Trains.com

Milwaukee Road's small fuel tanks

5198 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: St. Paul, MN
  • 82 posts
Milwaukee Road's small fuel tanks
Posted by oarb00 on Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:23 PM

While researching the Milwaukee Road's roster I noticed many of their 1st generation road switchers; SD7, SD9, H16-66 etc, have very small fuel tanks. Why is this? Does it have something to do with locomotive weight? I know the SDL39 was built specifically for branch line service and it also has a small fuel tank.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 19,204 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:07 PM

Almost any time you see a small tank, it’s weight.

The exception is that if the unit has a steam generator there needs to be water tankage too (and water is relatively heavy) and if both tanks are slung between the trucks the fuel tank may be shorter or narrower than it could be in a freight-only unit.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,093 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:21 PM

You should have seen some of the WSOR tracks before they were upgraded to 40-50 mph.    Milwaukee in the 1970's and into the 1980's would operate Geeps and later MP15AC's on some of the worst track you ever saw loaded with 5 and 10 mph limits.    Ties sunk below the mud with weeds up almost waist high.    They would run 25-50 miles on a branch line like that and if it was 100 miles they would have the switching patrols meet in the middle.....as long as everything stayed on the track, they kept running.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 35 posts
Posted by Bruce Frierdich on Saturday, June 11, 2022 8:46 PM

One would think they could have used regular sized tanks but just filled them part way.......

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,097 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, June 12, 2022 12:35 AM

Could it be that engineers were still paid by max weight on drivers?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,901 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, June 12, 2022 8:23 AM

Bruce Frierdich
One would think they could have used regular sized tanks but just filled them part way.......

So you want a guy that is filling the tank to be responsible when the now overweight engine for the particular segment of track derails?

Murphy was and is a railroader.  If it can happen, it will.  If it can't happen, it will still happen.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 1,983 posts
Posted by Backshop on Sunday, June 12, 2022 9:30 AM

blue streak 1

Could it be that engineers were still paid by max weight on drivers?

 

No.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,771 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Sunday, June 12, 2022 9:32 AM

Couldn't they modify the fuel filler pipes to limit capacity? I believe Union Pacific went that route to drop the fuel capacity of their SD9043MAC's to help address frame stress that was causing cracks.

Although in the Milawaukee's case, it makes more sense that they went down this route. Yields a slightly cheaper locomotive to acquire and if they're just planning to run the locomotive on branches and such with bad track, there's little reason to be concerned about the possibility of one day upping a unit's fuel capacity.

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,011 posts
Posted by BEAUSABRE on Friday, June 17, 2022 1:31 AM

Don't forget that the Milw began as a Granger and was cursed with miles of branch lines that had track that was put down before (in some cases long before) the Great War. 

Second, IIRC, the size of fuel tank was an option that the buyer could pick and I would expect a smaller tank was cheaper than a larger. You might say, "but that's such a small difference", but don't forget, the MILW wasn't exactly swimming in cash post WW2. 

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 1,983 posts
Posted by Backshop on Friday, June 17, 2022 9:41 AM

Also, smaller fuel tanks were at least several hundred pounds lighter than large ones.  If you're trying to reduce as much weight as you can, that's an obvious place to start.

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,360 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Friday, June 17, 2022 4:05 PM

The Milw only put a 3200 gallon tank on them IIRC that is the same size that came on the GP series.  The standard tank for a SD40-2 was 5K gallons just in fuel alone they saved 5 tons in weight and maybe another 2-3 tons in the tank.  Minimal savings on a locomotive that large but it also meant that they could have one set point for their 40 series of locomotives. 

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 12,978 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:47 AM

BEAUSABRE
Don't forget that the Milw began as a Granger and was cursed with miles of branch lines that had track that was put down before (in some cases long before) the Great War.

Yes, in fact the Milwaukee had a fair number of branch lines in Minnesota and Iowa that were originally built in the 1880s - as 3' narrow gauge lines. Even when they were converted to standard gauge (some stayed narrow into the 1930s), things like old bridges restricted the weight of the engines that could run on the lines.

Stix
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Harrison Township, Michigan
  • 1,488 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:25 AM
 

Shadow the Cats owner

The Milw only put a 3200 gallon tank on them IIRC that is the same size that came on the GP series.  The standard tank for a SD40-2 was 5K gallons just in fuel alone they saved 5 tons in weight and maybe another 2-3 tons in the tank.  Minimal savings on a locomotive that large but it also meant that they could have one set point for their 40 series of locomotives. 

 

I believe 4,000 Gal was the max fuel tank you could get on a SD40-2.

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 1,983 posts
Posted by Backshop on Wednesday, August 17, 2022 6:48 PM

I think the only SDs with 5000gal fuel tanks were the Erie Lackawanna's SDP45s, that were ordered as "P's" just because they had a longer frame that would accommodate the larger tank.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,771 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:23 PM

The 18 SD40A's for Illinois Central were constructed on the SDP45's longer 71' 8" frame in order to accomodate a 5,000 gallon fuel tank.

Erie Lackawanna's SD45-2's also had 5,000 gallon fuel tanks. Quite noticeable on those still on Norfolk Southern's roster (The NSDash9 roster page also quotes 5,000 gallon tanks in the specs for them).

Unless my recollections are inaccurate, the SD45-2 and SD40-2's frame were of the same length. So if a SD45-2 can accomodate a 5,000 gallon tank, I don't see why a SD40-2 couldn't?

  • Member since
    November 2021
  • 117 posts
Posted by JayBee on Thursday, August 18, 2022 1:32 AM

The Erie Lackawanna SD45-2 had the air tanks moved into the carbody under the radiators. This allowed for the extra 600 gallons over the SD40-s or regular SD45-2.

For reference standard SD40 and SD45 locomotives had 4000 gallon capacity max. The SD38 and SD39 were similar. The Dash-2 versions had a maximum of 4400 gallons unless something was done like to the E-L locomotives. With the production 50 and 60 series locomotives and their longer frame 5000 gallon tanks could be accomodated. 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,771 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Wednesday, August 31, 2022 1:57 PM

Thought of more examples. The SD40 and SD40-2 fleet for Quebec North Shore & Labrador have oversize fuel tanks of ~5,000 gallon capacity, with the air reservoirs tucked away presumably in the long hood somewhere.

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