Re: (erielack) CSX or NS SD45-2 - big tanks

[Ken <erie910_@_harborbeach.com>]

The story that I've heard is that, because the Erie had to spend a lot of 
money converting fro 6' gauge to standard gauge, it didn't have the money 
to invest in smoothing out the little dips and hills.  Thus, it cost more 
in fuel to go the same distance.  Larger fuel tanks meant that the Erie 
could refuel as frequently/infrequently as its competitors, despite the 
additional fuel needed for the less level r-o-w.



Ken B.

At 01:41 AM 7/20/02 -0700, Gary R. Kazin wrote:
> >From what I've read, it wasn't just the advantage of avoiding a stop;
>there was a significant difference in fuel costs at several points along
>the line.   It was worthwhile for EL to try to avoid buying fuel at some
>locations.
>
>--- Schuyler G Larrabee <sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Paul asked:
> >
> > > Here's something that's always puzzled me: The EL got the huge tanks
> > to
> > run non-stop, Croxton-Chicago. Most of the Western roads had long routes
> > as
> > well - why didn't they opt for larger fuel tanks so they had to make
> > less
> > fueling stops?
> > >
> >
> > Aren't the tanks on the modern units much larger?  5-6,000 gals?  Maybe
> > EL
> > was just ahead of its time?
> >
> > SGL
> >
>
>
>=====
>Gary R. Kazin
>DL&W Milepost R35.7
>Rockaway, New Jersey
>
>http://www.geocities.com/gkazin/index.html
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>http://health.yahoo.com

------------------------------