RailRoadFan.com

Went across the M-40 crossing in Marcellus night before last and saw a dim headlight to the west a 1/4 mile out. Signals showed a high green eastbound. GTW fills in with the rest of the info. Supposedly the eastbound local out of Olivers ran out of fuel on the single track tangent thru Marcellus no less and they had to run the westbound local light engine only to rescue it. Seems like somebody would have accountibility as to keeping track of fuel levels?

My guess is that there is either a faulty fuel gauge or a fuel pump issue. I can't see them actually running a loco out of fuel. If it really was out of fuel I wonder why they would have a run a rescue mission rather than run a load of diesel down to the location to fill it up. You would think they could have run a truckload of diesel to the location unless it was somehow on a bridge or inaccessible area.

It is a tad more complicated then just filling up the ol' fuel tank and starting a unit if it goes empty. You have to disassemble the fuel filters and fill those again and prime the pumps....at least that was the practice some years back. We had it happen on some BNSF coal power near New Buffalo...one of the filters clogged and starved the fuel system, shutting down the unit. Good thing the engineer was an ex GTW engine house guy. We took them apart, filled em and got it primed and running again. When the whole system is clear of fuel it would have been a lot more complicated....and that's why they really hate to run a unit out of fuel in the first place.
Now a daze, the units are sat-monitored for fuel, among other things....and usually have decent fuel gauges on the dashboard. Then again nothing is perfect.
So it goes.

The unit on the local showed 4200 gallons when they left Battle Creek the day before. The problem was, it still showed 4200 gallons the next day as they were leaving South Bend. Decided they’d try to make it back to BC, but they didn’t. They called a relief crew and gave them an SD40-2W and told them to go grab the dead L520 at Marcellus and bring them in. Problem was the SD40-2W was facing east and didn’t have ditch lights on the back. By the time they ran light power all the way out to Marcellus backwards at 20 mph, they could’ve gotten a fuel truck out there. Railroad logic!

Furthermore, the fuel guy doesn't have a truck manned and ready to go just in case an engine runs out. If I was in the situation, fuel gauge not working, I'd stick dip the tank before I "tried to make it". I was running a CPMY engine once, the 50 tonner. Had a 1/2 tank before we left. Coasted into Marne with neither engine running. Gauge still 1/2 full. Kicked the tank with my steel toed boot. Just a hollow boom. Called the driver (my wife lol) to taxi us back to get another engine:) .

Doktor No wrote:It is a tad more complicated then just filling up the ol' fuel tank and starting a unit if it goes empty. You have to disassemble the fuel filters and fill those again and prime the pumps....at least that was the practice some years back.....

Something to add to Doc's assessment & experiences...The diesel fuel is on a locomotive is also used to lubricate the fuel injectors while it is operating. If it loses that lubrication, the injector has to be replaced, usually at a cost starting around $10,000 & up per injector. I distinctly remember being told to not ever, under any circumstances, allow a loco to run out of fuel. We, as engineers, are required to report to the powers that be when a loco's fuel reading is at/below 1000 gallons of fuel, so that it can be set to get fueled up (they are considered empty at 250-300 gallons remaining). fueling a loco after running out isn't an option, as more damage can be done if the procedures that Doc and I have presented aren't followed...they (CN) did the right thing in calling a local to retrieve the fuel-starved unit

-barny

I am not really sure who told you that one, but that cant be further from the truth. Injectors are a common wear item, and top out around 200$ each.

- He who has run plenty of large engines out of fuel, taken the diesel bath getting the fuel back, and never once had to replace injectors because of it.

https://www.injectorsdirect.com/does-ru ... injectors/ My point about running out of fuel in a diesel...this is a truck vs a loco but the point is the same. Air into system. And yes, we were told, by RFE's and during engineer training (so I have been told) to NOT run out of fuel and injector damage from same. As to their price per injector or rather they RFE and instructors are incorrect??? I don't know cause I never had it happen nor have I bought any lately.
A lil Google search came up with all sorts of stuff...from microbes and water in diesel fuel to injector damage...

That article that doc posted is good, but has one line in it that makes me question the integrity of the whole thing. Anybody who has worked on anything with a fuel system should know that running a tank low does not cause the pump to suck junk off the bottom of the tank. All tanks pull from the bottom, either from a pickup tube or direct from the tank bottom. Running a GM diesel with unit injectors out of fuel is harder on the pump than the injector. It is not good for either but is not usually a show stopper. As far as refueling after running out, it should be a matter of filling the tank and the primary filter housing, run the fuel pump until you have pressure and light her up. My guess is all the other "fear" was used to drive the point home to not run out of fuel.
FYI, $10k is probably a close guess for an elctronic 20 cylinder EMD emergency replacement of all injectors.

I concur EW. Then again I guess it all depends on how much JUNK would be in the tank. The same engineer that I was with that day told of finding numerous rolls of TP in a fuel tank at one time. THAT clogged up the works rather well! There is also a biomass of algae that seems to love diesel fuel too. And water...I doubt if anyone at the engine house dumps a barrel of Sea Foam or Power Service into the tanks periodically.

12Bridge wrote:I am not really sure who told you that one, but that cant be further from the truth. Injectors are a common wear item, and top out around 200$ each.

- He who has run plenty of large engines out of fuel, taken the diesel bath getting the fuel back, and never once had to replace injectors because of it.

Well, I can tell you exactly "who told (me) that one"...it was a machinist/mechanic at the roundhouse of CSX's Cumberland facility, where they gave us instruction in their engineer's training program. He told us of how the fuel is used not just for powering the engine, but also for cooling and lubricating the fuel injector's vital moving parts, on its way toward the port for combustion. Running the loco dry causes those injectors to heat up and wear significantly faster (and even seize), just like an engine does without oil. That is why CSX has a rule of ALWAYS reporting an engine when the fuel gets below 1000 gallons...to prevent this from occurring. Because I remember this vividly (though it was over 20 years ago), I will take his word over your opinion every day and twice on Sunday.

As for your "...running plenty of engines out of fuel...", I call into question your handling of engines... a good engineer monitors or checks everything when taking charge of locomotives, especially when performing calendar-day inspections on them...

Says he who has NEVER run an engine out of fuel!

-barny

heard the same thing from the Amtrak engineer school in Wilmington (twice in 8 years---but who's counting ).....our people get nervous when the tanks on the P42s' show less than 500 gallons....occasionally will get a hiccup ....knowing that can't be good on the engine

barnstormer wrote:

12Bridge wrote:I am not really sure who told you that one, but that cant be further from the truth. Injectors are a common wear item, and top out around 200$ each.

- He who has run plenty of large engines out of fuel, taken the diesel bath getting the fuel back, and never once had to replace injectors because of it.

As for your "...running plenty of engines out of fuel...", I call into question your handling of engines... a good engineer monitors or checks everything when taking charge of locomotives, especially when performing calendar-day inspections on them...

Says he who has NEVER run an engine out of fuel!

-barny

I don't handle engines. I fix the stuff after it gets broken.

There is a reason most mechanical guys don't get along with T&E.

Buster Manning wrote:heard the same thing from the Amtrak engineer school in Wilmington (twice in 8 years---but who's counting ).....our people get nervous when the tanks on the P42s' show less than 500 gallons....occasionally will get a hiccup ....knowing that can't be good on the engine

Ahh, yes....I recall working with an engineer long ago (when we had CP trains) and he & I were called for an X501XX to Chicago. It was parked west of Ivanrest and cut, awaiting us to board, put it back together, and take "em west. Well, as per standard procedure, all X501's were fueled at the west end of the main or service track near Lamar, then recrewed and departed. The engineer I was working with figured that, with the train west of Ivanrest, it had been refueled, and therefore didn't check the fuel gauges prior to departure. 10-1/2 hours later, as we approached CP Ridge on the IHB, he noticed some fluctuation in the engine's performance, then looked at the gauge....300 gallons!....and immediately notified the dispatcher of the need to refuel pronto. Boy, did they hit the roof! The dispatcher ask me how many miles per gallon this type engine gets; I chuckled as I told him he's mistaken, he should be asking how many gallons/mile it consumes! We were running out of time, and would be recrewed at Norpaul, south of B-12. They must have called a yard crew off of their assignment to drag it in...before it went dry!

I remember being told that 250-300 gallons was considered "running on fumes" for a loco, (an SD-40) so we heard about it later, but that was all....thankfully.

12Bridge wrote:I don't handle engines. I fix the stuff after it gets broken.

There is a reason most mechanical guys don't get along with T&E.

I got to work with several machinists/mechanics -- back when I was a hostler at the "barn"...great group of guys, and really miss working with them (they closed down the shops here awhile back ) and had a chance to do things most other engineers don't experience...fueling, sanding, cleaning, learning how to remove/replace some parts of the brake system, filters.....mostly small stuff, but interesting for someone who is mechanically-inclined....
those were good days!

(those mechanics/machinists in Toledo really were a cut above, as the cab would be cleaned, set-up properly (more-so than other places) with mints and a signed process-complete card on the console, indicating the pride they took in their work preparing your units for departure...

-barny

barnstormer wrote:

12Bridge wrote:I am not really sure who told you that one, but that cant be further from the truth. Injectors are a common wear item, and top out around 200$ each.

- He who has run plenty of large engines out of fuel, taken the diesel bath getting the fuel back, and never once had to replace injectors because of it.

Well, I can tell you exactly "who told (me) that one"...it was a machinist/mechanic at the roundhouse of CSX's Cumberland facility, where they gave us instruction in their engineer's training program. He told us of how the fuel is used not just for powering the engine, but also for cooling and lubricating the fuel injector's vital moving parts, on its way toward the port for combustion. Running the loco dry causes those injectors to heat up and wear significantly faster (and even seize), just like an engine does without oil. That is why CSX has a rule of ALWAYS reporting an engine when the fuel gets below 1000 gallons...to prevent this from occurring. Because I remember this vividly (though it was over 20 years ago), I will take his word over your opinion every day and twice on Sunday.

As for your "...running plenty of engines out of fuel...", I call into question your handling of engines... a good engineer monitors or checks everything when taking charge of locomotives, especially when performing calendar-day inspections on them...

Says he who has NEVER run an engine out of fuel!

-barny

I've been pretty quiet on this but I've got in on pretty good authority that the fuel gauges were bad ordered, and had probably been showing the same amount of fuel in it all week...With several different engineers reporting at different times, to different yardmasters/trainmasters that it had XXXX amount of fuel. Since it was rarely the same engineer talking to the same supervisor nobody put 2 and 2 together until it was too late and the engine was already out of town on fumes.

barnstormer wrote:The dispatcher ask me how many miles per gallon this type engine gets; I chuckled as I told him he's mistaken, he should be asking how many gallons/mile it consumes!

Three or four gallons per mile isn't the number the PR department wants to promote.
Moving over 470 tons one mile with one gallon of fuel is a better headline (although a little confusing).
CSX estimates 134 ton miles per gallon for semi-trucks.
I move 49 tons one mile consuming one gallon with my passenger vehicle (including vehicle weight).