Re: Fuel efficiencies of 422s

[craigd@lios.apana.org.au (C. Dewick)]

mdaly@pcug.org.au (Maurie Daly) writes:

>Its also not consistant with previous 422 performance.
>In the days of the SOP and Daylight, during the week these trains were quite 
>often hauled by 1 422 all the way from Sydney to Melb with loads of up to 12 
>cars (600 tonnes ).
>This gives fuel efficiencies of around 8 litres / trailing 1000 tonnes/km  , a 
>much more believeable figure.

Remember that between Parkes and Broken Hill trains have (or at least had)
to stop every 50 km or so to change the staff over. Replacing all the
kinetic energy in hundreds of tonnes of train after coming to a stand would
use a very large ammount of fuel, and this would give much higher overall
fuel consumption figures compared to other routes of similar length were
trains don't have to stop at interlockings for any reason other than
passenger set down or pick up locations.

>Although it never used 422s the Brisbane Express during the week also ran with 
>1 44 all the way from Sydney to Sth Brisbane with loads of up to 12 cars ,(600 
>tonnes), which gives fuel efficiency of 9 litres / trailing 1000 tonnes/km.
>Given the shocking alignment of the Nth Coast line I can beleive this figure 
>also.

That must have been pre-electrification because electric locos were usually
always used to Broadmeadow after the overhead power made it to Newcastle.

Something else to consider is cross-winds, which on the Nth Coast branch
line were probably never an issue, but all you'd need is a crosswind of
small velocity in a direction more than few degrees out from the alignment
of the train to produce serious drag. With the land being so flat beyond
Parkes a strong crosswind would cause huge ammounts of drag.

>As a comparison the IP with a single NR with a max load of 900 tonnes can get 
>from Sydney to Adelaide on a single tank of fuel with no risk of running out.
>This works out at around 6 litres / trailing 1000 tonnes/km, also a very 
>belieable figure.

Not wanting to play devil's advocate, but it's quite possible that someone
might have slipped and put an extra factor of ten (another zero) on the
figures that have caused all the concern...

>Now its reasonable to expect that a 4 stroke diesel engined loco like an NR 
>will be more fuel efficient than a 422, but not by a factor of 4 to 1. 

It's more like to 2:1 actually.

Regards,

Craig.
--
            Craig Ian Dewick            |       Stand clear - jaws closing
 Send email to craigd@lios.apana.org.au |  Visit my Australian rail transport
   Professional Train Driver, Cityrail  |      and rail modelling web site:
       and HO scale rail modeller       |   http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd