Life support is heavy

[bellinghman]

Inspired by a post by major_clanger, it's interesting to note fuel consumption for crossing Canada.

On the way out, The Canadian train from Toronto to Vancouver: 72,000 litres of diesel.
On the way back, WestJet 737-700 from Vancouver to Montreal (which is further): 13,000 litres of jet fuel.

The 737 carries 140 passengers.
I'm under the impression that The Canadian carries about 250 passengers in total, though I can't actually find figures.

Conclusion: per passenger mile, extreme long distance trains can end up burning more fuel than planes, due to the train carrying along bunk beds, showers, kitchens, etc., etc.

Edit: crazyscot pointed out some corrections, with most importantly the plane drinking about half what I'd assumed.

Comments

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

The fuel consumption comes from the two locos (each quite heavy itself, of course) each having a 6000 litre tank, and 6 fuelling stops.

There is a point that could be raised about how empty those tanks are when refilling is required, but if it could do it on 4 stops, say, then why refill 6 times?

I do think it's an example of the worst possible performance for a train. Why it appears quite that thirsty, I can't say, though I suspect the locos are optimised for pulling power rather than speed: some of the freight trains coming the other way were a mile long, with only a pair of locos pulling, so it may be that the whole train was vastly overgeared.

(For speed, it's limited to 70 mph top speed.)

[timill]

http://www.oetr.on.ca/oetr/uploads%5CNIC%5C201%5C2009A%5C201_2009A_supprt4.pdf has some fuel consumption figures for VIA Rail's F40PHs. In particular, Table 5 has a consumption figure of 208.8 litres/hour, which would suggest 40,000 litres for 2 locos for 100 hours.

OTOH, this appears to be based (Table 12) on a duty cycle of (approx) 50% idle, 20% Notch 1 (min non-idle), 20% Notch 8 (max) and 10% other powers, and probably reflects time stabled between trips as well as time on the road with a train.

Indeed, FIgure 1 suggests about 500litres/hour for a loco producing 3000HP (the F40PH's rated power).

So I'd guess that 50-60,000 litres would be about right.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

To support passenger service, the F40PH is equipped with a secondary electrical generator known as the head end generator. The HEP unit generates three-phase AC power at 480 v AC 750 A or about 500 kW to provide power to the cars for lighting, heating, and air conditioning. Because head end power must be delivered to the rest of the trainset at a constant frequency, the prime mover in these locomotives must turn at a constant high speed (900 rpm) while delivering head end power (even if the locomotive is standing still). Power to the traction motors is controlled by varying the field excitation of the main (traction) generator.

So the engine basically runs full speed all the time, unless the whole train is turned off. That's not going to help efficientcy at all.

[timill]

Full speed, but not full load.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Yes. Still, there's going to be all that friction internal to the engine.

Hmm, I wonder if the use of twin engines means that the one of the two doesn't have to do this.

[vatine]

I suspect they're running on one engine at a time under "no load". The one larger ship (a cruise ferry on the Stockholm-Helsinki route) that I've looked inside more closely (A Silja Line ship, can't remember the exact ship, though) had four massively huge 12 cylinder diesels, running between 1 and 4 constantly, at the peak-efficiency RPM, driving one or two generators through gearboxes.

As I understand it, they run on a single engine while docked, one engine on each generator while at sea, but having the option of pulling more power if they need it. They also have accumulator banks for produced, but not used, electricity.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Does the train stop to take on other supplies, change staff, etc? Perhaps it is just routine to top off the tanks when the train is doing so.

For one thing, again, a class 43's fuel tank is 4,500 litres (again, in each of two locomotives). If I were designing a locomotive with eight times the fuel consumption, I'd probably put in a fuel tank more than 4/3 as big, especially if I were expecting it to run on the very long distances in very empty areas in Western Canada.

Wikipedia conveniently has a picture of two EMD F40PHs pulling The Canadian in 2005, and tells me that they are diesel-electric locomotives intended for passenger use, so I don't think the theory that they are using vastly overspecified goods locos holds water. Their Wikipedia page also contains no indication that they are grossly inefficient.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

We were told that the drivers work 8 hour shifts, and are changed for a new set after that shift. At such times, the train stops to let them off. (The drivers then wait for the next train to come through (2 days later) before then doing their next shift.)

So there are 10 stops for driver changes. All other crew are based out of Winnipeg, with staff working non-stop out to Vancouver and back, or to Toronto and back, and living on the train. Any particular employee works one side or the other of the country, on a 6 days on, 8 days off shift pattern.

I do wonder whether the fact the carriages are 1955 vintage stainless steel makes them much heavier than modern ones would be. The outside surfaces did feel pretty damn solid, with no sign of any denting or distorion after half a century's use.