Atomic Systems

Hi a Cross Country train spilled 900 litres of diesel fuel across the tracks of the East Coast Mainline after an engine leak this morning.More than 150 passengers had to get off the Cross Country service at Darlington station after the fault appeared during the journey from Durham.Platform 1 was closed until 12.40pm when the empty train was moved out of the station for repairs.
Full story here: http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/dis ... diesel.php

Regards
Gav

OOOO

What a waste of fuel. And and explosion hazard

Diesel isn't an explosion hazard - unless heated under compression, which is an unlikely situation for a spill. I guess it would burn if atomized too.

Apparently during the falklands war a ship was hit by a torpedo, causing something to catch fire, and also rupturing the fuel tanks. The diesel actually put the fire out...

In day to day life, Diesel doesn't explode, nor does it burn that easily. It is remarkably inert considering it's use in internal combustion engines, although I wouldn't advise going round throwing lit matches at buckets of it.

Slip

EDIT: Ooops, beaten to it

Petrol isn't actually that easy to ignite, it's only the vapour, and only a pretty accurate mix of fuel and air will explode (as will a correct mix of various dusts and air, including flour, sawdust, sugar). You can throw a lighted match into petrol and it won't explode (don't try it though ). Diesel is even harder to ignite, since it won't vaporise, in a diesel engine it's atomised (made into tiny droplets of liquid, like an aerosol) and sprayed into very hot and highly compressed air. A bigger concern is the potential environmental problem, since diesel is pretty nasty stuff in the environment (worse than petrol).

chriscooper wrote: A bigger concern is the potential environmental problem, since diesel is pretty nasty stuff in the environment (worse than petrol).

Should use food oil, from corn, chips or veg....Thats more friendly...When ever you smell a fish and chips shop it could also be a diesel train going past! Or just a chip shop near by.

Cheers,
Mike

MikeTrams wrote:

chriscooper wrote: A bigger concern is the potential environmental problem, since diesel is pretty nasty stuff in the environment (worse than petrol).

Should use food oil, from corn, chips or veg....Thats more friendly...When ever you smell a fish and chips shop it could also be a diesel train going past! Or just a chip shop near by.

Cheers,
Mike

and push the price of a loaf of bread up to £2.00. i'll pass on that one thanks...

Has anyone considered that only having one engine per train, whilst giving slower acceleration, would actually be cheaper and more efficient?

Tor-K

kingsgate wrote:Has anyone considered that only having one engine per train, whilst giving slower acceleration, would actually be cheaper and more efficient?

Tor-K

i'm not an economist (well actually, i'm doing it at college) But at a time like this, the last thing we need is to be cutting back transport infrustructure, we need people able to get to where they need to be promptly, and actually need to encourage spending to keep others in a job during the this dip

I'm not advocating a reduction in capacity, indeed, quite the opposite. I fail to see why we turn out 4/5 car Multiple Units for duties. A locomotive accelerates slower, true enough, but with a little work, this would be acceptable. Indeed, a recent survey amongst passengers found that getting a seat was rated a higher priority than a quick journey. I'll leave you with a quote from Patrick Stirling, of Single fame. "One Engine, One Train."

Tor-K

Multi-engines do have advantages. Take the 159s on the Waterloo to Exeter route. Now if an engine packs up, the unit keeps going. With a 50/47 if the engine packs up (and they weren't known as 50/50s without reason) then your train is stuck. And if its on the long Single line sections, your service is screwed...

Petrol isn't actually that easy to ignite, it's only the vapour, and only a pretty accurate mix of fuel and air will explode (as will a correct mix of various dusts and air, including flour, sawdust, sugar).

....and Colmans custard powder!!!

There was a notable explosion at the Colmans factory some years ago...where custard powder expolded!

And coal is burnt in power stations as a fine powder (finer than face powder to be precise) carried in air....and the flame burns at 52 ft per second.

Amazing what facts you remember......I left the power industry over 30 years ago and still remember some of the silly facts we needed to know.

I'll concede the point that there are times when more than one engine could be advantageous, but counter it by wondering if the better maintenance regimes we have these days, coupled to the greater reliability of the (Otherwise horrendous) GM diesels, would negate that? 47s/50s wouldn't be brought back, instead a new locomotive would be designed, most probably based heavily on the Class 67, which is, so I'm told, a fairly reliable beastie.

Tor-K

kingsgate wrote:I'll concede the point that there are times when more than one engine could be advantageous, but counter it by wondering if the better maintenance regimes we have these days, coupled to the greater reliability of the (Otherwise horrendous) GM diesels, would negate that? 47s/50s wouldn't be brought back, instead a new locomotive would be designed, most probably based heavily on the Class 67, which is, so I'm told, a fairly reliable beastie.

Tor-K

Indeed, that nearly happened!

Layout drawing for proposed single cab Class 67 for use on Virgin Trains loco-hauled services. from http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recogni ... _loco.html

why would it be single cab tho?