Question for "diesel guys" (re: fuel)

"Diesel guys" means mechanics or anyone who knows more about it than I do. (Which could be dang near anyone. )

One of our state senators wants to create a law that "would limit the time a train could idle to 30 minutes and require trains to upgrade their fuel to a type that would make them more efficient and less noisy for nearby residents."
Okay, plugging-in a diesel locomotive so it doesn't have to idle has been done for years, but does such a fuel exist? If so, how does the price per gallon compare to "plain" diesel fuel? I can envision the "more efficient" part, but the "less noisy" idea does not compute.
Thanks for any insight.

I saw that in the paper and was wondering the same thing. One option would be to email the good senator and ask him to clarify what he meant. It's entirely possible that the reporter misinterpreted what he was saying... and it's also possible that he was talking about replacing diesel with overhead wire. Who knows. It can't hurt to ask!

Good idea. Misunderstandings happen. (Didja notice I didn't mention politicians, reporters, truth and accuracy all in the same sentence? I think I'm getting better at not saying stuff like that out loud. )

Electrifying the line and using some of that good Maine tidal or offshore wind power to supply it could be kinda cool.

Watchman318 wrote:......I can envision the "more efficient" part, but the "less noisy" idea does not compute.
Thanks for any insight.

Sounds like yet another case of a politician with a liberal arts background attempting to legislate technology.

A couple points:

1 - Diesel engine efficiency is primarily a function of engine design. There simply exists no fuel which will measurably improve a diesel engine's thermal efficiency.

2 - With current federally-mandated locomotive exhaust silencers, at idle most of the noise emitted by a modern diesel locomotive comes from the auxiliaries - cooling fans, traction motor blowers, air compressors, rectifier/inverters, pneumatic spit valves, etc. The prime mover itself creates very little noise. (Why do you suppose bells are universally fitted to diesel locomotives??)

Perhaps your senator is confusing exhaust emissions with noise? Shutting down the prime mover and connecting to the grid indeed reduces emissions from the locomotive. But it accomplishes this by INCREASING emissions at a distant power plant - perhaps located in another state.

With all due respect, your esteemed senator is an idiot(!)

...FB

Thanks, Bob. I was fairly certain the senator had no clue, but I wanted to confirm my suspicion.
I live about 30 miles away from that town with the Downeaster idling complaints, so I have a different idiot for my senator.
Another town on the line seems to be having some NIMBY activity now about horn noise, so I'm sure the senator or some other politician will have to "horn in" on that, too. Apparently some of the giddiness about new tourism business is being displaced by concerns that one of the hotels will have to buy earplugs for their guests. (Waaaaaaaaah.)
Pass a bill, make it happen. "Handle it, handle it." At least we might someday get the plug-in power from hydro or offshore wind, although the latter is still a ways off.

BTW, my most recent Amtrip was out to your neck of the woods, back in '94. (I kinda hate to say it's been that long since I rode Amtrak.) An old buddy of mine was living in Fairport (Bushnell's Basin), and I went out for his wedding. I brought along my portable VHF radio, and found that the Monroe County fire dispatch frequency was the same as my county's frequency. That was when I learned it's pronounced CHĪ-lī out there.
At one point during the wedding, a Conrail freight rolled past the back yard where the ceremony was being held.
Fun in the sun.

Same thing - NIMBY's b*tching about train horns, etc - goes on here. People build hideously expensive McMansion's on lots where the railroad literally passes thru their back yards. The moment they take up residence they begin to complain the railroad and the town about the noise, the speed of the trains, etc.

Fortunately these complaints pretty much fall on deaf ears. Officials must remind them the trains have been running here since 1880's when the area was still a rural wilderness; disgruntled homeowners are essentially (and appropriately!) without recourse.

Watchman318 wrote:....An old buddy of mine was living in Fairport (Bushnell's Basin), and I went out for his wedding. I brought along my portable VHF radio, and found that the Monroe County fire dispatch frequency was the same as my county's frequency. That was when I learned it's pronounced CHĪ-lī out there.

Chī-lī indeed(!)

Watchman318 wrote:At one point during the wedding, a Conrail freight rolled past the back yard where the ceremony was being held.

Reminds me of an outdoor wedding we attended in Rhinebeck NY last summer. Twice the ceremony got interrupted by the arrival/departure of Amtrak trains. Then during the reception we were treated to a long - and rather fragrant - northbound trash train.

Fortunately most of the guests took it all in stride.

...FB

...upgrade their fuel to a type that would make them more efficient...

<snikker> :D sadly, it's all too likely this is the actual language used.
"Efficient" is one of the most frequently abused words in public discourse.

Yep. And "for the guy who doesn't actually have to do it, no task seems impossible." <eye-rolling smiley goes here>

Sounds like your state senator is looking to solve a problem that doesn't really need solving. I'm sure railroads don't need any legislation to further motivate them to save fuel (I really think that's funny!)

But, most if not all newer locomotives have various fuel saving devices already installed. Basically, the engines shuts down after a period of time (anywhere from 5-10 minutes) after the engine stops and goes to idle. The system restarts the engine when certain criteria are met: throttle goes to power, air pressure drops, engine temperature drops.

Engineers get criticized from management all the time if we don't comply with fuel conservation guidelines.

10more years wrote:Sounds like your state senator is looking to solve a problem that doesn't really need solving. I'm sure railroads don't need any legislation to further motivate them to save fuel (I really think that's funny!)

I think his motivation is to placate the voters--I mean constituents--who are complaining about noise and vibration from idling locomotives, more so than anything about fuel efficiency or even about air pollution.

Railroad management is probably as aware as anyone who buys fuel (and maybe more aware than some automobile owners seem to be) that an idling vehicle is getting 0.0 miles-per-gallon.

The whole thing might be some kind of "Before we bought this house, the real estate agent told us there would never be trains on this line any more" thing.
Well, now isn't that special . . .