Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX Fuel Tender

Saw this in Brier Hill in Youngstown, Ohio back in 2008. I don't know much about the car, so any information would be appreciated.

---

CSX did something like what the BN did with their fuel tenders. IIRC, it was an expierement that didnt go very well.

Exerp from wikipedia.org:
Fuel tender

Sometimes a tender will be used for a diesel locomotive. This is typically a tank car with a fuel line that connects to the locomotive and MU connections to allow locomotives behind the tender to be controlled remotely. The Burlington Northern used fuel tenders in remote territory where fuel was expensive. Diesel fuel could be bought cheaply and loaded into the tender. A common consist was two EMD SD40-2s with a tender between them. Some of the tenders survived the Burlington Northern Santa Fe merger but retain the black and green BN colors. The Southern Pacific also briefly experimented with fuel tenders for diesels. Some slugs have fuel tanks and serve as fuel tenders for the attached locomotives.

Union Pacific used fuel tenders on its turbines. These tenders were originally used with steam locomotives, then reworked to hold heavy "Bunker C" fuel oil. Fuel capacity was about 23,000 gallons (87,000 liters). When the turbines were retired, some of the tenders were reworked to hold water, and employed as canteens for steam locomotives.

Tenders have also been developed to carry liquefied natural gas for diesel locomotives converted to run on that fuel.

hope this helps.

They used to be run between engines during the first big fuel shortage, worked ok for awhile but the frames couldn't take it(from what I understand), Ed

---

They were used in an effort to make two AC44CWs do the work of 4 SD40-2s or 3 CW40-8s pulling coal on the former Clinchfield. The theory was to keep the fuel tanks on the engines full to keep them at maximum weight to maximize tractive effort. Yet another colossal flop from your friends at CSX.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/11 14:18 by ExtraSouth.

ExtraSouth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They were used in an effort to make two AC44CWs do
> the work of 4 SD40-2s or 3 CW40-8s pulling coal on
> the former Clinchfield. The theory was to keep
> the fuel tanks on the engines full to keep them at
> maximum weight to maximize tractive effort. Yet
> another colossal flop from your friends at CSX.


You never know whats a great idea until you try it. Sometimes it works, other times not.

Tim Rich
S. Ogden, UT

ExtraSouth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They were used in an effort to make two AC44CWs do
> the work of 4 SD40-2s or 3 CW40-8s pulling coal on
> the former Clinchfield. The theory was to keep
> the fuel tanks on the engines full to keep them at
> maximum weight to maximize tractive effort. Yet
> another colossal flop from your friends at CSX.

CSX bought three AC4400CW's built with the fuel hook ups, CSX #28, 29 & 30, along with a single fuel tender. At somepoint after the AC's arrived they did expand the initial experiment to include additional units, according to one or both of the Wither's CSX Loco Guides, neither of which I can put my hands on as I type. It's my understanding that towards the end of CSX's FT program the set of 28/29/30 and the FT never left the ELF Crystal River site.

The basic principle is that the fuel tender would inject fuel, via computer control, into the tanks of the locomotives to maintain the maximum weight, which is when a motor is fully provisioned. When it's fully loaded is when you, in theory, achieve maximum tractive effort, which is a function of loco weight, train speed and tonnage.

UP tried fuel tenders with Dash 8-40CW's, SD60M's and AC4400CW's. BN had both diesel and LNG fuel tender sets. BN probably had by far the largest fleet as their target was dedicated helper sets on Crawford Hill in western NE. Those started with SD40-2's and morfed into SD60M's over time. They did modify a pair of SD40-2's for LNG fuel service, which were re-built with flared radiators, ala SD45's. Those BN was not happy with for a variety of reasons, primarliy fuel consumption was far above, horsepower was far below and maintenance costs were far above all expectations.

Over the years, Overland models produced the the UP D8 FT set, many of the BN FT's and the CSX FT set with #28 & #29. #30 was released as a solo unit in the same run as was the FT #993368. The prototype photo shown is a different version than the model from OMI. I believe the #993389 was used with other units and then in general MOW service later in life. I do not know exactly how many FT's CSX did own beyond the two that are commonly known. Microscale has released decal sets in N and HO for all three roads.

I would find it hard to say that CSX's experiments in FT service were a "collossal failure" as the mighty UP tried it and BN had years of success. Did they live up to expectations, no, but neither do most experiments, but they were not a failure becasue of CSX.

NSTopHat

Hmm...what I always wondered was as the fuel tender emptied, how did it handle the stress being empty between two AC's doing their best lugging a 12,000ton drag around.

Would it be any more stressed then being the lead car in a 150 car train?

No.

NSTopHat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ExtraSouth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They were used in an effort to make two AC44CWs
> do
> > the work of 4 SD40-2s or 3 CW40-8s pulling coal
> on
> > the former Clinchfield. The theory was to keep
> > the fuel tanks on the engines full to keep them
> at
> > maximum weight to maximize tractive effort.
> Yet
> > another colossal flop from your friends at CSX.
>
> CSX bought three AC4400CW's built with the fuel
> hook ups, CSX #28, 29 & 30, along with a single
> fuel tender. At somepoint after the AC's arrived
> they did expand the initial experiment to include
> additional units, according to one or both of the
> Wither's CSX Loco Guides, neither of which I can
> put my hands on as I type. It's my understanding
> that towards the end of CSX's FT program the set
> of 28/29/30 and the FT never left the ELF Crystal
> River site.
>
>
> NSTopHat

CSX #28, 29 and 30 were the only units on CSX equiped to operate with the fuel tender. No other units were ever equiped to operate with the fuel tender.

As for the fuel tender experiment being a "colossal flop", thats just an assinine statement. BN, later BNSF used fuel tenders for many years. CSX simply tested the concept in an effort to gain maximum possible performance from the new locomotives. Ultimately they decided not to continue with the program following testing. Hardly a "colossal flop".

Bryan Jones
Brooks, KY
Bryan's Train Photos

redneckrailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> CSX #28, 29 and 30 were the only units on CSX
> equiped to operate with the fuel tender. No other
> units were ever equiped to operate with the fuel
> tender.

Bryan;

According to the 2006 - 2009 CSX Locomotive Directory from Withers Publications, CSX #403, 459 and #495-599 are"equipped for fuel tender operation". The info may be incorrect, but that's in print. Just saying....

NSTopHat

KV1guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm...what I always wondered was as the fuel
> tender emptied, how did it handle the stress being
> empty between two AC's doing their best lugging a
> 12,000ton drag around.

MagnumForce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would it be any more stressed then being the lead
> car in a 150 car train?


Most railroads have rules about blocks of loaded bulk commodities behind empties. They arent always followed (The NS example says "when practicable")

Tankcars are usually heavy cars even while empty, so it might have been non-issue.

What I don't see yet in this thread is WHY the fuel-tender experiment on CSX was deemed a failure - did the expected maximum traction effort by keeping the fuel tanks 'topped off' not pan out? Someone mentioned frame stress on the fuel tender - was this the problem? Would love to know the technicalities if anyone knows...

Tank cars (whther they are "stub sill" or "through sill" ... the latter have a continuous steel underframe sill end-to-end) are designed for and 99% are used as "rolling warehouses". Mileage on most tank cars has historically been very low.

Freight cars are seldom operated at the front of a train, in fact they rotate in a somewhat random order, even in unit train service, between the head-end, the rear-end, and every spot in between. This equilizes the wear-and-tear, particularly the buff-and-draft (stretching-and-compressive) forces on the couplers, draft gear and the body itself.

Take an older tank car and convert it to a "fuel tender", couple it between a pair of AC locomotives, and you now have a car which is "on the point" each and every trip.

Every such "fuel tender" on BN (pre-BNSF) and UP ultimately started developing fatigue cracks in the underframes and had to be withdrawn from fuel tender service to avoid the risk of having the car pulled apart.

Only two "fuel tenders" were ever built specifically for in-locomotive-consist service, the insulated LNG tenders for UP's natural gas project with EMD and GE in the mid-90s.

rbenko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I don't see yet in this thread is WHY the
> fuel-tender experiment on CSX was deemed a failure
> - did the expected maximum traction effort by
> keeping the fuel tanks 'topped off' not pan out?
> Someone mentioned frame stress on the fuel tender
> - was this the problem? Would love to know the
> technicalities if anyone knows...


It was a failure for what they intended on the former Clinchfield. Two AC44CWs are just not enough to pull coal trains above 75 cars from Erwin TN to Altapass NC no matter how much they weigh. That is why I said it was a "colossal flop", which is sort of an inside joke at work.