Why are trains no longer streamlined ?

[brucey]

I thought that commercial was more like
"We can move 400 tons 1 MILE on a gallon."

Which doesent sound as impressive, but means the same thing, no?

[MazdaMatt]

400 miles per ton per gallon... That doesn't sound that great to me. A truck takes on 80 tons and gets 8mpg. So that's 640 miles per ton per gallon... am i missing something?

[Katana]

Don't diesel trains use the engine as a generator for the electric motors, like how that new chevy volt works.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

400 miles per ton per gallon... That doesn't sound that great to me. A truck takes on 80 tons and gets 8mpg. So that's 640 miles per ton per gallon... am i missing something?

The commercial states that a freight train can move 1 ton of freight 423 miles on a gallon of diesel. A truck weighs 40 tons (80,000 pounds.) However, it typically can only carry about 40,000 pounds of freight (20 tons.) That means that a truck can carry 20 tons of freight 8 miles on a gallon, which is equivalent to hauling 1 ton of freight 160 miles on a gallon.

[Cd]

[QUOTE=Cd;91183]

Even at the slower speeds that they travel, they would probably save several thousand gallons of fuel each year simply by a more 'retro' streamlined design.

QUOTE]

By the way, I was talking about an overall fleet average.

Katana : I saw a show on diesel trains that showed just what you are asking - the engine is hooked up to a large alternator versus a gearbox. So, yes it is sort of like a Volt in a sense.

I know nothing.
Experts : please take the floor.

[Peter7307]

Just looking at a few freight trains the other day and a couple of observations.

Most flat cars are two containers long and most box cars are built for maximum volume and ease of loading and off loading.

The trains I saw had an almost random set up of load and empty cars (ie: Engine , two or three flat cars with loads then a few with no loads then a few box cars and then a few more flat cars with no loads and at the end the guards van) with little if any thought given to aero effects.

Maybe those detachable type flaps fitted to truck prime movers may be an option?

Pete.

[Bicycle Bob]

On a train, the lonng boundary layer builds up so thick that ladders and such are not as bad as they'd be on a truck. The cost and fuel involved in streamlining seem likely to outweigh the benefits, for common freight trains. They get their economy from steel wheels and drafting. It is unfortunate about the mix of flatcars and loaded ones, arising from convenience and destinations. The data on coal cars suggests that folding or inflatable fillers might be the easiest improvement to make.

Trains were designed for steam engines, and attempts to introduce lighter passenger cars have generally foundered on the need to deal with the "buffing loads" of two long trains coupling. A modern re-design could have each car powered by its own electric motors, so that the only couplers needed would be electrical sockets to the generator in the locomotive. The lightweight cars might also be designed as monocoques, smooth all over, with the wheel trucks only exposed from below.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

400 miles per ton per gallon... That doesn't sound that great to me. A truck takes on 80 tons and gets 8mpg. So that's 640 miles per ton per gallon... am i missing something?

Even if this were properly asserted, I haven't seen too many trucks that actually get 8 MPG, first of all, and to a truck, 640 miles is actually LESS overall distance than 400 miles is to a train.

Keep in mind, that the train goes straight, for the most part. It doesn't follow highways which go up, down, around, over, under, through, etc.

As far as railways in general being used, NS and CSX are the two largest that I know of... and the only two worth mentioning in the area, but there are several rail yards around here, as just about anywhere you'd find a mill or quarry, usually. (One that's been around since trains were in wide use.)

[spoil9]

Yes, diesel engines are more properly called diesel-electric locomotives. There is a large diesel engine running that is connected to a even larger generator. This charges batteries and powers motors in each truck. Some of the larger locos even have 2x motors per truck. If you are able to look up the inner-workings of a modern day locomotive I think one would be impressed. (at least I have been since I was into model trains as a kid)

Wagonman hit the nail on the head with why cars are designed they way they are. They were first designed long ago when this stuff was not an issue, and since then the basics remain the same cause of ease of construction and maintenance. However, they are doing what they can to improve efficiently as they all want to make more profit.

As far as the big rail roads still around, CN and CR are the biggest ones around here. Otherwise you still have the BNSF (which will always be ATSF in my heart), UP, and the above listed. Most others are short lines (local railroads) or have been bought out.
As far as the markings on the side of tank cars and hoppers, the 4 letters ending in an X is a private owner, usually a business of sorts. The first three signify the company but I'm not 100% sure where to find that listing of who is who.

Although not really answering the initial question, I hope this was at least interesting.

[Big Dave]

Trains are actually surprisingly aerodynamic. As we know the rear is more important than the front. If you look at a train from 7,000 feet up, it looks like a spear on tangent track. Bicycle Bob was right, the boundary layer builds up fast and the grab irons don't matter.

A Chevy Volt, as a true series hybrid is more akin to a diesel-electric submarine. The battery drives the motors and the engine/generator charges the battery. Diesel-electric locomotives eschew the battery. They use electric drive because mechanical drive is limited in how much HP they can transmit. the biggest mechanical transmissions are about 1200 HP. Today's locomotive are in the 4,000- 6,000 HP range. GE has monkeyed with a series hybrid locomotive but so far it has been a dud.

Railroads are incredibly labor-intensive and railroad people make a very high wage, so railroads are always on the lookout for cutting the amount of work it takes to move the stuff.

The best way to cut railroads' appetite (quarter-million barrels a day in the US alone) for diesel fuel is to convert them to straight electric. Proven technology but VERY capital intensive and then there the question of where do you get all that electricity?

Source: Eight years with CSX and two years with EMD.