Q195/Q196 Going To Ohio

[¶aragraph]

q19628 had a similar runtime through Toledo as the ones through Lansing had, approx 15:30 runtime. Almost 5 hours to go from Walbridge to Carleton last night.

Appears Typhoon is correct though, and thank goodness, as Q19529 is Lansing routed today.

[sd70accsxt700]

i will spell it out again, for the new to the board people. The only places the fuel truck in Walbridge is allowed to fuel, are....

Southbound on #1 main VR Tower

Northbound on #1 main West End Yard D/Crandel Rd.

Old Main at Union St.

That is all, any train needing fuel will have to go via Fostoria, no matter what, as that is the only way to reach those areas. No areas on the Toledo Branch or Toledo Sub. There is no fueling done north of Walbridge, except at GR, none in the greater Detroit area (ie. Fliint, Plymouth ect). All train north must be fuled before heading north. Last place those units were probilly fuled at were Collingwood yard in Celeveland. With most van trains they fuel in both directions at Celeveland, and can make at least a Celeveland-NY one way trip if not both ways, and a Celeveland-Chicago round trip.

[sd70accsxt700]

q19628 had a similar runtime through Toledo as the ones through Lansing had, approx 15:30 runtime. Almost 5 hours to go from Walbridge to Carleton last night.

That is quite normal and usual for Q151 also. Q131 is called out of Livernois at 17:30 almost every night, and by 18:30 the Lincoln Secondary is keept clear for him unless someone was already occupying it before hand. So you are left with two options.

#1 is if the RN dispatcher, and Rouge yard can handel it, they can run it via Plymouth and on to Detroit that way "The long way", or

#2 you sit at Carlton taking one main out of service from Erie to Carleton, until Q131 comes south and clears the blocks.

#2 can take some time, especally if the train arrives at Carleton, not long after the crew of 131 has gone on duity. It can normaly take around 3 hours anyway to reach Carleton, and anywhere from a few minuets to four hours for 131 to clear.

[Typhoon]

And we have a winner! There is no real good place to fuel a train that runs Bates way.

It's hard to believe that the train would need to be refueled from Chicago. Or is fuel cheaper in Toledo compared to Chicago or Detroit?

59th st does not fuel locomotives. Bedford does not either, Barr and the BRC only if they really need too IIRC. I would be that the locos had not been fueled since Cleveland. Cleveland to Chicago, Chicago to Detroit, Detroit to Cleveland would be tough to due on one take of fuel. The RL had fun last night, Q151 called 1745, Q132 called at 1800 and Q196 called at 1930 all waiting for Q131......

[sd70accsxt700]

Sounds like another typical day on the only "single" double track in the world, if you know what I mean.

[CSX_CO]

59th st does not fuel locomotives. Bedford does not either, Barr and the BRC only if they really need too IIRC.

CSX isn't the only one. I've heard that Illinois charges a big tax on diesel fuel distributed (i.e. used) in Illinois. Hence the reason most of the big railroads don't fuel in Chicago (I don't believe the NS does much fueling at Decatur). With the opening of the mainline fuel pad in Cleveland, locomotives can do the pre-mentioned round trip on a single full tank. We fuel in Indy for anything headed east or west. Anything less than 3000 gallons gets topped off. No fuel trucks in Roselake, IL. Engines leave Avon fully serviced, and are usually able to make a round trip on a full tank.

More fire for the rumor mill is that Ohio has the lowest taxes, hence the reason everything gets fueled there.

Practice Safe CSX

[MSchwiebert]

This got me to thinking where conceivably the fuel truck could work on the Toledo Sub & Toledo Branch - and there really aren't that many good spots. For a northbound on the Toledo sub, Bates Road may work, if the train isn't too long to hang over White & Ford Roads (neighborhood complaints may be an issue too) On the Toledo Branch, one would think that a northbound could get "topped off" near the Oregon road crossing, there's no blocked crossing issues and being basically in an industrial park, having a truck around shouldn't be an issue - unless Owens Community College pitches a fit about it. However it is true that neither of these locations are as suitable as the existing ones at Walbridge. As for the tax issue, I don't know if Ohio is the lowest - but it has to be a lot lower than Illinois if the price differential on gasoline is similar.

[sd70accsxt700]

But neither of the places you mention have a road or easy "right next to" acess for a semi to pull up with in five or so feet and not have a hastle with trying to get into or out of.

[MSchwiebert]

Agreed, they were the "best" places I could think of - and they're not that good...

[csxt4617]

So if Q196 needs refueled going via Toledo, why doesn't it need it going via GR? Q195 I believe is scheduled for a fuel stop in GR. Q196 just stops for a quick recrew.

[JoJames]

And we have a winner! There is no real good place to fuel a train that runs Bates way.

It's hard to believe that the train would need to be refueled from Chicago. Or is fuel cheaper in Toledo compared to Chicago or Detroit?

59th st does not fuel locomotives. Bedford does not either, Barr and the BRC only if they really need too IIRC. I would be that the locos had not been fueled since Cleveland. Cleveland to Chicago, Chicago to Detroit, Detroit to Cleveland would be tough to due on one take of fuel. The RL had fun last night, Q151 called 1745, Q132 called at 1800 and Q196 called at 1930 all waiting for Q131......

Ok learn something new evreyday. I would think in the days and months to come someplace for fueling will be figured out on the Toledo sub and branch. It could be done lots of places south of the Toledo metro area. I do understand how the EPA has CSX under their thumb.

[hoborich]

What happened to the old way of just parking a tank car of diesel on a siding or spur next to the main?
Why don't they just build a short spur next to the main somewhere, and park a couple tanks of diesel there?

[sd70accsxt700]

What happened to the old way of just parking a tank car of diesel on a siding or spur next to the main?
Why don't they just build a short spur next to the main somewhere, and park a couple tanks of diesel there?

Tell me you are joking right?

[Raildudes dad]

What happened to the old way of just parking a tank car of diesel on a siding or spur next to the main?
Why don't they just build a short spur next to the main somewhere, and park a couple tanks of diesel there?

2 agencies, the EPA and the state EPA's which is the DNRE in MI. Read the requirements available on line for a fuel facility.

J&H could run a hose from their fuel rack to the tracks on the west end at Lamar in GR

[MSchwiebert]

This has certainly been an enlightening thread with a whole 'nother aspect of "why" the railroads do things the way they do that one would not think of right away.

[Typhoon]

Q19602 will run via Garrett for the curfew at Benton Harbor.

[hoborich]

What happened to the old way of just parking a tank car of diesel on a siding or spur next to the main?
Why don't they just build a short spur next to the main somewhere, and park a couple tanks of diesel there?

Tell me you are joking right?

No, I'm not joking. I have some photos of it being done that way at the Junction yard on the old NYC. Tank car on an adjacent track. Why can they fuel from a semi tanker driving up along side a locomotive, but not from a railcar? Makes no sense. A semi truck driving up along side a locomotive, is no more a "fueling facility", than a tank car on the next track. Either one could spill fuel. And a fuel spill in the middle of a train yard, is much less of a problem than a spill along a highway with drainage ditches into the nearest creek.

[Cinderpath]

What happened to the old way of just parking a tank car of diesel on a siding or spur next to the main?
Why don't they just build a short spur next to the main somewhere, and park a couple tanks of diesel there?

Tell me you are joking right?

No, I'm not joking. I have some photos of it being done that way at the Junction yard on the old NYC. Tank car on an adjacent track. Why can they fuel from a semi tanker driving up along side a locomotive, but not from a railcar? Makes no sense. A semi truck driving up along side a locomotive, is no more a "fueling facility", than a tank car on the next track. Either one could spill fuel. And a fuel spill in the middle of a train yard, is much less of a problem than a spill along a highway with drainage ditches into the nearest creek.

When I worked for BNSF in Klamath Falls, OR- we got all of our fuel via tank cars, and they still do there.