Why don't locomotives use high-speed fueling systems?

4902 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2008
  • 1,039 posts
Why don't locomotives use high-speed fueling systems?
Posted by aegrotatio on Friday, June 15, 2018 12:08 PM

Why don't locomotives use high-speed fueling systems like airliners do?

 

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,579 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, June 15, 2018 12:59 PM

aegrotatio
Why don't locomotives use high-speed fueling systems like airliners do?

4000-5000 gallons per locomotive in 10 minutes doesn't equate to the fill speed of your local gas station.  Tank Truck filling is somewhat slower but a 10000 gallon tanker will be emptied in less than 30 minutes when fueling locomotives.

How many gallons do aircraft get fueled with and how fast is it accomplished?  Commercial aircraft are rarely filled to full capactity except for overseas trips as a excessive amount of fuel still onboard increase the risks in landing a heavier craft.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Friday, June 15, 2018 1:02 PM

Collinwood have timed refuel at 7 min 29 seconds

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 242 posts
Posted by Backshop on Friday, June 15, 2018 6:48 PM

BaltACD

How many gallons do aircraft get fueled with and how fast is it accomplished?  Commercial aircraft are rarely filled to full capactity except for overseas trips as a excessive amount of fuel still onboard increase the risks in landing a heavier craft.

 

The main reason airliners don't carry extra fuel is because it costs money to carry fuel that you don't need when you could add more cargo.  You do carry a safety margin in case you have to divert or go to a lower altitude, though.  My brother has flown for a major for 20 years and he said that he's never had full tanks.
  • Member since
    April, 2016
  • 674 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Friday, June 15, 2018 10:18 PM

Also diesel has a problem with foaming up when poured from the top down into other diesel.  Planes normally fill from the bottom up from what I've seen unless it's an old warbird like a P51 or B25 or gas powered in general. 

 

Our tanks on our fleet foam even if half full and we carry 150 gallon tanks total.  Just imagine 5k gallons foaming up it does happen even the best additives can't stop it all. 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,749 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, June 16, 2018 12:08 AM

This thread assumes that aircraft fueliing is faster.  It isn't so.   The aircraft fueling hose nozzles are much larger in diameter.  But fuel velocity is lower thru the nozzles.   6000 gallons into an aircraft with single point takes about 30 minutes .  Large aircraft use at least 4 fuel intake points that speeds up fueling but I've seen a 747 take over an hour to fuel for trans pacific flights. 

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,510 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:02 AM

Hey, how about track pans like the PRR, NYC, and the Jersey Central used back in the steam days, except instead of filling 'em with water fill 'em with diesel fuel?

No?  Oh well.  Just a thought.

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 803 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:49 PM

That would certainly get rid of the weed problem!

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September, 2008
  • 1,039 posts
Posted by aegrotatio on Saturday, June 16, 2018 11:14 PM
It really *is* faster than conventional fueling. There was an article in Trains Magazine in which a vendor was not being successful marketing an arliner-style rapid fueling technology. The barrier to adoption had to do with the cost and logistics of installing the high-speed fuel nozzle on the locomotive and, to a lesser extent, installing high-throughput pumps on mobile tankers and fueling racks.
  • Member since
    July, 2011
  • 23 posts
Posted by Dmacleo on Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:24 PM

a/c also use a pressure refuling system that feeds multople wing, center, aft, etc tanks. the 7-10 min a 5000gallon tank takes to fill is cost effecient over the valving/sensors/etc of a pressure refule/defual (yeah system used to remove fuel also) system.

worked airline parts and records many years, crap is expensive as hell.

 

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 1,872 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Friday, July 27, 2018 2:54 PM

Have you see railroads do anything fast??

Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,579 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, July 27, 2018 8:06 PM

rrnut282
Have you see railroads do anything fast??

Crews going for 'the quit'.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,191 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, July 27, 2018 8:15 PM

I think they should just graft human lungs to locomotives so they could breath and expend air while they run.    The only disadvantage I see is locomotives that smoke all you would hear would be the smokers hack as they went through town......probably be louder than the horns.......hey there is an idea, use the smokers hack instead of the horns.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • From: Equestria
  • 6,522 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, July 28, 2018 11:43 AM

CMStPnP
I think they should just graft human lungs to locomotives so they could breath and expend air while they run.

Are you OK?

 The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    January, 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 5,976 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, August 05, 2018 12:21 AM

zugmann

 

 
CMStPnP
I think they should just graft human lungs to locomotives so they could breath and expend air while they run.

 

Are you OK?

 

Too many diesel fumes.

Or something.

Progress is always change, but change is not always progress.

  • Member since
    January, 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 5,976 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, August 05, 2018 12:22 AM

SD70Dude

That would certainly get rid of the weed problem!

 

Especially if someone drops a lit fusee.

Progress is always change, but change is not always progress.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,749 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, August 05, 2018 6:10 PM

If a fuel pad had hoses on both sides of a track could the locos be fueled from each filler pipe ?  That would depend on each model of loco having the fuel filler pipe going directly to the fuel tank and not to a common manifold that goes to the fuel tank.  Any fuel pads known to have hoses on both sides of track ?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy