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 ?
SD70Dude That would certainly get rid of the weed problem!
That would certainly get rid of the weed problem!
Especially if someone drops a lit fusee.
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?
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.
CMStPnPI think they should just graft human lungs to locomotives so they could breath and expend air while they run.
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
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.
rrnut282Have you see railroads do anything fast??
Crews going for 'the quit'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Have you see railroads do anything fast??
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Collinwood have timed refuel at 7 min 29 seconds
aegrotatioWhy 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.
Why don't locomotives use high-speed fueling systems like airliners do?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.