AMJ Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Many of us are drivers of road vehicles. The manufacturer usually quotes fuel usage in either miles per gallon or a metric equivalent. Surely there are similar figures for rail engine? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold pheaton Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2014 There are, a 12 cylinder sulzer will manage about 1.2 to the gallon with the boiler operating....which draws fuel from the main tanks....45149 averages about 600 miles to a tank...lower than br figures because preserved locos tend to spend a lot more time idling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2014 Many of us are drivers of road vehicles. The manufacturer usually quotes fuel usage in either miles per gallon or a metric equivalent. Surely there are similar figures for rail engine? GM-EMD engines are usually quoted in gallons per mile..................... Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
great central Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 There were some figures mentioned for Meridians (222s) a while back. When first delivered to MML somebody decided that they needn't be shut down between journeys. Apparently once shut down there was a decent chance they wouldn't start again, something to do with software I believe. When EMT took over they looked into it and had them altered so they could be shut down. It would seem that each engine got through around 9 litres of fuel PER HOUR when idling. I dread to think what they use under power. Given that a nine coach set used to lay over at Nottingham for the best part of an hour at a time, that's a lot of fuel for nothing. I also heard that TPE were surprised at the rise in fuel bills once the 185s took over from the 158s, something like from 4mpg to 1mpg. Not surprising really the 158s are about 350hp per car I believe, the 185s about 750hp, and they're only 10 mph better on top speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2014 I also heard that TPE were surprised at the rise in fuel bills once the 185s took over from the 158s, something like from 4mpg to 1mpg. Not surprising really the 158s are about 350hp per car I believe, the 185s about 750hp, and they're only 10 mph better on top speed. The 185's are much heavier, but do also accelerate faster. A friend was involved in the testing of them when new and was asked by the Siemens engineers to try and get to 100mph by Leyland station from a dead stand at Preston. He wasn't convinced that it would, but found himself shutting off power before reaching Leyland. I believe the 185's now have fuel saving shut off when they are on long downhill sections, such as those over the Pennines and WCML routes. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Would be interesting to compare the sprinter-era trains to HGVs, as both have broadly similar power-to-weight ratios (don't they? 14 litre engine and 40-odd tonnes per vehicle). I think around 9-11mpg for the average HGV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The best bit about the 185 vs the 158 is not only the fuel compsumption but the fact the 185 is actually slower than the 158 over certain routes. With the heavier axle load the are not permitted to run at the enhanced permitted speeds that normal sprinters are in certain routes. They get round this by using the extra grunt they have to accelerate faster and maintain higher speeds uphill. I remember the 156 was quoted when delivered as having a mpg of 6. It may sound bad, but they were also quoted as having a loading capacity of 300!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 For locomotives mpg varies quite widely depending upon speed and weight of train. The standard for comparing fuel consumption used to be pounds per horsepower per hour, which really could only be measured under test conditions and distance traveled did not come in to it. Or to put it another way, a loco running flat out on a heavy freight at 50mph, will do half the mpg as it would flat out on an express at 100mph, but would be doing both jobs with equal efficiency and the same pounds per horsepower per hour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 For locomotives mpg varies quite widely depending upon speed and weight of train. The standard for comparing fuel consumption used to be pounds per horsepower per hour, which really could only be measured under test conditions and distance traveled did not come in to it. Or to put it another way, a loco running flat out on a heavy freight at 50mph, will do half the mpg as it would flat out on an express at 100mph, but would be doing both jobs with equal efficiency and the same pounds per horsepower per hour. Which is the reason that DBS has been resurecting the class 60. They have the best fuel compsumption of any loco on the network today. The fuel compsumption was (iirc) 185grammes per KwH. DBS tried retiring them but had problems with the 66 hauling the really heavy tanker/stone trains. When they doubled up on the 66's, the accountants screamed at the extra fuel costs. At one point the stone trains from the peak quarries had to be reduced in length when 66 hauled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2014 Which is the reason that DBS has been resurecting the class 60. They have the best fuel compsumption of any loco on the network today. The fuel compsumption was (iirc) 185grammes per KwH. DBS tried retiring them but had problems with the 66 hauling the really heavy tanker/stone trains. When they doubled up on the 66's, the accountants screamed at the extra fuel costs. At one point the stone trains from the peak quarries had to be reduced in length when 66 hauled. I've always banged on about the excellent specific fuel consumption of the Mirrless lump. That was the prime reason that Brush won the Class 60 contract as "whole life cost", including fuel over that lifetime, was part of the tender process. We all know that the 60 is the equal in haulage (or marginally better, cue reply from GM lovers....) than a 59, upon which the haulage specification for the 60 contract was based. The US built their railway prime movers as they built their cars - gas guzzlers! Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2014 Hidden in my filling cabinets I have a table of the BR diesel classes which gives the fuel capacity of each class, and the range with a full tank. It also gives the range if the loco is heating a passenger train, steam heat and ETH and the maximum number of coaches it can heat. Some classes had a separate diesel tank for steam generator, others used the main fuel tank supply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2014 The usual BR reckoning was 1mile per gallon for locos and that was the usual planning figure for fuel mileages in diagrams. The only class where very specific figures were produced was for the Class 60s and the Derby computer calculations were incredibly accurate. On the Immingham -Langley tanks the loco was supposed to go to Old Oak for fuel before working back the empties but some bright herbert of a Driver looked at the fuel gauge and decided his time was better spent not going to Old Oak and back. On the return working the loco ran out of fuel within a few miles of its predicted fuel range working that turn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold stovepipe Posted November 12, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2014 The BTC published Locomotive Performance and Efficiency Test Bulletins back in the 1950/60s which have some information of fuel consumption. I have one for a 1250hp Mirlees class 30 to hand - it did the 115 miles from Norwich to Liverpool St on 70 gallons with 238 tons. So 1.64 mpg, but it excludes idling at start and end of journey, run-rounds etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold stovepipe Posted November 13, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2014 Going back a bit further to the 1955 BTC test with 2000hp prototype 10203, it's specific fuel consumption was about 0.37 lb/bhp/hr. So for a 60 mile run completed in 1 hour, using full power for 75% of the time, you get pretty close to the 1 mile per gallon Mike quoted. (using 8.36 lbs of fuel per gallon). The cost of fuel used in the test was 1.51 pence per lb - that's 12.6 old pennies per gallon..! It would be interesting to know how much progress has been made in the last 60 years.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 If locomotive figures for mpg seem horrendous, bear in mind it is a different drivetrain to a road vehicle. Car mpg figures are best compared to HGV mpg.... for a 44ton, 6-axle Rig, around 9mpg at 56mph on the motorway is Good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Hughes Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Many of us are drivers of road vehicles. The manufacturer usually quotes fuel usage in either miles per gallon or a metric equivalent. Surely there are similar figures for rail engine? But you don't measure coal in gallons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold stovepipe Posted November 13, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2014 Answering my own post, converting 10203's specific fuel consumption to metric you get 225 g/kW/hr, compared to Class 66 201 g/kW/hr Class 158 207-222 g/kW/hr Can't find any figures for class 185 which I assume means they are bad...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJ Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 I know that even at 1mpg a rail vehicle is. more efficientthan a car as you need to do the calculation by each passenger. On a good day my Bentley does 14 mpg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 If the bus industry is anything to go by, the average AEC engined bus will do a minimum of 8mpg; on a long run this can go up to 14mpg. The trusty Routemaster came into the 8mpg bracket in town, but the Cummins engine refurbs can do well over 15mpg on a long run. the RML is the best for passenger/weight ratio of any bus, with an unladen weight of around 7760kg for 72 passengers. Modern box buses barely achieve 4mpg, with an unladen weight of about 11 tonnes. Things such as cataclysmic converters and fuel management mean that Euro-whatever spec engines use far more diesel than their older counterparts so it really makes me wonder why they bother. 15mpg should equal say 100 gm of poisonous filth pumped into the atmosphere; 4mpg means about 400gm of slightly cleaner filth pumped into the atmosphere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted November 13, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 13, 2014 I know that even at 1mpg a rail vehicle is. more efficientthan a car as you need to do the calculation by each passenger. On a good day my Bentley does 14 mpg. Depends upon the loading of course. A car that can manage 40 mpg isn't regarded as all that great today, have three people in it and a DMU will need to be reasonably loaded to match, but that's comparing with mostly open roads. It'll probably shift much more in the train's favour for commuter traffic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Rubber-tyre vehicles use a lot of energy squashing the bottom of the tyre on every rotation. I've read somewhere that the rubber-tyre GLT "trams" that were used in Caen and Nancy used about 50% more power than an equivalent steel-wheel tram. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted November 14, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 14, 2014 F-UnitMad, on 13 Nov 2014 - 00:37, said:F-UnitMad, on 13 Nov 2014 - 00:37, said: If locomotive figures for mpg seem horrendous, bear in mind it is a different drivetrain to a road vehicle. Car mpg figures are best compared to HGV mpg.... for a 44ton, 6-axle Rig, around 9mpg at 56mph on the motorway is Good. 9 would be EXTREMEMLY good! The wagon I drive does about 5 to 6 MPG and that's a fairly modern 07 Euro5 motor! Keeps me well primed in £5 Morrisons vouchers too when I fill it up every other day from near empty Whilst watching video's like this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXpTRpn_fuQ&index=3&list=FLMKlE9XhHaMu9-1K0lOp2zA I often wonder how much diesel monster trains like these were using back in the day! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I noticed in the last video that the exhaust was pretty dark whilst the locos were in the tunnel, but as soon as they were in the open, the exhaust cleared. Is this something to to with a shortage of air in the the confines of the tunnel? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45125 Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I noticed in the last video that the exhaust was pretty dark whilst the locos were in the tunnel, but as soon as they were in the open, the exhaust cleared. Is this something to to with a shortage of air in the the confines of the tunnel? Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Things such as cataclysmic converters and fuel management mean that Euro-whatever spec engines use far more diesel than their older counterparts so it really makes me wonder why they bother. 15mpg should equal say 100 gm of poisonous filth pumped into the atmosphere; 4mpg means about 400gm of slightly cleaner filth pumped into the atmosphere. Thanks for that. My imagination went into overdrive at the thought of a cataclysmic converter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.