Suck enough water that it compromises compression ignition and you'll hydrolock the engine within a few subsequent revolutions ... powered or inertial. Look for the bent rods; they'll likely go to protect the pistons...
SD70DudeThis isn't water in the fuel, but here's a much smaller GM diesel running surprisingly well while sucking a very large amount of water:
I ran a Detroit Diesel completely submerged underwater for about 3 minutes and it eventually quit because of lack of oxygen. Back when I was in the Army it was amazing how much air was in the filter though.....that was the old M113's chasis. I was impressed with how durable a Detroit Diesel was. That was just one of the abuses I had seen it put through with my own eyes.
SD70DudeThis isn't water in the fuel, but here's a much smaller GM diesel running surprisingly well while sucking a very large amount of water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRF-LRgvJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRF-LRgvJk
Looked like a 8 cylinder dual steam generator
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This isn't water in the fuel, but here's a much smaller GM diesel running surprisingly well while sucking a very large amount of water:
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
bogie_engineerOn EMD locomotives there is no water separator in the fuel system as I recall; the suction pipe in the tank goes directly to the fuel pump and then to the fuel filter which is just a couple of large spin-on filters, then to the injectors with the unused fuel routed back to the tank to a location a couple of feet from the suction point. There's no sock or anything on the suction line, just a 3/4" pipe set at 2" above the bottom of the tank to avoid being on the bottom where the water ends up. The bottom of the tank is sloped to the center on the newer tanks, the old style tanks had three curved bottom sections across the tank bottom. At the end of the tank are 2" pipe plugs that can be removed to drain the tank and smaller drain valves that can be used to drain any water accumulation. It was toward the middle of -2 production that a 100 gallon retention tank for the pit at the front of the engine (rear of loco) was added internally to the fuel tank ahead of the rear truck with it's own drain fittings. It's up the RR to decide when the retention tank and the fuel tank needed draining. I would expect the RR's had effective water separators at their service tracks but condensation inside the tank may be a bigger source of water. Cooling the injectors heats the fuel which warms the tank to help avoid condensation. I was involved with fuel tank designs on a couple of projects, one being the LIRR DE/DM30AC integral fuel tank. Dave
Thanks for the info, that is interesting how that all works.
Thanks!
Overmod You might want to go into more detail for the nontechnical fans why 'cooling the injectors heats the fuel'.
You might want to go into more detail for the nontechnical fans why 'cooling the injectors heats the fuel'.
The fuel injectors are located in the center of the head on the EMD 2-stroke and spray directly into the bowl that's cast into the top of the piston. So the injector nozzle and body are heated by the combustion; the fuel is circulated internally within the injector body and only a fraction gets injected - the amount is determined by the injector rack setting. Any fuel not injected gets heated within the injector and circulated back to the tank heating the fuel in the tank. The return line is positioned so the fuel doesn't immediately get sucked out by the fuel pump but it's close enough that it keeps a warmed amount of fuel in the vicinity of the suction pipe. This is useful in the winter to keep the fuel from getting so cold that it turns to wax and won't be drawn up by the pump. I recall for the UP we moved the return closer to the suction line to help in extreme cold. I don't know what special fuel plumbing was done for Canadian locos but i suspect there were some special features in the tank to deal with extreme temperatures, probably baffling around the suction and return lines to keep a pocket of fuel warmer. I'm thinking there may be a summer/winter valve that could direct the return further from the inlet in warm weather.
Dave
CMStPnP As for the water seperator I am curious how large it is for a locomotive as it's tank and engine are a lot larger and they tend to run them longer without servicing I thought.
On EMD locomotives there is no water separator in the fuel system as I recall; the suction pipe in the tank goes directly to the fuel pump and then to the fuel filter which is just a couple of large spin-on filters, then to the injectors with the unused fuel routed back to the tank to a location a couple of feet from the suction point. There's no sock or anything on the suction line, just a 3/4" pipe set at 2" above the bottom of the tank to avoid being on the bottom where the water ends up. The bottom of the tank is sloped to the center on the newer tanks, the old style tanks had three curved bottom sections across the tank bottom. At the end of the tank are 2" pipe plugs that can be removed to drain the tank and smaller drain valves that can be used to drain any water accumulation. It was toward the middle of -2 production that a 100 gallon retention tank for the pit at the front of the engine (rear of loco) was added internally to the fuel tank ahead of the rear truck with it's own drain fittings.
It's up the RR to decide when the retention tank and the fuel tank needed draining. I would expect the RR's had effective water separators at their service tracks but condensation inside the tank may be a bigger source of water. Cooling the injectors heats the fuel which warms the tank to help avoid condensation. I was involved with fuel tank designs on a couple of projects, one being the LIRR DE/DM30AC integral fuel tank.
tree68Those stickers oftimes show the certifying agency as "weights and measures."
Exactly right. And that is the agency that is investigating in Texas they are responsible for consumer complaints on contaminated fuel. In this case I do not have to prove anything. They only asked for the dealer invoice for the car repair, tow invoice, picture of the fuel sample from the dealer, investigator took and my statement of what happened. Anyways my part is finished. Up to the state to complete their investigation and let me know the results. It's their job to prove and prosecute not mine.
So hence the question on railroads, they may purchase fuel from another state and then transport it or they may use a vendor. So I was curious what they did when they find they have contaminated fuel. Do they just persue the vendor or go to the state or what?
BaltACDEvery pump I have seen in whatever state I have fueled up in has had some form of state inspection sticker on the pump.
You may find that said inspection is simply attestation that if the pump says it delivered a gallon of fuel, it delivered a gallon of fuel. This is determined by pumping the fuel into a "proof can" which is calibrated for this purpose. After they proof the volume, the fuel gets dumped back into the source tank.
Those stickers oftimes show the certifying agency as "weights and measures."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD CMStPnP Euclid But the station insisted that they do not release their test results to the public. They told me I needed to take their word for their claim that their fuel was in perfect condition because they say they test it for contaminants once a week. Add Quote THere should be a stamp on the pump that states it is public information and where to report contaminated fuel.......which is what I used in Texas. The state regulates the pumps and checks them twice a year from what I hear. Every pump I have seen in whatever state I have fueled up in has had some form of state inspection sticker on the pump. I have never paid more than a cursory look at the stickers so I don't know what all kinds of information the stickers contain as far a contact and identification information they contain.
CMStPnP Euclid But the station insisted that they do not release their test results to the public. They told me I needed to take their word for their claim that their fuel was in perfect condition because they say they test it for contaminants once a week. Add Quote THere should be a stamp on the pump that states it is public information and where to report contaminated fuel.......which is what I used in Texas. The state regulates the pumps and checks them twice a year from what I hear.
Euclid But the station insisted that they do not release their test results to the public. They told me I needed to take their word for their claim that their fuel was in perfect condition because they say they test it for contaminants once a week. Add Quote
THere should be a stamp on the pump that states it is public information and where to report contaminated fuel.......which is what I used in Texas. The state regulates the pumps and checks them twice a year from what I hear.
Every pump I have seen in whatever state I have fueled up in has had some form of state inspection sticker on the pump. I have never paid more than a cursory look at the stickers so I don't know what all kinds of information the stickers contain as far a contact and identification information they contain.
For one thing, if there was some avenue of blaming the fuel as being defective, you would have to prove that it came from the pump owned by the station you are blaming.
EuclidBut the station insisted that they do not release their test results to the public. They told me I needed to take their word for their claim that their fuel was in perfect condition because they say they test it for contaminants once a week. Add Quote
EuclidI have checked and drained the water separator occasionally on a random basis on diesels I have owned, but never gave it much thought. With those engines, the fuel filter was completely separate from the water seperator. I did have some problems implicating contaminated gasoline last winter, and learned that the station I bought it from has it tested once a week and produces a written analysis. I don’t understand how a vehicle manufacturer can establish a considerable amount of time interval for checking for water in the separator, since such a condition can change from no water in the separator to unacceptable water contamination with just one fueling event. I had to prove the fuel was not contaminated in order get warranty coverage on piece of equipment that suffered damage to the fuel system. The fuel system failure may or may have been caused by a manufacturing defect in the system. But the manufacturer said they believed it was due to debris fuel, and that voids their warranty coverage for the event. But the station insisted that they do not release their test results to the public. They told me I needed to take their word for their claim that their fuel was in perfect condition because they say they test it for contaminants once a week.
Better design I guess. I reconfirmed at the dealership and with Mercedes, once a year service is enough. Additionally, have been servicing it once a year since I bought it in 2013 without incident, so I tend to lean towards what the seller and mechanic is telling me.
As for evidence and proof, it is a slam dunk case against service station. I have all reciepts and invoices. No way that amount of water could get into the fuel tank unless I poured it in myself just outside the service station. So all they need to do is look at the water in the fuel tanks at the gasoline station to confirm. I spoke to the owner who amazingly enough has no clue about fuel and water seperation and insists this would never happen and it is all very much impossible. Refused to even give me a claim form........which I passed onto the state investigator.
As for the water seperator I am curious how large it is for a locomotive as it's tank and engine are a lot larger and they tend to run them longer without servicing I thought.
CMStPnPI don't doubt it since these were American designed and Built cars. Mercedes has a better designed Diesel and says once a year is enough if you drive under x amount of miles and I believe their fuel filters last 2 years. I was even less than the year point where I get mine serviced. There was boku water in the fuel as I emptied the gas station fuel pump (which has it's own filtration and is not supposed to allow water to pass into a consumers tank) and it overfilled the water seperator in just a few min of operation (I refill at 1/4 tank full as a precaution as well). So it would not have mattered if it was empty or full, in my view. We'll see what the State investigator states. Though I think after this incident I am going to increase the interval to once every 6-7 months. We'll see what the dealership says.
Overmod All the diesels I have owned, including the Lincoln Continental, had water separators, and it was usual for them to accumulate a significant amount of water over time. Correct procedure was to watch them every time you checked 'fluids' under the hood; I drained mine regularly long before the 'water level' rose to the point there might be slosh carryover. It is normal for there to be some water in diesel fuel, and in station tanks, for the same reason: atmospheric condensation, particularly at night during 'dew conditions', in partially-filled tanks. The 6.0L Excursion was a "special" case. This had what was called a HFCM ('horizontal fuel-conditioning module') on the inside left frame rail, and this contained fuel filtering, heating, and water separation -- there was a water detector in this module that would close and illiuminate a light on the dashboard for 'water in fuel'. The problem was that, with high-sulfur diesel and water, the water detector would corrode... in the presence of the water it was supposed to be detecting... and fail open, giving you utterly false security that you need not check for water until you saw the idiot light. Fortunately I am paranoid and checked before I would have needed even more injectors. In a high-pressure common-rail system, where the fuel pressure is substantially above 3208psi, any water will flash to steam and likely blow the tip off at least one of the injectors. Any substantial accumulation above the piston might hydrolock the engine, with the expected con$equences. A slug of water in a hardline on a mechanical-pump diesel might require extended cranking to clear, or careful and tedious reprime if you break the integrity of the line to purge it. It is common for high-performance modified truck diesels to run modified water injection, usually combined with an effective combustible antifreeze like methanol. Snow's is the system that immediately comes to mind in this respect.
All the diesels I have owned, including the Lincoln Continental, had water separators, and it was usual for them to accumulate a significant amount of water over time. Correct procedure was to watch them every time you checked 'fluids' under the hood; I drained mine regularly long before the 'water level' rose to the point there might be slosh carryover. It is normal for there to be some water in diesel fuel, and in station tanks, for the same reason: atmospheric condensation, particularly at night during 'dew conditions', in partially-filled tanks.
The 6.0L Excursion was a "special" case. This had what was called a HFCM ('horizontal fuel-conditioning module') on the inside left frame rail, and this contained fuel filtering, heating, and water separation -- there was a water detector in this module that would close and illiuminate a light on the dashboard for 'water in fuel'.
The problem was that, with high-sulfur diesel and water, the water detector would corrode... in the presence of the water it was supposed to be detecting... and fail open, giving you utterly false security that you need not check for water until you saw the idiot light. Fortunately I am paranoid and checked before I would have needed even more injectors.
In a high-pressure common-rail system, where the fuel pressure is substantially above 3208psi, any water will flash to steam and likely blow the tip off at least one of the injectors. Any substantial accumulation above the piston might hydrolock the engine, with the expected con$equences. A slug of water in a hardline on a mechanical-pump diesel might require extended cranking to clear, or careful and tedious reprime if you break the integrity of the line to purge it.
It is common for high-performance modified truck diesels to run modified water injection, usually combined with an effective combustible antifreeze like methanol. Snow's is the system that immediately comes to mind in this respect.
I don't doubt it since these were American designed and Built cars.
Mercedes has a better designed Diesel and says once a year is enough if you drive under x amount of miles and I believe their fuel filters last 2 years. I was even less than the year point where I get mine serviced. There was boku water in the fuel as I emptied the gas station fuel pump (which has it's own filtration and is not supposed to allow water to pass into a consumers tank) and it overfilled the water seperator in just a few min of operation (I refill at 1/4 tank full as a precaution as well). So it would not have mattered if it was empty or full, in my view. We'll see what the State investigator states.
Though I think after this incident I am going to increase the interval to once every 6-7 months. We'll see what the dealership says.
OM wrote: "In a high-pressure common-rail system, where the fuel pressure is substantially above 3208psi, any water will flash to steam and likely blow the tip off at least one of the injectors."
Say what? 3208.2 psia is the critical pressure for water where there is no phase change between water and steam. OTOH, I would expect the lubricating properties of that water to be absolutely horrible at best, doing no good for the injectors.
Funny coincidence in that the CAT 3208 was a poular mdium duty diesel engine back in the late 70's and early 80's.
Several WWII era bombers, fighters and commercial airliners (up to early 707s?) used water injection on take-off to increase compression and H.P. with a side benefit of slightly cooler piston heads. In controlled situations, water can be a good thing.
CMStPnPWelp, I just fueled up at a local Shell fuel station that had water mixed with the Diesel so I experienced first hand what happens when contaminated fuel gets into a Diesel Engine. That was a learning experience. $1700 in charges so far to fix and could climb further. Curious what the railroads do when this happens and the vendor is to blame, do they have a path to persue or do they have to prove it if the fuel is in their own tanks that the water came from the vendor. Does the locomotive have technology to catch the contaminated fuel before it gets into the engine to do damage? In my case I just file a complaint with the State since it was a local Fuel station and they investigate and seek restitution on my behalf if they find it to be true.
Curious what the railroads do when this happens and the vendor is to blame, do they have a path to persue or do they have to prove it if the fuel is in their own tanks that the water came from the vendor. Does the locomotive have technology to catch the contaminated fuel before it gets into the engine to do damage?
In my case I just file a complaint with the State since it was a local Fuel station and they investigate and seek restitution on my behalf if they find it to be true.
I have been watching a YouTube auto repair channel recently. In one recent video the task was to 'change the filters' in, if I recall correctly, a diesel Ford Excursion. In addition to the normal oil and fuel filter there was also a fuel/water separator filter to be changed. The process of changing seemed to show a quantity of water being discharged - a larger quantity of water than I would have expected.
I feel certain that locomotives have a similar device in their fuel systems, but don't know that for a fact.
Locally there has been a report that a fuel station had a load of diesel pumped into one of their gas tanks and that has caused consumers big issuse when they got fuel from that tank for the gasoline cars.
Was autocrossing the Triumph one time and something broke and I needed to tow it home. Borrowed a friends mid 70's 'diesel' Olds station wagon and trailer. Being a good guy I wanted their vehicle to have a full tank when I gave it back to them. Filled with diesel at a location near the event site. Got about a mile from the fueling site and walking distance from the event, and the engine sputtered and quit. Come to find out the vehicle had been changed to a gas engine, but all the 'Diesel' notifications remained in place on the fuel gauge, gas door etc. Collectively we spent the rest of the afternoon dropping the fuel tank, disposing of the diesel and getting the engine restrarted on gas. There was no long term issues with the vehicle that I was ever told about.
Welp, I just fueled up at a local Shell fuel station that had water mixed with the Diesel so I experienced first hand what happens when contaminated fuel gets into a Diesel Engine. That was a learning experience. $1700 in charges so far to fix and could climb further.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.