James Brake Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Just a quick question regarding the approximate operating ranges of Class40, 45, 46, and 47. I'm trying to figure out how to integrate the train services on my layout and trying to calculate the number of locos realistically required. I know it would be dependent on train load, gradients, etc, but what would be the typical endurance of those loco classes assuming full tanks leaving the depot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flood Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 In Jan 1977 47498 worked Paddington - Penzance and then Penzance - Exeter due to loco shortages. The loco was substituted at Exeter as it needed refuelling after which it was then used on the next service to Paddington. The total length of the working was 305.25 + 131.5 = 436.75 miles. A simulation game I have gives the maximum range of a Class 47 at 500 miles so given the fuel capacity of a 47 was 765 gallons the loco could average about 1.53 gallons/mile A Class 40 had a fuel capacity of 710 gallons, a Class 45 or 46 had a fuel capacity of 790 gallons. Assuming that type 4 locos have approximately the same fuel consumption then the maximum range of a Class 40 would be about 464 miles and for a Class 45 or 46 it would be 516 miles. The typical endurance on the Western Region was Paddington - Penzance, Penzance - Plymouth, total mileage 305.25 + 79.5 = 384.75 miles. They probably worked to as near to 400 miles as they could get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 There are some stats at the foot of the page here: http://www.derbysulzers.com/61.html including Fuel consumption - locomotive-mile per gallon (including shunting): 1.58 Fuel consumption - railcar-mile per gallon: 6.82 which pretty much backs up Flood's guesstimation above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flood Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Looking at that page I think he means gallons per mile for the locomotive, not miles per gallon! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb900f Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 During the MP12 driving course we were told that it was approx 1 gallon per mile and that the last 100 gallons in the tank was usually sludge. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Brake Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Thanks for the info, everyone. That'll get me going in the right direction and probably back to my model shop for a couple more Type 4s! Oh, well!! The next follow on question, purely out of interest: were there any operational reasons not to take full tanks? That is to say, were there any benefits to taking less than full-fuel? Thanks again for the quick responses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 As far as I can remember it was compulsory to fill them up - fuelling was part of the diagrammed working and the controllers (specifically the power controller) had to be able to rely on there being a full tank at it's last diagrammed visit on leaving the fuel point. Should the loco need to be utilised for another working, they had to be able to rely on it having enough fuel, though I've no doubt some of the drivers on here will remember being asked to check the fuel level anyhow - there's absolutely no benefit to filling them with anything less. The early days of privatisation however brought differences in the price per litre between TOC's which meant that all ad-hoc visits to a fuel point had to be cleared with the owning TOC where the fuelling location wasn't one of their own..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Thanks for the info, everyone. That'll get me going in the right direction and probably back to my model shop for a couple more Type 4s! Oh, well!! The next follow on question, purely out of interest: were there any operational reasons not to take full tanks? That is to say, were there any benefits to taking less than full-fuel? Thanks again for the quick responses. I seem to recall that during industrial action years ago at either refinery or by tanker drivers some depots started to run low on fuel stocks, possibly some depots may have sent out some locos less than full, (depending on diagram), in order to keep more locos/sets in traffic. The only other thought I had that in special circumstances a particular loco may have been sent out less than full in order to work a special service over a route with restricted route availability. Otherwise no, as it would be tempting fate! cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 16, 2012 The usual BR planning mileage was based on an average of 1 gallon per mile with a caveat that the last 75 -100 gallons was unusable (i.e no different in reality from what folk were told on an MR12 course as related above). But as Bob related above the usual practice - certainly at Western depots - with mainline diesel locos was to fuel them when they came on shed so they were ready for any working and not just the next part of their diagram. The only change was with the arrival of Class 60s were which assessed on the Derby train performance computer and specific total consumption was calculated for each individual working making detailed allowance for all the factors which affected consumption. The Derby figures were then translated into the loco diagrams with refuelling booked to match them in order to prevent locos running out of fuel. One bright fellah on a Langley - Immingham return decided he couldn't be bothered to go to Old Oak for fuel as booked because the gauge showed that he had what he reckoned was enough so he had an extra hour or so in the cabin at Langley. But at least he proved how good the Derby figures were as he ran out of fuel within a handful of miles of where Derby had predicted it would happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossfell5 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 46032 went right through to Newquay from Newcastle one Fri night/Sat am this went via Leeds as well - 492.26 miles! It still had enough fuel to run back L/E to Blazey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyrush Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Fuel ranges were also affected by loadings (and in at least one case, wind!). The Edinburgh - Willesden freightliner (4M72) and light diesel back to Finsbury Park in its early days could be worked by a 40 or 47, but as the loadings increased, class 40's started running out of fuel at inconvenient places south of Hitchin. After that, an out of course engine change was arranged if our Scottish friends used a 40 on the train. The Luton - Bathgate loaded cartic service with its booked 47 on occasionally used to run out of fuel on very windy days. The killer combination was an inoperative fuel gauge combined with a defective bulk loading valve, which caused fuelling to be shut off early without it coming to notice (until a trainload of passengers had the opportunity to inspect one bit of countryside for rather a long time) Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted September 15, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 15, 2012 Just a quick question regarding the approximate operating ranges of Class40, 45, 46, and 47. I'm trying to figure out how to integrate the train services on my layout and trying to calculate the number of locos realistically required. I know it would be dependent on train load, gradients, etc, but what would be the typical endurance of those loco classes assuming full tanks leaving the depot? Hi James Several years ago I printed off a table of fuel capacity and ranges for many diesel classes, unfortunately the site they came from no longer exist. I have just typed in the URL...error 404 The table was complied by Nick Lawford for a site called uk.railway FAQ. From the table a class 40 had a range of 560 miles with the steam heat on, hauling a maximum of 16 Mk 1 coaches. With steam heat off the range was the same. A Peak both classes 45 and 46 with steam heat had a range of 525 miles hauling 16 Mk 1s. With steam heat off the range increased to 630 miles. The class 40 had a separate fuel tank for the heating boiler where the Peaks used the same fuel for both traction and heating, hence the lower mileage if warming up the coaches. The table gives a maximum of range of a 45/1 as 630 miles with or without heating on. I was always lead to believe that the ETH locos when heating the train used up some of their traction power to do so therefore using fuel up to heat the train so the mileage should be less. The class 47s have a range of 600 miles on a hot day but to keep the passengers warm this is reduced to 500 miles. Depending on what type of boiler the loco is fitted with determines how many coaches, a Spanner boiler fitted loco can only haul 12 coaches where as a loco with any other type of boiler can heat 16 Mk1s. An ETH fitted 47 when electrically heating a train can travel 600 miles, again the table gives the same range with or without heating. A 47/7 with additional tanks can travel 1110 miles. I hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.