it appears to be about a 2:20 run. I'd hate to make that trip twice a day. I hope they have a good bar car. I visted Port Jervis a few years back and saw the terminus of the Metro-North line. The turntable pit is still there although of course there is no bridge.
I don't run commuter trains in between rush hours. I have long distance passenger trains serving the line during that time frame.
John-NYBWWhen I started this thread, I recognized there were a lot of variables and I was just looking for a ballpark answer for how often I should send these diesels to the fueling station. I just wanted something that would seem plausible.
If these are dedicated commuter engines, commuter trains generally run heavy during rush hours (6a-10a, 2p-6p) and then less frequently in the "off-peak" times (4a-Mid).
Since most of the engines will come home to roost at night and in off peak times, they would be fueled daily. The question then is how many trips would they make between fuelings during the day. I would maintain that the ballpark figure I gave you earlier would be as good an estimate as any, unless you have a specific prototype route in mind and can find actual railroad fuel studies or a fueling plan. Railroads did those sorts of things but finding them, if they even exist anymore would be difficult.
Assuming the two or three round trip (50 mile run, out and back = 100 miles) range, then you have to figure out how to "leap frog" engines. That will depend on how long it takes to fuel an engine (the time from when the engine stops at the station, getting it off the train and to the fuel rack, fueling it, getting it back to the station and on a train).
An engine that run the early off peak trains would make its trips, then be fueled while other engine run the morning peak trains. After the morning peak trains were done, they would be fueled and the off peak engine would power trains between the peak periods. The peak engines would be ready by the time the afternoon peak rolled around and then the off peak engine would be fueled. After the evening peak the peak engines would be fueled and the off peak engine would make some trips, with one of the peak engines covering the late evening trains, and it would have time to be serviced to cover the morning peak again.
The larger the number of trains there are the more overlap and "interleaving" of the engine runs there would be. You can make it as simple or as complicated as you want. You could even designate RS1's for off peak and RS3's for peak service. or put the RS1's on the more lightly traveled lines.
The RDG tried using an NW2 as a commuter engine but the engine lacked the qucik acceleration necessary to maintain a commuter schedule and they used RS3, GP7 and AS16's instead. Similarly the RS1 would have a poorer acceleration curve (also being 1000 hp) compared to the RS3.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dti406 As part of the change they also had to add a UPS system which the weight of the batteries required new springs under the building.
I cannot even begin to imagine what an industrial UPS would have looked like in the 1980s!
I'll bet the system was heavy!
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 Oh... Just by the way... there is no concern over emergency stand-by diesel generator sets starting in the North. If this story was true, they just did not follow the manufacturer's procedures for maintaining the fuel. No need to worry about hospitals, airports, or drawbridges having emergency power up North. These are all well maintained. -Kevin
Oh... Just by the way... there is no concern over emergency stand-by diesel generator sets starting in the North. If this story was true, they just did not follow the manufacturer's procedures for maintaining the fuel. No need to worry about hospitals, airports, or drawbridges having emergency power up North. These are all well maintained.
As an aside NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs was until the mid 80's powered by their own diesel generators. At that time they agreed to be powered by a new electric line built to the facility. But they still had the diesel generators for backup. As part of the change they also had to add a UPS system which the weight of the batteries required new springs under the building.
Also the backup generator for the fans on the Moffat Tunnel is a 3000hp EMD 645 engine.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
John-NYBWThis would have happened in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Were the maintenance procedures well known back then? All I remember was their back up generators that they had shown to us failed when they needed them and it was reported that the fuel had turned to gel.
Yes, they should have been known. Onan, Caterpillar, Katolight, and countless others have been selling emergency standy-by diesel generators for decades by the 1980s. Solutions were known for all these issues.
Getting a customer to follow guidelines is another matter.
Today, with Ultra-Low-Sulfur-Diesel being required, the fuel is a much better product. #2 diesel fuel sold back in the 1970s through 1996 (or so) was not good for inustry. When you filled a fuel tank with "#2 Diesel" you had no idea what you were getting. Your neighbor might have no problems at all, but you might end up with wax, algae, and gel. It was a bad time.
Down here, algae was our biggest problem.
We have come a long way.
The last algae problem I saw in a legitimate diesel installation was in 2006.
SeeYou190 John-NYBW A year or two later that day arrived and to their dismay, they learned that when diesel fuel sits for an extended period of time in cold weather, it turns into a gel and is unusable. Their back up plan had failed miserably. Believe it or not, this is one of the reasons so many data storage facilities are built in the South. If you ever get the opportuntiy to watch an uninteruptable 4 megawatt diesel generator set do a load transfer test... TAKE IT! The noise is something from a pure nightmare. I don't know why movie-makers have not recorded this noise for shear terror from a monster. Fact... the starters on the 2,800 HP diesel generators at the Google site in South Georgia are a fully fail-safe design, and cost $20,000.00 each. Google replaces them every year as a maintenance item! I had a "used" one that was given to me, and I took it apart to see what a $20,000.00 starter could look like. It was beautiful. Everything was machined and manufactured to perfection. Oh... Just by the way... there is no concern over emergency stand-by diesel generator sets starting in the North. If this story was true, they just did not follow the manufacturer's procedures for maintaining the fuel. No need to worry about hospitals, airports, or drawbridges having emergency power up North. These are all well maintained. -Kevin
John-NYBW A year or two later that day arrived and to their dismay, they learned that when diesel fuel sits for an extended period of time in cold weather, it turns into a gel and is unusable. Their back up plan had failed miserably.
Believe it or not, this is one of the reasons so many data storage facilities are built in the South.
If you ever get the opportuntiy to watch an uninteruptable 4 megawatt diesel generator set do a load transfer test... TAKE IT! The noise is something from a pure nightmare. I don't know why movie-makers have not recorded this noise for shear terror from a monster.
Fact... the starters on the 2,800 HP diesel generators at the Google site in South Georgia are a fully fail-safe design, and cost $20,000.00 each. Google replaces them every year as a maintenance item! I had a "used" one that was given to me, and I took it apart to see what a $20,000.00 starter could look like. It was beautiful. Everything was machined and manufactured to perfection.
This would have happened in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Were the maintenance procedures well known back then? All I remember was their back up generators that they had shown to us failed when they needed them and it was reported that the fuel had turned to gel.
NHTX The answer to this question might be found when many other very important questions are answered. It has already been established that the locomotives will pull short, three car commuter trains consisting of heavy weight coaches. Empty train weight is about 240 tons, or about 80 tons per car. Horsepower-per-ton ratio for the RS-1 would be about 4.1. The RS-3 comes in at shade over 6, which is overkill on a 240 ton train which might gross out at 280-290 tons loaded. What is the route topography? Grades and curves definitely affect fuel consumption, even on locomotives without cars. How many station stops are there and what is the distance between them? Each start and stop sends more fuel up the stack. If the stations are on grades, the harder the engine has to work. What type of schedule governs these trains, and what is track speed on this route? Accelerating from speed restrictions, which are not unusual in commuter territory are other considerations to accommodate. How many are there? If these units are operating in territory that has harsh winters, the customers will demand heated coaches and pot bellied toves burning coal are not "sufficient". Steam generators suck their fuel from the same tank as the diesel engine. The engines in the locomotives are very different. The RS-1 is powered by an inline, six cylinder 539T. The RS-3 hosts a V-12 model 244. Thinking like a bean counter, one would ask if the trains are the same (three cars) and the RS-1 is sufficient, is the RS-3 overkill. Would it be better to power both trains with RS-1s and release the RS-3 to a service where the additional horsepower can be effectively used? It could be backup power in case one of the RS-1s is ailing. What do these locomotives do once the commuter rush is over? Do they sit idle or ping pong back and forth with off-peak service? Do they work other services-local freight, switching?
The answer to this question might be found when many other very important questions are answered. It has already been established that the locomotives will pull short, three car commuter trains consisting of heavy weight coaches. Empty train weight is about 240 tons, or about 80 tons per car. Horsepower-per-ton ratio for the RS-1 would be about 4.1. The RS-3 comes in at shade over 6, which is overkill on a 240 ton train which might gross out at 280-290 tons loaded.
What is the route topography? Grades and curves definitely affect fuel consumption, even on locomotives without cars.
How many station stops are there and what is the distance between them? Each start and stop sends more fuel up the stack. If the stations are on grades, the harder the engine has to work.
What type of schedule governs these trains, and what is track speed on this route?
Accelerating from speed restrictions, which are not unusual in commuter territory are other considerations to accommodate. How many are there?
If these units are operating in territory that has harsh winters, the customers will demand heated coaches and pot bellied toves burning coal are not "sufficient". Steam generators suck their fuel from the same tank as the diesel engine.
The engines in the locomotives are very different. The RS-1 is powered by an inline, six cylinder 539T. The RS-3 hosts a V-12 model 244.
Thinking like a bean counter, one would ask if the trains are the same (three cars) and the RS-1 is sufficient, is the RS-3 overkill. Would it be better to power both trains with RS-1s and release the RS-3 to a service where the additional horsepower can be effectively used? It could be backup power in case one of the RS-1s is ailing.
What do these locomotives do once the commuter rush is over? Do they sit idle or ping pong back and forth with off-peak service? Do they work other services-local freight, switching?
When I started this thread, I recognized there were a lot of variables and I was just looking for a ballpark answer for how often I should send these diesels to the fueling station. I just wanted something that would seem plausible.
To answer just a few of your questions:
Commuter trains are the principle duties for these engines. I have numerous pictures of NYC heavyweight commuter trains being pulled by these first generation Alcos.
I am modeling the transition era, so steam is still handling much of the freight. My fictional railroad is just beginning to dieselize. AB sets of F-units handle much of the through freights on the main trunk and Geeps are doing the transfer runs. Steam handles freight duty on locals and secondary branches. The Alcos are available for back up duty when not in use as commuter power.
My commuter trains are a mix of two and three car sets. I put the RS-1s on the two car trains. My locale is northern New Jersey, southern New York so it is hilly and curvy. From the origination point at my main city, there are two modeled stops but theoretically a number of others beyond the layout.
Having managed an actual service track, a actual rail yard and a class 1 locomotive fleet, you take the engines to the fuel rack the fewest times possible. Taking an engine to the fuel rack is a time consuming process so is only done when necessary or convenient.
Prior to the 1990's diesel engines weren't shut down frequently, diesels were turned on after their quarterly inspection and if nothing failed, they were shut off again 92 days later when the engine had its next quarterly inspection. After the 1990's the engines weren't shut down if the temperature was forecast to be below 40 degrees.
On yard engines, they were fueled every three days. and were "leap frogged". Engine 1 on the east end would go to the fuel track and engine 2 would be brought out to replace it, then the next day engine 3 on the west end would come in for fuel and engine 2 would replace it. The next day engine engine 4 would come to the fuel rack and engine 3 would replace it.
Road power was fueled more or less after every trip. Just remember a "trip" could be hundreds of miles. Power was also fueled where fuel was cheapest. Fueling was minimized in states where taxes were higher or fuel was more expensive.
It takes 3-4 hours to fuel and service units if its a hot move, 6-8 if its not (that includes time to hostle it to the service track, waiting for the engines ahead of it to be serviced, fueling it, sanding it, inspecting it, making any minor repairs, doing outbound power and air tests, then hostling it back to the ready track or outbound train.
A commuter engine probably wouldn't be fueled in either the morning or evening rush hours, that would take too long, it would be serviced overnight or between 10am and 2 pm.
Much of this changed when they went to fuel trucks in the 1990's and instead of bringing the engine to the fuel, they brought the fuel to the engine. That cut out all the hostling time (for the engines) and much of the inspection and repair time. You still had truck "hostling" time since a truck can fill maybe one road engine or two 4 axle engines so if there are several sets of power, the truck might have to make a couple trips back to the fuel storage to fill up or there would have to be multiple trucks (more expensive).
I remember when attending a school for computer programming back in 1996, we were given a tour of Compuserve which was headquartered on the outskirts of Columbus, OH. We were shown their diesel powered back up generators which they seemed very proud of. They wanted their customers to have continuous access in the event of a power outage. A year or two later that day arrived and to their dismay, they learned that when diesel fuel sits for an extended period of time in cold weather, it turns into a gel and is unusable. Their back up plan had failed miserably.
If these units are operating in territory that has harsh winters, the customers will demand heated coaches and pot bellied stoves burning coal are not "sufficient". Steam generators suck their fuel from the same tank as the diesel engine.
dti406Actually the EL SDP45's and SD45-2's with the extra large fuel tanks were bought to go from Marion, OH to either Chicago or New York and back to avoid the exorbitant fuel taxes those cities charged versus the lower taxed fuel in Ohio.
I've seen both stories - and plenty of people saying one story or the other is false.
I don't know if we will ever get a definitive answer.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Actually the EL SDP45's and SD45-2's with the extra large fuel tanks were bought to go from Marion, OH to either Chicago or New York and back to avoid the exorbitant fuel taxes those cities charged versus the lower taxed fuel in Ohio.
It can really vary, Erie-Lackawanna bought SDP-45 without steam generators because the frame was longer to fit, if memory serves, a 4000 gallon fuel tank
"Conrail inherited all of their SDP45's from the Erie Lackawanna, which purchased the units in two orders in 1969 for fast merchandise freights. The locomotives were powered by a 645-E3 prime mover producing 3,600 horsepower with a maximum speed of 70mph. Even though the locomotives were built for passenger service and have extra space in the rear of the locomotive for heating, the EL did not use this feature. Instead, they ordered the locomotives for the large fuel tank so the locomotives could be run between New York and Chicago without refueling, a feature also found on their SD45-2's. Plus the larger fuel tank added the to the overall weight of the units, increasing their tractive effort."
elsdp45.gif (1565×662) (trainweb.org)
That's EMD for you, "Every Model Different"
dehusmanLiterally YMMV.
NVSRRGenerally fleet management for commutter service is just refill every day.
I cannot speak to trains, but a lot of buses do not even have fuel gauges. The buses are filled every night, and that is one less thing that anyone needs to worry about.
If I were running the railroad... the tanks would be sized to carry 150% of the fuel needed for the day, and would be filled every night.
We used 4 gal per mile as a general rule of thumb on freight engines. For example, SD40's or better had a roughly 1000 mile range.
There are soooooo many variables that saying an engine will use a specific amount of fuel is very difficult. Figuring you can get 2 round trips per RS1 and 3 round trips per RS3 would be pretty safe.
caldreamerI do not have the fuel usage in gallons per hour for the RS3, but here it is for the RS1 Notch 0 = 2.2 Notch1 = 4.5 Notch 2 = 11.8 Notch 3 = 19.5 Notch 4 - 28.1 Notch 5 = 38.2 Notch 6 = 47.0 Notch 7 = 63.8 Notch 8 = 78.1
You might approximate this for commuter service by getting an average for acceleration, another for track speed, and another for perhaps non-power-brake-stretched stops, and adding these for the route.
This was dramatically visible in the operation of the EL U34CH locomotives, which ran at a consistent 725rpm all the time (for synchronous HEP). When starting you could see orange laminar flame rise up in the exhaust as the throttle setting was advanced ... but little smoke as the turbo was kept reasonably spooled on the mass flow keeping the engine turning at governed speed (that might have represented a high percentage of overall fuel burn; it seems to have been in those EMD passenger locomotives with HEP off the traction alternator). Certainly more fuel was burned but the engine turned no faster...
I cannot answer the question ...
But, I will tell you this...
A certain siding in Portland Or. Had an x DRGW SD40 sitting there unattended and idling, for 72 hours.
( I know this because I regularly stopped there to photograph whatever was parked there... by the Third day, I seriously gave thought to taking the locomotive for a " spin" ...)
Rust...... It's a good thing !
Generally fleet management for commutter service is just refill every day. Assume the tanke is around 25% end of every day. Full service work over night. Cannt afford a unit going down at rush hour.
Since commutter returns to start every sday, not a big deal to refill. But figuring distance is more a frieght thing since they keep moving to new refueling points. Wind weather grades play a roll too in GPH use.
Shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
From the manual for the S-1, S-2 and RS-1:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/s1-gen.html
the top speed for an RS-1 is indeed 60 MPH. But it is noted that that is so for a gear ratio of 75:16. Alco may have offered other gear ratios, which would have had different top speeds.
Ed
caldreamer I do not have the fuel usage in gallons per hour for the RS3, but here it is for the RS1 Notch 0 = 2.2 Notch1 = 4.5 Notch 2 = 11.8 Notch 3 = 19.5 Notch 4 - 28.1 Notch 5 = 38.2 Notch 6 = 47.0 Notch 7 = 63.8 Notch 8 = 78.1 Please remember that fuel usage is based upon the time that the engine is each notch setting.
I do not have the fuel usage in gallons per hour for the RS3, but here it is for the RS1
Notch 0 = 2.2 Notch1 = 4.5 Notch 2 = 11.8 Notch 3 = 19.5 Notch 4 - 28.1 Notch 5 = 38.2 Notch 6 = 47.0 Notch 7 = 63.8 Notch 8 = 78.1
Please remember that fuel usage is based upon the time that the engine is each notch setting.
OK, so it's not a question of MPG but GPH. I learned something today.
Any idea on how each notch equates to MPH given that these locos pull 2-3 car heavyweight coaches. I think I read somewhere in researching this that the top speed for an RS-1 was 60 MPH
That's very helpful. I had found the specs for the RS-1 indicating it had a 1000 gallon tank but I couldn't find anything that told me what kind of mileage it would get. Looks like 2-3 times a week would be a reasonable amount of fill ups.
RS1: 1000 gal / 4 gal per mile = 250 miles
RS3: 1400 gal / 4 gal/mile = 350 miles
Literally YMMV.
I realize there are a lot of variables for that question. I have four ALCO diesels, two RS-1s and two RS-3s, whose principle duty is running my commuter trains. Given a maximum theoretical round trip of 100 miles, how often would these diesels need to stop by my diesel fueling station for a fill up? Since these locos would do more stopping and starting than a freight diesel, I'm guessing that would affect mileage.