Has anyone given thought to the ramifications of using this fuel in 'ancient' and obsolete railroad diesel engines. It could cause some problems.

DPK

Yes. Just add the recommended additives to the fuel for one's engine type. There shouldn't be any problems.

It can't be any worse than biodiesel, which surely must be bad for the engine because it's weird and stuff.

And made by hippies. And Willie Nelson.

ULSD has to be the best stuff on earth, because it's sold by Shell/BP/Chevron, and TV commercials can't be wrong. If your locomotive was an anthropomorphic plush toy, it would jump up and down everytime it saw the Chevron truck come 'round.

*sigh* I'm sorry... I've had those concerns and I've talked about them, til I'm blue in the face, and everytime the thread was hijacked by the steam people, because apparently among all us museums there are thousands of oil fired steamers but only 2 or 3 diesel vehicles...

Biodiesel is totally nontoxic... and has like 20 times the lubricity of the old sulfur diesel. It would be interesting to see an honest A/B test, but I would certainly expect much longer injector life. In Europe, they mandate diesel fuel must be 5% biodiesel simply to replace the lubricity in the old diesel fuel.

Back in the bad old days when GMC truck engines required #1 diesel and very few stations sold diesel fuel in the midwest, truck drivers would buy a drum of kerosene and add a gallon or two of cheap motor oil to provide required lubricity. It worked fine. I'm not aware of any engine problems that resulted. The state lost some motor fuel tax revenue.

fk

About a dozen years ago I was assigned to a project at Conrail where we were working with GE/Lubizol on a viscosity management system for the C40-8 units. It basically consisted of a thermocouple to monitor temp and an electric motor that turned a paddle in a chamber of hot lube oil. By monitoring the current draw of the motor the device was able to calculate the viscosity of the lube oil. When viscosity began to break down beyond operating limits the device would pump a few gallons into the fuel tank for disposal by combustion. The locomotive like the rest of the fleet would be topped off every time it hit a fuel pad with fresh oil thus raising the overall viscosity of the lube oil charge. Like all units we continued to take spectro samples whenever a unit hit a pad.

I did ask the question of the Lubrizol rep about the effect of the lube oil on the fuel system and was told the detergents and additive package in the lube oil would have a net positive affect on the fuel system performance. I do not recall any issues with fuel filter plugging.

As for ULSD with additives I have not seen any issues beyond the usual sticking injectors from time to time same as the old fuel.

EBL

I've also spent time discussing this. Our railroad runs a fleet of Alco engines, many that have not seen a major rebuild since the early 1980's.

On Bio-Diesel, We chose to stay away from this for now. Not because of it's ability to burn or the lubrication. One problem with bio-diesel is that when it breaks down (from long term storage) it turns toward an acid. If this is left inside of the steel parts of the fuel system (injectors and pumps), it can cause scoring and premature failure. This is only a problem for engines that spend a lot of time in storage. We have a couple that are only used in the summer time and spend at least 6 months drained. It is not practical to flush the fuel systems and drain the fuel tank. For a fleet that is in constant use, if there is a bio supplier near by, I wouldn't hesitate. This would also affect track and construction equipment. It also would see long storage times.

As for ULSD, there are a couple of concerns. We held off on this as long as our supplier of fuel would let us. Now we have no choice. The biggest thing here is lubrication, lubrication. Making the ULSD takes some of the sulphur away which is part of the lubricating quality of the fuel. So, additives is the answer. We've now been running the ULSD for over a year and no visible effects. This would bring up the next conversation of what types of treatments people are running in the fuel. We are using a product by Power Services that increases the lubrication, disperses water increases the cetane (or power).

The second consideration when running the ULSD is the type of additives in your lubricating oil. The older type heavy diesel oils had additives to combat the sulphur in the fuel, or the TBN number. (Total Base Number). They are now finding that this additive package causes black carbon deposits inside the engine block when it is not needed to combat the high sulphur fuel. So, consider changing the lubricating oil to match the ULSD.

Constant oil sample testing is the best way to see what is going on inside your diesel equipment. Talk to your fuel supplier about what they sell and what they recommend.

Pat Connors
CMO, BSOR

Mr. MacDowell:

I apologize. There was no intention to hijack your thread ... plus we burn coal.

Perhaps I came across as too flippant. My experience in this comes from first-generation diesels in maritime service. While one may feel at the mercy of Big Oil, they really do run good technical departments along with their distributor networks. Lube oil samples do not lie, so they have to deliver. On their recommendations, we run lube oil especially formulated for ULSD, and we must run different lube oils for different first-generation diesels. If we don't, it will come back to haunt us in the samples.

So, talk to your Shell distributor (or whoever), tell him about your motive power and its service requirements, and you should have acceptable results.

My question was rhetorical in nature-and was driven by my own observations of an GE FDL-12 and an Alco 244-both used in limited duty.

I note that the FDL is displaying severe deposit build-up in the rocker boxes-with the 244 only starting to do so. Additionally, at least one high pressure fuel pump on the 244 is a 'leaker.' Admittedly, the pump is at minimum- 20 years old but one has to wonder.

Additionally, it appears that the FDL is suffering from high crankcase pressure-which attendant oil spew at many locations of the engine. Most significantly, the rear main seal is forcing oil onto the alternator fan, which of course is making quite a mess of things. This seems to point to a clogged lube oil separator/eductor assembly.

Oddly enough, the spectro report on the FDL oil shows the condition to be satisfactory.

The long and the short of it is that I agree with Pat Connors has to say on the subject. The current lube oil used in these engines is now overbuffered (TBN too high) for whatever fuel is being consumed by these engines.

As an aside, I suspect that the large railroads are able to hold their fuel to a much tighter spec. on account of the size of the buy, long term contracts and so on. I would also surmise that they test the fuel periodically.

I also suspect that the fuel sold by smaller distributors may vary in quality and characterisitics-as it may be purchased in (relatively) small qualities on the spot market.

While the issue of fuel oil lubricity seems to well known, there may be other concerns relating to varnish formation in the liner bores and on the piston top land. These concerns are said to be related to the overbuffered lube oil condition and change the nature of liner/piston wear patterns. The ultimate effect could be excessive lube oil consumption and other related maladies.

DPK

Hmm ... Whatever else may be going on with the fuel, high crankcase pressures almost always point to combustion pressures getting past the rings.