I happened to see a segment on Bloomberg TV a week or so ago, it featured the CEO of Union Pacific. He addressed the normal issues that you might expect in such a venue, including profitability. Of course among the factors he mentioned was the increase in the price of diesel fuel.

It lead me to a series of questions:

1.) What percentage of operating costs does diesel fuel cost comprise for “average” museum/tourist lines use diesel-power.

2.) Is the increase in diesel fuel prices going to be the “straw that breaks the camel’s back” for any tourist lines/operating museums?

3.) Is anybody contemplating alternative fuels?

4.) What alternate fuels are feasible? I know the NAPA Valley switched to LNG/LPG and at least one company is researching agriculturally based fuels. What do you give up in the way of power?

5.) Assuming such a change is or becomes cost effective, what are the technical issues? (e.g., would a 4 cycle 251 or 7FDL be a better or worse candidate for conversion than a 2 cycle 567?)

6.) Would any gaskets, etc. or internal prime mover components suffer from lack of lubrication or chemically increased degradation as a result of conversion?

7.) Finally are alternate fuel conversions reversible or do they permanently alter components and therefore raise “original fabric” questions?


Superheater@rrmail.com

Jack can chime in on this but the word is out ... buy it right now and store it if you have room.

Always have to sorta smile ... A great big E-unit sitting there sucking up the fuel on a tourist line and a much less glamorous, if fact down right homely, ge13031 using much less fuel and capable of carrying the load on one little 28 liter Cummins being ignored. Maybe the folks that do have an alternative might want to consider downsizing their power where they can.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> 3.) Is anybody contemplating alternative
> fuels?

We have had good luck with coal as a very practical alternative to diesel fuel. Smells good too.

Pullman
kelly@strasburgrailroad.com

> 4.) What alternate fuels are feasible? I
> know the NAPA Valley switched to LNG/LPG and
> at least one company is researching
> agriculturally based fuels. What do you give
> up in the way of power?

Basically, when converting form Diesel to gaseous fuel, it's a new fuel system. The compression ratio is still fine, but there are system differences apart form the obvious such as fuel tanks. If you have the gold, then you can consider the conversion. UPRR tried a couple CNG powered units, but only tested them prior to returning them. I think the Napa train moved away from Diesel for emissions reasons.

Personally, I'd convert to a good hardwood such as maple or black oak, ash is okay if you have it, birch stats to rot in a few years, but the bark smells good..... It's a renewable resource.... trees grow back.

I buy a semi truck load of High sulfur diesel a week and have a 12,000 gallon tank on property, therfore this is something I watch daily. I would think that better use of equipment and smart conservation should offset any increase in cost.I mean it's as simple as shut them down more often.

All of the big disels are pretty efficent, and in our buisness we aren't pulling big trains at high speed. I know at our up coming trustees meeting I'm going to move to run our E unit on 1 instead of 2 engines. The argument that you'll be working the one harder doesn't hold wieght due to the fact you will actually get it hotter and make it run cleaner A.K.A. more efficent. GE13031 is the better option in the long run though.

Just a little clairifacation is in order here. GE13031 is a 100 ton G.E. Locomotive. It is also the owners name on this and many other boards.

irss@eriecoast.com

> I buy a semi truck load of High sulfur
> diesel a week and have a 12,000 gallon tank
> on property, therfore this is something I
> watch daily. I would think that better use
> of equipment and smart conservation should
> offset any increase in cost.I mean it's as
> simple as shut them down more often.

> All of the big disels are pretty efficent,
> and in our buisness we aren't pulling big
> trains at high speed. I know at our up
> coming trustees meeting I'm going to move to
> run our E unit on 1 instead of 2 engines.
> The argument that you'll be working the one
> harder doesn't hold wieght due to the fact
> you will actually get it hotter and make it
> run cleaner A.K.A. more efficent. GE13031 is
> the better option in the long run though.

> Just a little clairifacation is in order
> here. GE13031 is a 100 ton G.E. Locomotive.
> It is also the owners name on this and many
> other boards. i have run my diesel van on used vege oil. with only a little power lose about 5%. but you can;t just put in raw from mcds. it must be treated first and filtered first down to 5 u or less. it cost about $.60 gal to make if the used greese is free and no charge for labor. btw the exhaust smells like what was cooked in it. ie french fried, donots . regards bb

staybolt2@netscape.net

Working on specs for a kudzu powered Shay for use in the south during the summer. Kudzu grows faster than the shays run, so once the vines are trained to grow through the firedoor, should be very cost effective and save hiring a fireman.

dave

You know, I see an interesting opportunity for those who have the resources to put this kind of display together:

Have a display, preferably under cover, of a used diesel engine (preferably one that is unusable for some reason), cleaned up and partially disassembled, standing next to a car or truck engine block. Have a display (with charts, etc.) showing just how much fuel the various engines use--per horsepower, per ton hauled, etc. Then, last but not least, show how much fuel would be used per trip by the big 2-8-0, that gaudy E8, and by that lowly SW1 or 44-tonner.

I have a feeling people are going to be a little less unhappy about being handled by the little diesel once they see the efficiency factors involved.

And by the way, our British Rail Class 55 Deltics were routinely operated on one of their two engines in excursion line service, seeing both engines roaring only for special occasions or main line running. Admittedly, a 3300-hp twin-engine C-C diesel on a scenic British short line is like putting a GG1 on a streetcar line, or a 4-8-4 on switching duty......

lner4472@bcpl.net

> We have had good luck with coal as a very
> practical alternative to diesel fuel. Smells
> good too.

Good One.

Ironically Rudolph Diesel initially experimented with a "slurry" of coal dust when he was first developing the beast in the 19th century.Somehow I don't think you combust it in that manner.

I think I the method you use-when my back isn't hurting. Too bad I decided stepping under a 500 pound barbell was a useful exercise @ one time-but you don't think of stuff like that when you are young and "indestructible".



Superheater@rrmail.com

> We have had good luck with coal as a very
> practical alternative to diesel fuel. Smells
> good too.

It reminds me of something spray painted on the tender of 4-6-2 #5300, the President Washington at the B&O Museum during the oil crisis of the 1970's, "When Diesel Hits $5.00 a Gallon, I Shall Return."

I certainly do not approve of ANY vandalism, but I must admit that I smiled when I read it.

kevin.r.gillespie@verizon.net

Sierra RR in California has proposed using some of its numerous ex-BN GE B units to generate electricity, burning "bio-diesel", which I assume to be some sort of plant-derived fuel. They have a website with more info.

http://www.sierrarailroad.com/powertrain/index.html
ryarger@rypn.org