Page 1 of 2

Strange question

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:10 pm
by nightbeaver911
I was wondering if anyone knew roughly how many miles to a gallon a train gets. Doesnt matter if its a DMU or loco and only an approximate average. I dont want to go causing arguments.

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:13 pm
by ca55ie
i think it says something about how much fuel an engine uses at full pelt in a trains ENG file, but nothing about miles to the gallon, i will of course stand corrected :D

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:28 pm
by Hymek
i wouldnt want to know, Lets just say that a 108 has 11 litre engines, so its probably rather low

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:45 pm
by johndibben
Reckon I heard once on TV that a 47 used one gallon per mile but I've no idea if it's true or under what conditions.

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:23 pm
by 1crick14a
And that's correct John most of the Sulzers were around that figure....R

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:37 pm
by delticbob
Everyones favourite, the Napier Deltic can clock up a gallon a mile for each of its two engines, when doing a 'Meatloaf' :-? "Going like a Bat out of Hell" :D
Bob

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:57 pm
by thedarkness
johndibben wrote:Reckon I heard once on TV that a 47 used one gallon per mile but I've no idea if it's true or under what conditions.
I heard its something like 1GPM in the summer, and 2 GPM in the winter, due to the fuel thickener added or something
{The thickener crops up in the Ladbrook Grove enquiry, they reckon that made the fire worse}
Best person to ask would be Dale Stewart - Basildd - He owns 2 locos and he used to be NSE power controller, so i expect he knows loco ranges, fuel capacities etc etc

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:52 pm
by highterrace
delticbob wrote:Everyones favourite, the Napier Deltic can clock up a gallon a mile for each of its two engines, when doing a 'Meatloaf' :-? "Going like a Bat out of Hell" :D
Bob
Would that also involve doing a Meatloaf and having an irregular heatbeat?

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:01 am
by ianmacmillan
I remember reading that a 158 used 7miles to the gallon; better than a bus.

I think the small print qualified this by saying that a train did not power all the time but freewheeled when going downhill or slowing.

fuel

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:07 am
by jimmyladd
I read somewhere some time ago that a 153 will do over 20 mpg when crusing ie no stops. I know there . inside but that is good going! Also said article recond that a class60 with a 2000 tonne train did 4 mpg at a constant speed.Compare that to a 38tonne lorry which can manage about 15mpg tops!
JIM

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:45 am
by highterrace
So that would still make railways more efficient than the roads?

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:04 pm
by johndibben
My car does 50mpg .... mind you, that's oil :D

Re: fuel

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:07 pm
by buffy500
jimmyladd wrote:I read somewhere some time ago that a 153 will do over 20 mpg when crusing ie no stops. I know there . inside but that is good going! Also said article recond that a class60 with a 2000 tonne train did 4 mpg at a constant speed.Compare that to a 38tonne lorry which can manage about 15mpg tops!
JIM
Trust me, a truck running at 38 tons will not be doing anything like 15 mpg.
Try an average of more like 6 or 7mpg.
(A 7.5 tonner might get in the teens.)

My car does 25 mpg, and that is Petrol !

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:19 pm
by ianm42
Its when you work out gallons per mile per passenger that the efficiency really shows. Divide by 4 for your car, and by 400 for a full train :D

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:07 pm
by johndibben
And you don't get punctures :D