diesel locomotive gas milage

[Anonymous]

infomation please. how much mpg does sd40 and sd70mace get? [?]

[jchnhtfd]

Try gallons per foot... it depends so much on the load and terrain.

[wabash1]

where i run the dash 9 gets 1/2 - 1 1/2 miles per gallon depending on tonnage . never checked a emd.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

where i run the dash 9 gets 1/2 - 1 1/2 miles per gallon depending on tonnage . never checked a emd.

Thanks Wabash -- didn't realise it was that good! Says something about the skill of the engineer, too[:D]

[Anonymous]

EMD LOCOMOTIVES AND GE HAD A STANDARD FUEL RATE WHICH VARYS PER UNIT AND TONNAGE .. 175GAL PER HOUR UNDER FULL LOAD..

[oltmannd]

Railroad don't measure MPG because it is so load and terrain dependent. Think "gross ton-miles/gallon" instead. This is normally in a range from 400 for an intermodal train to 1000 for a unit train. We once did a "trailer mile per gallon" measurement on a pair of Conrail intermodal trains back in the mid 80s. The result was about 12 mpg/trailer or about 3 times as efficient as an over the road truck. With stacks today, the efficiency is even higher.

[Big_Boy_4005]

If you want to see real fuel hogs, go to the water. Fuel consumption is meaured in Gallons Per Mile. Can you imagine the cost of pushing loaded barges up the Mississippi???[swg]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Railroad don't measure MPG because it is so load and terrain dependent. Think "gross ton-miles/gallon" instead. This is normally in a range from 400 for an intermodal train to 1000 for a unit train. We once did a "trailer mile per gallon" measurement on a pair of Conrail intermodal trains back in the mid 80s. The result was about 12 mpg/trailer or about 3 times as efficient as an over the road truck. With stacks today, the efficiency is even higher.

I wish we could legislate those suckers off the road for long haul, and MAKE them ride the rails. For everyone's good!![swg]

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

If you want to see real fuel hogs, go to the water. Fuel consumption is meaured in Gallons Per Mile. Can you imagine the cost of pushing loaded barges up the Mississippi???[swg]

I once learned,on a harbor cruise in the LA/Long Beach harbors, that a supertanker gets about 10 FEET per gallon![:0]

[edbenton]

Fine you want to take all the trucks off the road and put them on piggybacks forget about having anything in the stores or factorys fthey are the rolling werehouses nowadays they literaly carry the stock needed to make about everything

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

If you want to see real fuel hogs, go to the water. Fuel consumption is meaured in Gallons Per Mile. Can you imagine the cost of pushing loaded barges up the Mississippi???[swg]

I once learned,on a harbor cruise in the LA/Long Beach harbors, that a supertanker gets about 10 FEET per gallon![:0]

And that's probably downhill with a tailwind...

[csxengineer98]

a set of sd-70macs with 17000 tones of coal will burn about 400 gallons per unit....on a 98 mile run....at least that what they use on my terriotry....i know..had a train one time where they sent me out of the yard with 500 gallons of go juice..and told me to make it as far as i can...i made it to the next termial where they can fuel me with only 100 gallons left....
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

Regarding the comparisions of barge vs rail fuel economy, it depends in large part on what particular waterway system is being used as an example. On the Columbia/Snake River waterway in the Pacific Northwest, the theoretical max ton/miles per gallon per barge tow is up to 1500 ton/miles per gallon. The reason it is still a theoretical max is that that particular waterway is still grossly underutilized compared to the Mississippi system, and these barge lines don't usually run point to point operations like unit trains. The Columbia/Snake Waterway also has a deeper draft (14' compared to 12' for the Mississippi) which aids in efficiencies. The average fuel efficiency is more like 850 ton/miles per gallon, since the typical barge tow carries a variety of commodities unlike unit trains. If the barge operators chose to run "unit" barge tows, the fuel economy would be higher, but that doesn't fit into the operating ideal right now for barging operations.

The bottom line: All freight transport modes are increasing fuel efficiency, truck, rail and barge.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

If you want to see real fuel hogs, go to the water. Fuel consumption is meaured in Gallons Per Mile. Can you imagine the cost of pushing loaded barges up the Mississippi???[swg]

I once learned,on a harbor cruise in the LA/Long Beach harbors, that a supertanker gets about 10 FEET per gallon![:0]

At that rate it's a miracle that there is anything left to unload when they pull up to the pier!![banghead][:P][(-D][(-D][2c][swg]

[Anonymous]

Hey- the Toyota Prius gets 58 MPG! HA!- Wait...this is a trains forum-sorry. So here's my question: does a multiple unit consist get better mileage or is the number of engines based solely on load and ruling grade?

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Fine you want to take all the trucks off the road and put them on piggybacks forget about having anything in the stores or factorys fthey are the rolling werehouses nowadays they literaly carry the stock needed to make about everything

Actually my idea is not to do away with trucks, it is to do away with the idea of LONG HAUL TRUCKING. Regional trucking would grow and make deliveries from the rail head. It may take slightly longer door to door, but there are a lot of advantages to offset the minor delay. Fuel economy, reduced highway traffic, increased safety due to shorter runs and less fatigued drivers, and happier truckers who would be able to spend more time at home.

Imagine if the railroads had intermodal facilities every 500 miles or less. No location would be more than 250 miles from the nearest terminal. That would be a decent round trip in a day at max range, and home for dinner. Shorter runs, a driver could 2 per day, and local deliveries maybe up to 4 in a day.

The problem is Americans don't think this way, we are too used to doing things the same ways we always have.[swg]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by toyomantrains

Hey- the Toyota Prius gets 58 MPG! HA!- Wait...this is a trains forum-sorry. So here's my question: does a multiple unit consist get better mileage or is the number of engines based solely on load and ruling grade?

The higher the horsepower per trailing ton, the faster the train travels (on the average) and the worse the fuel economy. It doesn't matter if the consist is 4 2000 HP locos or 2 4000 HP locos.

[BaltACD]

Back in the days of the F7 & GP9, the accepted fuel economy was ballparked at 2 gallons per mile....a three unit (4500 Hp) lash up would consume 6 gallons to the mile.

The modern CW44AC's (4400Hp) are ballparked with economy of 4 gallons per mile. Since the tonnage ratings for engines like the F7 and GP9 have passed out being easily obtainable, I would have to expect that a single CW44AC will handle at least the tonnage of 3 F7's or GP9's, if not more due to the better wheel slip propertys of AC traction, therefore the fuel economy of todays engines, as a function of what they can haul have significantly imporved over the years.

Now if we could only have some way to have a single engine train, limp into the clear when it's only engine fails!

[TH&B]

That is why I think they should go back to 4 axle units, use the new technoligy to make them as efficient as ever, run them in pairs, 2 axle trucks are easier on the track and more flexable if needed to run on bad track. And if one fails you still have the other wich might be able to pull your overloaded train or at the very least double it.

I thought the 6 axle passenger coaches were cool, but then I heard they are bad on the track. Then I thought 6 axle freight cars would carry a heavier load without axle load increase, but I was told that was bad for the track. So why aren't big 6 axle diesels bad for the track compared to 4 axle units? Only the newest models have steerable trucks, not the many older types I see all the time?

[foamer4000]

I get empty coal trains from North Platte to Cheyenne, 222 rail miles. Two 4300 hp GE AC units will burn about 1200 gallons each, you can do the math.

[Clutch Cargo]

Time for the U.S. Merchant Marine to chime in.
When I started sailing the Ford fleet had two ships, the Benson Ford, 1920, and the Henry Ford11.1924.
Each were fitted out with a Junkers Opposed Piston Engine of 4,000 Horsepower, and burned 100 GPH to pu***he ships carrying 12,500 toms at 10 knots.

The current "Oueen of the Lakes" has 4 fairbanks morse engins developing over 16,000 horsepower and uses 650 Gallons Per Hour to push 65,000 tons down the lakes.

So fuel economy is inproving but them damn high speed diesels are nervewracking. (noisy)

Those old Junkers were at least quiet.


Kurt

[jrw249]

QUOTE: Originally posted by foamer4000

I get empty coal trains from North Platte to Cheyenne, 222 rail miles. Two 4300 hp GE AC units will burn about 1200 gallons each, you can do the math.

.185 miles per gallon and the coal cars are empty!!!!