Back in the pre-Amtrak days when the NYC was running the 20th Century ltd, and the PRR was running the Broadway, would these trains require refueling in transit, or could they make the entire trip on the original set up?
The engines may have carried enough fuel for the 960 or so miles. I do not know of engine changes on the South Wind, but the City of Miami engines ran between Chicago and Jacksonville, taking fuel in Columbus, Georgia (840 miles out from Chicago; the 1128 miles to Jacksonville probably was a bit too far). The engines on the Seminole were turned in Columbus.
Johnny
DeggestyThe engines may have carried enough fuel for the 960 or so miles.
Doubtful. The best engine NYC would have used would be an E8, with 1200gal tankage and a nominal rate of around 188gal/hr for the two 12-567s (remember the sfc goes way up for a blower engine, which all of these were, by run 8 where one might expect much of the running would be made).
To my knowledge this does not count the steam generators, which were nominal 1200#/hr, probably about 6:1 on fuel and fuel at just over 7#/gal; you can do the math required.
The only steam engine that might have been able to make the trip without a fuel stop would have been the C1a with 64T tender -- and even then, there'd be very little reserve if conditions were off 'perfect'.
OvermodDoubtful. The best engine NYC would have used would be an E8, with 1200gal tankage and a nominal rate of around 188gal/hr for the two 12-567s
In that case, would they have been more likely to make a fuel stop, or change out the engines entirely at some point along the way?
Convicted OneIn that case, would they have been more likely to make a fuel stop, or change out the engines entirely at some point along the way?
I'd expect refueling, with fairly large hoses and high-gph pumps, in less time than it would take to uncouple with steam lines and replace the consist. Note that ATSF routinely serviced their diesels with fuel, water (for steam, and they used more of it than most with steam-ejector AC for the cars), and lube oil within about 5 minutes, and I would expect NYC to use comparable efficiency.
It might be interesting to see if any 'lesser' NYC trains that ran through Cleveland with mandatory power change could do the 'diesel legs' east and west without refueling. That doesn't apply to the Century.
Someone here will know how many times the Century would be recrewed, and where. Those are the places I would expect the high-speed fueling and watering to be provided.
Long haul passenger trains had to be both fueled and watered - watered more frequently than fueled.
The B&O watered EB trains from Chicago at Garrett - the East End of the passenger platform were equipped with equipment to water 3 units during the normal station stop and crew change. When they operated their F3's on passenger trains from Chicago, they were frequently out of water on their arrival at Garrett. The regular 'E' units had no trouble in making Garrett for water. The trip from Chicago to Garret included a significant amout of 'terminal' steam generator use - moving the train from Robey Steet Coach Yard to Grand Central Station and the waiting during the boarding processes - which could be delayed for connections from Western operators - so the steam generators could be operating for a extended period of time.
The nominal fuel consumption for 1st generation diesels was considered to be 2 gallons to the mile. I believe, on the Baltimoe-Chicago run engines were fuled during the station stop/crew changes at Willard and Cumberland. While you never want any train to run out of fuel - it is especially bad press for it to happen to a passenger train.
Presuming that a location is configured for fueling on the Main Track - it is much faster to fuel engines than it is to change locomotives.
Amtrak fuels Auto Train (and I believe all the Silver Service trains) at Florence, SC.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Remember the first 33 miles of the NYC, and 200 miles of he PRR were electric.
So then assuming they had infrastructure in place that allowed on-line refueling, would the locations for these be likely to show up in the schedules? For example an atypically long station stop. Keeping in mind they were trying to keep overall transit time to a minimum. I think 16 hours at one point?
BaltACD Amtrak fuels Auto Train (and I believe all the Silver Service trains) at Florence, SC.
blue streak 1 BaltACD Amtrak fuels Auto Train (and I believe all the Silver Service trains) at Florence, SC. Balt: Think that Florence would need a very ----------- long ----------- hose to fuel the STAR !
All the ones that actually operate through Florence.
My experience with Amtrak fuel stops has been that they are accomplished within 10 to 15 minutes at a slightly extended scheduled stop.
CSSHEGEWISCHMy experience with Amtrak fuel stops has been that they are accomplished within 10 to 15 minutes at a slightly extended scheduled stop.
The northbound City of New Orleans is routinely fueled ( by contractor using a 10-wheel tank truck). I will have to repeat observations to get the number of actual gallons per unit and the pumping rate (both of which I can get off the LED fuel gauges on the Genesis locomotives without involving the truck crew). When there are multiple units the single hose is transferred sequentially. I have observed no particular boarding restriction on passengers leaving the station adjacent to where the truck pulls up -- this might have been different in an era that permitted smoking in stations.
ATSF E1's being fueled - back in the day!
What AT&SF station is that?
BaltACD ATSF E1's being fueled - back in the day!
In the photo, look how many guys it's taking to fuel the engine compared to dealing with laundry on the other side of the engine.
Outstanding picture, btw.
There are fuel tanks on both sides of the locomotives? Correct?
So then is there some type of internal equalizer allowing fuel to cross over from one side to the other?
Convicted One BaltACD ATSF E1's being fueled - back in the day! Outstanding picture, btw. There are fuel tanks on both sides of the locomotives? Correct? So then is there some type of internal equalizer allowing fuel to cross over from one side to the other?
Locomotives have one fuel tank with fills on either side. They each have a water tank for the steam generators with fills on either side. In the day, locomotives had to be watered more frequently than they were fueled, they would generally be watered at the same time they were being fueled.
Today's passenger locomotives no longer have steam generators and don't require water of heating/cooling purposes through the train. The use Head End Power (electrical) to power the heating/cooling through the train.
longhorn1969The Sunset Limited refuels at the fuel yard to the east of the San Antonio, its not a pax stop. Is there another Amtrak train that does the same?
Convicted OneThere are fuel tanks on both sides of the locomotives?
Convicted OneThere are fuel fillers on each side, the tanks are full width. But I'm not sure that is fuel. The hoses appear to be 11/2 inch fire hose and there are no pumps visible. I think it may be water. BaltACD ATSF E1's being fueled - back in the day! Outstanding picture, btw. There are fuel tanks on both sides of the locomotives? Correct? So then is there some type of internal equalizer allowing fuel to cross over from one side to the other?
But I'm not sure that is fuel. The hoses appear to be 11/2 inch fire hose and there are no pumps visible. I think it may be water.
timzWe assume the tank can be filled from either side, but no reason to divide the tank down the middle?
There is, and it's a fairly good one.
The P42 'tank' is divided both longitudinally and horizontally, into four separate compartments (each with four-level sight glasses). Equipment is provided to transfer-pump fuel from one to another -- in case compartments are punctured, the remaining fuel can be quickly transferred and the locomotive kept in service, something not true of designs with 'unitary' tankage; if one tank has contaminated fuel, it can be isolated.
There are LED gauges on the outside of the unit, but they read a weird approximation of what the 'actual' fuel level is: there are level sensors in 2 of the four compartments, and the number displayed is an average of those two levels, multiplied by 2.
Incidentally the nominal maximum fill rate for the system is 300gpm, so a bit over 7 minutes maximum for refill.
There is no drop frame or sill on these locomotives that would make pannier tanks desirable. Usually the whole space between trucks was a logical place to hang tankage; a couple of engines used a shorter fuel tank with water adjacent to it when SG equipped but you wouldn't put the tanks 'side by side' as consumption would throw off the lateral balance.
The situation was different in engines like Centipedes that had no space below the frame.
longhorn1969The Sunset Limited refuels at the fuel yard to the east of the San Antonio, its not a pax stop
That is useful information, ....much appreciated!
Just a little further elaboration on why I was curious specific to the Broadway and Century Trains. They were pitted against one another with time as a premium between NYC and Chicago, So I envisioned that they would want to avoid an additional stop just for fuel.
I'd guess they would hope to optimize productivity similar to a "pit stop" in an auto race.
I really didn't know, that's why I was so generous with questionmarks in my post.
I always thought I was seeing two separate tanks, one on each side of the locomotive. but now thinking further with the valuable input of others here, I guess it makes perfect sense to fill in all the space between trucks with a fuel tank. I guess my earlier assumption envisioned a configuration more like what you see on a semi truck
OvermodIncidentally the nominal maximum fill rate for the system is 300gpm, so a bit over 7 minutes maximum for refill.
That wouldn't be true in the configuration shown in Balt's picture, would it? It appears that set ups such as that would be gravity fed?
Convicted One longhorn1969 The Sunset Limited refuels at the fuel yard to the east of the San Antonio, its not a pax stop That is useful information, ....much appreciated! Just a little further elaboration on why I was curious specific to the Broadway and Century Trains. They were pitted against one another with time as a premium between NYC and Chicago, So I envisioned that they would want to avoid an additional stop just for fuel. I'd guess they would hope to optimize productivity similar to a "pit stop" in an auto race.
longhorn1969 The Sunset Limited refuels at the fuel yard to the east of the San Antonio, its not a pax stop
Remember - both the Century and the Broadway had engine changes from electric to non-electric in their schedules, both in the days of steam and diesel. In the days of steam (until the extra large tenders were implemented) steam engines would have to be both fueled and watered for safe and continued operations. With the oversized tenders a full load of coal could go all the way - they did have to get additional water I believe.
BaltACD- they did have to get additional water I believe.
Track pans?
Quoting Balt--"...they did have to get additional water I believe." Yes, that is why they had track pans so the water tanks could be filled without stopping.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.