Yeah, that ought to work!

[MurphOnMillerAve]

...
As I understand it, steam locomotives were purpose built for a single job....

So, when, as a boy, during the 1940s - 50's, I saw and could reach out and touch steam locomotives going in and out of the U.S. Steel, National Tube Works, mill in McKeesport, PA, as the tracks to access the mill ran diagonally across the main shopping streets of town, that those semi-big locomotives were built for that specific purpose, more or less, to get resources in and product out of the mill? I can still smell them and feel the grease as I ran my fingers across their sides. They made me feel small, of course, but they were fun to get so close to and feel the breathing.
Here: (the tracks going into the mill are being removed in this shot. It's that railing my father let me lean against so I could touch the engines going by)....

[rogruth]

Tom,
I think it took some railroads a while to understand that concept.
The PRR was buying a diesel to replace a steam engine for some time before they understood.
I also understand that this concept was kept alive by loco crew unions that did not want to lose membership.

[rogruth]

Murph,
I would bet that the on-lookers leaning on "your" rail were not happy with this event.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Murph,
I would bet that the on-lookers leaning on "your" rail were not happy with this event.

I believe their reaction may have been mixed, both sorry to see them go, as they are likely suspecting that the removal of the tracks may be indicating the pending demise of the steel mill, National Tube Works, but not sorry to experience the end of the disruption to shopping traffic on that main drag, and others. The removal of the tracks would have been a relief to shoppers, because it was not seldom that the trains would stop dead, stretched out and still standing across the streets, knowing there was absolutely nobody who could (or would) do a thing to get them moving farther into the mill and out of the way of pedestrian and vehicular shopping traffic.

Now, of course, it is all gone: the tracks; the shoppers; the mill.

[Roy]

As I understand it, steam locomotives were purpose built for a single job. The fact that diesel electrics could be MU'd meant only one crew required per train, longer maintenance periods, standardization of parts, and allowed the trainmaster to build the locomotive required for each train from component parts, i.e., how many GP-9's do I need to get this train over the ruling grade on this section of the line.

Diesels were geared either for freight, or passenger service. Plus, passenger units also had steam generators. Many were also painted differently, depending on their intended use. Santa Fe red and yellow war bonnets would not likely be seen pulling freight - Lionel train set designers notwithstanding.

[Tom Dempsey]

I guess I wasn't clear in my meaning, so I'll try again. A steam locomotive was built for specific types of service. For example, Mallets were built by the Hill lines for helper service over the Rockies. The eastern half of the NP did use some 2-6-2's, but they were inadequate for anything west of Billings. An 0-6-0 was for switching, not for mainline useage. You ordered a specific unit built for a specific job and it spent it's lifetime in that service. You could build the amount of HP and tractive effort needed from standard diesel electrics. Yes Roy, the passenger units were set up for Passenger service, however, you could mix and match to get the correct amount of power for the train. You didn't have to have a specific locomotive set for the service built. When dieselization started Roger, most of the railroads purchased A-B-A, A-B-B-A, etc units because they were used to purchasing a specific locomotive for a specific assignment. Old dogs, new tricks. By the time Road Switchers became common, the railroads had learned the ropes of MU-ing power together. I hope my meaning is more clear now.

[rogruth]

Tom,
Please don't take offense but I know quite well how it worked.
As you said, it was a while before the railroads caught on to using units as needed.

[Roy]

When dieselization started Roger, most of the railroads purchased A-B-A, A-B-B-A, etc units because they were used to purchasing a specific locomotive for a specific assignment. Old dogs, new tricks. By the time Road Switchers became common, the railroads had learned the ropes of MU-ing power together. I hope my meaning is more clear now.

EMC/EMD FTs were originally sold as drawbar-connected AB, ABA and ABBA sets. Santa Fe required their FTs built with couplers all around.

Also, some latter-day steamers, such as Mountains and Northerns, were built for dual service. I don't know who, on this board, doesn't know this stuff, already.

[webenda]

A tender full of liquefied natural gas, yeah that ought to work (not.) LNG will not ignite when compressed in a diesel engine... needs a spark plug.

FEC LNG TDR.jpg (128.91 KiB) Viewed 6643 times

“We are proud to be the first North American Railroad to operate its entire mainline fleet on LNG”, said Fran Chinnici, Chief Operating Officer. “We hope that our efforts will help other railroads and industries with this paradigm shift.”
Reference: https://www.fecrwy.com/node/618

[rogruth]

So if FEC is operating using LNG as fuel then the motive power are not Diesels?
The article Wayne attached is interesting. I think it also implies dual fuel capabilities.
I think that would be a new process for railroads.
Or am I missing something?

[webenda]

So if FEC is operating using LNG as fuel then the motive power are not Diesels?
The article Wayne attached is interesting. I think it also implies dual fuel capabilities.
I think that would be a new process for railroads.
Or am I missing something?

You missed (in the article) that they are stock diesel engined locomotives. An LNG kit has converted them to burn a combination of 80% LNG along with 20% diesel fuel (or they can go 100% diesel fuel.) The diesel fuel is used to provide ignition (from the heat of compression) to ignite the LNG instead of a spark plug.

I think Fran Chinnici's statement was misleading. Of course, his statement made headline news in the press.

[rogruth]

So if FEC is operating using LNG as fuel then the motive power are not Diesels?
The article Wayne attached is interesting. I think it also implies dual fuel capabilities.
I think that would be a new process for railroads.
Or am I missing something?

You missed (in the articles) that they are stock diesel engined locomotives. An LNG kit has converted them to burn a combination of LNG along with diesel fuel, the diesel fuel is used to provide ignition (from the heat of compression) to ignite the LNG.

OK. Yes, I missed that. But they do have dual fuel use or is diesel only used for starting?

[webenda]

So if FEC is operating using LNG as fuel then the motive power are not Diesels?
The article Wayne attached is interesting. I think it also implies dual fuel capabilities.
I think that would be a new process for railroads.
Or am I missing something?

You missed (in the articles) that they are stock diesel engined locomotives. An LNG kit has converted them to burn a combination of LNG along with diesel fuel, the diesel fuel is used to provide ignition (from the heat of compression) to ignite the LNG.

OK. Yes, I missed that. But they do have dual fuel use or is diesel only used for starting?

I guess you could call it a dual fuel engine. One being an LNG/diesel mix and the other pure diesel fuel.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I guess you could call it a dual fuel engine. One being an LNG/diesel mix and the other pure diesel fuel.

So it starts with pure diesel and shifts over to the mix? What's the ratio that they run on? Some cost savings on fuel involved, but other costs might be?

[webenda]

I guess you could call it a dual fuel engine. One being an LNG/diesel mix and the other pure diesel fuel.

So it starts with pure diesel and shifts over to the mix? What's the ratio that they run on? Some cost savings on fuel involved, but other costs might be?

I don't know how they start it. The ratio is 80% LNG, 20% diesel fuel. Cost advantage is still in the argument phase.* it seems all about publicity and reducing some types of emissions to make EPA happy.

* http://energyskeptic.com/2017/can-railr ... un-on-lng/