FUEL CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS. A Report Prepared by the Locomotive Technology Task Force Of the Next Generation Equipment Committee

Transcription

1 FUEL CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS A Report Prepared by the Locomotive Technology Task Force Of the Next Generation Equipment Committee September 8, 2011

2 The Locomotive Technology Task Force was asked by the Technical Subcommittee to quantify fuel consumption for different motive power top speeds. In other words, How much more fuel is used to traverse a route when the top speeds are 110 and 125 as opposed to 90 mph. To answer this, the following problem statement was provided to manufacturers on the Task Force. PROBLEM STATEMENT The requested results were: 1. Fuel consumption (gallons) for each of the six different conditions listed under Variables. 2. (optional): Speed vs. Distance graph for one set of 90/110/125 speed combinations. The conditions were: 1. Single diesel locomotive, assume flat-front, pulling five, 85-foot smoothsided bi-level passenger cars weighing 170,000 lbs. each. 2. Track profile: tangent, level Class 7 track. Starting at MP0, stations are at MP20, MP80 and MP No wind kw HEP Variables: 1. Top Speed of 90, 110 and 125 mph. 2. Tier III and Tier IV diesel engine. RESPONSES Three manufacturers provided answers. No responses were provided for a Tier IV engine, but all engines at least met EPA Tier III emission requirements. Two responses included motive power with which a single unit was unable to reach 125 mph; to reach 125 mph one respondent added a second locomotive and another reduced the number of cars from five to three. The tables on the next page summarize the data received. Table 1 contains fuel used data. One respondent provided steady-state fuel use at the different top speeds; that data is contained in the three right-most columns. Table 2 contains distance and mileage information. ANALYSIS Table 3 compares fuel use for the three 1 locomotive/5 car responses. The fuel use for 4 was adjusted as described in the note under the table. Page 2

3 Table 4 compares fuel use for the three responses for which a top speed of 125 mph was achieved. Note that the number of cars and locomotives varies among the three responses. While the tables all include actual values for the responses provided, the important factor for this study was the relative increase in fuel use as the top speed of the locomotive increased. There is a 27% increase in fuel use when the top speed goes from 90 to 110 mph. for a train with 1 locomotive/5 cars (Table 3). Despite the differences in numbers of locomotives and cars in the three cases shown in Table 4, the increase in fuel use when the top speed goes from 90 to 110 mph is essentially identical to that calculated in Table 3. Fuel use increases 28%. The fuel use at a top speed of 125 mph is 50% above that used when the top speed is 90 mph. CONCLUSIONS It comes as no surprise that a higher top speed burns more fuel. Fuel use increases up to 28% with a top speed of 110 mph than for a comparable trip with a top speed of 90 mph. The closeness of this result in both Table 3 and Table 4 is noteworthy given the adjustments required for one of the responses in each table. Fuel use increases by up to 50% with a top speed of 125 mph than a comparable trip with a top speed of 90 mph. The fuel consumption increase over 110 mph to achieve 125 mph is 17%. Note that the actual fuel consumption values varied among respondents, and Table 1 shows how the need to add a second locomotive to the consist increased fuel use. Further, each of the responses represents a specific vehicle in a manufacturer s inventory; fuel use rates of different locomotives that have the same rated could even be different. Further, actual fuel use on a different 90-mile profile would be different than these results. Fuel use/top speed is just one factor a potential rail operator must consider, but most of the other factors are beyond the scope of the LTTF, e.g., revenue increases as the total trip time decreases, variations in track and equipment maintenance costs as the top speeds vary, etc. Nevertheless, for a given route profile, the percentage increases in fuel use determined in this exercise should be very similar. Page 3

4 TABLE 1 Fuel Use (gallons) at steady speed (mph) for one hour na na TABLE 2 Distance (miles) to reach top speed (mph) Time (mins) to travel profile na na na na na na na na na na na na na na Table 3 (1 Locomotive/5 ) na * 167* na Average Fuel Use (gal) na *Estimated by taking reported steady state fuel use and adjusting for average time to traverse profile. Table 4 (Able to Reach 125 mph) * 137* 165* Average Fuel Use (gal) *Estimated by taking reported steady state fuel use and adjusting for average time to traverse profile. Page 4

5 Members of Task Force The following individuals were members of the PRIIA Locomotive Technology Task Force as of the date of this report. Al Bieber (STV, Inc.) Richard Brilz (MotivePower) Richard Chudoba (Electro-Motive) Michael Coltman (Volpe NTSC) Robert Doyle (Progress Rail Services) Steve Fretwell (CalTrans) Greg Gagarin (Amtrak) Jeff Gordon (Volpe NTSC) Heinz Hofmann (Siemens AG) Kevin Kesler (FRA-Office of Safety, R&D) James Klaus (Cummins) Michael Latour (Siemens AG) John Madden (NYSDOT) Jack Martinson (Bombardier Transp.) Curtis McDowell (NC-DOT) Jim Michel (Marsh USA) John Pannone (EAO Corp.) Allan Paul (NC-DOT) Charles Poltenson (NYSDOT) John Punwani (FRA-Office of Safety, R&D) Lutz Schwendt (Bombardier Transp.) Melissa Shurland (FRA-Office of Safety, R&D) Gagan Sood (GE Transportation Sys.) Phil Strong (P S Consulting) Graciela Trillanes (GE Transportation Sys.) Mike Trosino (Amtrak) Dave Ward (Siemens AG) David Warner, Chairman (Amtrak) David Watson (GE Transportation Systems) Bruce Wolff (MTU) Disclaimer The views, opinions, conclusions, recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors themselves and do not represent the policy or position of their respective employers or the Section 305 Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC) or any of its officers or members. (adopted 1/3/2012) Page 5