Interesting Article on Locomotive Oil Usage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
5,769
Location
Lakeville, MN
From Trains Magazine, February 2003 issue, in the Ask Trains section: (Bold type is my comments)

It's time to get the oil changed in my car again, so I wonder, how often do railroads change oil in locomotives? What is the interval before service is required, and how is it measured, in miles, hours or days? - Neil Seely, Rochester, N.Y

Lubricating oil almost never wears out, but it does beome contaminated and its chemical aditives depleted. Cars use such a small amount of oil it makes more economic sense to change it. Locomotives use large quantities of lube oil, so it is replenished. Locomotive oil filters are changed regularly, usually the same time the locomotive undergoes a Federal Railirad Administration mandated periodic inspection.

Oil filters for an SD40-2, the most common locomotive ever built, has a V-16 diesel, 645 ci displacement per cylinder, or roughly 169 Liters for the entire engine) for example, are typically changed during the FRA 92-day inspection. Newer engines have better filter media, bigger filters, and oil has been improved too, all in pusuit of less downtime for maintinence. The SD70M has doubled the filter change interval to 180 days.

Oil is contaminated by three things: fuel, from leaking in or fuel lines; water, primarily from coolant leaks; and solid particles, mostly soot from incomplete combustion blowing by the piston rings.

Railroads regulary analyze lube oil with a spectrograph in a laboratory. The presence or absence of substances in the oil shoes many things, such as fuel contamination or incipient main bearing failure. On this basis, the oil might be changed, but more typically the cause of the contamination is diagnosed and resolved.

As mentioned above, diesel locomotives consume large quantities of lube oil - 25 to 30 gallons per week in heavy service, practically all of it left in a thin film on the upper cylinder walls as the piston scrapes downwards, then consumed in combustion. So the oil is in effect changing itself constantly. The fuel contamination evaporates off or is combusted, the water evaporates, and the solid particles are removed by the filters. Every engine will have some raw fuel in its oil from blow-by, but unless there are a lot of solid contaminants for it to adhere to it will be evaporated.

Adding oil is a maintinence item, so in the 1970's most railroads started specifying increased lube oil capacities. The lube oil capacity of a "basic oil pan" SD40-2 is 243 gallons, whereas an "increased capacity oil pan" is 395 gallons. That extends the oil replenishment interval from once every 15 days to once every 60 days for an SD40-2.

Oil is reglarly "sweetened" with chemical additives, based on laboritory analysis:
-detergents to consolidate solids so they are large enough to be caught by the filters
-anti-corrosives because fuel contains trace amounts of sulphur which becomes sulphuric acid during combustion
-Ph-mediators to maintain the acid-base balance of the oil and limit galvanic corrosion of the many metals that make up a diesel engine.

There is a little more to the story, but it mostly junk a locomotive fan would care about. The quantities of lubes we use seem to pale in comparison to these beasts!
 
"has a V-16 diesel, 645 ci displacement per cylinder, or roughly 169 Liters for the entire engine"
And I always got a grin from ear to ear every time I saw a 454ci in Chevelle SS's. Holy cow!!
shocked.gif
645ci per cylinder!! I think I saw a piston from a locomotive once...weird after always seeing auto pistons.
 
Yep, a little different league of engines! Funny when a connecting rod looks like a tennis racket! Redline is around 950 rpm or so. Kind of scary to think of all that metal spinning around!
smile.gif
The SD40-2 engine will put out about 3200 hp, and a torque number you don't even want to think about.

The newest generation of engines in locomotives now put out 6000-6600 hp. This out of an engine that is roughly a 263 L engine!
shocked.gif


[ January 08, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: MNgopher ]
 
Those 6000 HP units are a pain in the ___.
Most of the locomotives built in North America are between 3800 and 4400 HP.
The big HP models look impressive on paper, but in reality putting more traction to the rail is more of a challange than just building the most HP.
The GE 4-strokes handle trains differently than the snappy 2-stroke GMs.
I like to have either one or the other type on a train, not a mix.
Jennifer Lopez+ Robert Redford (Jenny from the block and the Sundance Kid) were filiming to-night in Ashcroft, BC, 50 feet from the tracks when I went by their site with 3 GM 710-16s in WOT.
 
Let me guess - a little more of the set the throttle, wait a bit for the engine controls to decide what to do, and then go on the GE's instead of the more instantaneous response?

I'm sure the sound guys loved your performance for the filming!

Over my lunch hour I usually eat luch at spot where the old Wisconsin Central (now CN - Wisconsin Central Division) runs a few trains through. It's going to be sad when the 20 cylinder SD45's don't come by anymore. Put those babys in setting 8 and feel the ground shake!
 
MNG; Do you still have that big pro wrestler for Gov?
It sounds like you know a little about Loco's.
Most of the 20-645s ave been toned down from their original 3600 or 3800 HP rating back to 3000HP.
I think we on CPR have about 15 of the SD45s, re-painted SOO LINE engines.
Those engines sound like they are doing far more work than they actually are.
Truckers will tell ya that is typical of JIMMIES.
CP had their heads up their.......I mean in the sand when they let that WC deal slip to CN.
I'm a little pi$$3d at CP right now, we need to run bigger and longer trains to ease congestion.
This stuck in the 60s 6900 ft max, 18,000 ton max is getting old in a hurry.
I want 30,000 tons westward and 13,000 ft eastward.
They need to make me CEO, I'll get this place rockin'.
 
Well, Jesse "the Mind is a terrible thing to waste" Ventura is no longer our Governor. I'll admit it - I voted for him. I was actually pretty pleased with his performance in years 1-3 as he did make some good reforms. Unfortuantely, his tendency for "my way or the highway" was partially to blame for the state getting into the financial mess we're in now. Basically he refused to be a part of the process or show any leadership so we ended up setting budgets that even had the economy not gone south we never could have kept up the spending... Oh well, enough ranting...

Yeah, I know a little bit about loco's. My Grandfather was an engineer for a little transfer outfit here in the Twin Cities. Got me interested in trains at a very young age!

If I remember right, the SD45's got downrated mainly to protect the crankshaft from breaking and to lower fuel consumption since they were thirsty! It used to be we would see WC taking a 100+ car coal train from UP, and hitching their own set of locos to it - usually about 5 SD45s - talk about making a racket! From a railfan point of view, nothing like a lot of noise or smoke (The little short line here has a fleet of old Alco's - talk about smoke!)

Nowadays its all runthrough power - usually an UP SD9043MAC and an AC4400W unit paired. One of the 6000 hp units was on the point once, but that's the only one I've ever seen.

The goofy deal about CN/WC here in the Twin Cities is that their run into the Twin Cities is on CP track! CN/WC has trackage rights - but no through traffic - only traffic that is going to end up in Wisconsin goes through. CP basically never uses the track except for when other lines are flooded by the big Mississippi.
Go figure?
 
MNG;
I always make lotsa racket for the rail fans.
Too see a part of my run, search for CISCO BRIDGE
Both CN and CP trains run westward on CN, eastward on CP. About 40 each way per day.
 
userfriendly, so the big new 6000 hp locomotives are over-rated? Are 2- stroke engines more responsive? If so, why do they not stick with the 2 -stroke? Is the 2-stroke still being built?
 
Mys..
GM's EMD still produces 2-strokes up to 4300 hp.
They are a bigger version of the 3000HP 16-645 at 710 CI/cyl.
The 2-stroke engines provide better throttle response, but use a little more fuel and are suited to fast frieght service like double stack container trains. Get on and get going.
The 4-stroke GEs seem to pull heavy loads like coal trains with more ease.
I would like to see what GMs 4300 HP 2-stroke in a GE frame would act like.
The 4400 HP models can pull the same weight as a 6000 hp engine, but not as fast. Traction is the limiting factor 90% of the time and not the locomotive's HP.
The old 3000 hP SD40s could only put 3000 HP to the rails down to 12.5 MPH.
The new 4300 HP GMs can put 4300 HP to the rails down to 9.2 MPH before spinning the wheels.
NOw if your content climbing a hill at 9.2 MPH instead of 12.5, the new 4300 HP models can pull almost double of that of the 3000 HP locomotives.
Lets say a 18,000 ton train only needed 2000 hp to maintain 9.2 mph on straight flat track.
Get out your calculators and figure out how much HP that train would need to climb a 1% grade.
Hint: One hp is the working rate that can lift 33,000 lbs one foot in one minute.
 
For easy math on the above question, lets assume the train is travelling at 15MPH, or 1320FT every minute.
The horsepower to propell that train on level straight track is 2500 Hp@ 15 MPH.
On a 1% grade (one foot climbed for every 100 feet travelled) the train will climb 13.2 feet every minute.
The train weighs 18,000 tons including the locomotives, or 36 million LBS.
The answer is: the HP required to lift 36 million lbs 13.2 feet in one minute, plus 2500HP.
 
One other thought on the big 6000 hp units is this:

In many cases, we've cut the number of locomotives required to move a train at an acceptable rate to two 4000+ hp units per train. The 6000 hp unit by itself isn't quite enough, meaning it still has to match up with something else, kind of negating the benefit the 6000 hp was supposed to get you, unless you start running bigger, longer, heavier trains, which brings in a whole slew of infrastucture issues.

Or, do you set the train out with one 6000 hp locomotive? What happens if that engine dies? At least with two locomotives you can generally do something if one dies - like limp into a siding somewhere.

Only CP seems to like running trains with one loco up front around here. Everyone else likes to run at least two.
 
The 6000HP models will not start and move a heavier train than a 4400 HP locomotive will, but in single unit applications on lighter faster trains.....Well lets say there lies a difference of opinion between the "train design management team" cough cough, and the old "critical mass" railroaders like myself.
When a single unit train #@%!*&-up, traffic jams immeadiatly insue and leaves one to wonder the logic.
Your infrastructure comment is right on MNG, the railroads are always trying to put 10 LBS of $h1t in a 5 lb bag.
 
What most people don't realize is that these engines are really Electric Generators operating Electric drive motors.
Our local railroad has about 1200 liters per oil change, but (probably from the lousy oil they use) they have to add 120 liters every 1200 km. So they change every 8 months or 80,000 km. With what they add every day, they are getting an oil change every few days.
 
I grew up in Grove city Pennsylvania, the home of Cooper Bessemer.
The smaller diesel engines they built went into the GE locomotives.
They also build some engines that you needed to watch you step
when walking on them or you might fall down the bore. I think GE
now has their own plant there to build their own engines.

As you drive around the area, it is common to see a connecting rod
serving as a mail box post. I think the vandals stay clear of them.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MNgopher:

The newest generation of engines in locomotives now put out 6000-6600 hp. This out of an engine that is roughly a 263 L engine!
shocked.gif


Hmmm....a top fuel engine puts out that much power, but can you say stress? I'm sure some of you have seen a top fuel or funny car run.....the sound/noise is just out of this world.....you can feel your brains vibrate from hundreds of feet away and they are limited to 500ci or so. Simply amazin.
Rick
 
quote:

Originally posted by userfriendly:
Will four 4300 HP (NET) locomotives be able to perform the above task?

Just barely. What are the primary drag components of a train at speed? In normal speed/distance/power calcs. air resistance is a primary factor; at low speeds drag will tend to be more linear. So in your example of requiring 2500 hp to maintain 15 mph, how much hp to maintain say 10 mph?
Mike
 
Mike;
Just barely is how we make money on the RR. The old speed squared formula applies to power requirement.
Once moving, 2 men can keep a 130 ton car rolling, or about 1/2 HP.
To answer your question, yes fuel consumption increases dramatically with increased speed.
By out guessing the train traffic around me, I can save 200 gallons of fuel over 125 miles by keeping my speed down and eliminating stops.
Average fuel consumption on my run for a 18,000 ton train is 650 IMP gallons or around 3000 litres.
I'm finally home after being evacuated for a week due to forest fires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top